Posted on 06/13/2018 1:57:23 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
I disagree. Its highly disingenuous for them to beg for us to provide their defense for them and then turn right around and buy from the very people they want us to defend them against. By pouring all that money into Russia’s coffers, they are only increasing the threat they face.
This shows they are simply playing us. We’re “allies” when they are asking for something from us but not if it might entail the teeniest tiniest bit of sacrifice on their part.
Yet more evidence that they are not allies and that we need to bring the boys home and stop paying for their defense.
EU is dictating to Baltics. Run the pipeline or else.
Baltics are asking US to supply because if they buck EU demands, they freeze this winter. Get it?
Baltics want independence and the only way they get it is to make a deal with US via President Trump. Does that make better sense?
No meddling in it, just business.
Well that’s kind of their problem and their business. I worry about that like I worry about sorting my socks. :-)
1. It means steady income for the Russians.
2. China could provide assistance building the pipeline from Siberian natural gas fields into China through Mongolia and through northeastern China. That means many thousands of Chinese could be employed in construction jobs building the natural gas infrastructure from Russia to China.
3. China could phase out the use of dirty coal-fired electric power plants in favor of vastly cleaner natural-gas fired electric power plants, and that could mean vastly lower air pollution and better health for its citizens.
I think it has to do with these countries trying to bypass the almighty US Dollar. Also known as the “petro dollar”. The fear is that these transactions outside of the dollar would expose and magnify it’s inherent corrupt foundation, which is why these countries are trying to flee it in the first place. Just some more storm clouds brewing for our future.
May be, but "disingenuous" is not the standard for breaching treaty agreements. The actual terms of the treaty agreement is the standard.
By pouring all that money into Russia’s coffers, they are only increasing the threat they face.
That's their stupidity and problem, not the U.S.'s unless that breaches the terms of the treaty.
This shows they are simply playing us. We’re “allies” when they are asking for something from us but not if it might entail the teeniest tiniest bit of sacrifice on their part.
If true, then that's stupidity on our part. Our stupidity is not their fault or problem, it's OUR fault and OUR problem. Trump has been showing and saying that if he has been saying anything.
Yet more evidence that they are not allies and that we need to bring the boys home and stop paying for their defense.
Again, back to the current treaty. Does that break our agreement? Was the original treaty stupid? Was the original treaty constitutional? Can the treaty be renegotiated? It is up to US to not enter into stupid and/or unconstitutional treaties with other nations. That is up to US, and no one else.
I have a problem with that unless there is some threat to the U.S. I suppose we could economically sanction Germany if we have just cause to do so and it makes sense. But the U.S. needs to avoid meddling with how other countries run their own show because sovereign nations have the right to run their own show no matter how we feel about it.
You: Baltics are asking US to supply because if they buck EU demands, they freeze this winter.
No problem.
May be, but “disingenuous” is not the standard for breaching treaty agreements. The actual terms of the treaty agreement is the standard.
They’ve certainly breached their agreement to spend a piddling 2% of GDP on Defense.
ah but since we have undertaken to provide for their Defense, it IS our problem....unless we inform them that we will no longer consider it our problem if they’re not going to at least provide for their own Defense in a meaningful way.
Its their fault for acting in bad faith. Its our fault if we continue to allow them to get away with it.
When we entered into the treaty it was a radically different world. Nothing in the Nato Treaty requires the US to pay for Europe’s defense forever. Nothing requires us to have troops there at all. It was not stupid when we started. The world has changed. Either they need to grow up and start carrying their share of the burden or we need to get out of the deal. That’s the renegotiation that needs to take place.
Yes its up to us to do it.....but don’t try to tell us they haven’t acted in bad faith or are not freeloading. They clearly are.
For all intents and purposes, Germany is the EU.
The EU (Germany) is demanding a pipeline through the Baltics to supply Europe. The Baltics do not want it. An appeal is made to the US to President Trump to supply the Baltics.
The Baltics have centuries of experience with the Russians and they don’t trust them. Russians treat them badly, look down on them, act as if they don’t matter.
Then that's our stupidity to keep funding that bad faith and freeloading. But it doesn't give us license to tell a sovereign nation what to do.
That is fine.
But telling a sovereign nation what to do is no fine.
Why not? They’re certainly not shy about telling a sovereign nation (ie us) what to do.
Germany (EU) is telling Baltic nations what to do. The Baltics joined the EU to get away politically from Russia. They were Soviet satellites at one time.
Then they discovered the EU was dictating to them as part of the EU agreement.
I am not seeing Trump telling any sovereign nation what to do. I see that he has an opinion. He’s not fine with Germany ordering a pipeline through the Baltics from Russia. He objects to it so he will likely explore supplying the Baltics as they requested.
Where do you see Trump telling Germany what to do? Rather it is Germany telling the Baltics what to do. If Trump was objecting to something that Germany was doing INSIDE Germany, then that’s different. But he’s not, he’s objecting on behalf of the Baltics to what Germany is proposing to tell the Baltics what to do. Is that not clear? Did you read it wrong?
I see Trump having an objection based on the Baltic nations not wanting to accede to Germany’s demands. Why in your view is he not allowed to object on behalf of the Baltics? The Baltics asked him for help, why shouldn’t he tell Germany he doesn’t like their deal in the Baltics?
I think you misread what Trump is saying and doing. He’s not ordering Germany to do anything. He’s objecting to their deal outside Germany. Why shouldn’t he? Especially since the Baltic nations asked him to supply them because they don’t want the Germany-Russia deal?
The “bully pulpit” is fine in some cases as long as that’s as far as it goes. We’ve had 28 years of boneheaded and anti-American “nation building” the worst being the decrepit “Bush Doctrine” as an excuse for invading Iraq. NO MORE.
Chinese goods are also cheaper.
Oooohhh...so now in the present date you are in favor of "damaging the USA's growing energy empire."
Oh...well, only it's not anymore...Biden shut that down.
He *knew* they did. And was laughed at for saying so. Those people aren't laughing anymore.
So Trump bombed the pipeline? The MSM may run with that.
Nothing would shock me anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.