3 ms·

> Countries still need protecting Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection an

> Countries still need protecting Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem. A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Can you still call protectorates country? They are sovereign in name only. No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      > No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east. This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        That’s silly. There is a difference between buying material from a foreign country and being entirely reliant on another one for your survival. I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having. I understand your view on NATO even if I think it’s wrong and fail to acknowledge the actual effect the alliance has on its members. Still there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > That’s silly. There is a difference between buying material from a foreign country and being entirely reliant on another one for your survival. > I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having but there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty. I feel like you are the one being intellectually dishonest. To claim someone is a protectorate because they enter into a defensive alliance for their defence is absurd and does not follow. No one is entirely reliant on NATO for survival but theres plenty of armies that wouldn't survive an insane from Russia without the extra material.
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        [flagged]

_kbh_ 3y ago

> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem. A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
[flagged]
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Can you still call protectorates country? They are sovereign in name only. No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    > No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east. This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran
      - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        That’s silly. There is a difference between buying material from a foreign country and being entirely reliant on another one for your survival. I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having. I understand your view on NATO even if I think it’s wrong and fail to acknowledge the actual effect the alliance has on its members. Still there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > That’s silly. There is a difference between buying material from a foreign country and being entirely reliant on another one for your survival. > I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having but there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty. I feel like you are the one being intellectually dishonest. To claim someone is a protectorate because they enter into a defensive alliance for their defence is absurd and does not follow. No one is entirely reliant on NATO for survival but theres plenty of armies that wouldn't survive an insane from Russia without the extra material.
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        [flagged]