• confusedbytheBasics@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are you implying that if the USA stopped projecting force globally NATO would continue deter aggression like it does now? I doubt that but I’m open to changing my perspective.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am saying that the general statement about the US power keeping countries from invading is not true on its own, but that the multi country agreement that includes the US is the important part.

        Sure, most of NATOs military power comes from the US, but the overall power comes from being a united front of multiple countries.

        • confusedbytheBasics@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, most of NATOs military power comes from the US, but the overall power comes from being a united front of multiple countries.

          We can agree on that.

    • FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you claiming that the US doesn’t contribute using the defense budget to NATO? Are you claiming the US had bases in Ukraine that failed to stop the Russian invasion?

      Sorry for the question deluge, I just want to make sure I’m reading you right because I don’t think either of those things are true…

      Idk if I’m able to have an in depth conversation about this topic but I also don’t want to get you wrong, you know?

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No to everything you wrote.

        The US military power and reach on its own does not discourage countries from attacking other countries. Defensive treaties between multiple countries does, becsuse that allows for a united front that the US is part of.