4 ms·
For a German, both of those are both foreign adversaries and foreign allies, at the same time. One is not "better" than the other.
by diggan 3y ago
For a German, both of those are both foreign adversaries and foreign allies, at the same time. One is not "better" than the other.
- chaostheory 3y agoYes, one is not better than the other until there’s a security issue in Europe that actively threatens the EU. Then miraculously Western Europeans will suddenly remember that the US is an ally. This is exactly why many US voters are growing tired of subsidizing the EU’s defense.
- beebeepka 3y agoI guess your media conveniently skips the part where joining NATO means destroying your own long range weapons. This is what they forced Bulgaria to do and they made a very big deal out of it.
- avar 3y agoI'm not American, but here you can read some extensive American reporting on it: https://nonproliferation.org/bulgaria-reaffirms-plan-to-destroy-ss-23-missiles/ https://nonproliferation.org/bulgaria-reaffirms-plan-to-dest... What you're skipping over is that the reason the US asked for their destruction is that having a NATO ally with weapons that violated the INF treaty with Russia wouldn't have been good idea.
- beebeepka 3y agoThanks for the link but surely you are not implying this is what the general public over there is being fed
- mensetmanusman 3y agoYes, Russia and the US are equivalent.