[quote=“SneakySFDude, post:491, topic:241465, full:true”]
So Putin opposed NATO expansion in 2016-2020, but Trump’s flattery prevented him from acting on it?
I guess you can say, self fulfilling prophecy playing out.
A possibility.
Of course, it always does if you keep poking them long enough. Then you can sky scream “SEE! SEE!”
Same thing is happening with the Woke pushback.
It’s a critical theory thing. Kafka-trapping.
2 Likes
Yes, I suppose it is, but it doesn’t seem very likely. Putin has legitimate grievances with NATO that center on the security of his nation, it’s hard for me to believe that a few kind words from a US president would deter him from acting.
A few words of respect from a peer country that can change the course of events?
1 Like
Good of you to admit. And against Ukraine?
1 Like
The words seem like a good first step, but not enough in my mind to deter Putin without promises from Trump that he would stop NATO expansion.
Yes, there are no innocents sides here. Imagine what our response would be if Canada or Mexico was considering joining a Russia/China military alliance.
1 Like
Trump couldn’t stop EU (that’s what this is about, NATO is a rusty tool) expansion.
At best he could not be a europhile, maybe promise to criticize them for not living up to their NATO commitments. Maybe indicate he wouldn’t support it.
For whatever reason, it worked for a while.
I thought Trump’s approach to the consensus “Bad Guys” was interesting.
2 Likes
And cut off water to California.
Exactly.
1 Like
All the more reason we need to stay out of it. Of course Brandon didn’t do that.
I think we absolutely should stay out of it militarily, but the US doesn’t pick sides based on innocence.
We are already in it “militarily”.
That’s true, we don’t. On what basis did “we” pick this side?
Was no doubt working on it until fall of 2020. 
After that it was back to normal EU expansionism. Again just thinking out loud here.
A more classic approach?
1 Like
To me it seems someone picked it for us.
Hence the quotation marks around “we”.
1 Like
I see that now.
1 Like
Oh, I can go back much farther to reveal the true function of NATO no matter what they claimed it’s purpose was.
From the days of the peace dividend: some German high mucky muck saying we Yanks shouldn’t shut down any German bases because it would hurt their local economies.
People older than me probably have great stories too.
NATO exists, no matter what its justifications to exist, to A) be welfare between nations, from the US to the rest of NATO with the possible exception of the Brits and Canucks and B) to help justify US defense spending. The continental Europeans knew this and took full advantage of it … as witnessed from the example given above.
Griping about them not meeting their spending goals is the NATO equivalent of NYC folks grumbling about UN not paying for parking tickets and tolls. Only much, much more money and perks are involved.
And, lest we forget, this is the people’s car of the empire that Putin misses so dearly…
… but if you were somebody you might have driven this…
2 Likes
