Is it time for NATO to stop accepting new members ?...

[dogtag]

Now it's Finland and Sweden who want to come in out of the rain.
What all those Russian neighbors want is that the US will protect
them from the big bad Bear. We can't protect everyone who feel
they could be threatened at some point in the future - should we
risk a nuke war in order to defend Estonia from an incursion ? How
about Lithuania or Bulgaria ? So who exactly would we risk all for by
defending, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Poland - and who should we not ?
If push came to shove, who'd be the one to decide ? Oh, right, Biden.
or he may hand over the task to Kamala Harris. Bears thinking about.

[togor]

There's reading out there, if you choose to avail yourself of it, that explained how NATO states were specializing in different aspects. Then in 2014 after Crimea back to keeping an eye on the bear.

Finland and Sweden both would pull their own weight. And worrying too much about what Putin thinks is part of how we got into this mess. So if those countries want to join, welcome aboard.

[RED]

Finland was invaded by USSR in WWII. It was called the Winter War Despite the difference in firepower (Finland had 32 tanks against 3,000+ Soviet tanks) The Fins had 70,000 total casualties and the Soviets had over 320,000. It ended with the Moscow Peace Treaty where Finland surrendered a chunk of land on it's Southeastern border of the USSR. Does history repeat itself if ignored?

[dogtag]

We're protecting most of Europe against the Russians
and at the other end of the world, Australia, New Zealand Japan, India
and others against China. We surely are the policemen of the world.
Our Military has been "Woked" and our Generals are the ones who Woked them.
It's all very well to be Gung Ho when you've got something to be gung ho about
but with Biden as our CIC and Milley as CJCS, lets just hope nothing bad happens.

[rayg]

Now it's Finland and Sweden who want to come in out of the rain.
What all those Russian neighbors want is that the US will protect
them from the big bad Bear. We can't protect everyone who feel
they could be threatened at some point in the future - should we
risk a nuke war in order to defend Estonia from an incursion ? How
about Lithuania or Bulgaria ? So who exactly would we risk all for by
defending, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Poland - and who should we not ?
If push came to shove, who'd be the one to decide ? Oh, right, Biden.
or he may hand over the task to Kamala Harris. Bears thinking about.

Why NATO? Well for one thing, If one NATO country is attacked, all the other NATO countries would defend it which would make any country have 2nd thoughts about doing so!

[dogtag]

Why NATO? Well for one thing, If one NATO country is attacked, all the other NATO countries would defend it which would make any country have 2nd thoughts about doing so!

Thanks for explaining that. And suppose they don't have second thoughts ?

[bruce]

No. NATO is one of the good things that has been done in old europe. Sincerely. bruce.

[lyman]

NATO probably should have gone away when most of Europe formed the EU,

[togor]

NATO probably should have gone away when most of Europe formed the EU,

That's certainly what the Russians wanted. And the Chinese. A reinvigorated West makes both regimes very unhappy. Is that MAGA? Still being sorted out.

[lyman]

That's certainly what the Russians wanted. And the Chinese. A reinvigorated West makes both regimes very unhappy. Is that MAGA? Still being sorted out.

maybe they did, maybe not, re the Russians



the EU is basically NATO but covers more that just defense,
the members (well, not all) share tech and defensive equipment,

is there a part of the EU charter(s) that says they cannot defend themselves as a group?

[togor]

I believe the EU points to NATO as the primary defense establishment.

[lyman]

I believe the EU points to NATO as the primary defense establishment.

NATO is the EU,,, and the US,

the EU wants us, the US, to continue to pay for most of it,

they are capable on their own,

not saying we should totally abandon, but a treaty or 2 etc etc, should cut down the financial costs and keep up the security needs, (and info)

[togor]

Well there is also this:

US politics prefer a large military budget. Some of it should be out where potential enemies can see it, so they don't get the wrong idea. That means western Pacific, eastern Europe.

This makes sense regardless of how much or little local hardware is alongside. If not to some US voters, then the Russians and Chinese see the sense of it, and would prefer we did not do this.