this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
176 points (97.8% liked)
World News
32322 readers
818 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is obviously terrible but probably necessary when we look at how the whole thing is developing. Once you look aggressive enough you might be lucky so bullies leave you alone.
What do you think? Wouldn't be the first time. But at least this time the Germans seem to be holding back.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Does anybody seriously think that Russia or Belarus would gain anything by attacking a NATO country? It doesn't make any sense at all. This is just a government trying to use fear to gain consent. Which is the way of doing politics of the last 50 years.
I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.
[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.
I appreciate your sentiment but the implication is just not really there, it doesn't express anything about those who do remember the past.
Read my edited footnote. I do not fully agree with the claim itself either.
I think you're taking it too literary. It's a cautionary tale to not keep doing the same mistakes over and over again but instead to learn from the past mistakes of others.
For Russia, or in this case their puppet, to invade a NATO country? Yes, it actually would be the first time.
For Russia, or in this case their puppet, to invade Poland? No, it actually would not be the first time.
I seem to remember similar comments a year and a half ago...
People really need to actually read article 5.
Once you read the article 5, you'll find out that it says that in case a NATO member is attacked then NATO will convene and each country will decide individually what level of support it will provide. There is no obligation for countries to send troops or get directly involved. And of course if Poland is stupid enough to attack Belarus or intervene in Ukraine then there is no obligation to do anything at all.
Of course, even if NATO did agree to fight all together, it's pretty clear that NATO is in a dire shape having sent much of what it has to Ukraine at this point. US has literally admitted to running out of basic stuff like artillery shells now.
Y'all can downvote all you like of course, but that's not going to alter reality. Maybe it's time for people to reflect on the past two years of war in Ukraine and how everything western media claimed about the conflict has now turned out to be completely wrong.
It's amazing how many people who say "you need to read xxx" have never actually read it...
Thats from the NATO website. Doesn't say they need to convene, it says that any member is allowed to respond in any manner they deem necessary.
NATO countries have more than 10,000 troops deployed in Poland. The last time Russia played a game of FAFO with the US,it ended poorly. Repeating that with NATO would be infinitely worse.
And no, despite Russian fanboy insistance, the US isn't low on ammo. From the Secretary of the Army's testimony to congress:
“[the Army is] comfortable that the amount of lethal assistance we’ve been providing is not eroding our readiness, but we keep a close eye on that.”
There may be issues with the amount of excess the US has to give away, I'll believe that when I see the US govt stop sending it.
It's amazing how you didn't even read the thing you quoted evidently:
What do you think" exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence" and "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" means exactly?
It means that individual countries get to decide the level of support they provide ranging from nothing to getting involved militarily.
US aims to go from making 14,000 155mm shells each month to 20,000 by the spring and 40,000 by 2025. This is the amount of shells Russia uses per day in Ukraine.
And of course, the problem for US is the state of its industry you can't just create factories, supply chains, and trained workers out of thin air the way you print money.
It's pretty clear that people who believed all the bullshit before the war have learned absolutely nothing throughout the war.
It's yog again. Take a peek at his profile and it's readily evident what he's all about. 6k posts/comments in 4 years. He's literally on here on average every day usually posting some new easily disproven/rabidly biased/propaganda. And when he does bother to argue it takes 30 seconds to deconstruct his argument after which he resorts to name calling and finally blocking you. Lol.
Still nothing to see here and likely never will be anything to see here.