US/EU relations

[Dabawss]

News has recently come to light that the US has been (apparently for quite some time) trying to get the EU to spend more on defense. I offer a poll to get YOUR thoughts on tis subject. If I failed to cover a logical option in the poll please choose other and post your opinion as a reply

 

[Rin]

Rigged poll lol. EU doesn't rely that much on the US for security. If we're talking something like Singapore or Israel, maybe.

Trump seems to be drumming up this idea that the US is some guardian of the world when the rest of the world sees them as a benevolent rogue.

 

[Fanag]

Several EU countries are bumping up their defense expenditure in the face of Russian aggression already, especially Eastern European members of NATO. Regardless of what percentage of their GDP they spend on their defense, their budgets are severely dwarfed by the US's which means they'll never be able to pay the ridiculous amount we do. I believe Germany in particular should increase their spending but most of the other countries in Europe spend a significant amount.

 

[Dabawss]

Several EU countries are bumping up their defense expenditure in the face of Russian aggression already, especially Eastern European members of NATO. Regardless of what percentage of their GDP they spend on their defense, their budgets are severely dwarfed by the US's which means they'll never be able to pay the ridiculous amount we do. I believe Germany in particular should increase their spending but most of the other countries in Europe spend a significant amount.

I haven't really seen much "aggression" on the part of Russia, The US? oh HELL ya, they are attacking everybody and everything they can

What Trump is actually calling for is that all NATO member nations pay their agreed upon percentage of their GDP to nato, some speculate that many arent. I dont know I havent seen the books, just that's what I hear

 

[Dabawss]

Rigged poll lol. EU doesn't rely that much on the US for security. If we're talking something like Singapore or Israel, maybe.

Trump seems to be drumming up this idea that the US is some guardian of the world when the rest of the world sees them as a benevolent rogue.

That's why i included the "Other" option. I didnt claim to have all the answers so allowed for reasonable discourse on the subject

 

[Sargun]

NATO =/= EU

 

[Dabawss]

NATO =/= EU

IMO, the world would be better served with the dissolution of both NATO and the UN, and a world council with members of every nation required to be in membership at all times. this would remove the whole us v them mentality of both NATO AND the UN

 

[M'ilord🎯]

With the US gone we need a strong militar in the east and Mediterranean.

 

[Micchan]

Other, UE spending on defense is enough because if you are relevant you can't do war with UE since UE is your biggest trading partner and your economy will be destroyed even if you win, if you are irrelevant well, good luck.

The world has changed, the only wars you can have are big countries vs small countries, small countries vs small countries, or even more likely civil wars in some shithole.

 

[Rin]

IMO, the world would be better served with the dissolution of both NATO and the UN, and a world council with members of every nation required to be in membership at all times. this would remove the whole us v them mentality of both NATO AND the UN

NATO was just meant to counter the USSR. It doesn't serve much purpose anymore, which is why they've been rather half-assed about enforcing it.

 

[Fanag]

It serves a purpose when Russia takes territory from her neighbors actively since the fall of the USSR. Eastern Europeans would beg to differ it doesn't serve a purpose anymore.The rhetoric coming from the Kremlin included veiled threats against Kazakhstan and the Baltic States as well as military action and the creation of proxy states in frozen warzones to prevent countries such as Ukraine and Georgia from joining western institutions.

See: Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea.

 

[Dabawss]

It serves a purpose when Russia takes territory from her neighbors actively since the fall of the USSR. Eastern Europeans would beg to differ it doesn't serve a purpose anymore.The rhetoric coming from the Kremlin included veiled threats against Kazakhstan and the Baltic States as well as military action and the creation of proxy states in frozen warzones to prevent countries such as Ukraine and Georgia from joining western institutions.

See: Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea.

it also serves the purpose of violating warsaw pact era treaties that said nato wouldnt advance into warsaw pact countries but when even the slightest ACCUSATION without proof that russia is doing something whether true or not, nato countries start advancing into those countries that served as a buffer zone between Russia and the rest of europe... but that's just me being the crazy old coot when I say that Crimea wasnt a soviet takeover but a legal vote to rejoin Russia and that all those nato troops on russias border and all the provications by the US in the black sea against russia.... all made to look like russia is acting aggressively when in reality it is NATO that is doing so

 

[Fanag]

So Russia invading Georgia and Ukraine isn't an aggressive action? The narrative NATO is aggressively expanding into Russia doesn't take into account the fact those countries joined NATO willingly because they fear Russia, they didn't join because they want to aggressively attack Russia or provoke them but to protect their borders from being violated once again.

 

[Nexa]

Georgia attacked their peacekeepers so ya they should have leveled Georgia.
And if someone tough that Russia would accept peacefully that Ukraine would go to enemy alliance need to do braincheck.
Edit: I can also be hypocrite and ask if Kosovo could go independent why not Crimea and Donbas? International court said that declarations of independence arent illegal

 

[Dabawss]

Georgia attacked their peacekeepers so ya they should have leveled Georgia.
And if someone tough that Russia would accept peacefully that Ukraine would go to enemy alliance need to do braincheck.
Edit: I can also be hypocrite and ask if Kosovo could go independent why not Crimea and Donbas? International court said that declarations of independence arent illegal

little known fact, the US isnt part of the international court and doesn't have to abide by any of its rulings... wonder why the US chose to do that?...

 

[Rin]

It serves a purpose when Russia takes territory from her neighbors actively since the fall of the USSR. Eastern Europeans would beg to differ it doesn't serve a purpose anymore.The rhetoric coming from the Kremlin included veiled threats against Kazakhstan and the Baltic States as well as military action and the creation of proxy states in frozen warzones to prevent countries such as Ukraine and Georgia from joining western institutions.

See: Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea.

Wait, I worded that wrong lol. I meant it doesn't serve much purpose any more because NATO has been half-assed about it.

That seems to be Putin's plan. There's not too much political gain by grabbing former USSR nations. But NATO is a threat to USSR's influence. 

Most of his actions amount to bullying. 'Accidentally' getting caught sending troops across the border. Military exercises. Turning off radio on the planes that fly into East European airspace. All these actions that are outright hostile but not enough to declare war over.

Putin doesn't want a war. He can't win a war. He just wants to pull the teeth out of NATO and get NATO-US to fight over an issue none of them want to deal with.

 

[Dabawss]

Wait, I worded that wrong lol. I meant it doesn't serve much purpose any more because NATO has been half-assed about it.

That seems to be Putin's plan. There's not too much political gain by grabbing former USSR nations. But NATO is a threat to USSR's influence. 

Most of his actions amount to bullying. 'Accidentally' getting caught sending troops across the border. Military exercises. Turning off radio on the planes that fly into East European airspace. All these actions that are outright hostile but not enough to declare war over.

Putin doesn't want a war. He can't win a war. He just wants to pull the teeth out of NATO and get NATO-US to fight over an issue none of them want to deal with.

If you mean turning off transponders? The US has been doing that for decades as has other Nato nations, when it suited their needs to make an enemy look aggressive

and i think you have that wrong... Russia wasnt even a concern until they stepping between Syria and the illegal invaders there, then all of a sudden it's Russia this and russia that. No one in political power gave a rats butt about Putin until he was invited by Assad to help Syria from all the illegal invaders and the US funded terrorism

You're right Putin doesnt want a war... but you know who wants one even less? The US... the reason they keep acting aggressively overseas is to keep military forces from gathering on their doorstep, and if there is a war, the US has spent the last 2 presidents to ensure it doesnt happen anywhere NEAR them

 

[Rin]

If you mean turning off transponders? The US has been doing that for decades as has other Nato nations, when it suited their needs to make an enemy look aggressive

and i think you have that wrong... Russia wasnt even a concern until they stepping between Syria and the illegal invaders there, then all of a sudden it's Russia this and russia that. No one in political power gave a rats butt about Putin until he was invited by Assad to help Syria from all the illegal invaders and the US funded terrorism

You're right Putin doesnt want a war... but you know who wants one even less? The US... the reason they keep acting aggressively overseas is to keep military forces from gathering on their doorstep, and if there is a war, the US has spent the last 2 presidents to ensure it doesnt happen anywhere NEAR them

A lot of the military positioning happened long before the Syrian civil war.

Of course the US doesn't want a war. A war with Russia would be heavily unbalanced against them. A war they can't win would likely go nuclear.

 

[Dabawss]

A lot of the military positioning happened long before the Syrian civil war.

Of course the US doesn't want a war. A war with Russia would be heavily unbalanced against them. A war they can't win would likely go nuclear.

the basic deal here is the US is willing to fight conflicts all over the globe to keep the "war" from their soil but they know that IF they brought Russia into the pictiure, they would lose badly if they fought on Russian soil and know that the russians wouldnt hesitate to use tactical nuclear weaponry, small and large, on their own and other's soil as well, and IF the US drug russia in, then russia WOULD fight on US soil either through icbm's, air, or even sending land troops in