US threatens to annex Greenland - 2025/2026

[gitana1]

NATO consists of 32 members, modern, well developed countries of Europe and Northern America. The US are but one of them. Right now the US, IMO spiralling right into totalitarian dictature and economical insanity, is not an anchor. It's, IMO, the balast that drags NATO down and disables it's functioning. Russia is a danger to multiple NATO members, yet NATO can't do much, being blocked in it's initiatives by the US. That is not being anchor, that's putting stick into wheel. IMO, of course.

Yes. They are modern and well developed. But we have the military might that anchors NATO. Or, at least, we USED to be that anchor.

I agree we are putting a stick into the wheel. But without our military backing, there isn’t a complete wheel. NATO is in grave danger of collapse.

 

[Hexe]

Yes. They are modern and well developed. But we have the military might that anchors NATO. Or, at least, we USED to be that anchor.

I agree we are putting a stick into the wheel. But without our military backing, there isn’t a complete wheel. NATO is in grave danger of collapse.

If the remaining members keep calm and collaborating NATO can be rebuilt without the US and without losing that much power. On the other hand much of the US powers stems from the military bases all around the world. Losing all European ones would diminish it a lot.

MOO

 

[Rikissa]

Yes. They are modern and well developed. But we have the military might that anchors NATO. Or, at least, we USED to be that anchor.

I agree we are putting a stick into the wheel. But without our military backing, there isn’t a complete wheel. NATO is in grave danger of collapse.

But is the US government of today interested in aiding/protecting the Europen NATO member countries in case of an attack? Perhaps they see the "1984" scenario as more ideal.

 

[Hexe]

But is the US government of today interested in aiding/protecting the Europen NATO member countries in case of an attack?

Does not seem so, considering said government is all buddy-buddy with Putin, whose Russia is a threat to multiple European NATO members.

MOO

 

[Rikissa]

Does not seem so, considering said government is all buddy-buddy with Putin, whose Russia is a threat to multiple European NATO members.

MOO

I was not thinking about a war, just a division of the world into three pieces, each continent under the rule of 'one strong man', a perfect 'buddy' solution.

 

[Hexe]

I was not thinking about a war, just a division of the world into three pieces, each continent under the rule of 'one strong man', a perfect 'buddy' solution.

How do you imagine such a division, against the will of people, achieved without war?

Also, there are more than three continents in the world.

 

[Rikissa]

How do you imagine such a division, against the will of people, achieved without war?

Also, there are more than three continents in the world.

War/occupation by each of the three of their areas, but not war between/against each other.

As for more than three continents, have you read "1984"? (Only the yellow area larger than here.)

Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ruminations]

If the remaining members keep calm and collaborating NATO can be rebuilt without the US and without losing that much power. On the other hand much of the US powers stems from the military bases all around the world. Losing all European ones would diminish it a lot.

MOO

It pains me, because the USA is my country.

But NATO countries are going to have to form an alliance without the US. Weaker than with the US? It's a moot point.

US has already dropped out as far as I'm concerned, or would be concerned if I were the other NATO countries.

The fact is, the other NATO countries will greatly reduce US power in the world if they make an alliance without the US. And if US wants that power back, let us have free elections, civil rights, a government that is not corrupt, and maybe they will let the US in, too.

MOO