I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.
It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.
You couldn't replace the US military in Europe in ten years, I think.
The US has a cultural concept of military service as a big thing that just doesn't exist over here. The UK is the biggest military in Europe and it struggles for manpower constantly. Part of that is because pay isn't great and more funds would resolve that to an extent, but you're not going to get past that cultural issue where the US military plus reserve is ten times the size of the UK military plus reserves, but is only five times the population as a country, and it's not like they'll just take anyone, you still have to get in. If it's EU, that;ll mean no US, no UK, no Turkey...
Now, Europe does have a large population, and is wealthy, and maybe, with extra funds, it could make up the difference. But the largest military budget in the world, the most effective military, most powerful Navy, most powerful air force... yes with ten years of funding, development, increase in investment and recruitment that would be a start, but I dunno if you could even get close to covering the gap. And remember all that money has to come from somewhere, are European nations just going to double defence budgets? No, and even if they did, that wouldn't be close to what they'd actually need to be putting in.
Speaking more mainly to the topic, Europe as a continental position (i.e. including the UK and potentially Turkey) could probably take over it's own defence in ten years, if they did make a concerted effort. But if NATO fell apart tomorrow and was replaced by a European Defence Alliance, then that would be a sudden and hugely real concern for any nation that borders Russia. They don't have ten years, they'll falling into a new diplomatic reality right now, because Putin is happy to use violent military force vs civilian populations in bordering countries, and has done multiple times before.
It's a big concern. Europe cannot simply turn around and say "well up yours Trump, we'll replace the US!" even if they were prepared to spend the cash and the time to try to do so. Not that Macron is actually going to do that, although he probably thinks that if you can keep NATO going and shift European defence into a place where it can protect itself even if the US does not keep to the treaty that'd be a good thing (and I would agree with that)
That's exactly the point though. We know the EU can't suddenly go, fuck you we're dropping out of NATO. The most they could do is to start building up their own defensive capabilities, shifting responsibilities away from NATO onto their own defensive forces, until they reached a point at which they can go, fuck you we're dropping out of NATO. Which is... kinda what they're doing?
Like, congrats, you have kids, so your spouse can't just up and divorce you, so you're just sleeping in separate rooms and doing a "trial separation." What do you think happens when the kids turn 18 and head off to university?!
This is what NATO's falling apart, realistically, looks like. There shouldn't be much comfort to be found in, "Oh, they can't replace us for teeennn more years! Ten years is forever! We can just keep driving a wedge between us and then we'll just apologize with some chocolates and roses, and it'll all be cool, right?"
I haven’t seen this reported in any English language press yet, but here is a BBC journalist showing a clipping from Le Monde, the French news publication.
It says that Trump met with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and began the meeting by blaming them for the war in Yugoslavia. Apparently, it took several minutes for the leaders to realize that Trump didn’t understand that the Balkans are not the Baltics.
Oh my god this is incredible. You can't even explain your way around this, he's just stupid.
There's like no way more than a fifth of Americans could accurately place either.
The goddamn president should be in the top quintile for a lot of shit
Our last one was.
(Some) people didn't like being "talked down to" by an elite (especially a ******). They wanted someone who was an idiot just like them. And they found one.
Europe doesn't have to match the US. They don't need a dozen giant carriers tooling around the world being ready to fight multiple wars
It's not really the Carriers, it's the multiple Armoured Divisions that can be fielded, the amphibious landing capability at Brigade level in multiple locations, the huge Submarine advantage, the sheer need for airlift capability... all of these things have massive logistical, financial and material costs, and need a lot of guys too. The Russians have huge conventional advantages in Europe even with the Americans there, take them away, it gets even worse.
If Europe wants to replace the NATO strategic deterrent with conventional and nuclear weapons with a European strategic deterrent, that's going to cost a lot and take a long time and in the meantime, if the US doesn't want to play, there's nothing to stop Latvia, Lithuania etc being snapped up or at least severely troubled by Russian demands on them that they can't refuse due to fear of military action. The US playing fast and loose with NATO is not a case of "stupid Trump, doesn't he realise they're just going to ditch the US and make their own NATO with blackjack and hookers?" it's a case of "Trump is putting the security of large portions of Europe directly at risk with his words." And if you don't believe me, just look at Russia's interventions in Georgia and Ukraine across the last twenty years, two nations next door who didn't have any international support network of power projection in place to prevent Putin's ambitions.
I'm not sure you need a "warrior culture" to build a good military. A decent wage and training opportunities will draw young people in. There's quite an unskilled youth unemployment problem in Europe that this could actually help with, both in the short and long term. Short term, for employment. Long term, with skills useful when they get out.
Of course, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If the European armed forces get big, there will be a temptation to use them. And we can see how that works out from the wars America keeps starting. With fascism on the rise, we could be back to the bad old days when there was always a war somewhere in Europe.
Any EU based defensive alliance or military project would not need to match US military, because it almost certainly would not be a huge standing military.
It's more important to have the specifics on training, weapon systems and communications ready than to have shitload of soldiers, because we are not currently at war, nor are planning to attack anyone.
And, to be honest, i don't expect Russia to suddenly attack EU, i doubt Russia could handle the cost of the war.
I'm far more worried of more subtle things like meddling in US and UK elections.
Also, if NATO falls apart tomorrow (unlikely, but not impossible (thanks for that Republicans)), there's not much anyone can do but to scramble for somekind of new world order.
But assuming NATO survives Trump, second Trump is not impossible so it is reasonable for EU (and everyone else) to take steps to avoid the current dependence on US and NATO.
Can you imagine the even bigger shit storm that he'd get us into if he said something wrong on the centennial armistice day?
I get that it's rude and offensive and he should feel some semblance of shame eventually maybe.
But I think, overall, him not being there is a good thing.
I'd rather see him embarrass himself more.
It's a solemn occasion to mark the end of a horrific, brutal, and destructive war. It had lasting impacts on the face of Europe that reach even until today.
Entire villages wiped out, swathes of land still littered with explosives and wire.
Entire family trees removed from the world.
An entire generation of young men obliterated.
And the leaders of the world we inherited from their loss are gathering to honor their memory, their murder, their sacrifice and the treaty that brought it all to an end.
This is not the time, nor the place to wish for Donald Fucking Trump to make a bigger buffoon of himself. We are all better off without him there.
We can't get rid of him as president yet, but we can at least do some part of honouring the dead by not letting him trample on their graves.
He's shitting on them already by whinging about a little rain. And more really.
You don't need a "warrior culture," but I am talking about a real issue here, the UK has been forced to make cuts in several areas due to sheer lack of guys wanting to sign up. Same in other European nations. I am not sure if increased wages and training would work to solve the genuine manpower issues faced by European forces, especially because again, that's going to cost a lot, and how is it going to be paid for?
The EU could, theoretically, replace some of the strategic needs provided by the US right now in Europe. If it was prepared to shoulder the massive increased spending costs, which I genuinely don't believe that it is. When you have the EU commission desperately trying to reduce the spending of Eurozone countries with large levels of national debt like Greece and Italy, when you have key UK public services facing black holes of funding... like if comes down to increasing wages for troops, buying ships and equipment, training guys etc to try and get another amphibious landing brigade put together or pulling an NHS trust out of the water, there's no choice for any UK government that I can think of except for the most right-wing of privatising Tories.
I'm not sure you need a "warrior culture" to build a good military. A decent wage and training opportunities will draw young people in. There's quite an unskilled youth unemployment problem in Europe that this could actually help with, both in the short and long term. Short term, for employment. Long term, with skills useful when they get out.
Of course, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If the European armed forces get big, there will be a temptation to use them. And we can see how that works out from the wars America keeps starting. With fascism on the rise, we could be back to the bad old days when there was always a war somewhere in Europe.
You could also build a decently large military with conscription, especially if your primary concern is defending your own frontiers. Most Euro powers had that during the Cold War.
The issue with not having an army proportionate to its size is that a European military must be strong enough to deter aggression. It needs this conventional deterrent more than the United States ever has, because the USA does not share a land border with any potential enemies - if NATO collapsed tomorrow, America would face no credible conventional threat to its home territories. Europe does not have that luxury. It also cannot be a small standing army relying on a large mobilization force, because modern warfare is unlikely to permit time for mobilization armies to leave their depots and deploy for combat fast enough to matter.
Russia under Putin would probably not try to pick a war with the whole of Europe. It'd be more interested in picking off weak nations at the edge of Europe with Russian cultural ties.
There could definitely be incentives that encourage young Europeans to sign up to the Armed Forces. Yes, it would cost a lot. The USA spends a crushing amount on this.
How large a standing military do you realisticly need when you have no intention to go attack anyone?
US has a large military, but it is also constantly doing shit all over the world, EU is not, and i think will not, be doing that.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Yes.
He's a global fucking embarrassment. We know. You know. Everybody knows.
Maybe I've gotten a bit more sensitive to WWI things since moving down here. I walk past a war memorial every single morning, a hundred plus names engraved for just this one small town, most lost in Turkey. Every year it gets stronger, the need to remember.
The best thing the US can do today is remove that buffoon from the equation, as best we can.
Nobody wants to hear from him about how smart American bombs are. Not today.
Not today. Or ever, really. But especially not today.
Russia under Putin would probably not try to pick a war with the whole of Europe. It'd be more interested in picking off weak nations at the edge of Europe with Russian cultural ties.
They would have far more diplomatic options for pressuring Europe and for picking off salami slices of border territories (which are EU members) if Europe lacks a robust conventional force capable of confronting Russia. This is the whole reason reinforcing the Baltics has been a BFD for awhile.
How large a standing military do you realisticly need when you have no intention to go attack anyone?
US has a large military, but it is also constantly doing shit all over the world, EU is not, and i think will not, be doing that.
the EU does that now though. Of course they're still gonna want to bomb Syria and Libya and Mali without America being involved.
Read that Europe does not have a "warrior" culture and I have to laugh. Yeah, the continent containing France, Germany and Britain don't know how to fight wars....
Somebody hasn't been studying history, and not ancient history either. During the Cold War Germany had a standing army of 495 000 men under arms, it fielded 12 divisions in 3 army corps. Thats before calling in the reserves. Its Air Force was equally impressive. France and Britain where no slouches either. Between them, they probably fielded a larger army and Air Force then the current US one. Only in the Naval department can the US claim to be undisputed. This was back in 1990, about 30 years ago.
All of this however came at great cost and once the Cold War wrapped up, cutbacks became practically mandatory.
What I am saying is that its totally feasible for the EU to have a Military the size of the US, even with the cost of modern technology. They did it before and they can do it again. Its the political will that is lacking because of the cost, but if Trump keeps talking and Russia keeps acting then it will probably be done.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The USA likes to paint Europe as effete unwarlike people for the benefit of its own warrior culture. Europe has historically been extremely aggressive, militarily. The ruin that it made of Europe in the early 20th c made people there consciously pull back from that. But as that passes out of living memory, there's no reason that will necessarily continue.
Read that Europe does not have a "warrior" culture and I have to laugh. Yeah, the continent containing France, Germany and Britain don't know how to fight wars....
Somebody hasn't been studying history, and not ancient history either. During the Cold War Germany had a standing army of 495 000 men under arms, it fielded 12 divisions in 3 army corps. Thats before calling in the reserves. Its Air Force was equally impressive. France and Britain where no slouches either. Between them, they probably fielded a larger army and Air Force then the current US one. Only in the Naval department can the US claim to be undisputed. This was back in 1990, about 30 years ago.
All of this however came at great cost and once the Cold War wrapped up, cutbacks became practically mandatory.
What I am saying is that its totally feasible for the EU to have a Military the size of the US, even with the cost of modern technology. They did it before and they can do it again. Its the political will that is lacking because of the cost, but if Trump keeps talking and Russia keeps acting then it will probably be done.
I don't think Solar precisely meant "warrior culture" in a historical sense, but more like the present generation of Western Europeans isn't quite militaristic and struggles to generate forces proportionate to their size and influence. Cold War Germany had conscription, so did France and most of the rest (Britain, I believe, was the only one to go fully professional after WW2). Building a fully professional force of that size is difficult, and so is reimplementing large-scale conscription if the public is used to the present state of affairs.
e: this could be especially difficult if the reimplementation of conscription is accompanied by the slashing of public welfare spending to pay for military expansion...
A pretty common line in SF is that humanity, collectively, has given up war because they were too good at it, and they finally realized that it was either that or destroy themselves.
We're not quite there yet, but Europe is and has been further along the curve, in several senses, for a while now.
France and Britain where no slouches either. Between them, they probably fielded a larger army and Air Force then the current US one. Only in the Naval department can the US claim to be undisputed. This was back in 1990, about 30 years ago.
Replying to this separately because I had to go pull some figures:
You're not too far off on the army part; combined the Anglo-French Armies in 1988 were about 440,000 compared to the US Army's current force of 476,000. However we must also consider that 183,000 of the French were conscripts while the US is volunteer.
idk how many airframes the French and British had back then but the French only had 96,000 active personnel in their air force compared to over 300,000 in the USAF today so pretty sure they and the RAF fall shorter than in the army comparison.
A pretty common line in SF is that humanity, collectively, has given up war because they were too good at it, and they finally realized that it was either that or destroy themselves.
We're not quite there yet, but Europe is and has been further along the curve, in several senses, for a while now.
Dunno man, in my opinion, the big crisis of faith in the modern times is that Trump (and other things, but mostly Trump) is causing people to realize that their shiny Star Trek Federation utopia aka The End of History is not going to happen.
On topic, I still say that the will for an European Army just isn't there. In practical terms it means that smaller countries have to annex their armies to Germany and France and have faith that the former will save them from Putin (and other enemies, but mostly Putin). Which....uh.....yeah, is also not happening either.
The problem with an EU defense force is that practically it has always been that it would look like Germany re-arming, because it would be. German manufacturing would experience a huge boon building a new generation of state of the art equipment that was meant to be wholly European made, and no one is entirely sure they want that.
France would pay for this by eating the political cost of expanding the EUs nuclear deterrent substantially most likely.
I think it's pretty safe to say that in general the European nations have done with jaunting around the world - that game was only really fun when your military technology was at least one civilisational epoch more advanced than that the natives could field was.
But Europe is right next to Russia. And Turkey. And Israel. And the north African littoral. And not that far from the middle east.
In a world where the UK's political class hadn't decided to experiment with auto-lobotomisation, we'd be leading the formation and consolidation of a European SDF. Yeah it's difficult, but it's not that difficult to work out a structure that allows each member to make a meaningful contribution to a joint organisation. It's possible. it doesn't require every nation so subordinate the entirety of their armed forces to it; they can attach specific units for a term of service with the EUSDF - in fact it'd probably be a great idea for them to rotate units through these tours to gain operational and organisational experience.
It'd be eminently doable if we wanted it to happen.
A pretty common line in SF is that humanity, collectively, has given up war because they were too good at it, and they finally realized that it was either that or destroy themselves.
We're not quite there yet, but Europe is and has been further along the curve, in several senses, for a while now.
Dunno man, in my opinion, the big crisis of faith in the modern times is that Trump (and other things, but mostly Trump) is causing people to realize that their shiny Star Trek Federation utopia aka The End of History is not going to happen.
On topic, I still say that the will for an European Army just isn't there. In practical terms it means that smaller countries have to annex their armies to Germany and France and have faith that the former will save them from Putin (and other enemies, but mostly Putin). Which....uh.....yeah, is also not happening either.
As opposed to... annexing their armies to the US and having the same faith?
Remilitarised europeans will almost certainly start looking for somebody to attack, eventually, as is the nature of militarisation anywhere.
Yes, sure, spooky germans, very scary, boo. But also every other nation.
I imagine budget crises would start flaring up as well, when countries are forced to begin diverting increasing amounts to national defense. Which certainly wouldn’t help relations between all these countries with new and shiny expanding militaries.
The problem with an EU defense force is that practically it has always been that it would look like Germany re-arming, because it would be. German manufacturing would experience a huge boon building a new generation of state of the art equipment that was meant to be wholly European made, and no one is entirely sure they want that.
France would pay for this by eating the political cost of expanding the EUs nuclear deterrent substantially most likely.
That's another thing. Talking about an EU army is nice and all, but let's be real here: "Deterrent" means nuke most of the time. So, again, you end up needing the political will to make public increases to the nuclear stockpile. Which is a more effective solution to not end up being the next Ukraine or Libya for smaller countries than counting on the bigger countries to save you.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
So if you’re wondering how events in France are unfolding today, Trump refused to travel to today’s memorial with the other world leaders and showed up late. Via The Hill.
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism," he said through a translator. "Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By saying our interests first, who cares about the others, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."
We need to listen to our friends and not the domestic abuser intentionally alienating us from those friends.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
I'm not going to link, because screw giving that pile of goosery clicks, but Fox News has a piece by retired Brigadier General Anthony Tata responding to Macron literally saying:
As many have pointed out before, without the United States the people of France would all be speaking German today.
I cannot think of an example where "You should be grateful for our support during war" is more backward.
As a person who, if not for nazi germany, would probably be speaking Russian (or, more realisticly, never been born), i have always found that argument rather stupid.
Posts
The goddamn president should be in the top quintile for a lot of shit
That's exactly the point though. We know the EU can't suddenly go, fuck you we're dropping out of NATO. The most they could do is to start building up their own defensive capabilities, shifting responsibilities away from NATO onto their own defensive forces, until they reached a point at which they can go, fuck you we're dropping out of NATO. Which is... kinda what they're doing?
Like, congrats, you have kids, so your spouse can't just up and divorce you, so you're just sleeping in separate rooms and doing a "trial separation." What do you think happens when the kids turn 18 and head off to university?!
This is what NATO's falling apart, realistically, looks like. There shouldn't be much comfort to be found in, "Oh, they can't replace us for teeennn more years! Ten years is forever! We can just keep driving a wedge between us and then we'll just apologize with some chocolates and roses, and it'll all be cool, right?"
Our last one was.
(Some) people didn't like being "talked down to" by an elite (especially a ******). They wanted someone who was an idiot just like them.
And they found one.
It's not really the Carriers, it's the multiple Armoured Divisions that can be fielded, the amphibious landing capability at Brigade level in multiple locations, the huge Submarine advantage, the sheer need for airlift capability... all of these things have massive logistical, financial and material costs, and need a lot of guys too. The Russians have huge conventional advantages in Europe even with the Americans there, take them away, it gets even worse.
If Europe wants to replace the NATO strategic deterrent with conventional and nuclear weapons with a European strategic deterrent, that's going to cost a lot and take a long time and in the meantime, if the US doesn't want to play, there's nothing to stop Latvia, Lithuania etc being snapped up or at least severely troubled by Russian demands on them that they can't refuse due to fear of military action. The US playing fast and loose with NATO is not a case of "stupid Trump, doesn't he realise they're just going to ditch the US and make their own NATO with blackjack and hookers?" it's a case of "Trump is putting the security of large portions of Europe directly at risk with his words." And if you don't believe me, just look at Russia's interventions in Georgia and Ukraine across the last twenty years, two nations next door who didn't have any international support network of power projection in place to prevent Putin's ambitions.
Of course, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If the European armed forces get big, there will be a temptation to use them. And we can see how that works out from the wars America keeps starting. With fascism on the rise, we could be back to the bad old days when there was always a war somewhere in Europe.
It's more important to have the specifics on training, weapon systems and communications ready than to have shitload of soldiers, because we are not currently at war, nor are planning to attack anyone.
And, to be honest, i don't expect Russia to suddenly attack EU, i doubt Russia could handle the cost of the war.
I'm far more worried of more subtle things like meddling in US and UK elections.
Also, if NATO falls apart tomorrow (unlikely, but not impossible (thanks for that Republicans)), there's not much anyone can do but to scramble for somekind of new world order.
But assuming NATO survives Trump, second Trump is not impossible so it is reasonable for EU (and everyone else) to take steps to avoid the current dependence on US and NATO.
He's shitting on them already by whinging about a little rain. And more really.
That's at least nice. But he'll be at another thing I'm sure.
The EU could, theoretically, replace some of the strategic needs provided by the US right now in Europe. If it was prepared to shoulder the massive increased spending costs, which I genuinely don't believe that it is. When you have the EU commission desperately trying to reduce the spending of Eurozone countries with large levels of national debt like Greece and Italy, when you have key UK public services facing black holes of funding... like if comes down to increasing wages for troops, buying ships and equipment, training guys etc to try and get another amphibious landing brigade put together or pulling an NHS trust out of the water, there's no choice for any UK government that I can think of except for the most right-wing of privatising Tories.
You could also build a decently large military with conscription, especially if your primary concern is defending your own frontiers. Most Euro powers had that during the Cold War.
The issue with not having an army proportionate to its size is that a European military must be strong enough to deter aggression. It needs this conventional deterrent more than the United States ever has, because the USA does not share a land border with any potential enemies - if NATO collapsed tomorrow, America would face no credible conventional threat to its home territories. Europe does not have that luxury. It also cannot be a small standing army relying on a large mobilization force, because modern warfare is unlikely to permit time for mobilization armies to leave their depots and deploy for combat fast enough to matter.
There could definitely be incentives that encourage young Europeans to sign up to the Armed Forces. Yes, it would cost a lot. The USA spends a crushing amount on this.
US has a large military, but it is also constantly doing shit all over the world, EU is not, and i think will not, be doing that.
He's a global fucking embarrassment. We know. You know. Everybody knows.
Maybe I've gotten a bit more sensitive to WWI things since moving down here. I walk past a war memorial every single morning, a hundred plus names engraved for just this one small town, most lost in Turkey. Every year it gets stronger, the need to remember.
The best thing the US can do today is remove that buffoon from the equation, as best we can.
Nobody wants to hear from him about how smart American bombs are. Not today.
Not today. Or ever, really. But especially not today.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
They would have far more diplomatic options for pressuring Europe and for picking off salami slices of border territories (which are EU members) if Europe lacks a robust conventional force capable of confronting Russia. This is the whole reason reinforcing the Baltics has been a BFD for awhile.
the EU does that now though. Of course they're still gonna want to bomb Syria and Libya and Mali without America being involved.
Somebody hasn't been studying history, and not ancient history either. During the Cold War Germany had a standing army of 495 000 men under arms, it fielded 12 divisions in 3 army corps. Thats before calling in the reserves. Its Air Force was equally impressive. France and Britain where no slouches either. Between them, they probably fielded a larger army and Air Force then the current US one. Only in the Naval department can the US claim to be undisputed. This was back in 1990, about 30 years ago.
All of this however came at great cost and once the Cold War wrapped up, cutbacks became practically mandatory.
What I am saying is that its totally feasible for the EU to have a Military the size of the US, even with the cost of modern technology. They did it before and they can do it again. Its the political will that is lacking because of the cost, but if Trump keeps talking and Russia keeps acting then it will probably be done.
I don't think Solar precisely meant "warrior culture" in a historical sense, but more like the present generation of Western Europeans isn't quite militaristic and struggles to generate forces proportionate to their size and influence. Cold War Germany had conscription, so did France and most of the rest (Britain, I believe, was the only one to go fully professional after WW2). Building a fully professional force of that size is difficult, and so is reimplementing large-scale conscription if the public is used to the present state of affairs.
e: this could be especially difficult if the reimplementation of conscription is accompanied by the slashing of public welfare spending to pay for military expansion...
We're not quite there yet, but Europe is and has been further along the curve, in several senses, for a while now.
You're not too far off on the army part; combined the Anglo-French Armies in 1988 were about 440,000 compared to the US Army's current force of 476,000. However we must also consider that 183,000 of the French were conscripts while the US is volunteer.
idk how many airframes the French and British had back then but the French only had 96,000 active personnel in their air force compared to over 300,000 in the USAF today so pretty sure they and the RAF fall shorter than in the army comparison.
Dunno man, in my opinion, the big crisis of faith in the modern times is that Trump (and other things, but mostly Trump) is causing people to realize that their shiny Star Trek Federation utopia aka The End of History is not going to happen.
On topic, I still say that the will for an European Army just isn't there. In practical terms it means that smaller countries have to annex their armies to Germany and France and have faith that the former will save them from Putin (and other enemies, but mostly Putin). Which....uh.....yeah, is also not happening either.
France would pay for this by eating the political cost of expanding the EUs nuclear deterrent substantially most likely.
But Europe is right next to Russia. And Turkey. And Israel. And the north African littoral. And not that far from the middle east.
In a world where the UK's political class hadn't decided to experiment with auto-lobotomisation, we'd be leading the formation and consolidation of a European SDF. Yeah it's difficult, but it's not that difficult to work out a structure that allows each member to make a meaningful contribution to a joint organisation. It's possible. it doesn't require every nation so subordinate the entirety of their armed forces to it; they can attach specific units for a term of service with the EUSDF - in fact it'd probably be a great idea for them to rotate units through these tours to gain operational and organisational experience.
It'd be eminently doable if we wanted it to happen.
As opposed to... annexing their armies to the US and having the same faith?
Yes, sure, spooky germans, very scary, boo. But also every other nation.
Trump is incapable of experiencing shame for his actions.
That's another thing. Talking about an EU army is nice and all, but let's be real here: "Deterrent" means nuke most of the time. So, again, you end up needing the political will to make public increases to the nuclear stockpile. Which is a more effective solution to not end up being the next Ukraine or Libya for smaller countries than counting on the bigger countries to save you.
True.
But I'm not.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Somebody is aware of the optics.
Odds on Putin doing this to make trump look like a dufus?
Is it too much to hope for the spirits of General Blackjack Pershing or artillary Captain Harry Truman to manifest and kick Trump in the balls?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I'd rather it be the ghosts of every last one of the Harlem hell fighters.
Trump lit up like a candle in a Chinese lantern when he saw Putin. Wilson is a GOP media analyst, but the photo is from Euronews footage.
Putin gave Trump a good performance review. Via Euronews, a European public news service.
And Macron used his speech to throw some epic shade. Via Reuters.
So all in all it’s just splendid.
Anyone not familiar: this will make you incredibly sad.
We need to listen to our friends and not the domestic abuser intentionally alienating us from those friends.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
I cannot think of an example where "You should be grateful for our support during war" is more backward.