Jens Stoltenberg shares his opinions of what Mr. Trump's election portends, and while his grip on reality and truth is, well, tenuous, the implications are clearly spelled out
From a former editor: admirable work, some of your best!
I'm also personally aligned with your view and conclusions. There'd be no point to quibble about points on which I simply weigh the contributing factors differently.
NATO's quest-for-sidequests already fueled several conflicts since the 1990s, but now they've bitten off the big one, and I for one hope they choke on it.
As to the points you raise, here's my tinfoil hat version of the above:
US elites know in 2014 that they were poking the Russian bear and they notoriously don't care about 'other losses'.
For them and their cronies, a drawn-out conflict is perfect, for it will make the European 'allies' (vassals) deplete their stores, which means they must buy new 'NATO standard' equipment. Remember, buying high-tech stuff means both immediate cash payments *and* long-term service/update contracts (think: AA rocket systems, jet fighters, etc.), with the latter being perhaps even more costly in terms of 'improvements' and so on.
NATO will march on, if only for more or less 'commercial' reasons; at the same time, 'rebuilding' the Ukraine (or what is left of it) will be a boon for Western companies, too. Think--private contractors in Iraq making a killing (literally) protecting 'civilian' assets and the like.
As much as I love peaceful, competitive, cooperative commercial activity, so much do I hate the corporate parasitism, the moneyprinting and the war profiteering.
Though not a libertarian myself, I take the basic libertarian approach of first discriminating whether some proposed social thing would be forced or voluntary. This helps us exercise more caution before advocating the 'good ideas' that require coercion than we do before advocating good ideas that only require cooperation.
From a former editor: admirable work, some of your best!
I'm also personally aligned with your view and conclusions. There'd be no point to quibble about points on which I simply weigh the contributing factors differently.
NATO's quest-for-sidequests already fueled several conflicts since the 1990s, but now they've bitten off the big one, and I for one hope they choke on it.
As an academic, I do enjoy flattery: many thanks.
As to the points you raise, here's my tinfoil hat version of the above:
US elites know in 2014 that they were poking the Russian bear and they notoriously don't care about 'other losses'.
For them and their cronies, a drawn-out conflict is perfect, for it will make the European 'allies' (vassals) deplete their stores, which means they must buy new 'NATO standard' equipment. Remember, buying high-tech stuff means both immediate cash payments *and* long-term service/update contracts (think: AA rocket systems, jet fighters, etc.), with the latter being perhaps even more costly in terms of 'improvements' and so on.
NATO will march on, if only for more or less 'commercial' reasons; at the same time, 'rebuilding' the Ukraine (or what is left of it) will be a boon for Western companies, too. Think--private contractors in Iraq making a killing (literally) protecting 'civilian' assets and the like.
As much as I love peaceful, competitive, cooperative commercial activity, so much do I hate the corporate parasitism, the moneyprinting and the war profiteering.
Though not a libertarian myself, I take the basic libertarian approach of first discriminating whether some proposed social thing would be forced or voluntary. This helps us exercise more caution before advocating the 'good ideas' that require coercion than we do before advocating good ideas that only require cooperation.
Ideally, the EU-nations would leave NATO one and all, and tell Trump to please and thank you close all US bases, or we'll have to ask for rent.
Now that, that would be very interesting!
And revoke the Nato Status of Forces Agreement, which would permit law enforcement to do its job vs US service personnel.