> It's odd, the world is the safest and most stable that it has ever been.
Tell that to Mother Earth, who is about to show us all who is boss. Climate change is much worse than most people realise.
You may also be unaware of what is going on in Syria, and the fact that NATO has ordered the deployment of thousands of troops to Eastern Europe to put pressure on Russia, a nuclear-armed country.
NATO put the troops in NATO member countries, at request of those NATO countries. I'm sure that's all was just to irritate Russia for no possible reason at all. After all, it's not like Russia, a nuclear armed country has been undergoing moral and intellectual meltdown last couple of years?
Do you think a small pittance of airbases and troops from NATO would do anything meaningful against a Russian assault or invasion? Let's be honest, it's nothing more than political posturing and pandering to the west so they can get access to the dangling trade-cookies that only "western friendly" nations get to have.
Of course they will do something meaningful: involve the rest of NATO into the conflict immediately, without any further bureaucratic procedure. They are not a treat or even a deterrent to Russia: it's a tripwire.
I'm not sure the parent is implying that NATO was wrong to deploy said troops. But even if it's the right move, deploying troops to pressure Russia is certainly an unnerving turn of events.
Tell that to Mother Earth, who is about to show us all who is boss. Climate change is much worse than most people realise.
You may also be unaware of what is going on in Syria, and the fact that NATO has ordered the deployment of thousands of troops to Eastern Europe to put pressure on Russia, a nuclear-armed country.