politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The experts cited largely disagree with your assessment, which is why they are so worried about Trump withdrawing from NATO, why leaders are ramping up military spending, and why countries like Japan and South Korea are having serious discussions about acquiring their own nuclear deterrent for the first time in decades. They wouldn't do this, if they weren't genuinely worried.
I get the idea that you're angry about what these experts write.
Given this is an emotional reaction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're not suffering from a cognitive bias.
It is possible that the reason you are annoyed is because you don't want the experts to be right about how dangerous the current situation is. It is very scary stuff. Fear can cloud our judgement on stuff like this.
You're knowingly citing things from before this war when everything they thought about Russia was thrown out. In addition to the new information about the effectiveness of guided missiles and drones.
And yes people are worried about the US pulling out of Nato. That does not mean that nato will fall into pieces and let russia take them over if the US leaves. Different things. And that does not mean they will not increase their own budget to deal with an ~~emergent~~ terrorist russia. Different things.
You're conflating and confusing a ton of things, in both this response and the previous ones.
Ah the strawman. I really think that wraps things up. Cheers.
The Institute for the Study of War published the first article I cited on December the 14th 2023.
I'll quote another relevant bit:
They don't have to conquer the entirety of Europe. Just a small territory like the Suwalki Gap, something NATO without the US might not want to risk a nuclear war over. Present NATO with a fait accompli at a time when it's weaker than it's ever been, due to a US withdrawal. Severely undermine NATO credibility and trust in the alliance.
Once again, I understand you don't agree and that you're getting angry, but I am simply repeating what plenty of experts say on the matter.
As you say, agree to disagree.