Should the EU build their own army

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

@Lyubov Even if Ukraine, Belarus, and Finland would join Nato: not even then would Russia be surrounded. Not even close.

also didn't say they're surrounded just that they "feel" surrounded

also as i said with the fear of countries like Georgia, Armenia joining

would you prefer the word encroached or pushed back than surrounded?

 

[Blackhawk]

Just now, Lyubov said:

It absolutely would. Russia is basically impenetrable from the south, north and east. You are aiming at the head of a turtle with those countries in NATO. 

Nope. Look at the map.

[Blackhawk]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

would you prefer the word encroached or pushed back than surrounded?

No, this is about the word "surrounded", because that is the word which Kremlin uses for its bs narrative.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Blackhawk

[Lyubov]

4 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Nope. Look at the map.

I have, most of that land it borders (that leads straight into Russia's capital) is as flat as a piece of paper. They are incredibly vulnerable there. Look up history on battles in WWII and also the French invasion of Russia. They have a long history of being invaded there.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Lyubov

[PurpleTree]

5 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Nope. Look at the map.

yea but the most important cities in russia st. petersburg and moscow are on the western side of russia

 

 

[Blackhawk]

@Lyubov @PurpleTree No amount of you trying to twist it will make you right.

If Russia would be a "law abiding citizen" (peaceful/non-offensive), then it would be fine with being 100% surrounded by Nato. Like many peaceful countries already are.

There is 0% risk that Nato would unprovokedly/offensively attack Russia.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Blackhawk

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk said:

@Lyubov @PurpleTree No amount of you trying to twist it will make you right.

If Russia would be a "law abiding citizen" (peaceful/non-offensive), then it would be fine with being 100% surrounded by Nato. Like many peaceful countries already are.

There is 0% risk that Nato would unprovokedly/offensively attack Russia.

what are we trying to "twist"?

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, K Ghoul said:

I think Putin doesn’t want Ukraine join NATO right now because Russia will have to immediately leave Donetsk and Lugansk alone as Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

no country which is involved in a conflict can join NATO so it's impossible

also do you think a country like Germany, Poland, Greece and so on would attack Russia for Ukraine and risk nuclear destruction ?

[Emrie]

I think it's smart. Strength in numbers, sharing resources, better coordination among EU countries, all good things!

It's also about becoming more independent from the US, good thing if you ask me. Can't rely on the US to fight all Europe's wars, gotta show their own strength.

Of course there's also absolutely nothing that prevents the EU army to ally itself with the US either. That EU army could have some kind of NATO-type alliance with the US.

If China or Russia were to suddenly attack the EU, you bet the US would be happy to come help the second they heard of it, just because they want to defend their ideology.

[Blackhawk]

5 hours ago, Emrie said:

I think it's smart. Strength in numbers, sharing resources, better coordination among EU countries, all good things!

It's also about becoming more independent from the US, good thing if you ask me. Can't rely on the US to fight all Europe's wars, gotta show their own strength.

Of course there's also absolutely nothing that prevents the EU army to ally itself with the US either. That EU army could have some kind of NATO-type alliance with the US.

If China or Russia were to suddenly attack the EU, you bet the US would be happy to come help the second they heard of it, just because they want to defend their ideology.

There's no need for that because almost all EU countries are already in Nato. So it would just be a duplication. If you think that getting help from USA is such a terrible thing, then you can simply activate article 5 in Nato and then say to USA: "thanks, but you don't need to contribute to this mission, we'll do this without you."

A EU-army will never happen because it's a retarded idea and most EU countries are strongly against it, for example Sweden is.

[BlueOak]

There was a time when Russia was closer to actually joining Nato, what a different world that would have been.

On the EU's army. Until the last few years heck no, we don't want to encourage further militarisation.

Right now yes. Its needed. The world is less stable than ever. When I see the UK cutting its military budget I sigh. I think individual countries struggle to justify having a large military budget, but large alliances can do so with less domestic push back.

Edited January 13, 2022 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Right now yes. Its needed. The world is less stable than ever. 

than ever? probably not

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

than ever? probably not

True I regretted that when I wrote it. 1st world war era was more tense for example, middle ages etc.

Certainly in my lifetime of 40+ years though, this is the most tense period I can recall.

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

True I regretted that when I wrote it. 1st world war era was more tense for example, middle ages etc.

Certainly in my lifetime of 40+ years though, this is the most tense period I can recall.

really? 

my mother was really paranoid during cold war era 70, early 80s that ww3 would break out

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

really? 

my mother was really paranoid during cold war era 70, early 80s that ww3 would break out

I was born in the early 80s UK. So I don't have a point of reference for the 70's much beyond what history I was taught, which wasn't much of the immediate era preceeding that. History lessons were mostly focused on the medieval period, ww2, ww1, renaissance etc.

Its possible tensions were higher in the cold war period between two large alliances. Certainly a 40 year old american who also was born afterwards, might well say that, but we didn't talk about it in England after the fact much. Whereas we are still talking about the middle east, china borders, russia borders, european nationalism, (rise of the right generally), disinformation and polarization are at the highest i've ever seen them globally.

People focus on two countries still today in discussion, but I am talking about all the border disputes currently ongoing and internal tensions which have been arrising for the last couple of decades or so.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes here are the external ones, but there is plenty of internal powershifts going on right now that you see talked about.