Please give me a list of enough threats the US protected Europe from to back your statement. I doubt there are enough to justify those differences, and hence your statement must be doubted until you prove otherwise.
So can you answer the question? Has there been a threat or Russian aggression into Western Europe that was averted due to US involvement? I am yet to see that.
Is your argument not good enough on its own, that you have to engage in personal attacks? No I am not dense. Please keep these comments to yourself. If you can’t engage in a civil discussion, I will report you to moderators.
Do you not understand the concept of deterrence
I do understand it. Now I’d love to see a proof of the presence of a threat that was deterred due to US military budget.
Do you believe for one second that Putin stops with Ukraine if NATO and the US weren’t standing in his way?
I need to see proof to believe that Russia is a threat to the parts of Europe you speak of, and said threat was deterred by US military budget. Otherwise I will continue not believing it.
I want to see evidence of a real threat, with evidence that it was going to happen, but was only avoided due to said deterrence. I believe that would be the textbook definition of deterrence. Anything else is not. But I am open minded if you have an alternate definition that is reasonable.
How many historical examples of this can you come up with, across the world? I’m currently thinking that’s an unreasonable set of requirements.
In my books, having the big gun in the room is deterrence. You don’t need for someone to attempt shit for it to count as deterrence - if nobody is stupid enough to try anything at all you have successfully deterred others.
Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.
I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.
The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.
If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine, instead of fueling the profits of the military industrial complex? Why do they keep letting hostilities and murder happen? Sounds like they aren’t deterring threats very well.
Ukraine war proves you wrong. When the threat is real, they do not deter it.
This isn’t to mention that Finland has not faced the same circumstances of Ukraine that led up to the war there, which goes back to my feafmongering claim.
But again, if you think Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine (it’s not), the US has failed to protect it. But they have successfully made a lot of profit for military corporations.
They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.
Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.
When was that? I don’t see when they were denied membership. They wanted into a partnership program that would’ve made them a member, Russian minded president shelved that idea, it was raised again when Russia annexed Crimea and it’s still ongoing.
“At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future.”
“At NATO’s 2023 Vilnius summit it was decided that Ukraine would no longer be required to participate in a Membership Action Plan before joining the alliance.”
Though IIRC you can’t join during an active conflict. That’s sorta the thing, you need to be a member beforehand to reap the benefits. When it happens, then it’s too late. That’s why after Russian attack into Ukraine, Finland and Sweden got such a hurry about it.
Maybe so. However I am not attached to my feelings and definitely open to changing my mind. I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine
Goalposts moved - initial claim was that the US defense budget protects european countries, not all European countries. If that was the case, even Russia would be included as needing American protection.
I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.
The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine?
Are you implying that two different countries facing the same threat should be treated exactly the same?
Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
Again. You have proposed a catch-22. You are only accepting a valid joining of NATO if a country is undergoing conflict, however NATO does not accept nations that are currently undergoing conflict. Surely you understand that is essentially a declaration of war for all members against the other party.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
I am still waiting for you to provide some historical examples that show how feasible it is for you to require examples of things that were prevented by deterrence. By definition deterrence inhibits behavior. You will not see inhibited behavior, because it is…inhibited.
Please give me a list of enough threats the US protected Europe from to back your statement. I doubt there are enough to justify those differences, and hence your statement must be doubted until you prove otherwise.
Are you differentiating between active conflicts that the US has been involved in versus the preventative protection of it…looming?
Because let me tell you, Russia doesn’t make a stink about NATO because of Belgium…
So can you answer the question? Has there been a threat or Russian aggression into Western Europe that was averted due to US involvement? I am yet to see that.
Do you not understand the concept of deterrence through strength or are you being intentionally dense?
Do you believe for one second that Putin stops with Ukraine if NATO and the US weren’t standing in his way?
Is your argument not good enough on its own, that you have to engage in personal attacks? No I am not dense. Please keep these comments to yourself. If you can’t engage in a civil discussion, I will report you to moderators.
I do understand it. Now I’d love to see a proof of the presence of a threat that was deterred due to US military budget.
I need to see proof to believe that Russia is a threat to the parts of Europe you speak of, and said threat was deterred by US military budget. Otherwise I will continue not believing it.
I am asking for clarification for the question - how are you taking into account deterrence? What do you accept as a sign of successful deterrence?
I want to see evidence of a real threat, with evidence that it was going to happen, but was only avoided due to said deterrence. I believe that would be the textbook definition of deterrence. Anything else is not. But I am open minded if you have an alternate definition that is reasonable.
How many historical examples of this can you come up with, across the world? I’m currently thinking that’s an unreasonable set of requirements.
In my books, having the big gun in the room is deterrence. You don’t need for someone to attempt shit for it to count as deterrence - if nobody is stupid enough to try anything at all you have successfully deterred others.
Well we in Finland joined NATO because of Russia. Same for most of Eastern Europe.
I’m quite glad US spends a shitload on defence tbqh. Way too much, but it’s not out of my pocket…
Finland joined NATO because of fearmongering. I am yet to see a real threat. Now can you answer my question? If not, then it says enough.
Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.
I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.
The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.
If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.
Which attempt to join NATO are you talking about? IIRC one was retracted by the president of Ukraine and the other was already after crimea.
What’s your reasoning behind Finland being a bad example again, beyond a “fear mongering” label that you’ve applied without explaining?
We joined because Russia attacked Ukraine. We neighbor Russia. Seemed real enough to us.
Eastern Europe obviously knows more about this than even us.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine, instead of fueling the profits of the military industrial complex? Why do they keep letting hostilities and murder happen? Sounds like they aren’t deterring threats very well.
Ukraine war proves you wrong. When the threat is real, they do not deter it.
This isn’t to mention that Finland has not faced the same circumstances of Ukraine that led up to the war there, which goes back to my feafmongering claim.
But again, if you think Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine (it’s not), the US has failed to protect it. But they have successfully made a lot of profit for military corporations.
Ukraine wasn’t in NATO. That’s the point.
They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.
Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.
When was that? I don’t see when they were denied membership. They wanted into a partnership program that would’ve made them a member, Russian minded president shelved that idea, it was raised again when Russia annexed Crimea and it’s still ongoing.
“At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future.”
“At NATO’s 2023 Vilnius summit it was decided that Ukraine would no longer be required to participate in a Membership Action Plan before joining the alliance.”
Though IIRC you can’t join during an active conflict. That’s sorta the thing, you need to be a member beforehand to reap the benefits. When it happens, then it’s too late. That’s why after Russian attack into Ukraine, Finland and Sweden got such a hurry about it.
I guess we felt differently.
Ukraine has wanted NATO membership for many years. It has been literally part of their Constitution since 2019.
Here is one early example:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_46249.htm?mode=pressrelease
For more info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations
Maybe so. However I am not attached to my feelings and definitely open to changing my mind. I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.
Goalposts moved - initial claim was that the US defense budget protects european countries, not all European countries. If that was the case, even Russia would be included as needing American protection.
I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.
The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
Are you implying that two different countries facing the same threat should be treated exactly the same?
Again. You have proposed a catch-22. You are only accepting a valid joining of NATO if a country is undergoing conflict, however NATO does not accept nations that are currently undergoing conflict. Surely you understand that is essentially a declaration of war for all members against the other party.
I am still waiting for you to provide some historical examples that show how feasible it is for you to require examples of things that were prevented by deterrence. By definition deterrence inhibits behavior. You will not see inhibited behavior, because it is…inhibited.
deleted by creator
having access to cheap gas we were protected from that