| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14210 Posts
The EU could do with more of a defense industry and build more weapons in house. But that would require a unified strategy that we haven't seen in a generation. There isn't even serious talk about starting development for a peer to the F-35 and by the time a stealth Eurofighter could be finished NGAD will be out. The EU can bearly coordinate domestic policy together and is constantly hamstrung by the idealism of needing unanimous approval for things. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
Europe's nuclear arsenal is no match for that of the US, Russia, or China. As of now, France's nuclear umbrella doesn't even extend over other EU/NATO members. The number of warheads the UK has is pretty low and their nuclear deterrence is technologically reliant on the US. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
Europe should come up with some kind of military independence strategy with long term goals similar to its ecologic plans, like "in year 2040, over X% of tanks in active service should be of European production". This would be a reasonable answer to the American problem. There's no need to rush things or be overly hostile to the US in regard to military matters. We can get into political or economic conflicts but those don't have to turn into a military divorce automatically. Turkey is what it is now and nobody seriously wants to kick it out of NATO. NATO didn't dissolve after Iraq. It doesn't need to dissolve now. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2891 Posts
On January 25 2025 10:45 Sermokala wrote: I have no idea what you think nuclear proliferation will do to make you more safe. You don't need that many nukes to make the planet unliveable and I'm sure that the EU powers already have more than that number. The only thing that proliferation will do is a dick measuring competition that you would unironically want to lose for the betterment of your people. The EU could do with more of a defense industry and build more weapons in house. But that would require a unified strategy that we haven't seen in a generation. There isn't even serious talk about starting development for a peer to the F-35 and by the time a stealth Eurofighter could be finished NGAD will be out. The EU can bearly coordinate domestic policy together and is constantly hamstrung by the idealism of needing unanimous approval for things. Right now if France have a change of leadership that won't help the rest of Europe we are fucked against a nuclear armed enemy. Ukraine war has clearly shown you need a nuclear deterent. EU nato won't happen but I think we could manage smaller unions with joint armies that are also allies between themselves. Have the nordic group, the eastern group (Poland, the baltic countries at least maybe Czechia and Slovakia, western group (only France and Germany) and southern group (Spain, Italy, Greece). Each group has a more or less unified army and its own nuclear deterent. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On January 25 2025 20:09 Sent. wrote: I think the French bombs are enough for now and it would be very unrealistic to expect Europe to stop buying American equipment in the next 10 years. Europe should come up with some kind of mitary independence strategy with long term goals similar to its ecologic plans, like "in year 2040, over X% of tanks in active service should be of European production". This would be a reasonable answer to the American problem. There's no need to rush things or be overly hostile to the US in regard to military matters. We can get into political or economic conflicts but those don't have to turn into a military divorce automatically. Turkey is what it is now and nobody seriously wants to kick it out of NATO. NATO didn't dissolve after Iraq. It doesn't need to dissolve now. As I said, France's nuclear deterrent doesn't cover anyone other than France, as per their doctrine. For their arsenal to matter, they'd have to change their doctrine. The US is becoming another Russia at breakneck pace. It is not the EU that is being hostile. It is the US that is openly hostile to its staunch allies. Iraq was a major fuck-up. If Russia attacks one of the Baltic states and the US fails to respond, that will be the end of NATO. If the US annexes territory of another NATO member, either through economic pressure or militarily, that will also be the end of NATO. We can't rely on a country that decides to elect a lunatic every other election cycle. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
What I'm trying to say is that I support long term investments into common European defense but I also think there's no need to panic and try to terminate all military equipment contracts with the US just because Trump mumbled something about Greenland. It's not like we can replace all of those F-35s with European made jets immediately. It's just not possible and no amount of angry thoughts about the Donald and his voters is going to change that. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12535 Posts
Russia we could take probably, they don't seem on top of things. Apart from that... | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 25 2025 23:33 Sent. wrote: I never expected France or the US (both Trump's and Obama's) to use their bombs to defend Estonia. I'm sure they wouldn't do that. To me it only matters in the context of a local war potentially escalating into something bigger, and in that case both France and the US would have to consider using the bombs to make sure the war ends before it reaches them. This is still good for Estonia because Russia has to think about that risk before attacking them. What I'm trying to say is that I support long term investments into common European defense but I also think there's no need to panic and try to terminate all military equipment contracts with the US just because Trump mumbled something about Greenland. It's not like we can replace all of those F-35s with European made jets immediately. It's just not possible and no amount of angry thoughts about the Donald and his voters is going to change that. I agree that Europe definitely should not be hostile or confrontational towards the US, there is absolutely nothing to gain, and any economic confrontation might well cause already fragile economies to fall apart. On the contrary I guess I think Europe needs to learn to be transactional - negotiate and trade on a case by case basis. But at the end of the day WE don't get to chose if there is a confrontation, the US (or more likely, Russia) will chose that. And honestly, there appears to be a real risk that either Russia will invade and Trump will order the US army to stand down as punishment for some argument over tariffs, taxes, (or why not Greenland >< ) or the US will initiate confrontation itself. The president has already mused about annexing Canada. Why not Ireland? >< We have known that Trump has authoritarian tendencies, now we know that he has expansionist ones too. It is historically not a super great combination. I really do think we need to plan for a situation where the US is just as likely to help Russia (perhaps by sanctions or economic coercion) in invading Eastern Europe or Scandinavia as they would be to help defend it. Saying that for the next 10 years there is no realistic way to replace the US in terms of defending against Russia, or replace the US as a source of particular arms is not realistic policy, it is policy by fantasy and hope. The president has made it very clear that he doesnt not see Europe as an ally of the USA. I think in this case we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it was. Some kind of joint territorial defence force and/or a nuclear deterrent would certainly make for a more comfortable place to negotiate from. And hey, if Trump has a major fallout with Putin in 3 years and turns the entire republican party into rabid russia haters, then all the better (i think this is a perfectly likely outcome by the way lol). But if the exact opposite happens we really need to be ready to defend ourselves. And frankly, if we are willing to prioritise, 3 years of continued rearmament really should be enough to prevent any further Russian advance even if Ukraine falls. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On January 25 2025 23:33 Sent. wrote: I never expected France or the US (both Trump's and Obama's) to use their bombs to defend Estonia. I'm sure they wouldn't do that. To me it only matters in the context of a local war potentially escalating into something bigger, and in that case both France and the US would have to consider using the bombs to make sure the war ends before it reaches them. This is still good for Estonia because Russia has to think about that risk before attacking them. I never said anything about using nukes to defend Estonia. Obviously, I meant a conventional response to a conventional attack and having a credible nuclear deterrent to stop the war from escalating further. What I'm trying to say is that I support long term investments into common European defense but I also think there's no need to panic and try to terminate all military equipment contracts with the US just because Trump mumbled something about Greenland. It's not like we can replace all of those F-35s with European made jets immediately. It's just not possible and no amount of angry thoughts about the Donald and his voters is going to change that. I don't know how we should handle the already signed contracts but we should throw any ideas of making any further purchases out the window. Trump didn't just mumble something about Greenland. He had an aggressive phone call with Denmark's PM, he's sent envoys to Greenland and he's threatening targeted tariffs and sanctions. The US is rapidly becoming an openly hostile power and relying on them is extremely reckless. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12535 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 26 2025 02:09 Nebuchad wrote: The one thing that's going to happen pretty soon for sure is that Trump is going to put pressure on EU economy and attempt to make it more liberal, and of course the european bosses will agree that he has a point because they obviously would like to be able to fuck us over with the same leeway that american bosses get when they fuck Americans. And on this I have a hard time seeing the EU be combative. Then conditions worsen, which makes it more likely for the far right parties to get elected. The clearest path for fascism into Europe is still that path, by miles, rather than a russian invasion. Personally I dont think there is literally anything Trump wants that is aligned with the interests of any of the big shareholders or CEOs of large European (including the UK and CH) companies. (Possibly with the exception of wholesale relocation of HQ/taxbase to the USA.) Europe might well descend into fascism, but it will be for European reasons I think. (Racism and stagnating economy). To the extend events in the US will help things along I think it will be Musk/Zuckerberg/OpenAI turning up the misinformation/radicalisation/outrage spigot to maximum, and also the cultural gravitational pull of strongman Trump being seen as successful. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
On January 26 2025 02:09 Nebuchad wrote: The one thing that's going to happen pretty soon for sure is that Trump is going to put pressure on EU economy and attempt to make it more liberal, and of course the european bosses will agree that he has a point because they obviously would like to be able to fuck us over with the same leeway that american bosses get when they fuck Americans. And on this I have a hard time seeing the EU be combative. Then conditions worsen, which makes it more likely for the far right parties to get elected. The clearest path for fascism into Europe is still that path, by miles, rather than a russian invasion. This depends on the route Trump chooses. Musk's actions like his tweet about AfD show that he clearly wants the rest of the Western world to follow America's path while Trump's rhetoric was mostly about putting America first. This is important because Trumpkins view liberalism according to your definition as something good and Europeans as something alien, and therefore adversary. This combination means they would prefer Europeans not to be liberal, because that's a suboptimal way to play the game and therefore something that lets them get ahead if they play the game correctly. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12535 Posts
On January 26 2025 03:29 Sent. wrote: This depends on the route Trump chooses. Musk's actions like his tweet about AfD show that he clearly wants the rest of the Western world to follow America's path while Trump's rhetoric was mostly about putting America first. This is important because Trumpkins view liberalism according to your definition as something good and Europeans as something alien, and therefore adversary. This combination means they would prefer Europeans not to be liberal, because that's a suboptimal way to play the game and therefore something that lets them get ahead if they play the game correctly. Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that. If we believe what Trump said at Davos he's going with option A though, as we see for example here. Of course given that it's Trump talking it doesn't have to be part of a strategy, it could just be generic solidarity with the elites with no afterthought. | ||
|
Yurie
12169 Posts
2 in November, 1 around Christmas and finally another one end of last week. The few things I can think of are either against international law or wouldn't really work. Danish straits is all territorial waters where you have more options such as inspections. But they can easily break things between the Baltic nations and Sweden in open waters. Is it legal to require valid insurance on larger vessels going past Denmark? So you at least get somebody paying for it. With downside that all transports in the region becoming more expensive due to higher premiums, though would hit Russia harder since those are the ships getting hit with penalties and perhaps impounded. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18445 Posts
On February 01 2025 10:37 Yurie wrote: Any suggestions on how to combat Russia using foreign ships to destroy infrastructure in the Baltic sea? 2 in November, 1 around Christmas and finally another one end of last week. The few things I can think of are either against international law or wouldn't really work. Danish straits is all territorial waters where you have more options such as inspections. But they can easily break things between the Baltic nations and Sweden in open waters. Is it legal to require valid insurance on larger vessels going past Denmark? So you at least get somebody paying for it. With downside that all transports in the region becoming more expensive due to higher premiums, though would hit Russia harder since those are the ships getting hit with penalties and perhaps impounded. It's definitely legal for Denmark/Sweden to stop any ships going through the Skagerrak to check for valid insurance and other such things. But this is one of the busiest stretches of sea in the world. It would be a major endeavour. Imho a better place to do so would be the entrance to the Gulf of Finland. It leaves ships free to stock up in Kaliningrad and then go around to be a nuisance, but the shadow fleet of oil tankers would get mostly stopped, as would, presumably, most ships that only really exist to cut undersea cables. But with Finland and Sweden in NATO, either place is now a viable option for major fuckery with Russia's commercial fleet. Something that wasn't an option 3 years ago. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On February 01 2025 10:37 Yurie wrote: Any suggestions on how to combat Russia using foreign ships to destroy infrastructure in the Baltic sea? 2 in November, 1 around Christmas and finally another one end of last week. The few things I can think of are either against international law or wouldn't really work. Danish straits is all territorial waters where you have more options such as inspections. But they can easily break things between the Baltic nations and Sweden in open waters. Is it legal to require valid insurance on larger vessels going past Denmark? So you at least get somebody paying for it. With downside that all transports in the region becoming more expensive due to higher premiums, though would hit Russia harder since those are the ships getting hit with penalties and perhaps impounded. I'm pretty sure such acts of sabotage are illegal. They should put the captains etc. in prison. Make a show of it. Let the crews who may want to be complicit in this know that they will inevitably end up in prison for many years. Maybe they will think twice. We should also retaliate and target Russia's critical infrastructure. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On February 01 2025 17:58 maybenexttime wrote: Western prison vs Russian gulag. I'm pretty sure such acts of sabotage are illegal. They should put the captains etc. in prison. Make a show of it. Let the crews who may want to be complicit in this know that they will inevitably end up in prison for many years. Maybe they will think twice. We should also retaliate and target Russia's critical infrastructure. Not sure the threat of prison is going to work for us. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12004 Posts
On February 01 2025 18:35 Gorsameth wrote: Western prison vs Russian gulag. Not sure the threat of prison is going to work for us. Also, Putin has credibly shown that he can get his guys out. He just grabs a few western idiots who went to Russia, puts them into prison on made-up charges, and exchanges these hostages for his spies, killers and saboteurs. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2891 Posts
On February 01 2025 10:37 Yurie wrote: Any suggestions on how to combat Russia using foreign ships to destroy infrastructure in the Baltic sea? 2 in November, 1 around Christmas and finally another one end of last week. The few things I can think of are either against international law or wouldn't really work. Danish straits is all territorial waters where you have more options such as inspections. But they can easily break things between the Baltic nations and Sweden in open waters. Is it legal to require valid insurance on larger vessels going past Denmark? So you at least get somebody paying for it. With downside that all transports in the region becoming more expensive due to higher premiums, though would hit Russia harder since those are the ships getting hit with penalties and perhaps impounded. There is a lot of things that can be done in a range from normal safety inspections to having the ships suffer engine room explosions and sinking. Right now the damage done is not particularly bad and affected countries are fine with escalating through Ukraine. Sure a cable or two a month is severed and we try to prevent that but Russian refineries start burning almost daily. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PiG Daily
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
GSL
Yamato Cup
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
