Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
. . . if I might add, Greta Thunberg should welcome war in Ukraine because reduction in use of fossil fuels should help reduce global warming.
Scary. In light of that statement though part of the fear comes from mismanagement and old equipment not direct aggressive use.the last time that warships armed with nuclear weapons departed from the Arctic port of Severomorsk was back in the golden age of the Russian navy, during the Cold War.
In today's Telegraph:It is quite amusing to me that many of those who are calling for western backing of Ukraine in this war are often the types who have derided western defence procurement spending and sought for decades to minimize it. Now all of a sudden they want massive military expenditure, to assist a foreign, non-allied country. They have sought to undermine arms manufacturers and defence companies by labelling them as 'unethical' and pressuring pension funds and others to divest from them. Now, they are clamouring for their products.
In today's Telegraph:
Ethical investing is crushing Britain’s defence industry, ministers told
'Skin-deep' arguments are hampering advancements in military technologieswww.telegraph.co.uk
The liberal establishment wants western arms manufacturers abolished. The liberal establishment wants western arms for Ukraine. Do you follow?
Liberals on both sides of the Atlantic are enthusiasts for war, that is correct. This is what I was saying. However, they are simultaneously demonizing arms manufacturers, while relying on the products of the industry for the waging of their wars. i.e. There is a patent cognitive dissonance. They cannot decide clearly whether they want arms manufacturers to exist to help them conquer the world, or if they want to get rid of them because arms manufacturing is 'unethical'.I don't think its Liberals in the West who are against wars.
At least, as far as US goes, it seems that non-Liberals, aka. Republicans ( or Populists ) are the ones who don't want to have anything to do with wars. I would say that Republicans are "stay at home and mind your own business" party, while Democrats are "lets help our bankers make money all over the globe ( while faking a spread of democracy )".
Article 5 is not a sacred commitment, nor any kind of commitment at all. There are many get-out clauses to coming to NATO members' aid within Article 5 and within the treaty as a whole. The text of the article:Warmonger...
...
Biden vows to 'defend literally every inch of NATO' territory: 'Article 5 is a sacred commitment'
President Biden addressed the group of European nations known as the Bucharest Nine on Wednesday, stressing the need to stand up to Russian aggression and emphasizing the United States' commitment to NATO allies.
Biden's appearance at the Bucharest Nine meeting in Warsaw came as part of a European tour that saw the president stop in Ukraine and meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy before heading to Poland. The trip is taking place nearly one year to the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, kicking off a war that continues to rage on.
These get-outs were necessary for the treaty to pass through the US Congress.The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .