NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has acknowledged that some alliance members did not meet expectations set by the United States, amid ongoing tensions over burden-sharing
Erm that’s not how that works. The US as the leader nation doesn’t give them control over Eroupe’s military.
Really? The US didn’t move assets away from Greenland after the Eroupean powers increased and establish a deal was reached to have the US back off on it’s annexation threat?
From Google:
An official NATO engagement, in the context of military operations, refers to actions taken by NATO-led forces authorized by the North Atlantic Council (NAC)
Oh for fucks sake, google it yourself, why is that in any way relevant?
Even if it never happened, it remains the purpose of NATO, because it will definitely happen if article 5 is called, and there is an actual country that is the enemy, and the only country to ever call article 5 was USA. But that was based on a terrorist attack, so a bit of a weird situation.
It’s relevant because you are the one making the claim that the triggering of Article V causes all the military to fall under the sole authority of the US.
I am trying to explains that it doesn’t. Even if Article V where triggered (let’s say Russia invades the Baltic’s) Eroupe would still retain command and ownership of their respective militaries.
Erm that’s not how that works. The US as the leader nation doesn’t give them control over Eroupe’s military.
Really? The US didn’t move assets away from Greenland after the Eroupean powers increased and establish a deal was reached to have the US back off on it’s annexation threat?
That’s exactly how it works.
Really. So if Trump where to hit the nuclear button the UK and French would also be launching their arsenal at who Trump commanded?
If there is a war that NATO is engaged in as an official NATO engagement then yes. But that is never gonna happen under Trump. Hence NATO is dead.
Question, what is the definition of an official NATO engagement?
From Google:
An official NATO engagement, in the context of military operations, refers to actions taken by NATO-led forces authorized by the North Atlantic Council (NAC)
And when was the last time such a deceleration happened
Oh for fucks sake, google it yourself, why is that in any way relevant?
Even if it never happened, it remains the purpose of NATO, because it will definitely happen if article 5 is called, and there is an actual country that is the enemy, and the only country to ever call article 5 was USA. But that was based on a terrorist attack, so a bit of a weird situation.
It’s relevant because you are the one making the claim that the triggering of Article V causes all the military to fall under the sole authority of the US.
I am trying to explains that it doesn’t. Even if Article V where triggered (let’s say Russia invades the Baltic’s) Eroupe would still retain command and ownership of their respective militaries.