Hacker News Reader

Comment by Circuits | Hacker News Reader

Our military (US) and military budget is just another cold war era echo which has been propagating for far too long. There are so many alarmist media outlets in this country who 'make their steak' off of fear mongering (looking at you FOX news) and what's more unfortunate is the general public's seeming endless supply of naive assent too their ideals and tactics.

It isn't the US governments fault the military industrial complex is so large, it's ours. So long as we continue to sheepishly abide by the ignorant notion that our public officials are moral actors whose ambitions and initiatives are driven and monitored by their superb ethical standards we are doomed.

We have to hold the women and men in office accountable not only for their actions but for our agenda. We have to stop living under the yoke of fear and distraction pumped out by the media machine. We have to be brave and fight back or else, when the shit hits the fan, we can only blame ourselves.

View on HN

> stop living under the yoke of fear and distraction pumped out by the media machine

If you have a solution that scales up to the population at large I'm all ears.

Get everyone "vaccinated"?

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/fake-news-vaccine-works-...

It's already become neigh impossible to find the game when it's been buried under all the fake news.

That’s the first part of the game ;-)

In case anyone thought that was real vaccination, it's a method to present the typical fake news tactics in an attempt to help you to recognize them for what they are.

The link to the actual game is here: https://getbadnews.com/#intro

it’s funny how most people forget that every single american president since georges bush junior has been elected on the promise of reducing us’s involvment into foreign countries ( i’m old enough to remember people accused him of being isolationist), but have all been prevented to so by external events.

With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget would be a wise strategic move ?

> With the rise of China and its exponential military spendings, do you think that decreasing us military budget would be a wise strategic move ?

The budget is essentially unchanged[1]. The value of that budget has increased exponentially because the value of Chinese currency has increased. China has not directed any more of its resources to its military.

Even more foolish is acting like the Chinese military is capable of threatening the US any time soon. Like fuck, at least we still kind of fight proxy wars with Russia; we do nothing of the kind with China. China is totally incapable of force projection outside tiny pacific islands. China is the only nuclear country that has a "no first use" policy on nukes. They have a single aircraft carrier, compared to the US' eleven. The US has as many carriers (which are the single dominant mode of force projection) as the rest of the world combined.

The US military is so absurdly oversized that we would benefit strategically by spending the money on R&D or the economy instead. Until such a time as the US expects to literally fight China, Russia, and the EU at the same time, the military is massively excessive.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China#/medi...

China is already nearly spending as much as the US is on its military once you adjust for the difference in the cost of personnel (which is half of US military spending), ie adjust for PPP. The US has the best paid soldiers in the world for any major military, which matches up with the US having among the highest median pay of any nation.

When China's economy is another 50% larger, matching where US GDP is at today, you can expect China's real military spending to considerably exceed the US today.

Thanks to drastically lower salaries & benefits, the personnel costs for the Chinese military is a far smaller portion of its total military spending as compared to the US share.

Adjusted PPP comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SY22Whj.png

As much as I like carriers, in an actual war against a true world power, they seem irrelevant to 21st century warfare. They would be so easy to take out with any type of guided weapon, much less the hypersonics that are coming online.

I don't.

I'm surrounded by people who take our position in the world for granted and don't see any problem with gutting our military, though.

I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them.

We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful.

But they’d be wrong. They simply have no idea what others will do for power.

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget.

And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

Canada is in NATO, and attacking Canada would automatically put you at war with the USA. You cannot consider Canada's defense policy independent of the USA.

The truth is we live in a post-war era. This is a statistically indisputable fact [1]. My question is who all these odd people are who seem to have some deep emotional need for the world to operate like a game of risk, as opposed to 7 billion apes who don't know each other and don't care.

[1] http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (Skip to the 14 minute mark if you're impatient)

The "War to end wars" was won and now it will never happen again.

Who would attack Canada? Polar bears?

You joke, but Canada has disputes with Russia over arctic territorial claims.

And that dispute is being resolved [0] on the basis of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [1].

Interestingly, this convention is signed and ratified basically by the whole world, but not by the US.

[0] https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/04/russia-scor...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...

Russia's other recent international seizure was Crimea, which was for sure NOT done in accordance with the International Law of the Sea. Canada has, in fact, enacted sanctions against Russia. I posit that if Canada were a softer target, Russia would simply seize the territories, the way they did from the Ukraine.

Look at the map, find Russia, see how large it is. Do you really think it needs more territory?

Canada, like many other countries around the world, enjoys the luxury of being protected by the US and doesn't have to spend as much money on defense.

During WWII, do you think appeasement would have worked?

The reason many evil countries aren't bombing the US and Canada is because they know they would be obliterated by the US military due to past campaigns.

"the luxury of being protected by the US"

Protected from what? From the White Walkers?

Who is there to attack Canada (besides the US itself)? The Great Britain is trying to return the lost colony? France is thinking about taking over the Quebec?

That's a bit more complicated don't you think? 70+ years with America as a superpower (20+ where it is almost the only one in its class) makes it easy to forget that things could have been massively different. Imagine a case where the Soviet Union did not dissolve, but stabilized as a military and economic equal to the US. Would you say that Canada's peace and prosperity would be guaranteed in this alternative universe? What about other countries in eastern Europe or the Middle East?

To give you an couple examples in the current real world, imagine if South Korea or Taiwan didn't have such good relations with America in the post-WW2 peace. It is not that far fetched to think that there could be a single communist Korea, Taiwan could have been swallowed up by mainland China.

It surely is.

I don't think that Canada in your alternative universe would've been worse off than Finland in this one. Finland's neutrality kept it safe ever since the WW2.

WW2 was about conquest and they were invaded by the Russians. Being neutral didn't really save them from the attack.

When push comes to shove, neutral countries eventually need to pick sides or they will be taken over.

You are misinformed, Finland wasn't neutral before WW2 and it wasn't neutral before the Winter War.

The Swiss would disagree. Neutral by constitution..

Swiss Neutrality did not save them in WW2 either, only German strategic calculus and the idea within the German high command that a mountain campaign would be too costly in military terms. It wasn't their neutrality that saved them, it was military deterrence. Push did NOT come to shove for them.

You cannot seriously assert that if Germany beats the UK and Russia, they will decide to simply leave Switzerland alone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum#Nazi_atti...

Yes, funny how you don’t get attacked when you’re a cub with a lion standing behind you.

Not magical at all, there's a basic geographic explanation for why very few countries could invade Canada and a NATO alliance that explains why anyone who could, won't.

And magically... a lot of countries that aren't Canada still get attacked. Funny how that works.

Canada does have a military, and yes, the US is a nuclear deterrent. Also of note is that the US has a lot more enemies- especially among groups that hate freedom, how morally weird we are, or how we butter our toast.

Want to scare the world and become known? Canada probably isn't the place to do so, the US is way bigger, has more news outlets, and enough targets that you can probably hit at least one of them.

Want to show the world how cruel you can be, and inspire revenge? Attack Canada out of the blue- the stereotype of Canadians being super chill and apologizing is international, and attacking them will get everyone and their dog angry at you.

Want to do a lot of damage? US.

Want to show that your country is capable of going toe-to-toe with a first-world country? The USA is your best bet.

As alluded to by other commenters, Canada is also protected because its physical barriers touch the United States', and anything major that affects Canada will also affect the US, too.

There are a significant number of Canadians (notably, the entire Conservative party, the official opposition) who feel that Canada underfunds their military.

If the US only holds its economic ground at gunpoint I don't feel justified living my dainty American lifestyle thanks to boots to the throat of peoples around the world.

Europe endures and prospers without threat of violence or economic imperialism by bomb across the globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

If you feel that your dainty American lifestyle needs moral justification, I have bad news for you.

Personally, I'll settle for having it over not having it.

East-European states certainly do not think that they can survive without the help of the US.

Source? Last year I was more afraid of Regime Change Attempts in Ukraine at least fueled by NATO/EU. Victoria (Fuck the EU) Nuland was pretty clear the US does not give a shit if Europe burns..

Europe endures and prospers at the expense of the US military forces.

On the other hand, we take the refugees produced by US military and foreign politics. And our countries are the first to crumble into dust if there is another Dr. Strangelove.

The U.S. ensures the safe maritime trade of goods and services around the world. Many European counties do not need to (heavily) invest in their own armed forces because the U.S. is able to provide the necessary protection. These reasons are why I made my previous claim.

The US Military didn't force you to take them.

Right. Just leave those refugees to cook under the sun in an overcrowded, broken down boat in the Mediterranean until they drown. Or be like Hungary: raise a fence on the border, with armed personnel at checkpoints, and hope that shooting people on sight becomes ethically accepted.

What's wrong with you people.

What's wrong with the refugees? Why can't they fix their own country instead of messing up other ones?

The answer to an aggressive and militant China would be the same answer to any upstart nuclear power threatening the world - we have already seen how effective sanctioning Russia has been in the wake of their aggressive imperialism stints in the past decade. So successful as to inspire them to try undermining US elections to get an apologetic administration in place to remove said sanctions.

Sanctioning China economically though is a moralistic move. It has real absolute costs to the US economy, and such sanctions would need the broad consensus support the Russian ones did - if you don't punish aggression unilaterally and in global unison then the aggressor still has inroads into the global economy to ease any impact.

It is never a solution to spend several hundred billion more dollars on weapons of war that are wholly irrelevant to any legitimate threat of conflict with any other nuclear power. They only serve as a dick measuring contest of how much of your economic productivity you can wholly waste before your economy collapses. That is pretty much exactly how the Soviets fell, and the US is too egocentric to realize its going down that road too.

"aggressive imperialism stints"

Nope, just regrettable but necessary reaction to the NATO expansion. Your words, however, perfectly describe the American illegal adventures in Iraq in 2003.

"to try undermining US elections"

If that is what you say Russia was doing, what would you call the American meddling in Russian elections? [0]

[0] 'Yanks to the rescue. The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win.' http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

You can only impose economical sanctions if you also have the mean to at least contain any military aggression the sanctioned country could take as a reaction.

It would be a wise strategic move to take 75% of your military spending and put it into education, infrastructure, health and reducing social inequality.

I am not an expert, but my feeling is that overwhelming military power is not the only thing that contributes to the survival of an empire (which the US de facto is).

Why not do both? Split it down the middle and make military conscription mandatory for 2 years. After 2 years you get free college. Have an option for non combat roles and places for people with minor health problems. Work with government contractors to have a manufacturing or trade track instead of college.

America's strategic position is far stronger than China's because its cumulative military spending over recent decades places it in an entirely different category from any other power, and because it is part of a powerful trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe. China's military budget is relatively modest compared to the US, and it cannot call upon an ally as powerful as itself. Indeed, the closest peer competitor to China - India - is part of the West's strategic balancing against China.

In any case, the crux of the US-China competition is that the US has a presumption of global primacy, and feels that it cannot even allow a regional power like China to establish itself. All of the problems in the relationship do not disappear if you drop that presumption, but many of them do - and certainly the idea that we should prepare for World War Three does, which in any event, would almost certainly lead to a global nuclear holocaust.

Also, US Presidents have not been 'prevented' from drawing back from the world stage by 'external events'. Events happened, and they responded as such. There was nothing foreordained or deterministic about it. They could have chosen differently.

In the 1960s, defense spending accounted for over 12% of GDP. Today it's between 3-4%. We're not still fighting the cold war, and our defense spending has been reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. It's not very far off from other countries. The UK's is around 2.2% to 2.5%. Russia's is over 4% since the Ukrainian conflict.

Difference in magnitude is different in like.

The US GDP is orders of magnitude bigger than the other countries, and also has no land borders to defend so it's "defense" spending should really not be as big as most other countries.

Of course "defense" is a joke here, because US Military Defense spending is mostly "Offense" - power projection. Patrolling the international waters, and flying air missions to ensure the entire world knows the US is in charge.

Whether this has value in the world today is subjective. It's a pretty deep divide between the left ("why can't we all just get along?") and the right ("i'm afraid of anyone with a shade of skin darker than a mango, so i want an F16 flying around their country's borders 24-7 and an aircraft carrier parked outside their front door")

It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed.

It didn't make sense post 9/11 where the enemy was no longer a state, and too ephemeral to be affected by aircraft carriers.

It doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook), and by compromising one of the two major political parties.

Hilariously, like a broken clock, the US is about to be right again, because it WILL make sense again over the next decade as China enters it's own "World Police" ambitions.

And as evil and self-centered the US government and international policy is, I'd rather have them in charge than China (Because while they are bastards, they are my bastards, and I, as a westerner, reap the benefits of their policies).

> It didn't make much sense for most of the 90's, once russia collapsed

You're right. Which is why we went from spending 12.5% of our GDP on defense to less than 4% after the end of th cold war. That's literally a 3-4x reduction.

>It doesn't make sense post 2016 because the war Russia is waging on the US is one with Information (fake news, Facebook)

And what do you think their endgame is with this information war?

They aren't pumping out the disinformation for shits and giggles, it's for a very clear distinct foreign policy reason when you consider Georgia, Ukraine, etc

without taking into account the changes in purchasing power/inflation, actual budget amount, and changes in GDP, those stats are not really comparing apples to apples.

Quite the opposite, almost all experts use percentage of GDP as a measure of how much a country is developing its military. Purchasing power and inflation means that $100 billion today is totally different than $100 billion 20 years before or later. Not to mention, the total inflation adjusted amount of wealth in the country has gone up considerably, so even increases in inflation adjusted spending could still mean that the country is dedicating less of it's overall economic output to the military. Percentage of GDP is a much more effective measurement.

I can recommend The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade by Andrew Feinstein - mind you I found it quite depressing as the levels of corruption and cynicism that it describes are quite remarkable.

Fantastic book.

The US military is an extension of its corporations and economic interests. It has nothing to do with the people which are sheepishly manipulated each time to suit whatever agenda the elite need pushed. The complex is a beast that rarely responds to the public unless there is massive pressure usually in response to some price like forced recruitment that the people have to pay to meet its needs.

> "...our miliitary budget is just another cold war era echo..." - No, it's more complicated than that. You're ignoring all current geopolitics.

> "...the ignorant notion that our public officials are moral actors..." - Yes good point. Politicians are inherently evil. We should just let Walmart run the country.

> "We have to be brave and fight back or else..." - Gotta love militant pacifism.

Is this on topic to the subject at hand?

I used to be a fan of Noam Chomsky and think that the U.S. was a negative force in the world. I can point to plenty of kneecapping and bad policies.

However in 2019 I see the rise of authoritarian states such as China, Russia and their "fellow travelers" and I think that freedom is very much at risk.

Green Party activist Howie Hawkins, for instance, goes to rallies where they want to see NATO demolished but when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak and where trouble is spilling out of Africa and the Middle East into Europe it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. I told him that.

Similarly, the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" is a stopped clock that always tells the same time. They are up in arms that the U.S. is adding a "super fuse" to our warheads that will increase their effectiveness against hard targets (e.g. enemy missile silos.) Where are they when Russia and China are developing greatly upgraded missiles, hypersonic weapons, etc?

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans who need to be taken of.

However for many of those who live outside of USA, overseas where the US military operates, we understand that power vacuums are very potent and if not for US, some other country will fill the void, with soft or hard power. It’s not just China and Russia; its also Turkey and Iran, for example.

We don’t have much for a frame of reference, but I’ll tell you that the this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, and under the US military umbrella and peace keeping, many nations were able to divert resources into developing their societies, not worried that they’ll be plundered by some aspiring empire.

Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies. Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countries which happened to be of strategic importance to the US or in disagreement with its model, it has meant downright destruction, war and catastrophes. Any time you call the US imperialism "heavenly", remember how it has begun, with two atomic bombs being thrown on two cities. Remember all the needless and actually lost wars the US have involved themselves and the world in. Remember the political meddling with local political affairs that the US has practised (the disaster that South America has been; plans like GLADIO and similia in Europe).

I much prefer democracy to autocracy. I also see the convenience of NATO. But sorry, I refuse to call American imperialism heavenly. It has been bloody, violent and with very little care for actual democracy and self-determination of nations.

Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble.

Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.

> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere"

No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved).

Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange.

And not in many other parts of the world, either.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".

Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!

The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent.

Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its economy in ~15 years (inflation adjusted). Colombia looks like it has a very bright future.

The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations. It's why there are no giant wars between Latin American nations, with rampant annexations, et al. They all know the US would intervene and whichever side the US was on, that side would likely win, so nobody wants to risk it. The US has also guaranteed the lack of foreign power conquering via the Monroe Doctrine, for more than a century, which is a rather sensitive concern given the history of Latin America.

The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It easily could do so. What other superpowers throughout history have ever behaved that way?

> It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez

Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business.

> Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine

For debatable values of "doing fine".

> The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations

Not really.

> The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America.

It hasn't used overt military power (except in limited cases, like their own CIA-backed agents going rogue on them). It has meddled in Latin America democracies to often terrible results. In many cases, it has abetted bloodshed.

"It was none of the US business." When China and Russia are propping up a hostile regime, it's a threat to US interests in the region. The US has made it its business to fight refugees and drugs, what happens in Venezuela impacts its Business.

"For debatable values of "doing fine"." It's doing better politically, and economically than most countries in Latin America. Almost any value that you evaluate it by, its doing fine compared to most countries in the Americas.

We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

I'm sure you understand this would have been highly theoretical to the students and pregnant mothers tortured, murdered and disappeared by US-sponsored dictatorships. For their own good.

"Fighting against Communism" is not a good reason to torture and murder civilians, or to topple elected governments.

... US supported dictatorships that displaced or prevented other, potentially more harmful dictatorships. Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA and allies than those that are hostile. See Egypt as a recent example.

> Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA

No. When you or your loved ones are tortured and murdered, it's not better if done in the name of the interests of the US.

There's nothing magical about the US that torture in the name of their interests is somehow "better", and I'm sorry -- and horrified -- that you think there is.

> Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere,

Well, sort of. Depends on whether or not you elect a government that the CIA approves of.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3...

The broader issue is that, while most would consider the alternative power vacuum bad, American imperialism and projection is obviously not the optimal way to organize global society.

The UN is wholly inept and incapable with a security council that overrules decisions and is composed of both democracies and dictatorships, but in theory you would want to have organizations akin to it that could maintain nation state power balance and avoid the propagation of further empire or subjugation between states. Having this one nation beholden largely not even to its people but to its richest dictate global morals and ethics between societies is an oppression of its own, even if the alternative is recognizably worse in the current state of affairs.

> … when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak … it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever.

NATO is not required for the Ukraine. Under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, 1994 - the USA, UK, and others committed to defend the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for them giving up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal.

Then you didn't.

Why would NATO be different - under an actual peer-level invasion?

The Budapest Memorandum contains no such commitment (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi...). It states the parties' commitment "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", not to go to war if others violate those.

Ukraine had the 3rd largest global nuclear arsenal? Presumably inherited from USSR?

Yes.

In a moment of touching naiveté they agreed to give it all up and accept the word of other nuclear powers (who got to keep their nukes) that they could rely on said others for protection.

One invaded them and the others had a sudden case of acute testicular fortitude failure.

Unsuprisingly, South Africa politely refused Obama's repeated, kind-hearted offers to let the USA take their weapons-grade uranium in exchange for (wait for it) a whopping $5 million worth of nuclear fuel.

A lesson to all.

"In a moment of touching naiveté"

Maintaining nuclear arsenal is quite expensive. The Ukrainian elites at that time thought they were just being extremely clever by getting 'guaranteed' security without paying for it. Their successors were dumb enough to threaten Russia's own security by inviting NATO to expand to the Ukraine.

They also produced lots of military goods for Russia. Thus it was no good idea trying to bring them into EU and as second step into NATO. They could have been a perfect neutral state serving both sides. But every side wanted their own oligarch.

"Green Party activist Howie Hawkins, for instance, goes to rallies where they want to see NATO demolished but when Russia is carving up the Ukraine like a steak and where trouble is spilling out of Africa and the Middle East into Europe it seems like NATO is more relevant today then ever. I told him that."

The funny thing is that the only reason for Russia to intervene in Ukraine is the NATO expansion to Russian borders and specifically the intention to expand to the Ukraine.

Now you, the righteous one, see Russia's reaction to NATO's actions as justification for the existence of NATO. NATO is a corrupt jobless firefighter turned arsonist hoping to become relevant again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com