Slovakia Might Vote To Leave Nato

I would love to see NATO go away and US troops come home.

 

It's not news because it's a fanciful interpretation of events. If there's a war I'll eat your hat.

 

And yet yesterday was the first time that Greece reported to Nato that it's being driven to war, and the first time the Russian foreign minister reprimanded Turkey for searching for oil in Cypriot waters.

 

By the way it's not easy to get nukes, but staying defenceless is not a solution.

 

They don't have to be defenseless, they have to not be worth the trouble. There's two aspects to this, they have to be some mixture of sufficiently untroubling and sufficiently guarded.

Hell, the Europeans barely have a military anymore. It's not nukes or militarization keeping the US from invading Italy, it's the fact that we have absolutely no reason to invade Italy.

 

USA didn't had real reasons to invade Iraq too... Furthermore Italy have a lot of allies.

 

Well ... the FSB is just not inactive ... and does not look squeamish in the choice.
In the Ukraine all militias of the Ukrainians were and are called Nazis ... but if the same scum in Slovakia pleads for a NATO exit, that does not matter and they are supported by Moscow.

It is not new that NATO and the EU are a red cloth for Moscow, and they are scolded, denigrated and combated with every possible means. This is only the next case of Russian influence and direct support in a different country! Putin was a KGB officer and learned this business.

The last case, incidentally, was Marie Le Pen and the FN in France, who received millions from Moscow. You deny it? Well ... but does not even the FN itself deny ... only to forget and conceal!

 

Sure it did. Whether or not we understand those reasons or think they're good ones is up for debate.

Again, not what's stopping America from attacking Italy. Or Mexico. Or Japan. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or...

I think you get the point.

 

I mean some allies with nukes

 

More worrying is how the hell Slovakia got into NATO in the first place.

 

Who GAF about Ukraine? Not me for one!

 

No. They don't.
NATO has no nukes.

Nukes are all kept under the independent chains of command of their owners national governments.

NATO has no nuclear policy and no nukes.

The idea that America will trigger mutually assured destruction over little old Slovakia is truly comical in the extreme.
They won't. Nor will Britain, and nor will France. Dream on.

 

Which "allies with nukes" does Mexico have? Japan?

My only point is that nukes aren't the only way to forestall an American invasion. You could just not be troublesome to American leadership in the first place.

 

Sure, I'm with you. It only matters that the potential invaders think it's a risk not worth taking.

Worked with the Soviets.

 

They could still ally with Russia for instance but that's my points, a lot of countries should have nukes if they don't want to be exterminated by another nation at a point of their history, what if USA become totally mad ? How they could defend themselves on that case ?

 

Where?

Ah ... I remember, you will come with the nonsense of Bosnia and Kosovo again, as well Afghanistan? ROFL...

Bosnia was an UN Mandat and also Russian troops aside other Non-NATO members did too ... Kosovo was a valid Action even it is of course denied to be as usual and Afghanistan was also UN Mandat or do you think ISAF was a NATO idea only? 9/11 forgotten?

 

...
I think many People will agree with you about US troops going home ... from Europe, ME, Japan, South Korea, Diego Garcia, Cuba and many more.

But the Point is at least that this Dumbass in White House even understood the fact that NATO is mportant for the US itself and if something becomes unconfrotable because someone in NATO is saying no to Washington, then the US does better not Play the childish BS!

 

I think if Americans leave Diego Garica, only some Pelicans will notice.
There is probably some Brits there, but as I understand it, the Brits removed all indigenous inhabitants long ago. I doubt there were very many.

It works in combination.
If I put 30,000 US servicemen/citizens in Slovakia and you attack Slovakia I may nuke to defend my own people where I would not nuke to defend theirs.
So we have blocking armies, backed up with nuclear weapons.

Usually however it does not work that way. No nukes were used in any Cold War battle. Americans simply withdrew. (After giving damn good battle of course). Vietnam, Korea etc.

 

They couldn't.

You know what might make the US "totally mad?" Every nation on Earth building nuclear weapons.

 

We're in agreement, there needs to be a mixed strategy. That's why I like NATO. But understand, by the 50s the Red Army could've swept Western forces aside with little trouble. Only the very real threat of nuclear war stayed their hand.

 

And in the 40's too. Frankly they still can to this day.

What I think is more apparent to us now however, is their lack of intention to do so.
We should of course always be planning for capability rather than intention. Moods change.

 

Yes, but from an outside point of view, you don't need this, neither Hillary or Trump looks life perfectly balanced.

 

These threats have been going on for decades, usually in the Spring to discourage tourism, so Greece keeps it undercover. It also forces Greece to buy more and more arms so as to halt any invasion and it is one of the reasons Greece fell into debt.

There have been some attempted invasions of islands by Turkey and even recently the coup officers were going to invade Thrace to garner favor with the Turkish people.

At Easter in 2016, they planned on invading the island of Oenousis off Chios which is strategically located, but the Greek army took notice of it and added fortifications..

Now the Turkish incursions into Greek waters are much worse because of the pressure on Greece to declare its EEZ, so that they were forced to complain to Nato that they are being driven to war. If a war does start, it will probably be by some false flag incident by Turkey...

 

THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE: May 29, 1453. Europe and Turkey.

The fall of Constantinople brought to a head many trends already under way. One was the slide of the Byzantine empire’s power, as the loss of Anatolian lands left it short of revenue and recruits, and thus more dependent on fickle Italian allies; another the flight of Greek scholars (particularly brilliant in Byzantium’s final years) to Italy, where they helped to stimulate the Renaissance.

Yet another was the emergent contest in south-eastern Europe between the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The Turks were besieging Vienna in 1683 and repeatedly at war with Russia or Austria in the 130 years thereafter. They held southern Greece until 1832, today’s Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia and nominally Serbia until 1878, the lands south of these down to liberated Greece until 1913. Hence the Muslim pockets—Albania, Bosnia—that for most Europeans today are the only reminder that the country they see as a source of cheap, resented, migrant labour was once a mighty power in Europe.

But a part of Europe? Allied with Germany in the first world war, and therefore stripped of their remaining Middle Eastern empire, the Turks by 1922 were strong enough again to drive Greece’s troops, and centuries of Greek society, from Anatolia. Old enmities were resharpened by the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974. If the European Union still hesitates, despite Turkey’s decades inside NATO, about its wish for EU membership too, the real reasons lie centuries deep; not least in 1453.