|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
1533 days ago
|
|
|
> No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Why? Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation expressed first in a letter from their President to NATO in 1991, formalized when they joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994, and at the time the first three on your list were admitted still being actively worked toward by both the Russian and NATO sides? |
|
|
So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late.
>>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation
Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force.
How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?