Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

THE WATSONYOUTH

To: sm1th who wrote (762708)	5/11/2022 9:07:36 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation of 793928

They probably would but they wouldn't be 100 percent right (or quite 100 percent wrong either). Nothing in the NATO agreement calls for any attack. NATO members cooperated in Serbia but they could just have easily done so had NATO not existed. NATO as such wasn't a threat to the Serbian government or territory or territory they claimed or wanted at the time, various countries in NATO were, and would likely have been so without NATO. Similarly any new country joining NATO, would not create any significant increase in the threat of an attack from that country. To use Finland as an example (since its the most likely new member and since its been a topic of discussion here). Finland isn't going to attack Russia, or anyone else, NATO or not. If Finland and NATO countries both did want to attack someone (which they don't)) they could just as easily do so without Finland joining. What joining does is give Finland Article 5 protection, and make it part of the command structure increasing the already existing coordination with NATO countries.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next