Comments by "Emanon" (@Emanon...) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

  1. 1,5% of GDP for every NATO member is more than enough to maintain a strong deterrence. The current NATO total budget is 1.3 trillion $, set to dramatically increase in 2022. Russia spends an estimated 65-70 billion $. Even if you account for PPP, Russia is hilariously outmatched. The last 0,5% that is currently in the agreement is nothing more than the transfer of wealth to weapon producing companies, and more importantly for the WSJ readers , its shareholders.
    13
  2. Because he threatened to leave NATO, pushed other leaders, walked around alone without anyone wanting to talk to him etc... Remind me, what has he said about Putin, again?
    4
  3. Yeah, that's you guys...
    1
  4. I agree. No. Being x10 or x20 stronger is essentially meaningless. And in the case of Russia, as long as nukes are in play, it's probably detrimental to be so much stronger as they will have a higher inclination to include tactical nukes in their doctrine against NATO (just as they have with China).
    1
  5. But they're very poor at it, evidently. They've failed the first lesson of warfare "Know your enemy".
    1
  6. WSJ: Your daily dose of establishment BS. How much do you want to bet that the owners of WSJ have actively donated to election campaigns?
    1
  7. This obsession and fearmongering over war needs to stop. Is the US so fragile that it can't exist peacefully and mprove the lives of its citizens without beating the war drums? Iran. Venezuela. Russia. China. North Korea. Seriously? Feed the poor. Provide homes for the homeless. Healthcare, education, infrastructure. This obsession over hegemonic empire needs to stop.
    1