> Borders are only valid if you can hold them.
Ah, I think I’m beginning to understand your logical position now: families, lives, and morals do not seem to matter in your mind, peace is not valuable in its own right, and might makes right.
So please would you remind me again why you seem to be reasoning that NATO countries shouldn’t increase spending to 3% to increase their might? After all, you argue that borders are only valid if you can hold them - therefore more spending by NATO countries makes rational sense, right? They seem to want to keep their existing borders, thank you very much.
From a historical perspective, I cannot understand that someone would sincerely believe that NATO is likely to invade and annex Russia. (But recent events demonstrate that the converse is clearly not true: Russia has proven itself to be a potent, existential threat.)
NATO is unlikely to invade Russia unless it is in reaction to Russia first trying to change their borders unilaterally, a nuclear launch, or perhaps to reverse recent invasions by Russia, based on this logic:
> Borders are only valid if you can hold them.
We shall see whether or not Russia is able to hold on to their somewhat newly asserted borders in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia might hold on to it, given the lack of NATO resolve to respect their past treaty commitments to Ukraine.
Not remotely what I said, but thanks!