Politics

[alejandro46]

Finland is a strong af army. They would destroy Russia if they ever thought about invading by themselves. They both make Nato stronger. You may recall the 1939 Winter War.


Big L for Hawley.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Josh Hawley once again being a national embarassment with the only "no" vote to admit Sweden and Finland into NATO.

Any justifiable reasons at all? Or does he just insist on going against the grain with everything

Because it was an easy way to get his name in the news and he wants to be president (spoiler, ain't gonna happen).

He said he does not believe the U.S. should expand its security commitments in Europe, because America’s “greatest foreign adversary” is China.

Which is, with as maximum emphasis as possible through this medium, a fucking stupid thing to say.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358 ... embership/

Exactly. He’s not wrong in China being our greatest geopolitical adversary currently, but pretending that putting resources into Europe would somehow hinder our ability to project force in the Pacific is fucking ridiculous. Adding these two makes our long term commitment to Europe's defense that much smaller going forward

[DColeKC]

Josh Hawley is a complete tool.

[mean]

I don't like the guy, but you almost have to admire his ambition to race to the bottom as quickly as possible. It's like he drank the kool aid and is gonna at least pretend to believe he made the right life choice regardless of what the reality around him looks like.

[FangKC]

It was a stupid position to take by Hawley. Even his GOP colleagues are saying so.

Having more countries in NATO makes a stronger counter to Russian aggression. Because it becomes stronger, it actually takes some of the heat off the US because it makes the entire alliance stronger. This frees us up to counter China.

Sweden and Finland actually have very strong militaries, and they are wealthy countries that can afford to contribute to the alliance. Their people are well-trained militarily--especially in Finland. People also fail to see that it makes Putin have even more borders to defend against the Western alliance. The Russian military is actually much weaker than people know, so having to defend even more border puts them at a disadvantage.

Hawley is a complete moron when it comes to understanding history and why NATO exists. Hawley sits in Harry Truman's senate seat. Truman created NATO after WW2. It was a bulwark against Soviet aggression, but it also stopped European countries from constantly being a war with each other. NATO kept the peace in Western Europe for over 70 years and likely prevented WW3. Most analysts and historians believe it was a master stroke on Truman's part. Truman read a lot of history, and he knew the fundamental flaws that existed on the European continent that had to do with long-standing conflicts over centuries. He realized Europe needed a strict supervisor until the countries broke their former habits. He also knew how vulnerable Europe was to Stalin after the destruction and hunger of WW2.

Reagan gets the credit for ending the Cold War, but he was simply following the blueprint every president after Truman adhered to as a long-term strategy.

Hawley should be ashamed of himself for sitting in the seat of the man who created NATO. Truman would openly scorn Hawley, probably in much the same manner as former GOP Senator John Danforth has recently.

Hawley needs to go. He's made stupid mistakes ever since he got elected to the Senate. He's an embarrassment to the state. He has terrible judgment.

Hawley absolutely can never be allowed near the Oval Office. He shows fascist tendencies.

[taxi]

It's like he drank the kool aid ....

Is that what you call Trump's jism?

[DColeKC]

It's like he drank the kool aid ....

Is that what you call Trump's jism?

Lol

[Highlander]

It was a stupid position to take by Hawley. Even his GOP colleagues are saying so.

Having more countries in NATO makes a stronger counter to Russian aggression. Because it becomes stronger, it actually takes some of the heat off the US because it makes the entire alliance stronger. This frees us up to counter China.

Sweden and Finland actually have very strong militaries, and they are wealthy countries that can afford to contribute to the alliance. Their people are well-trained militarily--especially in Finland. People also fail to see that it makes Putin have even more borders to defend against the Western alliance. The Russian military is actually much weaker than people know, so having to defend even more border puts them at a disadvantage.

Hawley is a complete moron when it comes to understanding history and why NATO exists. Hawley sits in Harry Truman's senate seat. Truman created NATO after WW2. It was a bulwark against Soviet aggression, but it also stopped European countries from constantly being a war with each other. NATO kept the peace in Western Europe for over 70 years and likely prevented WW3. Most analysts and historians believe it was a master stroke on Truman's part. Truman read a lot of history, and he knew the fundamental flaws that existed on the European continent that had to do with long-standing conflicts over centuries. He realized Europe needed a strict supervisor until the countries broke their former habits. He also knew how vulnerable Europe was to Stalin after the destruction and hunger of WW2.

Reagan gets the credit for ending the Cold War, but he was simply following the blueprint every president after Truman adhered to as a long-term strategy.

Hawley should be ashamed of himself for sitting in the seat of the man who created NATO. Truman would openly scorn Hawley, probably in much the same manner as former GOP Senator John Danforth has recently.

Hawley needs to go. He's made stupid mistakes ever since he got elected to the Senate. He's an embarrassment to the state. He has terrible judgment.

Hawley absolutely can never be allowed near the Oval Office. He shows fascist tendencies.

Excellent points. Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia. So I suspect he is simply playing up to this base.

In reality (not a world Hawley lives in), Finland and Sweden make NATO a significantly stronger organization. There is a reason why Finland remained the only* WWII belligerent that shared a long border with the Soviet Union that kept its autonomy after WWII. Sweden has both a strong military and a strong military weapons industry.

*Norway has a short border with Russia and the Soviets actually abandoned their captured territory in the north of that country after WWII. Of course, nobody has any issues with Norway's presence in NATO.

[im2kull]

Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia.

Has something suddenly changed in the world that would make this NOT the present reality?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Excellent points. Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia. So I suspect he is simply playing up to this base.

Yeah, to be fair, the US is among only about a third of the member states in meeting or exceeding the 2% spending target. It definitely showed whenever we were training with allied states. Half the time all they’d bring is their soldiers; we’d provide barracks, food, hygiene facilities, Ammo, vehicles, aircraft, and pretty much anything else that makes a modern military functional.

I’m not at all saying Hawley is in any way correct about his stance, and should actively be advocating for new member states joint that come prepared with all those modern systems and capabilities, but pretending that the U.S. doesn’t shoulder the VAST majority of the burden of nato is disingenuous. I’ve seen first hand just how arduous it is to have ANY other member state except the likes of the U.K. Or Germany run a multinational operation, and 99% of the time it’s an absolute shitshow

[Highlander]

Excellent points. Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia. So I suspect he is simply playing up to this base.

Yeah, to be fair, the US is among only about a third of the member states in meeting or exceeding the 2% spending target. It definitely showed whenever we were training with allied states. Half the time all they’d bring is their soldiers; we’d provide barracks, food, hygiene facilities, Ammo, vehicles, aircraft, and pretty much anything else that makes a modern military functional.

I’m not at all saying Hawley is in any way correct about his stance, and should actively be advocating for new member states joint that come prepared with all those modern systems and capabilities, but pretending that the U.S. doesn’t shoulder the VAST majority of the burden of nato is disingenuous. I’ve seen first hand just how arduous it is to have ANY other member state except the likes of the U.K. Or Germany run a multinational operation, and 99% of the time it’s an absolute shitshow

Finland and Sweden's entry into NATO only strengthen NATO; they are not feeble nations that need to be rescued from Russia as Hawley suggests. That much is true. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has benefitted from NATO disproportionately using its presence in the organization to further its agenda and policies in the Middle East. The Europeans get security from a greatly diminished Russian military threat as part of the deal; Russia is a greater economic threat to Europe than a military threat.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Excellent points. Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia. So I suspect he is simply playing up to this base.

Yeah, to be fair, the US is among only about a third of the member states in meeting or exceeding the 2% spending target. It definitely showed whenever we were training with allied states. Half the time all they’d bring is their soldiers; we’d provide barracks, food, hygiene facilities, Ammo, vehicles, aircraft, and pretty much anything else that makes a modern military functional.

I’m not at all saying Hawley is in any way correct about his stance, and should actively be advocating for new member states joint that come prepared with all those modern systems and capabilities, but pretending that the U.S. doesn’t shoulder the VAST majority of the burden of nato is disingenuous. I’ve seen first hand just how arduous it is to have ANY other member state except the likes of the U.K. Or Germany run a multinational operation, and 99% of the time it’s an absolute shitshow

Finland and Sweden's entry into NATO only strengthen NATO; they are not feeble nations that need to be rescued from Russia as Hawley suggests. That much is true. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has benefitted from NATO disproportionately using its presence in the organization to further its agenda and policies in the Middle East. The Europeans get security from a greatly diminished Russian military threat as part of the deal; Russia is a greater economic threat to Europe than a military threat.

Don’t disagree that these nations will contribute greatly to the versatility of nato. I’m over the moon they were added. Again though, we shoulder the FINANCIAL burden of NATO and Europeans general military defense by a far and away margin. It was an absolute boon to be in NATO following 9/11, and the ensuing GWOT. NATO is far from perfect, but it’s a pretty damn solid organization to be with.

Hawley is fucking brain dead for thinking this somehow will be a negative for the US or NATO to add these two, the contrary is true. We just don’t need to pretend that NATO following the collapse of the Soviet Union was somehow financially sound for the US, or even militarily, we definitely were pulling the weight of the entire organization for quite a few years there.

[mean]

Sure, although to be fair when you choose to spend more on defense than literally the rest of the top ten defense spenders combined, it seems a little odd to then turn around and say, "damn it, why are we spending so much money?!"

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Sure, although to be fair when you choose to spend more on defense than literally the rest of the top ten defense spenders combined, it seems a little odd to then turn around and say, "damn it, why are we spending so much money?!"

For a defense agreement to be of any merit, you have to compensate for lesser spending from allied nations. The reason for the expenditure is a mix of things, but the lack of spending from other NATO Allie’s has led to the US defense expenditure, not the other way around.

[FangKC]

The addition of Sweden and Finland makes it possible that in any Russian aggression against NATO (say Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--which are most likely targets) Sweden and Finland are best positioned to respond and act as staging areas in the north. They can easily help control the Baltic Sea. In addition, they can push across the Finland-Russia border and make Russia then have to defend its own borders against attack. This draws resources away from the initial Russian invasion. It also makes a major Russian city, St. Petersburg, vulnerable. In addition, it provides new territory to launch missiles into Russia.

We have seen during the Ukraine War the weaknesses of the Russian military. It wouldn't take long to overwhelm Russian defenses if they had to defend multiple fronts. Finland and Sweden make this possible. About 80% of Finnish male citizens have had military service, so they are among the most well-trained population in the world. After their military service, the former conscripts are placed in reserve until the age of 50 or 60, depending on their military rank.

[FangKC]

Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia.

Has something suddenly changed in the world that would make this NOT the present reality?

Ukraine has demonstrated countries can make a robust defense against Russia with just US war materials and tactical support.

[im2kull]

Much of Hawley's base in Missouri believe that NATO is a totally spineless organization and it's the US that will provide the war materials and do the fighting in the event of an actual war with Russia.

Has something suddenly changed in the world that would make this NOT the present reality?

Ukraine has demonstrated countries can make a robust defense against Russia with just US war materials and tactical support.

Trust me, if Russia really wanted to crush Ukraine.. they would.

[FangKC]

Yet, they haven't. Please explain Putin's genius.

[AlkaliAxel]

Yet, they haven't. Please explain Putin's genius.

He is genius because he got Trump installed!

[alejandro46]

Has something suddenly changed in the world that would make this NOT the present reality?

Ukraine has demonstrated countries can make a robust defense against Russia with just US war materials and tactical support.

Trust me, if Russia really wanted to crush Ukraine.. they would.

“Trust me” random person on the internet. Special commenting operation going to plan.