And now I’ve clarified for you specifically what I meant. The original comment I was replying to was asking how a military alliance could function when all members aren’t pitching in. And I’ve explained what that translates to in practice. If you have hard time understanding that, then I really can’t help you further.
This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?
I think the simple answer is that the state of relative demilitarization the US has kept its subjects in is good for cultivating power when the first world has definite peace (and how could it not be, with all the US military bases in those countries?), but now that that peace is crumbling, NATO is forced to militarize more of its countries to deter/attack its enemies. That is, at least, an interpretation consistent with the headline and what Yog is saying, I think.
Yup, that’s what I think is happening. Now that the US can’t shoulder the entire burden of the MIC for NATO, the other members need to start pitching in.
And now I’ve clarified for you specifically what I meant. The original comment I was replying to was asking how a military alliance could function when all members aren’t pitching in. And I’ve explained what that translates to in practice. If you have hard time understanding that, then I really can’t help you further.
This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?
I think the simple answer is that the state of relative demilitarization the US has kept its subjects in is good for cultivating power when the first world has definite peace (and how could it not be, with all the US military bases in those countries?), but now that that peace is crumbling, NATO is forced to militarize more of its countries to deter/attack its enemies. That is, at least, an interpretation consistent with the headline and what Yog is saying, I think.
Yup, that’s what I think is happening. Now that the US can’t shoulder the entire burden of the MIC for NATO, the other members need to start pitching in.