Is NATO a Viable Military Organization?

scale_1200
I think it is clear that NATO, even without the US is capable of handling the threat of Russia. Russia is seriously overrated and has a military that is obsolete, poorly trained and with bad morale.
All Russia has is nukes. The US can stop them with the threat of retaliation
 
I think it is clear that NATO, even without the US is capable of handling the threat of Russia. Russia is seriously overrated and has a military that is obsolete, poorly trained and with bad morale.
All Russia has is nukes. The US can stop them with the threat of retaliation
All this is not particularly important, because Europe and Russia are friends, and all wipe their feet about the United States, regardless of their military power, even talibs, and the Americans themselves were lined up for vaccinations like a herd of slaves in an ordinary third country with left-wing radical regime.
 
All this is not particularly important, because Europe and Russia are friends, and all wipe their feet about the United States, regardless of their military power, even talibs, and the Americans themselves were lined up for vaccinations like a herd of slaves in an ordinary third country.

You Goofy
 
All this is not particularly important, because Europe and Russia are friends, and all wipe their feet about the United States, regardless of their military power, even talibs, and the Americans themselves were lined up for vaccinations like a herd of slaves in an ordinary third country with left-wing radical regime.

The EU and Russia are not friends. They aren't killing each other, doesn't make them friends.
 
These are myths versus facts. I have already said everything about this above.

And Russia and the EU are still not friends.

Right now Belarus is being accused of trying to put immigrants into the EU via Poland, with Russian help.

Russia kills former spies in EU countries. And the like.
 
By the way, in Europe, including Russia, they carried out a pension reform, they basically increased the terms of retirement.
Has there been a pension reform in the USA?

Wait, so you're saying because the EU and Russia both carried out a pension reform, they must be friends?

Like saying because two people have noses, they must be friends.
 
Wait, so you're saying because the EU and Russia both carried out a pension reform, they must be friends?

Like saying because two people have noses, they must be friends.
This is a sign that they are twitching by the same puppeteer. Just one of many others
 
Another sign: Russia has sold US government assets and is holding Eurobonds. They may have even converted the Treasuries directly into Eurobonds. This means that they are sponsoring European governments.
Another sign: touching concern for Europe's energy security.
 
That doesn't help your argument at all
From the point of view of pseudoscientists and autists, a set of properties does not give anything, from the point of view of real science, this is the defining method of computation.
In addition, there is a logical method: if a statement is absurd, then it is false.
If someone claims that NATO is really an equal block of states, then the United States should not invest more in militarization than others. But the United States invests 99% in NATO, and the militarization of Europe is legally limited. This is absurd. There has never been any "block". It's just the occupation of Europe.
The Warsaw Pact was the same system under East. For example, USSR suppressed an uprising in Czechoslovakia. Tank troops were brought in.
 
In addition to the military occupation, there was also an economic one. The Bretton Woods system obliged Europe to use the dollar as a reserve currency. This meant, among other things, complete control over budgets. If the US does not give dollars to Europe, they will have nothing to cover the budget deficit. If the United States permits, the government can print as much money as they want, provided they provide a loan in dollars, they will cover the local currency, that's how it worked. Nominally, the dollar was covered in gold, so de Gaulle brought down the system by demanding formalities. But if the US not fucked down, they wouldn't have done it, they would have shoved his dollars up his ass and set on fire.
The financial colony's demand for settlement of obligations means a revolt of the colony against the directory
 
From the point of view of pseudoscientists and autists, a set of properties does not give anything, from the point of view of real science, this is the defining method of computation.
In addition, there is a logical method: if a statement is absurd, then it is false.
If someone claims that NATO is really an equal block of states, then the United States should not invest more in militarization than others. But the United States invests 99% in NATO, and the militarization of Europe is legally limited. This is absurd. There has never been any "block". It's just the occupation of Europe.
The Warsaw Pact was the same system under East. For example, USSR suppressed an uprising in Czechoslovakia. Tank troops were brought in.

The US does not invest more than others in NATO.

It's just a US politician's dream to say they're better than others.


Defense spending per capita:
1) US 3.42% as of 2019
2) Bulgaria 3.25%
3) Greece 2.28%
27) Spain 0.92%

Basically you have to look at US spending compared to the spending of other countries.

The US doesn't spend 3.42% on NATO. It's spends 3.42% on the military. If the US is invading Iraq, that doesn't mean it's helping NATO. If the US is paying massive amounts of money for healthcare of soldiers injured in Iraq, that doesn't go to NATO.

The US spent $693 billion in 2019. Germany spent 40% of the US's 100% in 2019. So Germany's equivalent would be $277 billion.

The question is, how much does the US spend on warring around the world? Iraq cost a lot.


"Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths"

If you take this, then it's $400 billion per year to fight this terror that the US created in the first place. I'd say this figure is probably lower than this, as the US would have spent quite a bit on the military anyway. But it shows us everything isn't as it seems.

The US spends a lot of money on developing technology too, and it makes money out of this development. So, does that count too?
 
The US does not invest more than others in NATO.
Stop raving. The United States has formally equal participation in NATO with funding of its army approximately equal to a half of the world, while funding for the armies of all of Europe was somewhere at the level of 5 percent. Beside this, US army is single professional army with real educated officer corps.
 

Forum List

Back
Top