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.
I’m not sure if you meant that it was denied or just that it hasn’t become a member (yet). First one isn’t true but second one is. The process is ongoing and they’ll fairly likely become a member at some point, like mentioned.
I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.
We were close to NATO for a long time but felt that actual war in Europe and Russia attacking was too unlikely for us to actually join. Russia had to come and dispel that fantasy.
NATO isn’t supposed to be the only thing preventing it but it sure does bring us security that it won’t happen and if it in some unthinkable scenario did, we wouldn’t be left alone to fight it.
Looking at Russia and how they’ve generally treated their neighbors, saying that NATO has saved Eastern Europeans from trouble is a fairly believable argument IMO. Just look at those who didn’t join and what has happened with them. But of course it’s what ifs.
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.
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.
I’m not sure if you meant that it was denied or just that it hasn’t become a member (yet). First one isn’t true but second one is. The process is ongoing and they’ll fairly likely become a member at some point, like mentioned.
We were close to NATO for a long time but felt that actual war in Europe and Russia attacking was too unlikely for us to actually join. Russia had to come and dispel that fantasy.
NATO isn’t supposed to be the only thing preventing it but it sure does bring us security that it won’t happen and if it in some unthinkable scenario did, we wouldn’t be left alone to fight it.
Looking at Russia and how they’ve generally treated their neighbors, saying that NATO has saved Eastern Europeans from trouble is a fairly believable argument IMO. Just look at those who didn’t join and what has happened with them. But of course it’s what ifs.
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.