DNC leak

[Yorkers]

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

Except for the fact that, you know, it's started the first war in Europe since the 90's.

Comparing the Ukraine conflict to Hitler is incredibly stupid. Shame on you.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Well good thing that will never happen. Russia is dangerous because we allow it to be.

What's so dangerous about Russia? How am I, as an American, threatened?

[New Werpland]

Because NATO desperately need the Baltics to spend money on defense.

It's not as if they'd get bulldozed no matter what if Russia decided to invade.

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

The only argument against it is that it hurts their feelings and makes them feel like they are paying tribute. In effect they would be, but without also having to fork over a bended knee and admission of inferiority. It's simply a business transaction between equal nations, which has similarities to the old tributary state model.

Because the alternative is to have the US have the oblgiations of owning tributary states... without any tribute.

Perhaps. But whatever amount of money the Baltics states can pay to the US will going to be miniscule and useless.

If you really care about NATO free riding, attack the countries that actually matter.

[Yorkers]

No, but winding down our involvement in an organization where we do everyone's bitch work and the other members act like lazy welfare queens is good for us, and dropping the war-mongering rhetoric that we need to intervene in Ukraine or against Assad is being diplomatic towards Russia.

Russia is not some Hitleresque threat.

If Hillary ever gets us into a pointless, disastrous war with Russia, I'll be expecting to see you on the frontlines, since you seem so eager.

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

They are supposed to contribute at least 2% of their GDP to defense, which barely any of them do. Instead, they expect to leech off of the American taxpayer and think that Uncle Sam is going to get in the trenches to defend their nation because they're too cowardly or lazy to do it themselves.

NATO is collective defensive, and the other nations aren't contributing to the collective.

Also what is Russia doing that means I should be scared of it. More Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorists than by Russians.

[Ostroeuropa]

If it's mutual, why aren't they doing anything meaningful to defend us? Or paying anything meaningful towards it?
Like I said, getting whiney about it is tantamount to demanding a free ride.

"I know, let's weaken our protector by free riding when we acknowledge we're absolutely fucked without them! That's a great idea!"

"The continental United States needs troops from the Baltic States to rally to its defense." Good one.

The reason the US' army is so ridiculously bloated is precisely because so many NATO countries are dodging their obligations. That might be fine, if those states were also willing to pay the money necessary to field that army.

Field a baltic army and you can then downsize the american army by an equivalent amount. That's what you're purposefully ignoring.

Instead, the US is shouldering the obligations of the entire alliance (some nations excepted) while the rest free ride.

There is an economies of scale argument to be made that its simply more efficient for the other alliance members to just pay america to do this.
The alternative is for them to start fielding their own armies allowing america to downsize, or to continue a patently unfair relationship where they exploit americas good will and free ride, which also has long-term destabilizing effects on the alliance as we are now seeing, as well as weakens America.

[Llamalandia]

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

Well, to be fair defense from what exactly? I mean maybe during the colds at it made sense for the usa to be a part of this mostly European treaty organization but now? I mean sure, don't want to minimize the contributions of NATO to the Isaf in Afghanistan, lots of brave and dedicated soldiers have helped the U.S. fight terrorism abroad. Did we really need or get that much support ?...eh not really. I mean who is NATO going to hel protect the U.S. from Canada? Mexico? Grenada? I mean come on clearly Eastern Europe has a much bigger reason to want nato than the U.S. does namely Putin.

[Yorkers]

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

The only argument against it is that it hurts their feelings and makes them feel like they are paying tribute. In effect they would be, but without also having to fork over a bended knee and admission of inferiority. It's simply a business transaction between equal nations, which has similarities to the old tributary state model.

Because the alternative is to have the US have the oblgiations of owning tributary states... without any tribute.

Perhaps. But whatever amount of money the Baltics states can pay to the US will going to be miniscule and useless.

If you really care about NATO free riding, attack the countries that actually matter.

Because it's the principle of the matter. Just because they're small doesn't mean we can excuse them being freeloaders.

[Valystria]

Which is why Trump is proposing they simply pay the USA.
I'd say they should hand over 2% of their GDP. It makes sense, and is fair.

Getting whiney about it is tantamount to freeriding and demanding americans pay money to defend your life for you while you refuse to. Handing over the money means we actually have a common defence fund and everyone contributes, rather than baltic nations, for example, being welfare queens.

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

Well done on demonstrating you apparently have no idea what a protection racket is. Either that, or you don't let pesky definitions get in your way.

[Gauthier]

Well good thing that will never happen. Russia is dangerous because we allow it to be.

What's so dangerous about Russia? How am I, as an American, threatened?

The observation that Russian interests hacked the DNC (taken in context with Trump's recorded statements) in a very likely flagrant attempt to subvert the country's electoral process aren't enough for you. I guess you have to see Little Green Men in the continental United States re-enacting the opening of Red Dawn before you finally register it.

[New Werpland]

Except for the fact that, you know, it's started the first war in Europe since the 90's.

Comparing the Ukraine conflict to Hitler is incredibly stupid. Shame on you.

Just because the Kremlin trolls say that doesn't mean it's true. The fashion in which Hitler invaded Sudetenland is indeed similar to the annexation of Crimea.

[Gauthier]

So like Trump, you consider NATO to be a protection racket rather than a mutual defense alliance.

Well done on demonstrating you apparently have no idea what a protection racket is. Either that, or you don't let pesky definitions get in your way.

You don't need to jump to Ostro's defense everytime you think someone hurt his feelings.

[Hirota]

I didn't say that or anything of the sort. I simply demonstrated your claim was factually wrong.

What?

Not sure what part of that you didn't understand. I don't want to be patronising, so clarify your question please.

[Yorkers]

What's so dangerous about Russia? How am I, as an American, threatened?

The observation that Russian interests hacked the DNC (taken in context with Trump's recorded statements) in a very likely flagrant attempt to subvert the country's electoral process aren't enough for you. I guess you have to see Little Green Men in the continental United States re-enacting the opening of Red Dawn before you finally register it.

So you're more concerned about the fact that corruption in our politics was exposed than the fact that there is corruption in our politics?

Nice to know where your priorities are.

[Yorkers]

Comparing the Ukraine conflict to Hitler is incredibly stupid. Shame on you.

Just because the Kremlin trolls say that doesn't mean it's true. The fashion in which Hitler invaded Sudetenland is indeed similar to the annexation of Crimea.

Your view of world history is like something out of a video game.

And about as simplistic, too.

[Ostroeuropa]

Perhaps. But whatever amount of money the Baltics states can pay to the US will going to be miniscule and useless.

If you really care about NATO free riding, attack the countries that actually matter.

Because it's the principle of the matter. Just because they're small doesn't mean we can excuse them being freeloaders.

I'd even be fine with a temporary emergency measure in the alliance relieving states of obligations for say, 10 years at a time, for no more than once every 50 years, if they happen to fall upon tough times. Because that too can be defended in principle.

What is absolutely indefensible is perpetual freeriding with no end in sight. That isn't deciding to waive a payment or two as a gesture of good will in the knowledge they're in a tight spot. It's just being exploited.

I agree with you that Russia isn't a military threat to the west at this time too btw. A political threat perhaps, but that's fairly tame.

If only all nations were as civilized that they did their international conflicts through political espionage.

[Yorkers]

"The continental United States needs troops from the Baltic States to rally to its defense." Good one.

The reason the US' army is so ridiculously bloated is precisely because so many NATO countries are dodging their obligations. That might be fine, if those states were also willing to pay the money necessary to field that army.

Field a baltic army and you can then downsize the american army by an equivalent amount. That's what you're purposefully ignoring.

Instead, the US is shouldering the obligations of the entire alliance (some nations excepted) while the rest free ride.

There is an economies of scale argument to be made that its simply more efficient for the other alliance members to just pay america to do this.
The alternative is for them to start fielding their own armies allowing america to downsize, or to continue a patently unfair relationship where they exploit americas good will and free ride, which also has long-term destabilizing effects on the alliance as we are now seeing, as well as weakens America.

NATO would actually be more flexible and efficient if the other countries contributed as opposed to having Uncle Sugar do all the heavy-lifting. We're over extending ourselves for what? So tiny, frozen wastelands the average American has never heard of can feel safe?

[New Werpland]

Just because the Kremlin trolls say that doesn't mean it's true. The fashion in which Hitler invaded Sudetenland is indeed similar to the annexation of Crimea.

Your view of world history is like something out of a video game.

And about as simplistic, too.

It's nice to hear that you base your politics off cliches and memes rather than thinking for yourself.

[Cymrea]

Define what the fair share of European nations is. Because any fucking loud mouth can (and does) look at a collection of much smaller nations and denigrate their individual contributions.

America is much larger, spends a fuckton of money on its military - by choice - and chooses to lead and be an example. But doing so and then whining about how we always have to lead and be an example is fucking hypocritical. And selfish. And far too many folks demonstrate those unfortunate traits. The whole bloody point of NATO is collective defense. Not some pissing contest where we shit-talk our smaller partners.

And if you don't see Russia as a very real adversary, you are grossly deluded. Tuck back NATO and see which piece of eastern Europe Putin bites off next.

They are supposed to contribute at least 2% of their GDP to defense, which barely any of them do. Instead, they expect to leech off of the American taxpayer and think that Uncle Sam is going to get in the trenches to defend their nation because they're too cowardly or lazy to do it themselves.

NATO is collective defensive, and the other nations aren't contributing to the collective.

Also what is Russia doing that means I should be scared of it. More Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorists than by Russians.

Hmmm...okay. After some more thought, I agree that all NATO partners should contribute equally. Make the obligations binding.

The hard part is that we (NATO) really do need to be a cohesive whole, but how do we convince the other nations to pull their weight?

If we threaten to boot them from NATO, and they fail to follow through: we boot them from NATO and damage the defensive stability of Europe? Or we don't and we're stuck at square one?

If America downgrades its commitments, NATO is weakened. Can we hold our partners hostage like that? Should we?

What Russia is or isn't doing is not something easily pinpointed. I sure as hell wouldn't have predicted them stealing southern Ukraine. But I think it's pretty clear that Putin's ambitions are not sated by a long shot.

[Yorkers]

Your view of world history is like something out of a video game.

And about as simplistic, too.

It's nice to hear that you base your politics off cliches and memes rather than thinking for yourself.

What cliches and memes? How am I not thinking for myself?

You're trying to convince me that Russia is this horrible monster that I need to cower in fear of and when I ask you to prove it, you just say "they undermine us".

HOW ARE THEY DOING THAT?! THINK NEW WERPLAND! THINK FOR YOURSELF!

[New Werpland]

Because it's the principle of the matter. Just because they're small doesn't mean we can excuse them being freeloaders.

I'd even be fine with a temporary emergency measure in the alliance relieving states of obligations for say, 10 years at a time, for no more than once every 50 years, if they happen to fall upon tough times. Because that too can be defended in principle.

What is absolutely indefensible is perpetual freeriding with no end in sight. That isn't deciding to waive a payment or two as a gesture of good will in the knowledge they're in a tight spot. It's just being exploited.

They perpetually free ride because they realize that whatever they spend on the military will be useless.

If we care about stopping NATO free riding, which is something to be worried about, then focus on the countries that matter not the mini-nations with 1 to 2 million people in them. Trump was obviously harping on pro-Russian rhetoric more than he was seriously bringing up an issue.

Scale matters more than principle in this case.

[New Werpland]

It's nice to hear that you base your politics off cliches and memes rather than thinking for yourself.

What cliches and memes? How am I not thinking for myself?

You're trying to convince me that Russia is this horrible monster that I need to cower in fear of and when I ask you to prove it, you just say "they undermine us".

HOW ARE THEY DOING THAT?! THINK NEW WERPLAND! THINK FOR YOURSELF!

The meme is that Russia is harmless. We're still living in a world where war in Europe can never happen (despite the fact that it is) and anyone who believes that we could be under threat is a evil war hawk, etc etc.

Pay attention to the news please.

[Gauthier]

I'd even be fine with a temporary emergency measure in the alliance relieving states of obligations for say, 10 years at a time, for no more than once every 50 years, if they happen to fall upon tough times. Because that too can be defended in principle.

What is absolutely indefensible is perpetual freeriding with no end in sight. That isn't deciding to waive a payment or two as a gesture of good will in the knowledge they're in a tight spot. It's just being exploited.

They perpetually free ride because they realize that whatever they spend on the military will be useless.

If we care about stopping NATO free riding, which is something to be worried about, then focus on the countries that matter not the mini-nations with 1 to 2 million people in them. Trump was obviously harping on pro-Russian rhetoric more than he was seriously bringing up an issue.

Scale matters more than principle in this case.

Or they're saying NATO should be like a cable channel or Netflix subscription and the amount of defense a country can get in the event of an attack is directly proportional to how much they spend. Because the Baltic States can clearly afford the Platinum Package without bankrupting themselves, but they're being cheapskates and only paying for the Basic Plan which is a handful of green recruits with drill rifles.

[Llamalandia]

Not being Donald Trump, for a start.

Hillary makes trump look like an angel. She has NO redeeming qualities, her record is abysmal, her honesty and ethics non-existent. There is literally no reason for any thinking being to want her as President.

Yeah, but I dont think most voters are "thinking being" unfortunately.

[Herskerstad]

Plausible deniability, plausible deniability everywhere.

[Gauthier]

Hillary makes trump look like an angel. She has NO redeeming qualities, her record is abysmal, her honesty and ethics non-existent. There is literally no reason for any thinking being to want her as President.

Yeah, but I dont think most voters are "thinking being" unfortunately.

Thinking beings say "Putin and Trump stronk!"

[Llamalandia]

They perpetually free ride because they realize that whatever they spend on the military will be useless.

If we care about stopping NATO free riding, which is something to be worried about, then focus on the countries that matter not the mini-nations with 1 to 2 million people in them. Trump was obviously harping on pro-Russian rhetoric more than he was seriously bringing up an issue.

Scale matters more than principle in this case.

Or they're saying NATO should be like a cable channel or Netflix subscription and the amount of defense a country can get in the event of an attack is directly proportional to how much they spend. Because the Baltic States can clearly afford the Platinum Package without bankrupting themselves, but they're being cheapskates and only paying for the Basic Plan which is a handful of green recruits with drill rifles.

Well the a again what is the point of this alliance for the U.S.? I mean communism has pretty well been defeated, war in Western Europe is basically inconceivable and if in some bizarro world a conventional military attacked the USA (I guess The DPRK might but that is a stretch) are our nato allies and their discount armies really going to be much help to us?
I mean ok, if you want to make a moral argument that the USA should intervene if nato members are attacked ok I can kinda see that, but why legally obligate ourselves to when those countries aren't meeting their own obligations to the alliance?