@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.
As a deterrent tool, it's proven not nearly as reliable as the actual military buildup Poland chose to rely on.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a military alliance is about.
The alliance alone is not supposed to be the deterrent, that’s why every country in NATO is required to spend a certain amount on their own military. That’s not a sign of distrust, it’s common sense when your country is under perceived threat to ramp up and the alliance strongly encourages this. The alliance serves as a layer above national self defense, not in place of it.
Putin tested the resolve of NATO in 2014
You do know Crimea is not part of NATO… right?
The US and Canada should have withdrawn the very year NATO members imposed the Eurozone tariff, or at least after the 2014 failures, because the costs of such a tariff far outweigh the deterrence benefits of NATO then and today
Again… Tariffs have absolutely nothing to do with NATO. Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?
Poland correctly read that as: no one in NATO is going to absorb the first hit for us.
Again, none of this has anything to do with how military alliances work.
You are deeply confused.
Thank you for your support and agreement with the selected parts you did not quote.
So why would 100k Americans want to go live in a freezer?
Want? We're building the libtard gulags there. 'Want' doesnt enter into it.
Wasn't Ireland the Gulag last year?
The alliance alone is not supposed to be the deterrent
Lol, it's not a deterrent at all. If anything, the present-day actions of NATO actively encourage escalation and the buildup of opposing forces. NATO literally greenlighted the 2022 destruction of Nordstream, despite Germany's objections, for the sole purpose of global escalation. Echoes of WW1 come to mind. Rigid alliances, security guarantees turning local tensions into global ones, and everyone convinced they’re acting “defensively.”
Definitely nothing this hemisphere needs to get sucked up into again, unless starting wars for profit is all of a sudden a good thing.
Thank you for your support and agreement with the selected parts you did not quote.
Do you really think you made any relevant point in that last post to which there was no response?
Lol, it's not a deterrent at all. If anything, the present-day actions of NATO actively encourage escalation and the buildup of opposing forces.
Wow, this is just remarkably stupid.
What nation looks at another nation and thinks “well, we weren’t going to attack them, but if we attack them then all these other nations have pledged to step in and launch counter strikes against us, so I guess we’ll attack them”?
You don’t have to be contrary to everything I say. You can just let common sense breath, as difficult as that idea may seem.
NATO literally greenlighted the 2022 destruction of Nordstream, despite Germany's objections, for the sole purpose of global escalation.
You are deeply ignorant of global affairs.
NATO didn’t greenlight anything because that is fundamentally not how NATO works. NATO isn’t a decision making body, NATO is an organization bonded by a treaty to which all member states pledge to follow what they agreed to. So not only is there no evidence to support any of this, it isn’t even possible. This is just conspiratorial nonsense.
Again, thanks for agreeing with the unquoted parts.
Same to you.
China and Russia will come to the aid of NATO countries to defend Greenland from Trump.