That’s my whole point, Canada is already entirely dependent on the US. That can’t change because Canada has a far smaller population than the US or Russia. No other countries are in a position to threaten Canada. The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US, the point is to keep Europe dependent on the US as I’ve already explained in the previous reply and you ignored.
I ignored the part about Europe because the position of “NATO exists to keep Europe dependent on the US” is just as much at odds with the article’s opening of “NATO says it wants its members to develop national plans to bolster the capacity of their individual defence industry sectors” as it was when it was about Canada.
You said “The whole point is to make the vassals dependent on the US militarily which allows the US to control the politics of these countries.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to be asking about how this relates to Canada when you said “these countries” on an article that is primarily about Canada, and you’re now saying “The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US”
And now I’ve clarified for you specifically what I meant. The original comment I was replying to was asking how a military alliance could function when all members aren’t pitching in. And I’ve explained what that translates to in practice. If you have hard time understanding that, then I really can’t help you further.
This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?
I think the simple answer is that the state of relative demilitarization the US has kept its subjects in is good for cultivating power when the first world has definite peace (and how could it not be, with all the US military bases in those countries?), but now that that peace is crumbling, NATO is forced to militarize more of its countries to deter/attack its enemies. That is, at least, an interpretation consistent with the headline and what Yog is saying, I think.
Yup, that’s what I think is happening. Now that the US can’t shoulder the entire burden of the MIC for NATO, the other members need to start pitching in.
That’s my whole point, Canada is already entirely dependent on the US. That can’t change because Canada has a far smaller population than the US or Russia. No other countries are in a position to threaten Canada. The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US, the point is to keep Europe dependent on the US as I’ve already explained in the previous reply and you ignored.
I ignored the part about Europe because the position of “NATO exists to keep Europe dependent on the US” is just as much at odds with the article’s opening of “NATO says it wants its members to develop national plans to bolster the capacity of their individual defence industry sectors” as it was when it was about Canada.
You said “The whole point is to make the vassals dependent on the US militarily which allows the US to control the politics of these countries.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to be asking about how this relates to Canada when you said “these countries” on an article that is primarily about Canada, and you’re now saying “The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US”
And now I’ve clarified for you specifically what I meant. The original comment I was replying to was asking how a military alliance could function when all members aren’t pitching in. And I’ve explained what that translates to in practice. If you have hard time understanding that, then I really can’t help you further.
This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?
I think the simple answer is that the state of relative demilitarization the US has kept its subjects in is good for cultivating power when the first world has definite peace (and how could it not be, with all the US military bases in those countries?), but now that that peace is crumbling, NATO is forced to militarize more of its countries to deter/attack its enemies. That is, at least, an interpretation consistent with the headline and what Yog is saying, I think.
Yup, that’s what I think is happening. Now that the US can’t shoulder the entire burden of the MIC for NATO, the other members need to start pitching in.