2 ms·

You're about free trade with no security guarantees? It doesn't work, trade blocks align where security guarantees are the best. Say goodbye to cheap labour, pr

You're about free trade with no security guarantees? It doesn't work, trade blocks align where security guarantees are the best. Say goodbye to cheap labour, products, natural ressources and interest in the American dollar. Complaining about US NATO spending when all the money goes to American defense contractors and the military budget keeps on rising is extremely peculiar. Europe benefiting from America subsidizing it's Red states is a positive externality. Only Trump disputes Russian bounties, allies have been briefed as well and confirmed the intelligence. You pivot from "paramilitary force" to admitting Russia "responded". Euromaidan wasn't a coup and the only sources I find are dubious Kremlin talking points disguised as "evidence". Though once again, you don't want the US in Afghanistan but Russia can invade Ukraine.

linuxftw 6y ago
> You pivot from "paramilitary force" to admitting Russia "responded". There was no pivot. I'm not sure if you kept up with the news at the time, but I followed the event quite closely when things were unfolding. I'm not sure how paramilitary forces storming the capital, the President fleeing the country, and the parliament voting in the "opposition" leaders that had previously met with John McCain and EU officials isn't a coup. There was a lot of US-sponsored (and NATO sponsored) regime change during that era. Libya, Egypt, Syria (attempted), and the Ukraine. > Complaining about US NATO spending when all the money goes to American defense contractors I don't see how in any way this is an argument in defense of spending money on NATO. Decreasing military funding would be a net-positive for the US.