Oh. Now I see the problem - you’re still operating with centuries-old thinking. You think “war with Russia” means France launching a unilateral invasion of Russia.
Funding NATO is literally the equivalent of preparing for war with Russia. NATO was formed explicitly to counter the USSR. It was staffed with Nazi officers from the Third Reich on the basis that the Third Reich was 100% dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union and enslaving Russia. When the USSR was dissolved, NATO didn’t dissolve itself, it became an openly aggressive military force launching invasions of several countries under various pretenses.
The idea of austerity for increased NATO funding can only be interpreted as money for war with Russia. Sure, you can pretend NATO is purely defensive but even if that’s the case it’s still accurate to say that France is engaging in austerity to fund a war with Russia, just a defensive one.
The reality, however, is that the West has been hell bent on dominating Russia for over 200 years and the quintessential example of that history is Napoleon’s campaign to invade Russia - one of the deadliest canpaigns in history. And since the Third Reich was also a Western attempt to invade Russia resulting in massive bloodshed, it becomes really difficult to ignore the obvious problem of France funding NATO (remember, originally helmed with handpicked Third Reich officers) as some kind of “just defensive pact” especially when NATO dropped DU bombs on Yugoslavia in its supposed war for humanitarianism, and NATO’s involvement in offensive operations in East Asia.
So you may take issue with the imagined implication that France is going to send an army under the French flag to march on Moscow - I think that’s silly too. But you’re arguing against a strawman.
Oh. Now I see the problem - you’re still operating with centuries-old thinking. You think “war with Russia” means France launching a unilateral invasion of Russia.
Funding NATO is literally the equivalent of preparing for war with Russia. NATO was formed explicitly to counter the USSR. It was staffed with Nazi officers from the Third Reich on the basis that the Third Reich was 100% dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union and enslaving Russia. When the USSR was dissolved, NATO didn’t dissolve itself, it became an openly aggressive military force launching invasions of several countries under various pretenses.
The idea of austerity for increased NATO funding can only be interpreted as money for war with Russia. Sure, you can pretend NATO is purely defensive but even if that’s the case it’s still accurate to say that France is engaging in austerity to fund a war with Russia, just a defensive one.
The reality, however, is that the West has been hell bent on dominating Russia for over 200 years and the quintessential example of that history is Napoleon’s campaign to invade Russia - one of the deadliest canpaigns in history. And since the Third Reich was also a Western attempt to invade Russia resulting in massive bloodshed, it becomes really difficult to ignore the obvious problem of France funding NATO (remember, originally helmed with handpicked Third Reich officers) as some kind of “just defensive pact” especially when NATO dropped DU bombs on Yugoslavia in its supposed war for humanitarianism, and NATO’s involvement in offensive operations in East Asia.
So you may take issue with the imagined implication that France is going to send an army under the French flag to march on Moscow - I think that’s silly too. But you’re arguing against a strawman.