Wouldn't it be simpler to surround the enemy in Ramstein?
squirtle24•3w ago
If the enemy already has a base inside your country, you're at a severe disadvantage... it's like realizing you've been cannon rushed in starcraft
mepian•3w ago
A base becomes useless pretty quickly if it can't be resupplied, I suspect there is enough hostile AA around it to ensure that.
general1465•3w ago
Unless the base is completely dependent on host country to supply electricity water and gas + it is inland so it is not possible to supply it in any other way than through air, which can be easily intercepted.
47282847•3w ago
I can see how it all becomes deliberately muddied these days but there still is a fundamental difference between defense vs. hostile action. And it’s not necessary for defense to see anyone else as “enemy” either. Bees and other animals invade “my” territory and I may want them out and will extract them, but they are still not enemies.
threecheese•3w ago
For a moment I agreed: Yes, a flamethrower-wielding Till Lindemann with a bare vulva backdrop would scare the shit out of those troops.
nicbou•3w ago
The fact that the Lindemann doctrine is back on the table speaks volumes about the state of affairs.
juliusceasar•3w ago
What a clown show.
Conservative Christians and their Project 2025 is all about attacking Europe and becoming friends with Russia and Israel.
consumer451•3w ago
Oh, well this is nice sounding:
> Bipartisan Legislation Prohibiting a U.S. Invasion of a NATO State Introduced
"The No Funds for NATO Invasion Act makes clear to our allies and partners, as well as those around the world, that it is unacceptable to invade the territory of an ally of the United States".
Should actually be called the WTF Act, as in WTF should something like this even be necessary?
JacoboJacobi•3w ago
squirtle24•3w ago
mepian•3w ago
general1465•3w ago
47282847•3w ago
threecheese•3w ago
nicbou•3w ago