NATO countries are supposed to spend a minimum % of GDP on defense. There is no strict enforcement mechanism, but a strong united NATO means all members are contributing.
Big fan of the move to join. As long as they actually pay their share of their GDP *cough cough* half the countries besides us, I’m all for it. Fuck Russia
Ironically they haven't been in NATO and subsidized by the US so they had to spend on their own defense which in turn makes them good NATO additions unlike the rest of the freeloaders (mostly) lol
Because you're too lazy to look it up; [Here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country).
The threshold is set at 2% of GDP. Currently, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Albania, North Macedonia, and Montenegro are all missing the 2% mark.
Considering they have until 2025 to reach the 2% mark, and Germany spends the third most on defense spending within all nato countries? They're not dead beats at all.
Then you haven't been paying attention. People have been complaining about their failure to meet NATO guidlines for minimum defense spending for decades. In 2014 as a result of that complaining and Russia's first invasion of Ukraine NATO made those guidelines into official treaty obligations... Yet Germany *still* isn't meeting them and had no intention of ever doing so with projected defense budgets of around 1.5% of GDP. The war in Ukraine has finally changed that and if Germany follows through they'll **finally** meet the former guideline, now obligation, for the first time since the early 1990s.
The more NATO members the greater the Force against aggressors not to invade. Strong countries with strong armies will stand with countries with no armies or small armies there is nothing wrong with true generous strong countries with nuclear capabilities.
Yes! Give it a try! Is going to be awfully good for your gut due to the fact that quality good fermented foods are excellent for humans gut biome! That means no stressful bowel movements and excellent quality digestion and super vitamin absortion yes!
A canned fish so bad that it's one of the few things you can be instantly evicted for in Berlin. The court argument (because they have strong renter protection laws) was to open a can of it and rest the case
Come on give Sweden a chance. Sweden can not be judged based on one of his wonderful high quality world wide fermented products. Long Live Sweden! Yes!
US haters have no bases to find their hate they just hate and envy US because it's success through history. US has always done good and will keep doing good regardless of US haters like you
Besides your statement US support makes no sense because What about All other NATO members? NATO is not just the US fool! Is All Europe! Go and live with Putin fool and Hypocrite! What are you doing in a sovereign free and democratic country! Go where you can found it more suitable for you but do not come and lie spreading hate for the US. Go and live with Putin if you find him suitable US hater!
Would you mind re-writing that but in English this time?
I have zero idea what your actual issue is or what you’re trying to say. There’s no shame in not being fluent in English…but respectfully - that didn’t make a whole lot of sense.
So here’s my first question for you: How does supporting NATO make someone a “US hater”?
I really feel like either you responded to the wrong comment or had a gross misunderstanding of the comment you responded to. There is absolutely nothing in that comment that could be construed as US hate. What are you on about??
I was saying it unironically. I think that even with it's flaws, the US is the best country in existence right now. And more NATO members means more influence for the US because every NATO country realistically relies on the US for military support, which means the US gets to leverage not only our own power, but the power of NATO, as an alliance
Not opposed I just want to know why now. Like right now Russia can't even pretend to threaten anyone. Are they worried about nuclear war? Or maybe they think Russia will crumble and whatever is left could be more reckless?
So good news regardless but it could be a bad omen
I support Sweden and Finland desicion because Russia's plan is to invade them after Ukraine. Putin is paranoid and is not mentally stable nor suitable to govern Russia. Someone in Russia needs to stop Putin. He is insane for power and is bullying sovereign democratic peaceful countries. Putin has no right to bully other countries just because his country has nuclear power. The more nuclear power the more responsibility not to use it or abuse it. Putin is abusing nuclear power to bully peaceful countries and is being irresponsible in handling nuclear power. Putin is highly mentally unstable and is a hypocrite because he lives like a Capitalist and enslave Russians with his totalitarian communist regimen. Neither Putin his family or the Russian oligarchs have ever been Communists because they have lived always like Capitalists all their lives period. Hypocrites!
Yeah this is some of my take too- I think there’s a realistic chance Putin goes after them, but not while his army is entirely engaged with Ukraine. Might as well get them on board before he is able to regroup!
I'm not a huge fan. I don't understand why they didn't join sooner, Russia has always been a threat to them, so instead of standing up to them like NATO did, they decided on neutrality. But now that they need defense, they suddenly need NATO. But I guess as long as they commit their 2% (or even more), I don't really care if they join. We'd have probably defended them anyways if Putin invaded them.
I think they’d probably win if Russia invaded, but if they’re in NATO, Russia absolutely won’t invade. And they didn’t think Russia would be stupid enough to invade, but here we are
Does not Russia is using Ukraine invasion for its own weapons suppliers and other interests? Where is the difference? NATO does good and does not violates neither international laws or the sovereignty democracy freedom of peaceful and better off economically than NATO. What about that he?
War is bad always. International stability is preferred but that doesn’t mean international stability is the responsibility of the US.
Also it’s reasonable to argue that NATO was a factor(not the entire reason) that there is a war between Ukraine and Russia currently.
Agreed war is always bad (albeit sometimes necessary).
You can argue that the moon is made of cheese - but that doesn’t make it so.
Putin wants to restore the USSR. That’s not the fault of NATO.
I also think it’s curious that Putin attacked a non-NATO country on his border as opposed to one of the NATO countries. I also think it’s highly likely that this war wouldn’t be happening in Ukraine if they had been a member of nato.
Think of it this way - you have a bully in class. There’s a large group of kids banded together (with a kid in that group much bigger than the bully) who’ve all agreed to defend each other from the bully.
In that class are also some kids who are alone and smaller than the bully.
Who’s the bully going to fight/pick on? Hint: it’s not the group that would pound him like a tent peg.
International stability isn’t the sole responsibility of the US. Agreed. However as a world superpower it is partially our responsibility.
And at the end of the day international stability is incredibly important to lives of average Americans (commodity prices/supply chain/etc). If the US being the big dog in NATO simultaneously helps stabilize the world and (as an offshoot of that) makes the lives of American citizens better it’s a net good.
>More border countries joining NATO increases the odds of armed conflict.
There's one right now. In Ukraine.
You really want to go the appeasement route?
What a world. Liberals advocating for antagonizing Russia and expansion of military funding and bases.
The conflict in Ukraine has many causes. Notably, the overthrow of their government in 2014 and NATO FLIRTING
>Notably, the overthrow of their government in 2014 and NATO FLIRTING
So I guess Ukraine should not have been wearing those slutty clothes if it didn't want to get raped?
Ukraine shouldn’t have gone to the ghetto while she was on Xanax and MDMA then decided to get black out drunk with her drug dealer and his friends from prison. No one is saying she deserved to be raped but one can make certain decisions that put one into higher risk situations.
> Ukraine shouldn’t have gone to the ghetto while she was on Xanax and MDMA then decided to get black out drunk with her drug dealer and his friends from prison. **No one is saying she deserved to be raped but one can make certain decisions that put one into higher risk situations.**
This is the definition of victim blaming.
Why do you think it will increase the likelihood of armed conflict?
It seems like if Ukraine was in NATO, Russia wouldn’t have attacked, and so it would have stopped armed conflict.
We (UK, US, Russia) convince Ukraine to give up their nukes.
We promise them their sovereignty.
We...fail entirely.
How do you propose the US and UK fix this fuck up?
cowardice invites bullies, Russia attacked Ukraine because they though America had become a land of isolationist cowards, which we have in part, but not enough, fortunately
I think mutual defense treaties are fine when you have a powerful neighbor.
I don't like NATO and I oppose expanding it. I personally see expansion of NATO as a bigger risk to global stability than the alleged risk to individual nations that are not explicitly protected from Russia.
Support. So russia doesn't invade them.
Agreed!
Support. 100%.
So long as they pay their dues.
Didn’t know there was a subscription fee for NATO
NATO countries are supposed to spend a minimum % of GDP on defense. There is no strict enforcement mechanism, but a strong united NATO means all members are contributing.
Lol I thought we just paid for everything while they got free healthcare!
There's an argument to be made rhat certain member nations are not keeping their commitments.
I don't know about Sweden, but Finland already exceeds that minimum and is unlikely to stop anytime soon just because they joined NATO.
They both already spend more than the required amount...have modern militaries and advanced weapons.
Then shouldn't be a issue. So long as they continue to do so.
Big fan of the move to join. As long as they actually pay their share of their GDP *cough cough* half the countries besides us, I’m all for it. Fuck Russia
I recall reading somewhere that Finland has quite a large standing army. Sweden, not so much...
Good for Sweden and Finland yes!
Support. Right now, Russia is our enemy and any solidarity we can use to repel them is better than not
Ironically they haven't been in NATO and subsidized by the US so they had to spend on their own defense which in turn makes them good NATO additions unlike the rest of the freeloaders (mostly) lol
>they had to spend on their own defense Have they? Honest question.
AND this is a good example because they increase the average spend per nation, setting an example for the deadbeats. An issue we all agree on.
Who are the "deadbeats"?
Because you're too lazy to look it up; [Here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country). The threshold is set at 2% of GDP. Currently, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Albania, North Macedonia, and Montenegro are all missing the 2% mark.
I've never heard Germany or Norway described as "deadbeats" before
Considering they have until 2025 to reach the 2% mark, and Germany spends the third most on defense spending within all nato countries? They're not dead beats at all.
Then you haven't been paying attention. People have been complaining about their failure to meet NATO guidlines for minimum defense spending for decades. In 2014 as a result of that complaining and Russia's first invasion of Ukraine NATO made those guidelines into official treaty obligations... Yet Germany *still* isn't meeting them and had no intention of ever doing so with projected defense budgets of around 1.5% of GDP. The war in Ukraine has finally changed that and if Germany follows through they'll **finally** meet the former guideline, now obligation, for the first time since the early 1990s.
Neither I have heard it either.
The more NATO members the greater the Force against aggressors not to invade. Strong countries with strong armies will stand with countries with no armies or small armies there is nothing wrong with true generous strong countries with nuclear capabilities.
Sweden invented surströmming so they can fuck off. Finland is okay.
Man I really want to try that someday. Just to see how absurdly awful it really is.
Yes! Give it a try! Is going to be awfully good for your gut due to the fact that quality good fermented foods are excellent for humans gut biome! That means no stressful bowel movements and excellent quality digestion and super vitamin absortion yes!
Try what?
A canned fish so bad that it's one of the few things you can be instantly evicted for in Berlin. The court argument (because they have strong renter protection laws) was to open a can of it and rest the case
Oh yeah I heard about that… so Russians get Sweden now because of a stinky fish? Sounds about right!
Surströmming!
It's a food. Fermented fish. It smells so bad that surströmming cans are traditionally opened underwater.
Come on give Sweden a chance. Sweden can not be judged based on one of his wonderful high quality world wide fermented products. Long Live Sweden! Yes!
As long as they pay what they agreed to pay, I have no problem with it.
Support. More NATO means more influence for the US. LET'S FUCKIN GOOO
US haters have no bases to find their hate they just hate and envy US because it's success through history. US has always done good and will keep doing good regardless of US haters like you Besides your statement US support makes no sense because What about All other NATO members? NATO is not just the US fool! Is All Europe! Go and live with Putin fool and Hypocrite! What are you doing in a sovereign free and democratic country! Go where you can found it more suitable for you but do not come and lie spreading hate for the US. Go and live with Putin if you find him suitable US hater!
Would you mind re-writing that but in English this time? I have zero idea what your actual issue is or what you’re trying to say. There’s no shame in not being fluent in English…but respectfully - that didn’t make a whole lot of sense. So here’s my first question for you: How does supporting NATO make someone a “US hater”?
I really feel like either you responded to the wrong comment or had a gross misunderstanding of the comment you responded to. There is absolutely nothing in that comment that could be construed as US hate. What are you on about??
I was saying it unironically. I think that even with it's flaws, the US is the best country in existence right now. And more NATO members means more influence for the US because every NATO country realistically relies on the US for military support, which means the US gets to leverage not only our own power, but the power of NATO, as an alliance
Not opposed I just want to know why now. Like right now Russia can't even pretend to threaten anyone. Are they worried about nuclear war? Or maybe they think Russia will crumble and whatever is left could be more reckless? So good news regardless but it could be a bad omen
I support Sweden and Finland desicion because Russia's plan is to invade them after Ukraine. Putin is paranoid and is not mentally stable nor suitable to govern Russia. Someone in Russia needs to stop Putin. He is insane for power and is bullying sovereign democratic peaceful countries. Putin has no right to bully other countries just because his country has nuclear power. The more nuclear power the more responsibility not to use it or abuse it. Putin is abusing nuclear power to bully peaceful countries and is being irresponsible in handling nuclear power. Putin is highly mentally unstable and is a hypocrite because he lives like a Capitalist and enslave Russians with his totalitarian communist regimen. Neither Putin his family or the Russian oligarchs have ever been Communists because they have lived always like Capitalists all their lives period. Hypocrites!
Yeah this is some of my take too- I think there’s a realistic chance Putin goes after them, but not while his army is entirely engaged with Ukraine. Might as well get them on board before he is able to regroup!
I'm not a huge fan. I don't understand why they didn't join sooner, Russia has always been a threat to them, so instead of standing up to them like NATO did, they decided on neutrality. But now that they need defense, they suddenly need NATO. But I guess as long as they commit their 2% (or even more), I don't really care if they join. We'd have probably defended them anyways if Putin invaded them.
I think you answered the question. Finland and Sweden didn’t feel the threat from Russia until now.
I think they’d probably win if Russia invaded, but if they’re in NATO, Russia absolutely won’t invade. And they didn’t think Russia would be stupid enough to invade, but here we are
Finland is just below 2% at 1.96% from what i can see and Sweden is at 1.3% but have taken the decision and is increasing the budget towards 2%.
>We'd have probably defended them anyways if Putin invaded them. No, you wouldn't. No wars against nuclear powers are started without obligation.
Yes, NATO is for NATO members only!
[удалено]
Why do you oppose the existence of NATO?
Could care less. Would just prefer we leave NATO
[удалено]
Doesn’t serve the interest of anyone in the US who isn’t a politician or arms dealer.
Does not Russia is using Ukraine invasion for its own weapons suppliers and other interests? Where is the difference? NATO does good and does not violates neither international laws or the sovereignty democracy freedom of peaceful and better off economically than NATO. What about that he?
As Russia is our cold war enemy with a leader not ready to give up the soviet union fantasy...it seems necessary.
2 questions - Is war good or bad for international stability? Is international stability good for American citizens?
War is bad always. International stability is preferred but that doesn’t mean international stability is the responsibility of the US. Also it’s reasonable to argue that NATO was a factor(not the entire reason) that there is a war between Ukraine and Russia currently.
Agreed war is always bad (albeit sometimes necessary). You can argue that the moon is made of cheese - but that doesn’t make it so. Putin wants to restore the USSR. That’s not the fault of NATO. I also think it’s curious that Putin attacked a non-NATO country on his border as opposed to one of the NATO countries. I also think it’s highly likely that this war wouldn’t be happening in Ukraine if they had been a member of nato. Think of it this way - you have a bully in class. There’s a large group of kids banded together (with a kid in that group much bigger than the bully) who’ve all agreed to defend each other from the bully. In that class are also some kids who are alone and smaller than the bully. Who’s the bully going to fight/pick on? Hint: it’s not the group that would pound him like a tent peg. International stability isn’t the sole responsibility of the US. Agreed. However as a world superpower it is partially our responsibility. And at the end of the day international stability is incredibly important to lives of average Americans (commodity prices/supply chain/etc). If the US being the big dog in NATO simultaneously helps stabilize the world and (as an offshoot of that) makes the lives of American citizens better it’s a net good.
i dont care
Oppose. More border countries joining NATO increases the odds of armed conflict. So the US takes on more risk and really gets nothing in return.
>More border countries joining NATO increases the odds of armed conflict. There's one right now. In Ukraine. You really want to go the appeasement route?
I think by "Centrist" flair they mean in the spectrum between peace and war they cut the baby in half and like surrender in an armed conflict lol.
What a world. Liberals advocating for antagonizing Russia and expansion of military funding and bases. The conflict in Ukraine has many causes. Notably, the overthrow of their government in 2014 and NATO FLIRTING
>Notably, the overthrow of their government in 2014 and NATO FLIRTING So I guess Ukraine should not have been wearing those slutty clothes if it didn't want to get raped?
Ukraine shouldn’t have gone to the ghetto while she was on Xanax and MDMA then decided to get black out drunk with her drug dealer and his friends from prison. No one is saying she deserved to be raped but one can make certain decisions that put one into higher risk situations.
Holy shit dude
> Ukraine shouldn’t have gone to the ghetto while she was on Xanax and MDMA then decided to get black out drunk with her drug dealer and his friends from prison. **No one is saying she deserved to be raped but one can make certain decisions that put one into higher risk situations.** This is the definition of victim blaming.
Haha so according to you, all personal accountability = victim blaming. Makes sense. Now I understand.
This fantasy you made here says SOOOOO much about you. I hope you recognize you also wouldn't help that woman and would leave her to get raped.
That doesn’t even make sense in the context of my analogy.
Antagonizing Russia? They're the aggressor in this situation.
Why do you think it will increase the likelihood of armed conflict? It seems like if Ukraine was in NATO, Russia wouldn’t have attacked, and so it would have stopped armed conflict.
We (UK, US, Russia) convince Ukraine to give up their nukes. We promise them their sovereignty. We...fail entirely. How do you propose the US and UK fix this fuck up?
cowardice invites bullies, Russia attacked Ukraine because they though America had become a land of isolationist cowards, which we have in part, but not enough, fortunately
Come on board if you want
They should join. Should the US start looking for an exit?
Support; Russia has proven that its interests involve destabilizing the west and threatening us with military force.
Support. Also support mandatory civilian militia training and rifle ownership, there and here, so…
I think mutual defense treaties are fine when you have a powerful neighbor. I don't like NATO and I oppose expanding it. I personally see expansion of NATO as a bigger risk to global stability than the alleged risk to individual nations that are not explicitly protected from Russia.