Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think NATO is a good thing and I'm against Trump trying to undermine it, but unfortunately it's been undermined even more by lack of funding by the other members, which Trump repeatedly pointed to in his first administration. Trump has rather ruthlessly exposed European nations as paper tigers." The idea of NATO on paper is perfect, but that is not what NATO is today. I suspect the US see NATO has everything they do not want to be. Leaving NATO might not be something that would be approved by the Senate, but being removed or sidelined, well that is a different proposition and money saver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think NATO is a good thing and I'm against Trump trying to undermine it, but unfortunately it's been undermined even more by lack of funding by the other members, which Trump repeatedly pointed to in his first administration. Trump has rather ruthlessly exposed European nations as paper tigers. The idea of NATO on paper is perfect, but that is not what NATO is today. I suspect the US see NATO has everything they do not want to be. Leaving NATO might not be something that would be approved by the Senate, but being removed or sidelined, well that is a different proposition and money saver. " I think NATO was of its time. It was fundamental to European security during the Cold War as Russia could well have attacked. The Europeans would have been unable to defend themselves and having Europe under Russian control would have been intolerable to the Americans. The problem is that three generations later Europe still lacks major capabilities. NATO is meant to be a _mutual_ defence organisation but that needs _mutual_ capabilities to be credible. Very few countries in Europe could even assist. I am not one of those that really fears a full Russian invasion. They have been ground to a halt in Ukraine so is it really credible that they could launch a full invasion of Europe? Europe should be able to defend itself against that kind of enemy on its own now. The fact that it is shitting itself over losing American protection is a damning indictment on the leadership of _all_ the countries in this continent. Europe has huge delusions of global power. It has the potential for that but lacks it in almost every sphere that matters - militarily, financially, economically, scientifically. I think one of the key reasons that Europe fears losing NATO is that it will have to face its own shortcomings. That would need a fundamental change to the way the continent operates and I don’t think anyone in power wants to face into that unless forced to. I think losing NATO could be the best thing that happens to us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think NATO is a good thing and I'm against Trump trying to undermine it, but unfortunately it's been undermined even more by lack of funding by the other members, which Trump repeatedly pointed to in his first administration. Trump has rather ruthlessly exposed European nations as paper tigers. The idea of NATO on paper is perfect, but that is not what NATO is today. I suspect the US see NATO has everything they do not want to be. Leaving NATO might not be something that would be approved by the Senate, but being removed or sidelined, well that is a different proposition and money saver. I think NATO was of its time. It was fundamental to European security during the Cold War as Russia could well have attacked. The Europeans would have been unable to defend themselves and having Europe under Russian control would have been intolerable to the Americans. The problem is that three generations later Europe still lacks major capabilities. NATO is meant to be a _mutual_ defence organisation but that needs _mutual_ capabilities to be credible. Very few countries in Europe could even assist. I am not one of those that really fears a full Russian invasion. They have been ground to a halt in Ukraine so is it really credible that they could launch a full invasion of Europe? Europe should be able to defend itself against that kind of enemy on its own now. The fact that it is shitting itself over losing American protection is a damning indictment on the leadership of _all_ the countries in this continent. Europe has huge delusions of global power. It has the potential for that but lacks it in almost every sphere that matters - militarily, financially, economically, scientifically. I think one of the key reasons that Europe fears losing NATO is that it will have to face its own shortcomings. That would need a fundamental change to the way the continent operates and I don’t think anyone in power wants to face into that unless forced to. I think losing NATO could be the best thing that happens to us." Excellent points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think NATO was of its time. It was fundamental to European security during the Cold War as Russia could well have attacked. The Europeans would have been unable to defend themselves and having Europe under Russian control would have been intolerable to the Americans. The problem is that three generations later Europe still lacks major capabilities. NATO is meant to be a _mutual_ defence organisation but that needs _mutual_ capabilities to be credible. Very few countries in Europe could even assist. I am not one of those that really fears a full Russian invasion. They have been ground to a halt in Ukraine so is it really credible that they could launch a full invasion of Europe? Europe should be able to defend itself against that kind of enemy on its own now. The fact that it is shitting itself over losing American protection is a damning indictment on the leadership of _all_ the countries in this continent. Europe has huge delusions of global power. It has the potential for that but lacks it in almost every sphere that matters - militarily, financially, economically, scientifically. I think one of the key reasons that Europe fears losing NATO is that it will have to face its own shortcomings. That would need a fundamental change to the way the continent operates and I don’t think anyone in power wants to face into that unless forced to. I think losing NATO could be the best thing that happens to us." Good points.. We are where we are now, in a rush to re arm and modernise conventional forces and tech etc simply because we as a continent leant too heavily on the big bloke over the pond.. We took our eyes off the ball thinking the ideas of some in the East were to get back what they thought and still do think is they're rightfull empire.. Even before Trump the writing was on the wall yet we still decided to live under an illusion.. Time to step up.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an excellent article in Telegraph today (online but paywalled) about the huge extent to which Germany made its economy dependent on Russia, and is now paying a heavy price. If Nato does go then Angela Merkel will have a huge responsibility; her policies on so many issues have proven to be catastrophic for Germany and Europe." No surprise, she was heavily involved with soviet youth movements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US state through Trump has been emphasising that Europe needs to look after it's own defence." Trump and the US administration could not have been any clearer, and yet there is still a huge amount of surprise that the US sees Europe as a strategic liability that needs to stand on its own 2 feet and sort out its own mess. However, rest assured the EU and UK will have a meeting and issue a carefully worded, inclusive statement designed to offend no one and change nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US is effectively no longer in NATO. The pretence from non-US NATO members is done because there is no advantage to be gained by openly saying that the US has mutated into a threat. But behind closed doors non-US members are planning on how to respond to the new world order. There has been complacency. Too few politicians believed that the US would travel so far so quickly. " It used to be the plan that we in BAOR in the 70s and early 80s could try and delay a full invasion by the overwhelming forces we faced, thereby allowing for the USA and Canada to reinforce.. The time we expected to function as a Corps was 48 hours, the accepted outcome being that before then we would use low grade Lance nuclear missiles plus chemical weapons to stop them.. And thereby they would retaliate.. We all sort of had a fuck it attitude, lived for the now mindset even though we sort of knew the stalemate wouldn't be broken.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an excellent article in Telegraph today (online but paywalled) about the huge extent to which Germany made its economy dependent on Russia, and is now paying a heavy price. If Nato does go then Angela Merkel will have a huge responsibility; her policies on so many issues have proven to be catastrophic for Germany and Europe." It’s not just Merkel that was responsible. She made some very poor decisions but the entire German economy was reliant on cheap Russian gas and China as an export market. Every politician in the west drank deeply from the “peace dividend” after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We all benefited from that. That’s _us_. You and me. All of Europe thought the world had changed. War was over. The bad guys had turned good. It’s never that simple as we are relearning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"US arms manufacturers would be quite upset if the US pulled out of NATO. It's one of the factors that lets them dominate the market." It's unlikely that there will be many new EU orders for US weapon systems regardless of any formal withdrawal. But if the US invades Greenland there will be plenty of new business from the US government as most current US equipment is completely useless in artic conditions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"US arms manufacturers would be quite upset if the US pulled out of NATO. It's one of the factors that lets them dominate the market. It's unlikely that there will be many new EU orders for US weapon systems regardless of any formal withdrawal. But if the US invades Greenland there will be plenty of new business from the US government as most current US equipment is completely useless in artic conditions. " I hope nobody tells the US Alaskan stationed troops that their weapons are completely useless  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope nobody tells the US Alaskan stationed troops that their weapons are completely useless" Do some research. The US has about 20,000 artic trained personnel compared with 100,000 non-US NATO forces and non-US forces have about ten times as much equipment as the US that can operate below -30C. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope nobody tells the US Alaskan stationed troops that their weapons are completely useless Do some research. The US has about 20,000 artic trained personnel compared with 100,000 non-US NATO forces and non-US forces have about ten times as much equipment as the US that can operate below -30C." I'm afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'m afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless?" Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C. The US does have some equipment that will but it's about ten times less than non-US NATO members have. Therefore to invade and keep Greenland the US government will have to pay a hell of a lot of money to US arms companies to provide new kit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'m afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless? Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C. The US does have some equipment that will but it's about ten times less than non-US NATO members have. Therefore to invade and keep Greenland the US government will have to pay a hell of a lot of money to US arms companies to provide new kit." Maybe the yanks are hoping global warming will make their kit perform better in he cold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'m afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless? Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C. The US does have some equipment that will but it's about ten times less than non-US NATO members have. Therefore to invade and keep Greenland the US government will have to pay a hell of a lot of money to US arms companies to provide new kit." You really think the US doesn't have military equipment (military spec) that can't operate in the Arctic, and what they do have would be completely useless 
And mixing real Arctic conditions up with the capital of Greenland, Nuuk, is quite the stretch
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'m afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless? Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C. The US does have some equipment that will but it's about ten times less than non-US NATO members have. Therefore to invade and keep Greenland the US government will have to pay a hell of a lot of money to US arms companies to provide new kit." The vast majority of artic trained troops are from the Nordics with a smattering of UK marines. They are not going to be sent to “defend” Greenland from the Americans. They will be left where they are really needed: facing the Russians. If America decides to “invade” Greenland then no one is going to physically stop them. They could probably do it by booking a “Northern Lights” package on a cruise ship and just walk ashore after a decent breakfast. Wouldn’t surprise me if Trump decided he wanted to be a member of the landing party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C." I have a fairly good grounding in physics, but I'm not aware of any physical law that says that equipment manufactured by US companies cannot operate in the cold. Is there some law of physics that I'm unaware of, or are you just being rude to the other bloke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'m afraid your statement that the US equipment is useless in Arctic conditions is wrong, only you mentioned numbers of troops. So are you still saying the US equipment is useless? Maybe you don't understand physics. Standard US military equipment will not operate below -30C. The US does have some equipment that will but it's about ten times less than non-US NATO members have. Therefore to invade and keep Greenland the US government will have to pay a hell of a lot of money to US arms companies to provide new kit. The vast majority of artic trained troops are from the Nordics with a smattering of UK marines. They are not going to be sent to “defend” Greenland from the Americans. They will be left where they are really needed: facing the Russians. If America decides to “invade” Greenland then no one is going to physically stop them. They could probably do it by booking a “Northern Lights” package on a cruise ship and just walk ashore after a decent breakfast. Wouldn’t surprise me if Trump decided he wanted to be a member of the landing party." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mad that people think the US is going to take over Greenland with force and Europe is going to go to war with them "Not sure anyone is saying Eurooe will go to war with the US. Even the Europeans arent saying it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU are imposing fines on Poland because they aren’t doing what the EU want. A country literally on the front line with Russia that has taken in countless more Ukrainian refugees then the rest of the EU. But that doesn’t matter because they aren’t…. (Fill in your own blank) The EU is bossed by Germany and maybe France, in the same way NATO is bossed by the USA. The countries of Western Europe have spent well under the NATO requirement for defence spending and instead wasted billions on woke bollocks and claimed they can’t afford defence. While at the same time enjoying the protection of the USA. America spends money on soldiers, the EU nations spend money on diversity managers deciding what sexuality their non existent soldiers should be. Well the yanks seem to have had enough, just at the same time as the Russians seem to want to expand their empire. Many EU countries are financing the Russian Invasion of Ukraine but trying to keep that quiet. As for Greenland, all I will say is to change the countries around and see if your thinking changes. What if it was an African nation under the British Empire and a neighbouring African democracy was offering to help free them from British rule? Not a perfect metaphor I know Happy to stand corrected but I believe virtually the entire population of Greenland want independence from Denmark but haven’t been given it? I think that’s the first issue. Gives them their freedom and go from there. " I’m convinced more and more that the people constantly bemoaning and claiming the EU is tyrannical have never heard of it until they wrote whatever they wrote. Yeah, Poland is fined because it breaks the rules of the voluntary union they agreed to join and abide by. Oh stop talking, what would you know about Greenland? What do you know about what they want? And even if for the sake of argument you’re correct, somehow a sudden Greenland msss independence movement emerged, what right does America have to butt in. And you contradicted your own narrative. Trump isn’t offering Greenland independence, he’s outright saying he wants to take it and make it part of the US. So btw, Greenland will be trading “woke nonsense” (I’ll give you money if you can ever give an example of what that is, and what it has to do with the EU) for actual fascism, where racist cops shoot people dead while MAGA celebrates it online. Just stop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU are imposing fines on Poland because they aren’t doing what the EU want. A country literally on the front line with Russia that has taken in countless more Ukrainian refugees then the rest of the EU. But that doesn’t matter because they aren’t…. (Fill in your own blank) The EU is bossed by Germany and maybe France, in the same way NATO is bossed by the USA. The countries of Western Europe have spent well under the NATO requirement for defence spending and instead wasted billions on woke bollocks and claimed they can’t afford defence. While at the same time enjoying the protection of the USA. America spends money on soldiers, the EU nations spend money on diversity managers deciding what sexuality their non existent soldiers should be. Well the yanks seem to have had enough, just at the same time as the Russians seem to want to expand their empire. Many EU countries are financing the Russian Invasion of Ukraine but trying to keep that quiet. As for Greenland, all I will say is to change the countries around and see if your thinking changes. What if it was an African nation under the British Empire and a neighbouring African democracy was offering to help free them from British rule? Not a perfect metaphor I know Happy to stand corrected but I believe virtually the entire population of Greenland want independence from Denmark but haven’t been given it? I think that’s the first issue. Gives them their freedom and go from there. I’m convinced more and more that the people constantly bemoaning and claiming the EU is tyrannical have never heard of it until they wrote whatever they wrote. Yeah, Poland is fined because it breaks the rules of the voluntary union they agreed to join and abide by. Oh stop talking, what would you know about Greenland? What do you know about what they want? And even if for the sake of argument you’re correct, somehow a sudden Greenland msss independence movement emerged, what right does America have to butt in. And you contradicted your own narrative. Trump isn’t offering Greenland independence, he’s outright saying he wants to take it and make it part of the US. So btw, Greenland will be trading “woke nonsense” (I’ll give you money if you can ever give an example of what that is, and what it has to do with the EU) for actual fascism, where racist cops shoot people dead while MAGA celebrates it online. Just stop. " And fascists shoot Charlie Kirk dead and lefties celebrate it in the streets and online! Erm…. Yeah. Try learning to read. Where did i say Trump is offering them independence? I don’t have a narrative, I actually don’t care one iota about Greenland. But I believe what happens should be what the Greenland residents want. Not what you want? Or the tyrannical EU | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“UK Armed Forces provided pre-planned operational support, including basing, to U.S. military assets interdicting the Bella 1 in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap following a U.S. request for assistance. RFA Tideforce provided support for U.S. forces pursuing and interdicting the Bella 1, while the RAF provided surveillance support from the air.” The UK and U.S. defence and security relationship is the deepest in the world and the UK provided enabling support in full compliance with international law.”" Lets not forget the support that the US gave us during the Falklands conflict. It was in fact the French, that didn't give us all the information about the exocets. As in they could be disabled, if you knew how to do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“UK Armed Forces provided pre-planned operational support, including basing, to U.S. military assets interdicting the Bella 1 in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap following a U.S. request for assistance. RFA Tideforce provided support for U.S. forces pursuing and interdicting the Bella 1, while the RAF provided surveillance support from the air.” The UK and U.S. defence and security relationship is the deepest in the world and the UK provided enabling support in full compliance with international law.” Let’s not forget the support that the US gave us during the Falklands conflict. It was in fact the French, that didn't give us all the information about the exocets. As in they could be disabled, if you knew how to do it." The U.S. also invaded Grenada within a year of the Falklands without prior consultation with the UK, which annoyed Thatcher privately even though publically of course she still had her tongue down Reagan’s trousers. Bit like Starmer with Trump these days to be fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an excellent article in Telegraph today (online but paywalled) about the huge extent to which Germany made its economy dependent on Russia, and is now paying a heavy price. If Nato does go then Angela Merkel will have a huge responsibility; her policies on so many issues have proven to be catastrophic for Germany and Europe. No surprise, she was heavily involved with soviet youth movements." Rumour has it (and most Germans believe it) that Merkel and Putin actually knew each other when he was a KGB agent in Dresden. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Turn off the gas water and electricity for a start. Supplying 68 bases from the US would be a logistical nightmare. The removal of locally provided personnel to support the bases would also be a major problem. The provision of security for 68 bases would involve a massive increase in resources and would be hard to enforce unless the US would be planning to take hostages or conduct reprisals against the local populations. Resistance does not have to military based to be effective. Asymmetrical warfare is a potential nightmare scenario for large traditional militarys. " you think it's that simple then? interesting 🤔 .... i'm not so sure | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so what happens when the fascist in chief of the USofA refuses to leave the 68 european bases that they get kicked out of following the collapse of nato?" Two things are wrong with your question…. 1. Don’t really think Europe would ask the Americans to vacate, knowing it would leave us totally defenceless except for using nukes? 2. If they were to do that, Trump would have no choice. Can’t operate a base working local support for food etc and can’t fly anything in without cooperation of the host country A much better question in my opinion would be, what is Europe gonna do if the US close all its European bases? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so what happens when the fascist in chief of the USofA refuses to leave the 68 european bases that they get kicked out of following the collapse of nato? Two things are wrong with your question…. 1. Don’t really think Europe would ask the Americans to vacate, knowing it would leave us totally defenceless except for using nukes? 2. If they were to do that, Trump would have no choice. Can’t operate a base working local support for food etc and can’t fly anything in without cooperation of the host country A much better question in my opinion would be, what is Europe gonna do if the US close all its European bases? " there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so what happens when the fascist in chief of the USofA refuses to leave the 68 european bases that they get kicked out of following the collapse of nato? Two things are wrong with your question…. 1. Don’t really think Europe would ask the Americans to vacate, knowing it would leave us totally defenceless except for using nukes? 2. If they were to do that, Trump would have no choice. Can’t operate a base working local support for food etc and can’t fly anything in without cooperation of the host country A much better question in my opinion would be, what is Europe gonna do if the US close all its European bases? there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country." The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so what happens when the fascist in chief of the USofA refuses to leave the 68 european bases that they get kicked out of following the collapse of nato? Two things are wrong with your question…. 1. Don’t really think Europe would ask the Americans to vacate, knowing it would leave us totally defenceless except for using nukes? 2. If they were to do that, Trump would have no choice. Can’t operate a base working local support for food etc and can’t fly anything in without cooperation of the host country A much better question in my opinion would be, what is Europe gonna do if the US close all its European bases? there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation." we're not talking about japan or south korea though. we talking about nato .... the north atlantic (clue is in the name). considering the latest rantings from the US fascist in chief, europe is garbage and denmark will be ignored regarding it's occupation of greenland. any hand sitting will be very problematic for european nations hosting unecessary US bases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation. we're not talking about japan or south korea though. we talking about nato .... the north atlantic (clue is in the name). considering the latest rantings from the US fascist in chief, europe is garbage and denmark will be ignored regarding it's occupation of greenland. any hand sitting will be very problematic for european nations hosting unecessary US bases." It might be problematic but it only becomes a military occupation if the leases on the bases are revoked and they don’t leave. That has nothing to do with NATO. Lots of our military relationships are bilateral. They exist outside of NATO and will continue to do so. Will countries revoke the leases? Some might. My guess would be places like Spain. The UK won’t. I doubt Poland will. What would Germany do? That’s an interesting question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation. we're not talking about japan or south korea though. we talking about nato .... the north atlantic (clue is in the name). considering the latest rantings from the US fascist in chief, europe is garbage and denmark will be ignored regarding it's occupation of greenland. any hand sitting will be very problematic for european nations hosting unecessary US bases. It might be problematic but it only becomes a military occupation if the leases on the bases are revoked and they don’t leave. That has nothing to do with NATO. Lots of our military relationships are bilateral. They exist outside of NATO and will continue to do so. Will countries revoke the leases? Some might. My guess would be places like Spain. The UK won’t. I doubt Poland will. What would Germany do? That’s an interesting question." it will indeed be interesting. on an aside, expect to start hearing the strengthening of security against a future russian threat in the high north, which will be diplomatic speak for european troops starting to be deployed to greenland as a show of support for denmark. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation. we're not talking about japan or south korea though. we talking about nato .... the north atlantic (clue is in the name). considering the latest rantings from the US fascist in chief, europe is garbage and denmark will be ignored regarding it's occupation of greenland. any hand sitting will be very problematic for european nations hosting unecessary US bases. It might be problematic but it only becomes a military occupation if the leases on the bases are revoked and they don’t leave. That has nothing to do with NATO. Lots of our military relationships are bilateral. They exist outside of NATO and will continue to do so. Will countries revoke the leases? Some might. My guess would be places like Spain. The UK won’t. I doubt Poland will. What would Germany do? That’s an interesting question. it will indeed be interesting. on an aside, expect to start hearing the strengthening of security against a future russian threat in the high north, which will be diplomatic speak for european troops starting to be deployed to greenland as a show of support for denmark." That arctic threat has been talked about and supported for years. This is why Sweden finally joined NATO in 2024. The UK has a large military capability in the Nordics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"there's several problems with your post. if america pulled out of nato, at that point they are declaring that they will no longer spport european countries with the promise of defence, making the continuance of US bases a foreign military occupation of the host country. The US has bases in South Korea and Japan and they are not in NATO. It would be perfectly possible for a country to allow the US to retain bases while not being part of NATO. Might make the after dinner conversations a little more tense but it doesn’t denote a military occupation. we're not talking about japan or south korea though. we talking about nato .... the north atlantic (clue is in the name). considering the latest rantings from the US fascist in chief, europe is garbage and denmark will be ignored regarding it's occupation of greenland. any hand sitting will be very problematic for european nations hosting unecessary US bases. It might be problematic but it only becomes a military occupation if the leases on the bases are revoked and they don’t leave. That has nothing to do with NATO. Lots of our military relationships are bilateral. They exist outside of NATO and will continue to do so. Will countries revoke the leases? Some might. My guess would be places like Spain. The UK won’t. I doubt Poland will. What would Germany do? That’s an interesting question. it will indeed be interesting. on an aside, expect to start hearing the strengthening of security against a future russian threat in the high north, which will be diplomatic speak for european troops starting to be deployed to greenland as a show of support for denmark. That arctic threat has been talked about and supported for years. This is why Sweden finally joined NATO in 2024. The UK has a large military capability in the Nordics." and soon to be in Grønland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an excellent article in Telegraph today (online but paywalled) about the huge extent to which Germany made its economy dependent on Russia, and is now paying a heavy price. If Nato does go then Angela Merkel will have a huge responsibility; her policies on so many issues have proven to be catastrophic for Germany and Europe." And the US is nigh on totally dependent on uranium from Russia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“UK Armed Forces provided pre-planned operational support, including basing, to U.S. military assets interdicting the Bella 1 in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap following a U.S. request for assistance. RFA Tideforce provided support for U.S. forces pursuing and interdicting the Bella 1, while the RAF provided surveillance support from the air.” The UK and U.S. defence and security relationship is the deepest in the world and the UK provided enabling support in full compliance with international law.” Lets not forget the support that the US gave us during the Falklands conflict. It was in fact the French, that didn't give us all the information about the exocets. As in they could be disabled, if you knew how to do it." Agree about the french but the US who were training Argentinian pilots whilst ships were heading south. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's an excellent article in Telegraph today (online but paywalled) about the huge extent to which Germany made its economy dependent on Russia, and is now paying a heavy price. If Nato does go then Angela Merkel will have a huge responsibility; her policies on so many issues have proven to be catastrophic for Germany and Europe. And the US is nigh on totally dependent on uranium from Russia." Less than five seconds on Google gives me the US government EIA site that tells me: “Sources and percentage shares of total U.S. purchases of uranium in 2022 were: Canada 27% Kazakhstan 25% Russia 12% Uzbekistan 11% Australia 9% Six other countries combined 16%” I don’t think 12% is remotely close to ‘totally dependent’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
