NATO Summit 2018

[TornACL 7676]

3 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

This is simply bizarre.

[Dahobbs 17447]

3 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

Well. The United States was part of the Spanish, French, and British Empires way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of all of them.  It's actually an interesting history.

[Tuco 5076]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well. The United States was part of the Spanish, French, and British Empires way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of all of them.  It's actually an interesting history.

Should we start a petition?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

Obvious Russian troll propaganda post. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

4 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

We shouldn't be bearing all the costs of this cash cow.  

Quote

Trump said again this morning that the U.S. has been paying "probably 90% of the cost of NATO." The U.S. has been paying 22% of actual NATO costs.

 

[Js1 85110]

You'd think ScottishHorn could formulate his own opinions instead of just parroting Trump.

Low information voter is what he is.

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well. The United States was part of the Spanish, French, and British Empires way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of all of them.  It's actually an interesting history.

 

I, for one, welcome my new Spanish overlords on account of I love tapas.  Oh, and sangria. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Hornius Emeritus

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, relapse98 said:

FWIW, stable geniuses don't have to keep reminding people they stable geniuses. Generally, people can determine that on their own based on the 'stable geniuses' words and deeds.

99 percent of the crap that comes out of his mouth is either completely wrong or an outright lie.

So when trump says he’s a stable genius all that means is he’s an unstable moron. So it all checks out. 

Always keep that rule in mind.

A good second rule is if you’re scratching your head wondering why trump would do something so stupid that obviously harms America, just remember the other rule that everything trump does is to benefit his daddy putin and to weaken America. 

It makes things easier to understand when you awaken to those two facts. 

[sidis 9754]

4 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

scottishhorn, were you britshhorn on shaggy?  the dude that thought a french newspaper was a muslim neighborhood in which non-muslims were harassed?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, sidis said:

scottishhorn, were you britshhorn on shaggy?  the dude that thought a french newspaper was a muslim neighborhood in which non-muslims were harassed?

I’m almost positive it’s the same guy. And he ain’t American or from Texas. Probably has never even been here. 

[SimonBolivar 10932]

36 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

I, for one, welcome my new Spanish overlords on account of I love tapas.  Oh, and sangria. 

Hell if we're going off that give me back to the French or the Mexicans. Bonus is that both feature easy women.

Edited July 12, 2018 by SimonBolivar

[hayden_horn 11360]

31 minutes ago, sidis said:

scottishhorn, were you britshhorn on shaggy?  the dude that thought a french newspaper was a muslim neighborhood in which non-muslims were harassed?

haha that was great.

i still routinely encounter people talking about muslim police no-go zones subject only to sharia law in cities like london, frankfurt, and paris, too. 

[yaqdum 182]

31 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m almost positive it’s the same guy. And he ain’t American or from Texas. Probably has never even been here. 

or scotland or anywhere else in the uk.

[retread 2951]

DOTUS opened his mouth and lies came out.

Quote

This morning, Trump held a presser that is being widely described as a reaffirmation of his commitment to NATO. In reality, this reaffirmation can only be seen as conditional. Trump proclaimed our NATO allies had agreed to “substantially” increase their commitment to defense spending, asserting he’d be “very unhappy” if they failed him. But only moments later, French President Emmanuel Macron flatly declared that they hadn’t agreed to any such increase; our allies remain committed to reaching 2 percent by the middle of the next decade, as previously agreed upon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/12/trumps-latest-lie-at-nato-blows-up-his-idea-of-winning/?utm_term=.f49e8a715a9c

[Grandioso 2592]

Reading through the 2016 GOP official party platform right now (the one that Trump's people asked to change and take out the part about providing weapons to Ukraine). This is a case study in the personality cult of Trumpism. He is so far outside GOP dogma and mainstream on NATO and national security. And it just doesn't fucking matter to the 90% Republicans who approve of the job he's doing. Maybe the DNC should nominate one of the Koch brothers as their presidential candidate.

Ha, here are some excerpts on defense, with the very scary caption "A Dangerous World." LOL NOTHING MATTERS.

...After nearly eight years of a Democratic Commander-in-Chief who has frequently placed strategic and ideological limitations and shackles on our military, our enemies have been emboldened and our national security is at great risk. I don't even know where to begin.

...only by electing a Republican to the White House will we restore law and order to our land and safety to our citizens [be afraid, people of Nebraska, Muslims are coming].

...In all of our country’s history, there is no parallel to what President Obama and his former Secretary of State have done to weaken our nation [nation is code for defense contractors. See next several sentences]. Our aging naval capabilities are inadequate for their job. The Air Force fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history. The Marines have only two-thirds the number of battalions they have historically needed to meet day to day operational demands. The Army is at its lowest troop levels since before World War II. Our U.S. Ambassador and American personnel were left without adequate security or backup halfway across the world in Benghazi [obligatory]. In summary, we have returned to the hollow force days of Jimmy Carter. Also neglected are our strategic forces, especially the development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses.

...In the international arena, a weak Administration has invited aggression Trump openly admires the aggressive actors and autocrats this is talking about

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. All our adversaries heard the message in the Administration’s cutbacks: America is weaker and retreating.  Trump said this mere days ago: “We’re going to have to see,” when asked if the U.S. would accept Russia’s claim on the territory it seized from Ukraine in 2014.

From the section "Renewing the European Alliance," which Trump is really doing an amazing job at. 

With bipartisan support, President Truman forged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an alliance of the western democracies. Its continued effectiveness is vital NATO is vital, but also obsolete!

We urge greater coordination in economic and security affairs between the United States and the republics of Eastern Europe [except Trump doesn't support expansion of the EU].

We urge that Poland be granted visa waiver status and we support placement of NATO troops in Poland [Except Trump doesn't support NATO expansion].

We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade [while we also impose economic sanctions? This part definitely has the Trump touch], and more. We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin [Except Trump calls for the investigation and incarceration of his political enemy. Lock her up!].

We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. [SOOOO tough on Russia].

We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination Trump said he wouldn't have let Russia annex Crimea. He's also said that Crimea prefers Russia. He's also campaigned that when he's President, Putin was not going into Ukraine. WTF R positions and ideologeez?

Edited July 12, 2018 by Grandioso

[Goredho 17349]

 

7 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well, NATO needs to be reformed.  There are no more Soviet tank and troop divisions in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc.  with any intent to invade Europe.  Technology is different too.  We shouldn't be bearing all the costs of this cash cow.  This is another example of the establishment not willing to change or seek efficiency.   

I don't disagree, but one can downsize our military and move away from a two-front preparedness doctrine without shitting all over our allies in democracy.  The Democrats have been pursuing that for some time.

[RayDog 682]

9 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history. 

Kiev was the original capital of the Kingdom if Rus,  so perhaps Putin should cede control of Russia to Ukraine.

Edited July 12, 2018 by RayDog

[relapse98 634]

41 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Kiev was the original capital of the Kingdom if Rus,  so perhaps Putin should cede control of Russia to Ukraine.

Now that's some interesting history.

[Cacti 191]

Quote

 

President Donald Trump continues to wrongly claim that the United States is paying as much as 90 percent of the cost of operating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In reality, the U.S. share of the commonly funded NATO budget is currently just over 22 percent, according to the most recent figures from NATO.

 

While Trump is painfully wrong about the percent of U.S. contributions, the 22 percent figure is also misleading—it’s accurate only if one excludes actual military missions. Those missions are funded by each participating country and are not taken from NATO’s budget. So it’s only when missions are actually executed can one see a more accurate cost.

In Kosovo, for example, most of NATO’s actions were via air strikes, where the U.S. flew 62% of the sorties, 79 % of intelligence flights, and 65% of support missions. I don’t have the dollar amount readily available but it is obvious the U.S.’s contribution was considerably more than 22%—more likely 60% or more.

To a lesser degree, the same was true when NATO imposed a naval and air blockade of Libya. The U.S. contributed considerably more than 22%.

On a side note Germany flew approximately 500 sorties in Kosovo, or less than 2% of the total. It appears that Germany's air force has been incompetent  or incapable for at least twenty years. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

@Cacti we weren’t exactly handing out stealth technology in the 90s, and due to the environment, I think it’s understandable that we flew a lot of the sorties.  If NATO air missions had been 100% non-stealth, I think you would have seen a fairly high number of aircraft being shot down.  Hell, they still had the smarts to shoot down one of our stealth fighters with conventional means..

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

@Cacti we weren’t exactly handing out stealth technology in the 90s, and due to the environment, I think it’s understandable that we flew a lot of the sorties.  If NATO air missions had been 100% non-stealth, I think you would have seen a fairly high number of aircraft being shot down.  Hell, they still had the smarts to shoot down one of our stealth fighters with conventional means..

Sure, it’s understandable. But the situation today is basically what it was 20 years ago. That is, most of NATO warplanes are non-stealthy, they don’t have advanced jamming capabilities, and they would be relatively easy targets for the latest Russian SAMs. And that is a direct result of not devoting sufficient funds for military research and development.

The good news is that Germany and France are currently teaming up to develop a stealth fighter; the bad news is that it has a twenty-year development window. Until then NATO will have to depend on the U.S. for the heavy—and expensive—lifting. And that expense is considerably more than 22%.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 hours ago, Goredho said:

 

I don't disagree, but one can downsize our military and move away from a two-front preparedness doctrine without shitting all over our allies in democracy.  The Democrats have been pursuing that for some time.

I'm not sure why we need to spend peacetime years "prepared" for a 2 front war. In our history, we have had exactly one 2 front war. We weren't prepared for it beforehand. We won. At the same time, Germany was prepared for a 2 front war and lost. 

We are WW2 Germany.  We are overinvested in what we have and what we want. Somebody will figure out how to best us on the fly if we actually went 2 front against real countries. It's almost better to reduce now and then wait and see what we will be up against. 

Meanwhile, the little guys have already figured out that we will eventually leave every fucking time if they use guerilla tactics, so we cant even win against shitty countries. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[retread 2951]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

12 hours ago, retread said:

 

Fuckin' tweets, man. The article linked in that tweet doesn't say anything about how much of Germany's natural gas imports come from Russia. In the article, though, there's a link to their reporters' fact-checking of Trump's claims. In that article it says "nearly half the natural gas flowing through pipelines to Germany last year came from Russia." The 9% figure doesn't appear anywhere in that article. I don't know where that number comes from but it appears to be wildly inaccurate. It's hard to know for sure because all I've got to work with is a tweet consisting of a headline and a (bad) link.

[Chico_SA 521]

My wife had this T-shirt made for me for Christmas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TornACL 7676]

23 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm not sure why we need to spend peacetime years "prepared" for a 2 front war. In our history, we have had exactly one 2 front war. We weren't prepared for it beforehand. We won. At the same time, Germany was prepared for a 2 front war and lost. 

We are WW2 Germany.  We are overinvested in what we have and what we want. Somebody will figure out how to best us on the fly if we actually went 2 front against real countries. It's almost better to reduce now and then wait and see what we will be up against. 

Meanwhile, the little guys have already figured out that we will eventually leave every fucking time if they use guerilla tactics, so we cant even win against shitty countries. 

I tend to agree at the highest level, along with most people on both sides of the aisle, that it's in our best interest to carry less of the global burden. 

But this bull in a china shop routine is not the way to do it. This isn't some shitty shady real estate deal. Even if it were to work, by some miracle, the collateral damage done by this approach is worse than if we just accepted status quo. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by TornACL

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fuckin' tweets, man. The article linked in that tweet doesn't say anything about how much of Germany's natural gas imports come from Russia. In the article, though, there's a link to their reporters' fact-checking of Trump's claims. In that article it says "nearly half the natural gas flowing through pipelines to Germany last year came from Russia." The 9% figure doesn't appear anywhere in that article. I don't know where that number comes from but it appears to be wildly inaccurate. It's hard to know for sure because all I've got to work with is a tweet consisting of a headline and a (bad) link.

If ONLY there was a device that we could somehow access that would tell us what sources produce the energy that Germany consumes. Oh, wait:

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

Hmmmm ....  According to that chart,  natural gas produced 23.7 percent of the energy that Germany consumed last year. 

According to this article, about one third of Germany's natural gas consumption is produced by Russia. 

http://www.windsolarusa.com/2017/11/23/is-germany-abandoning-its-commitment-to-the-energy-transition/

According to this article, it's 35%:

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/watch-colbert-dissect-trumps-contentious-start-to-nato-trip-698581/


Whatever the truth, 9% does not appear to be far off the mark, and "wildly inaccurate"  appears to be a bit of an overstatement on your part. 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

58 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

If ONLY there was a device that we could somehow access that would tell us what sources produce the energy that Germany consumes. Oh, wait:

What? You couldn't find a tweet that conveyed that information? Twitter wasn't the device you used?

I'm perfectly capable of doing Internet research. It's not my responsibility to go to any great length to corroborate anyone's unsourced or improperly sourced claims. I read two articles that didn't support the claim and stopped there. I was being generous by reading the second article.

How many people just read headlines and believe them without ever digging any deeper? How many people just post tweets that consist of a headline and a link without ever reading the linked article themselves?

You'll never see me post anything in a tweet that is just a headline and a link, and I'll certainly never post a link to an article I haven't read. If it's an article I think you should read, it's because I read it first. I'll post some if not all of the article, or at least a description, along with the link to the source. I also won't post a link to an article about an article unless the source article is behind a paywall. If an article in The Hill says "originally reported by" X, I'll link to the original article at X if I can. 

I consider that to be proper netiquette and the best way to show respect to the other members of the forum. I think the ease of embedding tweets encourages laziness and leads to more noise, less signal. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

56 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Hmmmm ....  According to that chart,  natural gas produced 23.7 percent of the energy that Germany consumed last year. 

According to this article, about one third of Germany's natural gas consumption is produced by Russia. 

http://www.windsolarusa.com/2017/11/23/is-germany-abandoning-its-commitment-to-the-energy-transition/

According to this article, it's 35%:

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/watch-colbert-dissect-trumps-contentious-start-to-nato-trip-698581/


Whatever the truth, 9% does not appear to be far off the mark, and "wildly inaccurate"  appears to be a bit of an overstatement on your part. 

The veracity of the claim isn't the point. It's easy to research one improperly sourced tweet. Are you going to do that for all of them? There aren't enough hours in the day. 

[Pods 7530]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fuckin' tweets, man. The article linked in that tweet doesn't say anything about how much of Germany's natural gas imports come from Russia. In the article, though, there's a link to their reporters' fact-checking of Trump's claims. In that article it says "nearly half the natural gas flowing through pipelines to Germany last year came from Russia." The 9% figure doesn't appear anywhere in that article. I don't know where that number comes from but it appears to be wildly inaccurate. It's hard to know for sure because all I've got to work with is a tweet consisting of a headline and a (bad) link.

Last paragraph.

Quote

The Germans argue that they have been diversifying their gas supplies, that they now get only about 9 percent of their energy from Russia — not the 70 percent that Mr. Trump claimed — and that Washington is angling to sell liquid natural gas to Germany instead.

Also, Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC, not a rando. He posts frequent news updates from other organizations as well. 

I used to hate tweets too, but have grown to like them. Tweets from reputable sources are just short synopses of parts of the article and are very handy for quickly determining if you want to read the article or not. I understand not everyone feels the same way on here, but I think the majority do. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Pods

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Dare you say "gaslighting"?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

4 hours ago, Pods said:

Last paragraph.

Also, Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC, not a rando. He posts frequent news updates from other organizations as well. 

I used to hate tweets too, but have grown to like them. Tweets from reputable sources are just short synopses of parts of the article and are very handy for quickly determining if you want to read the article or not. I understand not everyone feels the same way on here, but I think the majority do. 

Well, shit, don't I feel the perfect fool. I swear I read the article to the end and didn't catch that. By the last paragraph I may have been too eager to go check the fact-checking link. And I may have been a little too eager to bitch about the posting of headline-and-link-only tweets because that does make me a little surly. Sometimes it seems like the Politics board should be renamed the Post A Tweet You Saw board. And I may have had a few cocktails by that point. 

Thank you for setting me straight and my humble apologies to all. 

[Anastasis 23394]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Sometimes it seems like the Politics board should be renamed the Post A Tweet You Saw board.

You may have flubbed the landing, but you have a point regarding the negative influence that the twatters has had on political discourse on this board, but also more generally. 

[retread 2951]

I understand the distaste for tweets, and I try to post legit/trustworthy sources. I figure the responsible tweeters do this for a living, and they've vetted the sources and the hot takes on the content. In many cases, you get the skinny in a few sentences.

[Pods 7530]

30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Well, shit, don't I feel the perfect fool. I swear I read the article to the end and didn't catch that. By the last paragraph I may have been too eager to go check the fact-checking link. And I may have been a little too eager to bitch about the posting of headline-and-link-only tweets because that does make me a little surly. Sometimes it seems like the Politics board should be renamed the Post A Tweet You Saw board. And I may have had a few cocktails by that point. 

Thank you for setting me straight and my humble apologies to all. 

No worries man. It was a little bit of weird formatting and the last two paragraphs were kind of buried at the end. 

I think it's a good point in general. There's tons of great information on Twitter. There's tons of garbage on Twitter. It's up to us to discriminate. 

Almost all of the tweets I post are from a few sources that I have found reliable and are content experts in their field. Most common for me to post are Kyle Griffin, Seth Abramson and Caroline O. 

Griffin is a producer at  MSNBC. He posts lots of breaking stuff from other sources. 

Abramson has been discussed a ton. He's basically been Nostradamus so far with this. If you haven't been reading him, you are missing out. 

Caroline O. is recently PhD'd behavioral scientist that specializes in social media. 

Personally, I hate Twitter's format, but find the content worth it. Your mileage may vary. 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

I never joined Twitter because I'd have no control over the output of anyone I would follow. I don't know who I'd want to follow anyway. But the last thing I would want is to be inundated by tweets. Seems there's no escaping it. 

One of the things I liked about shaggy was that posting articles was accepted. I've been on boards where that was frowned upon because they felt it was stealing copyrighted material. Now there's a lot less posting of articles and a lot more posting of links to articles in the form of embedded tweets. That presents some usability issues when you're on a phone. Go to the first new post in the Stupid Wives thread and you go to the first new post. Do it on the Politics board and you get bumped all over the place as all the tweets load in three phases. First in the grey bar outline, then in a basic text format, then finally the fully embedded tweet. 

Back on shaggy, before I had an unlimited data option available, I turned off images when I was on my phone. The plan was to turn them on when I was on my PC, and off when I was on my phone. I wound up just leaving them off all the time. I could skip most memes and gifs and be more selective about the images I viewed. Even on the PC the pages that were full of gifs could be slow to load. On the phone? Forget about it. I wish Surly would implement the ability to turn off images. 

Twitter is great for some types of communication. It was instrumental for protestors keeping in contact with each other in real time during the Arab Spring. It's also good for embedded video that's not available elsewhere. To post just a headline and a link? Just posting them in plain text involves a lot less overhead (but slightly more work).

I think I would like it if we could turn off embedded tweets just like we used to be able to turn off images. Just display it as a link so, if we choose, we could open it in a new tab. But I'm not sure if anyone is still looking at adding new functionality to the forum software. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

3 hours ago, Pods said:

 

I think it's a good point in general. There's tons of garbage information on Twitter. There's tons of garbage on Twitter. It's up to us to discriminate and post the ones that support our views 

...

Edited July 14, 2018 by EuroHorn

[Gil Bang 25898]

Seems like this should be discussed:

Eighteen Republican lawmakers voted against the US allowing Finland and Sweden to join NATO. 

Among the dissenters in the Monday vote were some of the party's furthest-right members, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Matt Gaetz of Florida, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado.

The vote was a symbolic one to express support from the House for the applications — the formal process by which the US can ratify new NATO members takes place in the Senate.

The House bill passed easily with 394 votes, leaving the 18 Republicans in a small minority even among their own party.

Here is the full list:

• Andy Biggs (AZ)
• Dan Bishop (NC)
• Lauren Boebert (CO)
• Madison Cawthorn (NC)
• Ben Cline (VA)
• Michael Cloud (TX)
• Warren Davidson (OH)
• Matt Gaetz (FL)
• Bob Good (VA)
• Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA)
• H. Morgan Griffith (VA)
• Thomas Massie (KY)
• Tom McClintock (CA)
• Mary E. Miller (IL)
• Ralph Norman (SC)
• Matthew M. Rosendale Sr. (MT)
• Chip Roy (TX)
• Jefferson Van Drew (NJ)

Nineteen US lawmakers — 17 Republicans and two Democrats — didn't vote. 

Finland and Sweden applied in mid-May, turning away from decades of neutrality in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Both countries have an uneasy proximity to Russia.

Each of the 30 NATO member states must approve the addition of any members. The US portion of that is driven the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has yet to decide formally but had been urged strongly by the White House to give quick approval.

Finland has a long land border with Russia and repelled a brutal Soviet invasion in a 1940s conflict known as the Winter War.

NATO formally invited the countries to join at the end of June, saying it would fast-track the process. Once a country is in NATO, all other members of the alliance are obliged to go to war if it is invaded.

The move has proved infuriating to President Vladimir Putin, who had cited his opposition to NATO expansion as one reason for invading Ukraine in the first place.

(Ukraine was also seeking NATO membership, but it didn't have access to the faster process given to Sweden and Finland.)

The 18 no votes are another sign of the ongoing pro-Russia shift in the right of the party ignited by Donald Trump. 

Gaetz, Greene, and Boebert are among GOP members who repeatedly voted against US military and humanitarian support to Ukraine.

They also are among the 63 Republicans who, in April, voted against a resolution expressing support for NATO and its "founding democratic principles."

Greene, Gaetz, and Kentucky's Thomas Massie were the only three representatives who opposed moves in April to restrict trade with Russia.

Editor's note: Shortly after publication this story was updated to clarify that the House vote was symbolic and not part of the formal ratification process. A reference to lawmakers voting to "block" Sweden and Finland from joining NATO was amended to instead say they voted "against" the process.

 

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

The 18 no votes are another sign of the ongoing pro-Russia shift in the right of the party ignited by Donald Trump. 

But no collusion.

[A-Tex Devil 2445]

Man, all that 4 year old Ukraine discussion is interesting leading to the thread resurrection.