The end of NATO doesn’t mean any of that. We have bases in non-NATO countries too, so obviously that isn’t because of NATO. It does mean Russia has almost free reign to invade more countries. If Russia can cause issues without being part of an alliance like NATO, why do you think the US can’t when it’s not part of NATO?
First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia. And the country funding and arming the most flagrant example of genocide in the 21st century is the US.
Second of all, Russia doesn’t have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries. And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don’t need further military expenditure as deterrent.
Third, even if you forget all I’ve said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.
First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia.
Wrong. There’s no requirement for spending as a part of NATO. There’s also no requirement for the US to do anything. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
Second of all, Russia doesn’t have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the “restore the former borders of the Soviet union” reason is reason enough, ignoring the resources or anything else. Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter? It doesn’t have to be smart to happen.
And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don’t need further military expenditure as deterrent.
I don’t know what you people who keep bringing up nukes think they’re for. You can’t use them. Using them will only ensure you lose, because everyone turns against you. They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes, and also to deter nations from creating a last stand situation where you have already lost so there’s nothing to lose in using nukes. You can’t win a war with nukes.
Third, even if you forget all I’ve said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.
Forget or dispute? You’re implying your logic is faultless. Anyway, sure. They can. They don’t though. I advocate that they do. I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force. I don’t want them to be reliant on the US, like they currently are. However, that necessarily requires most EU nations to increase their military spending, which you’re apparently against. You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs. Sorry. That can’t happen.
The end of NATO doesn’t mean any of that. We have bases in non-NATO countries too, so obviously that isn’t because of NATO. It does mean Russia has almost free reign to invade more countries. If Russia can cause issues without being part of an alliance like NATO, why do you think the US can’t when it’s not part of NATO?
First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia. And the country funding and arming the most flagrant example of genocide in the 21st century is the US.
Second of all, Russia doesn’t have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries. And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don’t need further military expenditure as deterrent.
Third, even if you forget all I’ve said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.
Wrong. There’s no requirement for spending as a part of NATO. There’s also no requirement for the US to do anything. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the “restore the former borders of the Soviet union” reason is reason enough, ignoring the resources or anything else. Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter? It doesn’t have to be smart to happen.
I don’t know what you people who keep bringing up nukes think they’re for. You can’t use them. Using them will only ensure you lose, because everyone turns against you. They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes, and also to deter nations from creating a last stand situation where you have already lost so there’s nothing to lose in using nukes. You can’t win a war with nukes.
Forget or dispute? You’re implying your logic is faultless. Anyway, sure. They can. They don’t though. I advocate that they do. I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force. I don’t want them to be reliant on the US, like they currently are. However, that necessarily requires most EU nations to increase their military spending, which you’re apparently against. You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs. Sorry. That can’t happen.