Originally Posted by Kind Lampshade Maker
Membership of rich countries in "NA"TO is more harmful for them than for countries receiving the transfer funds and state-of-the-art weaponry.
I'm principally against "NA"TO and especially against the membership of European nations in it. However, as seen on a strategic basis, Bulgaria's membership in "NA"TO would allow Bulgaria certain freedoms to repell a neo-Greater Turkey without suffering devestating consequences similar to those suffered by the Serbs for doing likewise. Take Greece, for instance. The tit for tat which occasionally occurs between those two nations was tolerated while both were "NA"TO members.
Once the SHTF in the U.S., the vaccuum left will cause "NA"TO to implode, leaving it a paper tiger. This void could get filled by newer member nations and hopefully, by then, WN-oriented England, France and Germany (let's see what happens during early June's E.U parliamentary elections) which would allow them the firepower to reverse the land annexation, taken place after the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano, in exchange for transit of the grounding nations' subhumanity
Absolutely correct assessment. Although, the real good thing would be resurrecting of the Warsavian pact, only based on White interests. For the White Balkan countries that would mean military cooperation between them, Russia, Belorussia.
Look what NATO did when the Turks invaded Cyprus. If they decide to invade us tomorrow, and they are preparing for that, the reaction from European countries and from Uncle Tom's shack would be something like "come on, guys, work it out between yourselves, we're all friends here".
25 years ago, if the Turks tried something like that, the Russian position was too clear - they'd disappear from the map.