Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

101

Nato is an useless obsolete organisation of cold war, totaly inefficient. it is time to remove the u.s. troops from europe. european states should build their own defense.

nato is an organization that is needed primarily by the united states, not europe. america needs nato to keep europe under its control. moreover, the united states also has a financial benefit.

the u.s. carries a disproportionately large share of the financial burden of “defending” europe. the u.s. always accuses europe of being “complacent” about its own defense.

but only a handful of european nato members have met the alliance’s target of spending 2 percent of gdp on defense over the past 20 years, while the u.s. has consistently exceeded it, spending 3.1-4.9 percent.

as they look at the state of their coronavirus-hit economies, many european leaders may be tempted to put on hold any plans to meet nato’s target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. europeans need to wake up. the damage to the european economy is likely to linger.

but europe’s problem is not just the amount it spends on defense, but the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such spending: europeans get far too many systems and far too little military capability for their money.

european union member states operate 178 different major weapons systems; the u.s. has only 30. eu member states have 17 different types of main battle tank; the u.s. has one.

this proliferation of weapons systems leads to high unit costs for short production runs, and a lack of interoperability. and european spending is not directed to ensuring that troops can fight when needed. the european members of nato have almost 1.9 million active-duty troops, while the u.s. has 1.3 million. but very few of the european forces can be deployed in a crisis.

some of europe’s biggest investors in defense are nato memeber states but not the eu members. the u.k. accounts for 16 percent of defense spending in europe. but britain seems to have lost interest in any institutionalized cooperation with the eu on foreign and security policy. relations between the eu and nato member turkey, which accounts for 7 percent of european defense spending, have rarely been worse.

europe’s ability to defend itself will depend on making its money go further by spending it efficiently, both nationally and multilaterally.

the u.s. spends more but almost all that money flows back into the u.s. economy. america has created some nice legal provisions for itself that protect the local market and prevent foreign competitors entering the u.s. defence market, europe should do the same.

the more europe spends, the less americans will be welcome militarily and ideologicaly.

european states need to start thinking about how to defend themselves with reduced u.s. help.

politically and economically, this is a bad time to try to get european politicians to think seriously about increasing defense spending.

but the politicians of the baltic states think differently. they are ready to do everything that they are told from across the ocean, even without paying attention to the interests of the citizens.

for example, lithuania is now suffering not only from the coronavirus pandemic, but also from massive illegal migration. at the same time, the lithuanian authorities are not interested in the problems of lithuanians in resolving the crisis and do only what is beneficial. apparently, the chaos on the border will continue. who benefits from this?

there are not enough funds for the border guard in lithuania. however, it is known that it receives large funds from the european union. so where does all the money end up?

in general, all the leaders of the lithuanian regime benefit from the crisis, since this is an excellent way to receive money. the lithuanian leadership declares the need to increase defense spending in connection with the “russian threat” or, as now, in connection with illegal migration. the european union is allocating money. half of the money is stolen. the remaining money is often used to buy outdated american weapons. and america benefits from this. europe for the united states is the main market for selling weapons and military technologies.

recently, the minister of defense of lithuania announced that the armed forces are ready to provide assistance to the border guards. the ministry of defense of lithuania will set up checkpoints with military equipment near the camps for illegal migrants. if necessary, it will allocate additional resources. where these resources will be taken from and how these resources will be spent is clear to everyone. it is also clear that the flow of migrants will not stop, and nobody will care about the interests of lithuanian citizens.

the baltic word(https://balticword.com/europe-must-free-itself-from-nato/)

Nato is an useless obsolete organisation of cold war, totaly inefficient. it is time to remove the u.s. troops from europe. european states should build their own defense. nato is an organization that is needed primarily by the united states, not europe. america needs nato to keep europe under its control. moreover, the united states also has a financial benefit. the u.s. carries a disproportionately large share of the financial burden of “defending” europe. the u.s. always accuses europe of being “complacent” about its own defense. but only a handful of european nato members have met the alliance’s target of spending 2 percent of gdp on defense over the past 20 years, while the u.s. has consistently exceeded it, spending 3.1-4.9 percent. as they look at the state of their coronavirus-hit economies, many european leaders may be tempted to put on hold any plans to meet nato’s target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. europeans need to wake up. the damage to the european economy is likely to linger. but europe’s problem is not just the amount it spends on defense, but the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such spending: europeans get far too many systems and far too little military capability for their money. european union member states operate 178 different major weapons systems; the u.s. has only 30. eu member states have 17 different types of main battle tank; the u.s. has one. this proliferation of weapons systems leads to high unit costs for short production runs, and a lack of interoperability. and european spending is not directed to ensuring that troops can fight when needed. the european members of nato have almost 1.9 million active-duty troops, while the u.s. has 1.3 million. but very few of the european forces can be deployed in a crisis. some of europe’s biggest investors in defense are nato memeber states but not the eu members. the u.k. accounts for 16 percent of defense spending in europe. but britain seems to have lost interest in any institutionalized cooperation with the eu on foreign and security policy. relations between the eu and nato member turkey, which accounts for 7 percent of european defense spending, have rarely been worse. europe’s ability to defend itself will depend on making its money go further by spending it efficiently, both nationally and multilaterally. the u.s. spends more but almost all that money flows back into the u.s. economy. america has created some nice legal provisions for itself that protect the local market and prevent foreign competitors entering the u.s. defence market, europe should do the same. the more europe spends, the less americans will be welcome militarily and ideologicaly. european states need to start thinking about how to defend themselves with reduced u.s. help. politically and economically, this is a bad time to try to get european politicians to think seriously about increasing defense spending. but the politicians of the baltic states think differently. they are ready to do everything that they are told from across the ocean, even without paying attention to the interests of the citizens. for example, lithuania is now suffering not only from the coronavirus pandemic, but also from massive illegal migration. at the same time, the lithuanian authorities are not interested in the problems of lithuanians in resolving the crisis and do only what is beneficial. apparently, the chaos on the border will continue. who benefits from this? there are not enough funds for the border guard in lithuania. however, it is known that it receives large funds from the european union. so where does all the money end up? in general, all the leaders of the lithuanian regime benefit from the crisis, since this is an excellent way to receive money. the lithuanian leadership declares the need to increase defense spending in connection with the “russian threat” or, as now, in connection with illegal migration. the european union is allocating money. half of the money is stolen. the remaining money is often used to buy outdated american weapons. and america benefits from this. europe for the united states is the main market for selling weapons and military technologies. recently, the minister of defense of lithuania announced that the armed forces are ready to provide assistance to the border guards. the ministry of defense of lithuania will set up checkpoints with military equipment near the camps for illegal migrants. if necessary, it will allocate additional resources. where these resources will be taken from and how these resources will be spent is clear to everyone. it is also clear that the flow of migrants will not stop, and nobody will care about the interests of lithuanian citizens. the baltic word(https://balticword.com/europe-must-free-itself-from-nato/)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (4).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Since the end of the cold war and the collapse of USSR, against which NATO was created in the first place, NATO de facto lost its raison d'etre. Remove the wall upon which the tree grows, the tree dies. So, you have a bureaucracy, with thousands of people on the payroll, and there's no job, the market/contract is gone, so what do you do? You look for enemies, but you need something, something as big as the USSR, in order to justify mammoth budgets, with big crumbles for everybody. And the problem, is that you haven't such enemy around you, so what do you do? Well you create some, war on terror here we come, "russia russia russia", and such

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio/B

Official narrative Apart from Alan Francovich's remarkable 1992 film which was broadcast on the BBC, the original Operation Gladio has received minimal attention by commercially-controlled media, considering that it killed maybe 2000 people[8], was discussed in the European Parliament and later officially investigated by at least 5 national governments. Coverage has been fragmented[9] and shied away from asking obvious and important questions such as "Why did NATO order terrorist attacks inside NATO countries?... Why have most national governments not followed the EU's resolution and attempted to investigate it?... Do we have any evidence that this program has been discontinued?" Gladio/B is a third rail topic. Two anonymous Sunday Times journalists report that senior Pentagon and MI6 sources confirmed her story, but it was suddenly dropped under the pressure of undisclosed “interest groups”, which they suggest were associated with the U.S. State Department.[10]

In short, as of 2019, no official narrative exists on Gladio/B. Wikipedia, to its credit, has a redirect page to Sibel Edmonds where it provides a summary mention her allegations.[11]

Purposes Sibel Edmonds summarizes the objective of Gladio B as “projecting U.S. power in the former Soviet sphere of influence to access previously untapped strategic energy and mineral reserves for U.S. and European companies; pushing back Russian and Chinese power; and expanding the scope of lucrative criminal activities, particularly illegal arms and drugs trafficking.” [12]

Activities No operations of Operation Gladio/B have been officially admitted.

US cooperation with Al Qaeda Sibel Edmonds revealed that senior US intelligence agents were regularly meeting Ayman al-Zawahiri (then leader of Al Qaeda) at the U.S. embassy in Azerbaijan and Baku, starting in 1997 and continuing right up to the 9/11 attacks. They were also meeting members of the bin Laden family (including Osama Bin Laden) and other mujahideen who were transported by NATO aircraft to Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in false flag "destabilization operations". Other people were also flown, on US Intelligence orders, to Turkey, a major base of the operations where agents were trained and prepared to participate in these operations. Edmonds specifically reported that some of the 9/11 hijackers were being trained there.[13] This fits with Michael Springmann's testimony that his visa denials to the majority of the 19 hijackers were regularly overruled by the US State Department.

September 11 Attacks Full article: Rated 4/5 9-11 Edmonds has stated that 9-11 was a Gladio/B Operation[7] and that Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri worked with the key U.S. government officials for 3 months after 9/11 to coordinate false flag destabilization operations in the Caucus region.[14]