No, because I voted for Trump. Europe gets to take responsibility for the wars they start and escalate now. Not my problem.
This kind of completely unhinged dehumanizing nonsense is bordering hate speech.
All gave up their psychotic empire-building games (or at least sublimated into forms not involving large-scale military conflict) long ago.
Russia's current regime, for some reason, has not.
They did not. They were subjugated by the current empire, the US and are all just fiefdoms nowadays, some of them are even occupied by military forces, called bases.
Russia isn't in that list.
Those countries are not "fiefdoms", by any stretch or interpretation.
Nor are they occupied, in any meaningful sense.
That's just delusional.
Russians, ironically, defeated the tartars when they managed to out-meritocrat the greatkhanless hordes somescore later,
-Then they basically reverted to divine right of kings*, aka the mandate of heaven..
-until the time of Lenin, when the cycle began anew..
*Apologies for ignoring the slight detour of Peter the Great** (known to be enlighteningly cruel) whose table of ranks could have been said to have set "his Excellency" (Prevoskhoditel’stvo) Ulyanov up for life
**but we should also pay attention to the current phenomenon of lionizing Catherine as a monarch more Christian than Peter
[Recall that the christians did not meritocracy until roughly... 1848 (again, ignoring the Glourious Revolution) over thence we had Weber retconning for his tribe]
(
...and that Goldstein basically writes about the meritocracy* of the Inner Party, as set out in the non-fictional The Managerial Revolution (1941).
* Smith is in the outer party precisely because he did poorly on his A-levels.
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCs_c643qU
(not sure if the russian fleet really kept the royal navy away during the US Civil War; my impression had been that the Confederacy had waited too long to revolt, and the second-cheapest supplier of cotton [egypt?] for british mills was not much more expensive than the CSA would've been in any case)
I am not expert in history, but I cannot recall Europeans using US troops in an active war since creation of NATO. The opposite can be said in this century, though.
I do not deny that having the back of US, that has possibly the biggest military in the world, is favourable for European countries.
But I am absolutely tired of this discourse that NATO only benefits the others, and that USA doesn't get any benefit from it.
It is beneficial for all parts, and that is the reason it is an alliance. And USA has used it for its benefit for quite long; thus, it is not unreasonable that allies might rely on its help.
Besides, it is beneficial for USA to keep Europe stable and in peace — most clearly, for macro-economic reasons.
Which should still leave plenty for lavish social benefits programs, since other places can afford it.
Genuinely looking forward seeing the US folks get a better coverage soon.
I think the CIA is doing in Eastern Europe all the things that they used to do in Latin America in the 60's.