Pakistan’s army is so easy to bribe that the USA hasn’t even used the CIA to achieve their goals lol. They stratightup just let the foreign ambassador handle it because they’d do anything for an IMF loan and security for their elite famlies.
Hilarious how their #1 threat is a jailed populist and not any of the terrorism from Afghanistan or military threat from India.
No. There’s no plausible deniability here. These bands’ whole gimmick is that they’re Nazis. It’s not some catchy tune you randomly heard on the radio. There is nothing subtle about it. It’s racist songs with racist lyrics. You would have to seek it out to listen to this garbage.
In a country of 124m people that has every subculture you could imagine, I can absolutely guarantee you that there are Japanese nazis. (They were a part of the axis after all.)
Being smart is not a pre-requisite to being a nazi. It’s actually a hindrance.
Also, can we appreciate how desperate and nonsensical that entire argument was?
Okay, lots of them are Japanese. So… what about the ones that aren’t? Why isn’t that person concerned about the one who absolutely understand what it means?
And secondly… it’s still a huge red flag that Japanese customers were going so far out of their way to buy extremely obscure music from racist bands from an overtly Nazi music seller. If an American specifically imported music from a Japanese shop only racists know or care about, covered in Axis power imagery, that’d still point towards being a huge racist.
That user is seriously turning themselves in knots to defend people who buy Nazi music from the Nazi store.
This might surprise you, but Japan has very close ties with fascism. Ever seen the Japanese flag with the rays coming from the center red sun? That’s the flag of Imperial Japan, a fascist terror that scarred much of Asia. Japan refuses to denounce their war crimes, and there are an unfortunate number of reactionary fascists who use the flag of Imperial Japan as a symbol they support.
I’m absolutely not saying that every Japanese person is a fascist, not even close. I am, however, saying that I’m fairly confident that these particular Japanese fans are aware of the Nazi ideology of the bands they listen to, and listen precisely because of that.
You are defending the indefensible, would you give the benefit of the doubt to a p*do ring too? They are fucking Nazis, have been open about this for three decades they sell Nazi paraphernalia, they host Nazism bands. You accidentally listening to Celine Dion once doesn’t compare.
People are indeed becoming unhinged with all this misplaced tolerance: fascists need to be dealt with straight away, we have so many examples in history about what happens when you hive them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t believe this site’s been up since the 90s.
I’ve listened to songs with suicidal lyrics, I’m not suicidal
A song with “suicidal lyrics” is not even remotely comparable to the albums this site sells, which is why they don’t need a dedicated pro-suicide website to sell them on.
Would you rush to defend an album put out by ISIS, that pushed the agenda of ISIS, with all profits going to ISIS?
It’s getting exhausting seeing people become increasingly unhinged and justifying it because “well, they’re baddies.”
Then maybe you should explain your exhaustion to the group responsible for their overwhelming majority of mass shootings, who openly celebrate the killing of black and LGBT+ people, rather than someone you’ve decided isn’t appropriately sad that neo-nazis got exposed for doing a thing they did.
I like folk music and industrial music. The overlap of the two seems to also have a disproportionate overlap of … what’s the best way to put it?… fascist-adjacent music. Imagery, themes, etc.
Am I a fascist? No.
Are the artists fascist? I don’t know, Boyd Rice Douglas P/Death In June sure has had some controversies about him, but he’s not been banned from streaming services. But In some ways I don’t care, I don’t have the time to unpick every lyric, image and interview from the artists I listen to, to make a decision on their political views. I just like the music. Open a public playlist and listen.
None of the music I listen to appears to be sold on Midgard. But does that mean they’re not fascist?
Probably no need to worry. I like folk and especially nordic folk music (as in Wardruna, not Bob Dylan), which is very obviously something a neo-nazi would also probably like, if only for the superficial themes at play. I used to feel a bit afraid I might accidentally like and support someone I wouldn’t want to, but I’ve come to learn that these shops like midgard, they don’t have those kinds of “normal” releases usually, since they as a shop are often also banned on distributors’ side, so they couldn’t even get them if they wanted. At least eventually that’d kick in, as people report the shop to the bands or labels.
The music and merch these shops sell are… very obviously neo-nazi. I recommend you take a look at the shop just to get an idea, though obviously a content warning is necessary here.
This is all to say that unless the music you listen to is very obviously racist or neo-nazi or otherwise explicitly problematic, I wouldn’t worry.
Of course I might myself be wrong here, but I’ve tried to keep up and stay up to date as to which bands I like could be or turn out problematic.
None have so far, at least as far as I’m aware.
They’d have to be very explicit. I think you’d know for sure, if that was the case.
I listen to a lot of music like wardruna, I simply love the mysticism and the atmosphere of history, magic and rawness, but all of the ones I listen to are actively and publicly denouncing their music being used or approbiated by neo-nazis or other far-right movements or groups.
I think a lot of people would make a lot of noise, if one of the more popular ones would refuse to publicly denounce that. Or otherwise dodged these questions. Some, like Wardruna, are very actively and explicitly fighting those forces and are in a sense “reclaiming” some of the themes and fascinations that nazis and neo-nazis used to have, especially in norse mythology and history and their themes.
I am no longer anxious about being associated with wrong music. I think it’ll be very obvious if a band or a brand otherwise, takes a dodgy stance or especially very explicitly supports those dangerous ideals.
Which is to say, I wouldn’t worry, unless the lyrics, branding and themes are very explicit in their meaning.
Douglas P of Death in June (who I meant to reference in my original post) sells (sold?) Algiz Rune pins, and stickers of Totenkophs on rainbow backgrounds (but, he’s openly homosexual) as band merch.
Sol Invictus was formed by Tony Wakefield, who got kicked out of Death in June for being too right wing; and then he subsequently went on to create Above the Ruins for the National Front (interestingly, used to be banned but is back on Spotify), (but now regrets it).
Von Thronsthal use a logo very close to the Schwarze Sonne, and self-published under “Fasci-Nation Recordings”.
You don’t need to be a fascist to make excuses for fascists, but it’s bizarre that you read my comment about all the apologists the decided “he just hasn’t heard my brilliant apologise yet”.
You can drop the “it could happen to you” act because it almost certainly won’t. For this site and those albums, “I just didn’t have time to unpick what the lyric ‘until every kike is dead’ meant” isn’t even a remotely plausible excuse.
Fucking nazi’s taking Dead Kennedys satires as straight-faced and messing up the concert scene so they wrote this little song which left very little space for misunderstanding (even for nazi idiots).
I certainly wouldn’t listen to Neo-Nazi music no matter how nice the tunes are, because I personally couldn’t stand supporting literal fucking Nazis and listening to Nazi bullshit.
It’s not like the Nazis are the only ones making music, there are countless good, leftist bands out there. There aren’t slim pickings, there are oceans of good music out there.
Benefit of the doubt is a huge deal. It’s entirely possible to enjoy music and have NO idea of the message, themes, content, etc. source: Pumped Up Kicks.
Edit to add: Iced Earth. Really fun power metal band. Loved a ton of their stuff, and then found out the bands lead was arrested at the jan. 6 riot. That stuff doesn’t really bleed into their music, and I was avoiding them for a while because of it, but at the end of the day, the music is good, and that’s why we listen to music.
Pumped Up Kicks is explicit satire, not an actual call for school shootings.
Let me ask this: what makes more sense, a random, specifically Japanese group of people, enjoys northern European Neo-Nazi music for the tunes? Or, perhaps, the fact that Japan has legitimate fascist movements, and historical ties to fascism without heavily denouncing them like Germany, means fascists are likely to search out more fascist music?
I understand your point, but it’s incredibly hard to just randomly stumble upon fascist music and enjoy it for the vibes. This is a specific level of dedication in a country with higher than normal levels of support for fascism.
If people break the law, we restrict their freedom. Many seem to oppose that idea nowadays, or at least claim to. There’s a certain irony in that. But yes, if an individual breaks the social contract in a manner deemed “against the law”, then certain rights are removed from them.
The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it's not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of "X people don't deserve human rights" and "those who don't support taking rights away from X are equal to X" is especially atrocious.
The tolerance paradox is bullshit. Source: Daryl Davis, the black dude who converted a ton (like over 80) KKK members by just being a tolerant human to them.
You have to tolerate the person, not the message. You can say “you’re a valid human being” and “the stuff that comes out of your mouth is actually terrible” at the same time. Doing anything else pushes all of those valid humans with bad ideas together and makes a big echo chamber.
He didn’t say we should just say gas them to death (like they’d do to some of us in a heartbeat), he just pointed out they deserve no right to be aggressive against minorities.
I see no issue there. If they want to be decent citizens there’s an easy solution to that; stop being a nazi.
Edit: I otherwise agree with your comment, as they probably need some deprogramming to actually achieve said solution.
So you’re saying for example a woman gets brought up in an environment where she’s raised as a nazi you think that it’d be acceptable for someone to rape and beat her?
I don’t really think you do, I’m not going to bother listing other examples but you get the point - what you’re saying is not only absurd but it’s clearly not what you actually believe.
All people are people, it’s that simple and there’s no more to it.
The first sentence you posted is exactly the thread that line of thought leads down. Disenfranchised people need to be talked to, met with empathy from the people they’ve been told are The Other. That’s the only way to destigmatize the two from each other.
No, I was saying Nazis have a history of death and destruction, while people leaning towards democracy tend to be a little more gentle with their fellow man.
Nobody deserves to be beaten or raped and I certainly didn’t imply that.
You literally said they should have no rights, I get that you hadn’t thought about what you were saying but I really think it’s important to think about the implications of things we say.
I’d link that clip everyone always uses about the law Vs satan but it’s overused, surfice to sau dehumanising humans isn’t a thing good people do - and yes I know it’s popular to at the moment but when I was a kid everyone thought calling things gay as an insult was a great thing and we as a society grew from that so we can grow from this.
I obviously meant they shouldn’t have any rights to practice their nazism or do harmful things to whomever they dislike so much, not that they shouldn’t have any human rights.
I feel like this should’ve been fairly obvious given the context of the conversation. Human rights should always be the first concern no matter who it concerns. Do you think nazis feel the same way?
With all due respect, with just how many people are literally calling for violence in this thread, no, I didn’t connect those dots either. If you’re actually truthful about not meaning they shouldn’t have human rights, I’d strongly consider editing your previous statement. If you leave it, you’re feeding into the hate echo chamber that you actually seem pretty opposed to. Words have got to be specific, if you’re going to speak in absolutes, or people WILL misunderstand or mischaracterize you.
They might, but from my point of view human rights are a given in every situation. I also feel strongly about every human being holding the same value regardless of their standing in society.
I thought we were discussing what could be done to curb nazism, and again, I didn’t mention any sort of violence anywhere. I thought it was clear that I meant that Nazis shouldn’t have rights to do harm to others, or do other hateful things. I was in no way advocating removing their human rights.
“they’d do that to us in a heartbeat” is both wrong (not every person who entertains these ideas actually wants to kill anyone) and also not even a good point. If you want to improve the world noticeably, you have to be BETTER THAN not the same as. Go talk to a nazi, actually understand what they think and feel, and figure out where that disconnect is.
There’s no paradox if you look at it as a social contract. If you don’t uphold your part of the contract (tolerating others) then you aren’t entitled to benefits from the contract (being tolerated by others).
I wonder how tough or easy it was for Egypt to destroy the tunnels. Or how fast they started breathing again. How do the people create anti-flooding systems in there? Complex but very interesting topic.
Wait, you mean when you commit war crimes and murder 1200+ civilians, it creates support for the right wing hawks, and there are repercussions? I’m shocked!
When you indiscriminately lob rockets into civilians population centers of a country eith a superior military you get bloodied? No fucking way!
I’m actually extremely worried about this constitutional overreach. Under many sane readings of the constitution, this isn’t a power congress has. The president has a few unilateral powers in order to check the mob rules (or rather the external capture of congress.)
Ideally a president should be able to unilaterally dissolve all alliances and other undue foreign influence on our legislature. Otherwise there is no way to recover form this sham of democracy.
The article suggest this legislation has bi-partisan support.
I'm afraid Americans will have to decide if this is a good or bad thing based on the merits of the case and the actual legislation, rather than on which party is in favour of it.
Not at all if you are viewing American democracy through the view of parties you don’t actually support democracy at all. And I view this as extremely troubling and undermining the separation of powers.
I view this as extremely troubling and undermining the separation of powers.
Not American, but I don't get why. AFAIK your constitution literally says that the senate gets a say in treaties. Article II, section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Now obviously, that's far more rare in recent history, IRC stuff mainly gets done by executive agreements, but that's mainly because the government signs far more crap. Makes perfect sense that congress gets a say in the big stuff. Prime example I can think of, is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which was signed by the president but not ratified by congress. I'm sure there are more. Not something particularly new.
In fact, I googled and apparentlyt the most recent vote was on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Obama had signed but was ultimately rejected by congress. That was unfortunate, but I don't see how that undermined the seperation of the powers either.
if you are viewing American democracy through the view of parties you don’t actually support democracy at all.
Congress is elected, no? This legislation was approved by an overwhelming majority.
If anything, as an outsider I find it troubling that the presidency has become more and more imperial. The president's just one guy. Obviously, what do I know, I'm just a foreigner. Maybe the US is different than France, which has similar issues. But plenty of your countrymen agree and historically agreed with me:
There is a lot to unpack here, and I promise I will not be able to address all of your questions. But I will try.
First the overall problem I have with American democracy is that it is controlled by a single class of people who will donate equally to the two parties to ensure that they will get what they want regardless of who gets elected. These types of donors aren’t concerned with individual rights like abortion, protesting, police brutality, racism, housing etc. They just want to make sure that funding for foreign wars and arms deals aren’t interrupted. So the wars in Ukraine, Israel, afganistan, iraq, the various arms deals with saudi arabia, japan, morocco, the EU, municipal police etc etc are never in-question.
The second problem is the delusion that the populace has any control what-so-ever over public policy. The congress and the senate operate entirely without oversight. The incumbent advantage is overwhelming. In the last 10 years the US has re-elected at least 3 people who could not be described as functional humans to the senate. (Feinstein, McCane, McConnell), these senators shouldn’t have been fit for office AT ALL. But the fact that they are able to be re-electice is indicative of the problem. So when a captured institution like the Senate starts to encroach upon presidential powers it is cause for alarm.
The president is by design more receptive to the public then and of the rest of the federal office holders. So when a bunch of corporate mouth pieces start to get upset about a president rejecting defense pacts that amount to 100 of billions of dollars a year in defense contracts I see cause for concern, even if the wolves bipartisianally agreed to eat the sheep.
I was about to ask if, since you’re “extremely worried” about this (seemingly esoteric) potentially unconstitutional move, how you cope with the rest of the world.
Then I saw the second paragraph and it seems that you don’t.
It is funny because it is the opposite actually. Former senates and presidents actually clashed over foreign policies, it is only in recent times that presidents were more or less left to decide. So, I guess there is a bit of projection going on here.
Laws are made by Congress. This is exactly the power Congress has. In your opinion, who would make laws if Congress didn’t have that power, a dictator?
Under many sane readings of the constitution, this isn’t a power congress has.
The constitution only explicitly articulates the process for establishing treaties, not ending them. So it's a bit of a gray area as to whether the president can end them by himself, since he can't establish them by himself.
To my mind, it would seem exceedingly weird if establishing a treaty required the consent of the Senate but breaking one didn't. What's the argument to be made that the two aspects (establish/break) are so fundamentally different that the rules for the first aren't also the rules for the second? Why does the president need consent to say yes but does not need consent to say no?
It's definitely been done before, but also never directly contested. (In previous cases SCOTUS has avoided answering the question by saying they didn't have jurisdiction.)
I don’t want to argue the specifics of breaking/establishing a general treaty (though i’m sure that is an amazingly interesting analysis). But I do want to discuss at a naive level the results of a US president refusing to enforce NATO. Without being overly factual, I understand NATO to be a mutual defense treaty ratified and renegotiated from the post-ww2 era til now. It was created by the US and former Allied Forces except Russia, to contain perceived Russian/Communist aggression.
From the genesis of this treaty( 1948), the US was understood to be the “enforcer” of it. Sure other nations would support the US and generally contribute to Article5, but in-practice and dollars, the US legitimized NATO.
So if a modern US president decided to publicly announce that he would no-longer respect NATO without additional justifications, how can the Senate enforce NATO without the US President and thus the Armed Forces support?
So if a modern US president decided to publicly announce that he would no-longer respect NATO without additional justifications, how can the Senate enforce NATO without the US President and thus the Armed Forces support?
Sadly they would only have one option left, Impeachment. And that is such a fraught political process that it’s use and success would be in serious doubt. The House might vote to send Articles of Impeachment up to the Senate, but actually getting enough GOP Senators on board with removing a GOP President seems like a long shot. I think much of it would turn on who the Vice President is. If Trump somehow picks a more traditional Republican as VP, then there may be some desire in the Senate, from more moderate Republicans, to remove Trump. If Trump (as is more likely) picks some horrible ass-licker as VP, the GOP may look at the situation as having to remove both Trump and the VP and then end up with the Presidency falling to the Speaker of the House. While that might still be a Republican, this is also a pretty large embarrassment for the GOP, not something they will want to face lightly. And it’s also possible for the House to flip to the Democrats in 2024. So, the GOP in the Senate may be unwilling to accept removing a GOP President for a Democratic one. The Senate could try to engineer the transition of power such that a GOP care-taker President ends up in power (basically Gerald Ford’s path); but, one also wonders if the harder left wing of the Democrats would take a hard line against such a deal, seeing this as an opportunity to completely blunt a GOP Presidency. It wouldn’t work, we’d just end up one vote short for Conviction in the Senate for Impeachment. But, that’s the sort of political calculation which would need to be made.
Congress could also try to force the President’s hand by using budget votes and thew Power of the Purse. But, I don’t see Trump responding to that in a rational enough way to matter, This is a guy would would be completely willing to shutdown the US Government in a temper tantrum over a Happy Meal toy. He’;s not going to respond well to being told to play nice with our allies.
Only a fascist trying to be a dictator would actually do this.
Sounds like rather than patchwork mini laws like this, they need to revamp the system to ensure no single person can take such drastic overreaching action.
Lets not forget that a president/prime minister isn’t the singular person in charge, they’re merely the figurehead/frontman of an entire government of elected people, as well add representing their party, and of course ultimately are a civil servant working at the pleasure of the people.
95% of the things the president does should go through proper democratic channels within the government and not simply rubber stamped by a single person, that path is the path towards dictatorship.
The few exceptions are rare things that can’t be put to a vote or through regular channels, like launching nukes, etc. But these are exceptions only.
There should never have been a situation where it was possible for a president to personally decide to change the future of the entire nation and indeed world, in such a dramatic and drastic way, without any checks and balances to ensure that it is the will of the people, out even the will of anyone else in government.
Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform, rather than just making this one little change :-(
Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform
Unfortunately the US founder had the same idea as you about reform. IE no one person or small group should be able to do so.
Now over decades Heck centuries. Power has migrated to the president. As groups continued to objects to slow change. So took the easy answer of trusting one elected member.
But any change to significantly limit power. Would need the constitution to be reworked to limit such power. Would require a huge approval. 66% of every state I think.
The very fact that Congress has to worry about such things. Is clear evidence such agreement is not and may never be possible.
Doing something completely and plainly undemocratic to preserve “democracy” certified classic. I’m sure there’s still some way to get out still, but, NATO forever no looking back I guess. The completely real and not totally contrived “north atlantic community” me and my closest friends across half the world.
Democracy is a popular vote for everything with no voter suppression. Not electing chumps to get bribed. Want to end war? End poverty? Let the people vote. Socialism here we come.
There are many forms of democracy. Representative democracy is one and you seem to like direct democracy. I know that I don’t have time for direct democracy… there is just too much going on. But there might be a middle ground.
So if the Congress passes money to the settler colonial state of Israel to genocide and exterminate the country of Palestine, would it be democratic? Oh wait…
Are you confusing what is democratic with what is supporting democracy? Democracy is just a system of government. A democratic country can nuke another democratic country and still be democratic. We could say they are not supporting democracy in other countries, but that’s not what anyone is talking about here.
This deterrent effect doesn’t come just from the NATO treaty ... Deterrence comes from the Kremlin’s conviction that Americans really believe in collective defense, that the U.S. military really is prepared for collective defense, and that the U.S. president really is committed to act if collective security is challenged. Trump could end that conviction with a single speech, a single comment, even a single Truth Social post, and it won’t matter if Congress, the media, and the Republican Party are still arguing about the legality of withdrawing from NATO. Once the commander in chief says “I will not come to an ally’s aid if attacked,” why would anyone fear NATO, regardless of what obligations still exist on paper? ... When I asked several people with deep links to NATO to imagine what would happen to Europe, to Ukraine, and even to Taiwan and South Korea if Trump declared his refusal to observe Article 5, all of them agreed that faith in collective defense could evaporate quickly. Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a former deputy secretary-general of NATO, pointed out that Trump could pull the American ambassador from his post, prevent diplomats from attending meetings, or stop contributing to the cost of the Brussels headquarters, all before Congress was able to block him: “He wouldn’t be in any way legally constrained from doing that.” Closing American bases in Europe and transferring thousands of soldiers would take longer, of course, but all of the political bodies in the alliance would nevertheless have to change the way they operate overnight. James Goldgeier, an international-relations professor at American University and the author of several books on NATO, thinks the result would be chaotic. “It’s not like you can say, ‘Okay, now we have another plan for how to deal with this,’ ” he told me. There is no alternative leadership available, no alternative source of command-and-control systems, no alternative space weapons, not even an alternative supply of ammunition. Europe would immediately be exposed to a possible Russian attack for which it is not prepared, and for which it would not be prepared for many years.
e to an ally’s aid if attacked,” why would anyone fear NATO, regardless of what obligations still exist on paper? … When I asked several people with deep links to NATO to imagine what would happen
So should the president be commander-in-chief or not? Normally liberals aren’t quite so mask-off and in favor of a military junta, but please, tell me how you square this circle.
If you are viewing actions of the legislature strictly through a partisan lens, you dont’ have enough background to approach the original concern at all.
The original idea of the US government is three branches of government. If one branch of government “bipartisananly” wants to limit another branch of government, that should be cause for alarm and ideally the congressmen involved should be censured and possibly impeached. If you want to change the powers of the president, then it’s time to rewrite the constitution, not do whatever the fuck this is.
No, you are missing the entire point of three branches of government. They are there as a check and balance of power to the others. They are literally supposed to stop the other branches from overstepping.
Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I’d be curious to see.
NATO is a mutual defense treaty that is in practice enforced by US armed forces. If you accept that the President is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, if He chooses not to respect the terms of the treaty by not deploying the armed forces, then in what way does congress get a say without grossly violating the separation of powers?
Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.
The Supreme Court has specifically made this point: The President “may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.” Hamdan vs Rumsfeld (2006).
Just because the President is commander-in-chief does not mean he has plenary power over everything related to the military and it’s use.
Do you disapprove of the idea that SCOTUS can decide constitutionality? It's not in the constitution, so when they first did it, it was a "limit" on another branch of government.
Serious question, if the orange dictator returns to power does this actually…you know…stop him in anyway? What happens if he just does it anyway? It’s not like there will be any consequences…
He won't be able to withdraw from the treaty itself.
He'll be able to publicly say he won't defend NATO allies, he'll be able to withdraw troops, withdraw diplomats, withdraw ambassadors, no longer have US personell attend meetings, refuse to continue funding NATO HQ, sabotage command and control, undermine leadership, and on and on, until the NATO treaty is barely worth the paper it's written on, leaving European NATO wholly unprepared for a potential invasion. It's too late to prepare for that if they start right now.
Russia might then take a gamble. A lot of people thought they wouldn't take that gamble in 2014. People thought they wouldn't take that gamble in 2022. People think they won't take that gamble if Trump gets re-elected.
Or Russia doesn't take that gamble. They simply engage in provocations. Military exercises near the border. Bomber runs which are aborted at the last moment. Some more extravagent extra-territorial assassinations. The chance of a miscalculation skyrockets, the chance of accidentally starting a war increases significantly.
Ah yes, the Montana Standard. This is always the first publication I check when I need information about Palestinian sentiment.
I recognize the author is AP, but the article doesn’t link to any sources and I’ve never heard of the publication before, so I’m inclined to think the entire site is propaganda bullshit.
worldnews
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.