Cornflakes_91 wrote:Yeah, fine, and now ignite some war in poland and see what happens in germany. It will be anything, but definitely not nothing. Germany would be reinforced, from there on a single misshap could start a wildfire

I know. Poland is a part of NATO. What I was talking about is that technically NATO can't step into any war that's emerging in or around the European Union, because it'd turn it into an alliance that can both attack and defend. On the other hand NATO did attack Yugoslavia and there was also the case of Iraq, so I guess it's just a simple hypocrisy to call it a defensive pact by now.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:Because they dont want to start a war with russia.

The ukraine was in talks about joining NATO, a military organisation that was founded as an alliance against russia
The whole war in the ukraine is russias way of saying "this is close enough".

I am very well aware of this. What I find interesting is that it does contradict your previous statement.

Safe-r wrote: I am very well aware of this. What I find interesting is that it does contradict your previous statement.

No, my previous statement just didnt include other factors, like the russian interference.

if that werent there the nato would be all over the ukraine.

Yes, but coming back to the point - the idea that the major nations within NATO would follow the minors into a war caused by the minors is foolish. It works the other way around: the majors drag allies into their own wars.

I think it could happen, one of the small nations starting a war between them, big power steps in (to use the opportunity or simply to protect its borders) another big nation steps in to protect its interests in the war, and before long the two big ones could end up fighting each other.

The smaller nations don't want war. Especially within their borders (and especially not with opponents supported by a major power). And the major powers could easily cut off the link in case the smaller power did something stupid, like attacked another nation. If everybody decides to go all in, the everybody loses. It's as simple as that.

Nobody claimed that it would be rational or sensible, but humans have a tendency to be neither.

Maximal derailment of thread officially reached??

I've been thinking of splitting it for a while, just wasn't sure where.

It's always so hard to tell exactly where and when the wheels broke contact with the track

Somewhere in a small east european country

Schrodinger's Train: Simultaneously on and off the tracks until you look at it.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:Somewhere in a small east european country

this made me laugh

Talvieno wrote:Schrodinger's Train: Simultaneously on and off the tracks until you look at it.

I love it, Nathan.

I'm so pleased not to be one of the guilty in this derailment for a change. I would do a bit of tut-tutting but I feel that may be unwise. *chuckle*

Victor Tombs wrote:I'm so pleased not to be one of the guilty in this derailment for a change. I would do a bit of tut-tutting but I feel that may be unwise. *chuckle*

Likewise.

More than once I've considered commenting on the F-35 and "what happens when you don't visibly resist totalitarian bullies" derailments. (For example, reminding folks that installing Pershing IIs in Europe did not spark WW III as detractors claimed was certain, but instead contributed to the extinction of the Soviet Union and two decades of peace.)

But these are supposed to be the Golden Days!

I, for one, welcome our thread-splitting overlords.