Subj : NATO
To : Kaelon
From : Arelor
Date : Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm
Re: NATO
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Tue Aug 01 2023 05:05 pm
> NATO becomes unpopular among jingoistic circles and among pacifists, but it > ts guarantees for its sovereignty and simultaneous participation in the US/E > hat -- in the next 24-36 months.
You keep making my case.
Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries to
pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be Socialistic. In
other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is good for the
protectees.
I don't agree this is the state of things, but if it was, then the situation
would be unstable as heck. Protectorate models tend to crumble (and
historically do) because they suck for the protectees.
BUt in this case it is even worse because the protectees that must pay
protection money are activelly becoming poorer and demolishing their economies
in an ordered manner, to the point they won't be able to be Socialistic even
with help. Unindustrialized countries have less ability to pay protection
money.
I am not saying the NATO will collapse because of this effect, but it is a
matter of time that anti-NATO political movements will raise even more because
they want the money used for military bases addressed to Hospitals instead. Thelevel of compromise from certain countries is very low.
The party in power in Spain right now used to run many anti-American campaigns
and has a history of withdrawing military support from hot zones other NATO
members were covering. I expect most members without colonialistic interests tokeep a similar level of compromise.
It looks functional but feeble to me.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
---
� Synchronet � Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
