conan
162
Precisely, they see our priorities has switched from Europe to Asia and that Europe is going to have to stand on their own two feet. That means trillions of dollars in contacts in next 10 years.
There is always a motive…
1 Like
Especially because it seems like all the European construction companies are tripping over themselves to get in line to get contracts to rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure. They’re also lobbying all the governments to pour about 500 billion dollars into it as start up money. Then you got the idealistic politicos who are already saying the US should provide a Marshall Plan Part 2 to get it started.
2 Likes
WuWei
164
I meant the electorate willingness to get involved.
When it doubt throw money at the problem.
1 Like
WuWei
166
Create the problem, then throw money.
You ever notice how the only problems centgove can make better are problems it created?
3 Likes
It’s got to justify its own existence.
What’s the old saying? You break it you buy it?
Big Gov goes to the next level. Let’s break it, then buy it, then contract out the fix.
2 Likes
conan
168
That too, but when half of em support it…and no one is able to hold him accountable he gets away with it.
2 Likes
Gaius
169
Yeah, good thing too!
Modern weapons are like automobiles, and tvs and washing machines,
they are a LOT cheaper when made by a great big corporation.
One ad a time in a ma and pa shop is slow and expensive.
I’m not interested in your narrative concerning why Sweden joined NATO.
I am interested in keeping our children and grandchildren out of European wars.
Interested in keeping them from being killed or maimed while being the “worlds policemen” which profits no one but the Military Industrial Complex and their shareholders.
I don’t think we should be pissing away billions in cash and equipment in Ukraine or Sweden either for that matter.
1 Like
Gaius
171
Which is why I keep asking yours.
Surely you are interested in your narrative about why Sweden and Finland joined narrative (and Switzerland even considered it) all of them all at once, all of the sudden
In the case of Finland, they had lost a war with the Soviet Union in 1940 and again in 1944. The 1947 Peace Treaty and the 1948 Finnish-Soviet treaty banned any Finnish alliance that would threaten the Soviet Union and placed restrictions on the Finnish military:
The High Contracting Parties confirm their pledge, given under Article 3 of the Peace Treaty signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, not to conclude any alliance or join any coalition directed against the other High Contracting Party.
In the case of Sweden, they had been given de facto NATO protection in return for abandoning their nuclear weapons program in the 1960s.
Adam
173
How’d “defacto protection in return for abandoning their nuclear weapons” work out for Ukraine?
2 Likes
It worked out fine until the US instigated a coup and civil war that resulted in US-backed paramilitaries killing thousands of ethnic Russians in Donbas.
The real question is what happens after NATO membership for Sweden and Finland. If people believe that NATO bases armed will improve security for Sweden and Finland, then logically Russian or Chinese bases in Cuba would improve Cuba’s security.
The reality is that more escalation will only increase the risk of WW3.
We never gave Ukraine protection.
Only thing we legally agreed to do was to talk to whoever was causing them problems at the time. Russia agreed to do the same thing. As per a separate agreement (the one that created CSTO, which was a weird way the former Soviet states tried to keep the Soviet military under collective control while they declared independence), Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. We didn’t sign on to that one. It wasn’t our business or concern. The way we looked at it was whatever goes on with former Soviet states is for them to figure out collectively on their own.
Only thing we cared about was the status of former Soviet nuclear warheads. Because to be honest they were a bit ■■■■ when it came to building them. The life spans of their safety systems were only a fraction of that of ours. We were generally afraid some bad ■■■■ might happen if the nukes weren’t stockpiled and destroyed. Considering that Russia was the only former Soviet state with the facilities on hand needed to actually dismantle them and they also had operational control of them, it made sense (at that time) to pressure Ukraine into turning them over to Russia for dismantling. We pressured Belarus and Kazhstan to do the same thing at the same time. That was our only concern. The nukes, who had them, their status, and making sure they were dismantled.
Also, just to add, those weapons did nothing for Ukraine anyway. All control was vested in Moscow. It’s how the USSR functioned. They stationed strategic nuclear weapons all over the Soviet Union. But they never gave the individual republics any control over any of them for obvious reasons. The only way to actually use them was from Moscow. When the Union decided to delete itself out of existence, all the PAL links were still controlled from Moscow. That’s why Gorbachev turned over his nuclear football to Boris Yeltsin in late 1991. The other new presidents didn’t even complain or ask about it. It was the expected scenario. As per negotiations, Russia took on all of the debt and responsibilities of the USSR as an independent nation.
It’s the same way here. We station strategic nuclear assets in Wyoming, Montana, Kings Bay, etc. But all control is from Washington. The individual states have no control over them.
Imel
176
Don’t see the logic. How is defending your own border the same as defending another country’s border, that has nothing to do with you?
Do you think Nato has the right to defend itself from Russia. On the basis that only attack if attacked first.
Let’s just excuse the Russians of any meddling they were doing in Ukraine at the time.
They were far from innocent in all this.
NATO has the right to defend itself from Russia. But by the same token, with the way that geopolitics shook out, Russia has the same right to defend itself from NATO as well.
Blame Clinton, Yeltsin, the leaders of Europe in the 90s for it. They threw away the opportunity to change things for the better.
The USSR self deleted in 1991. And as far as I know, Russia and Finland never renegotiated the treaties that ended the Continuation War. Thus it is dead and buried.
Samm
180
In case you have forgotten, there has been no USSR since 1991. The Treaty is null and void.
Imel
181
Natos whole ethos is not to attack, only defend.
Putin just can’t accept that Eastern European countries wanted autonomy and to be part of Europe.
Just like Ukraine.
How is a peaceful coalition a threat to Russia.
They are the threat and have no intention of seeking peace.
