Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
It's a twist on the idiom "the chickens are coming home to roost" i.e. "well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I found the Robert Gates speech I referenced. Gates was a Republican Obama had as a sec. of defense. He gave this speech in 2011, and I have pasted the most relevant part here.
Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.
President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:
By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures; By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.
It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.
Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
Looking back it's amazingly prescient. Don't say you weren't warned. Although part of this is actually Obama/Dems fault. They didn't take Putin seriously enough, as we famously know from the Romney/Obama presidential debate.
edit: btw Robert Gates was also the one who said years ago that Biden had been wrong about every major foreign policy issue for 40 years lol.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
It's a twist on the idiom of "the chickens are coming home to roost" i.e. "well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I found the Robert Gates speech I referenced. Gates was a Republican Obama had as a sec. of defense. He gave this speech in 2011, and I have pasted the most relevant part here.
Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.
President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:
By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures; By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.
It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.
Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
Looking back it's amazing prescient. Don't say you weren't warned. Although part of this is actually Obama/Dems fault. They didn't take Putin seriously enough, as we famously know from the Romney/Obama presidential debate.
You weren‘t warned sounds condescending in this context. I can‘t take accountability for past decisions.
The US has an interest into keeping its currency alive. Every currency is a promise that its value can be translated to an equivalent at the present rate of exchange.
If it forfeited its validity to be exchanged/accepted in Europe, Asia, and South America at the same time, it would collapse.
And the dollar collapse is something Putin has been boldly predicting. And Europe betting against, by holding onto it.
But with Trumps way of doing things, it seems like he is working against making his currency attractive.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
It's a twist on the idiom of "the chickens are coming home to roost" i.e. "well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I found the Robert Gates speech I referenced. Gates was a Republican Obama had as a sec. of defense. He gave this speech in 2011, and I have pasted the most relevant part here.
Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.
President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:
By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures; By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.
It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.
Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
Looking back it's amazing prescient. Don't say you weren't warned. Although part of this is actually Obama/Dems fault. They didn't take Putin seriously enough, as we famously know from the Romney/Obama presidential debate.
You weren‘t warned sounds condescending in this context. I can‘t take accountability for past decisions.
The US has an interest into keeping its currency alive. Every currency is a promise that its value can be translated to an equivalent at the present rate of exchange.
If it forfeited its validity to be exchanged/accepted in Europe, Asia, and South America at the same time, it would collapse.
And the dollar collapse is something Putin has been boldly predicting. And Europe betting against, by holding onto it.
But with Trumps way of doing things, it seems like he is working against making his currency attractive.
I don't mean to be condescending to any particular poster, sorry. America's great advantage is that pretty much everyone else is in even worse shape than we are. So long as we don't let our debt cause an actual collapse the dollar system should be safe. I don't know how it's value would be "forfeited." Again, as long as people can use to hold onto value or exchange for goods and services it will be useful. And there still is no alternative. Again not my sphere, but from what I read the issue with, say, the Chinese taking over is not just about trust. It's that they control the value of their currency and it's distribution too tightly for it to be a dollar substitute. I don't believe a word the muppet Putin says, from what I read and what I can tell the US dollar isn't going anywhere soon. That doesn't mean the US can be stupid about it, but asking Europe to help in defending themselves is hardly earth-shattering. America has China and the east to worry about. Putin is a piker in comparison, if the Euros can't even deal with that....
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
It's a twist on the idiom of "the chickens are coming home to roost" i.e. "well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I found the Robert Gates speech I referenced. Gates was a Republican Obama had as a sec. of defense. He gave this speech in 2011, and I have pasted the most relevant part here.
Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.
President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:
By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures; By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.
It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.
Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
Looking back it's amazing prescient. Don't say you weren't warned. Although part of this is actually Obama/Dems fault. They didn't take Putin seriously enough, as we famously know from the Romney/Obama presidential debate.
You weren‘t warned sounds condescending in this context. I can‘t take accountability for past decisions.
The US has an interest into keeping its currency alive. Every currency is a promise that its value can be translated to an equivalent at the present rate of exchange.
If it forfeited its validity to be exchanged/accepted in Europe, Asia, and South America at the same time, it would collapse.
And the dollar collapse is something Putin has been boldly predicting. And Europe betting against, by holding onto it.
But with Trumps way of doing things, it seems like he is working against making his currency attractive.
I don't mean to be condescending to any particular poster, sorry. America's great advantage is that pretty much everyone else is in even worse shape than we are. So long as we don't let our debt cause an actual collapse the dollar system should be safe. I don't know how it's value would be "forfeited." Again, as long as people can use to hold onto value or exchange for goods and services it will be useful. And there still is no alternative. Again not my sphere, but from what I read the issue with, say, the Chinese taking over is not just about trust. It's that they control the value of their currency and it's distribution too tightly for it to be a dollar substitute. I don't believe a word the muppet Putin says, from what I read and what I can tell the US dollar isn't going anywhere soon. That doesn't mean we are stupid about it, but asking Europe to help defending themselves is hardly earth-shattering. America has China and the east to worry about. Putin is a piker in comparison, if the Euros can't even deal with that....
When you say America has the East and China to qorry about, what makes you think it isn‘t the same for us ?
We‘ve relied on being intertwined since the end of WW2. But there‘s hardly any going back from that. And we face the same issues.
Trump thinks this is exploitation of the US because of military spending, probably, but it‘s the war at our doorstep, not yours, and it‘ll have to be paid for, the resources you supplied.
According to Macron, in my understanding, Russia will have to pay for that, with its frozen assets, but only if it loses the war and agrees to the use of the assets afterwards.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
And while I'm not a fan of Trump's approach here, people acting like he's some traitor are probably the same people who think the bureaucracy has a God given right to be an opposition party whenever there is a Republican president. Trump won on this, public sentiment is no longer so lopsided. "The right side of history" people making fools of themselves yet again.
There are many sides to every deal.
Finland and Sweden just recently joined NATO. They have already have what they need to push back a Russian invasion.
The US has been spending way more money on the military than they need to for any plausible scenario. When they have actually used their sledge hammer, the results have been mixed to put it mildly.
Europe has spent less, but the military is the only part of the US public sector which can stand up to comparison to EU countries. If you were the EU, would you think: yeah, let's do that!
Of course the US wants the EU to spend more, but the main motivation is selling expensive weapons they know will never be turned against them.
Russia is weak, and will be in no position to invade anywhere for a long time. Assad folded in days, and Russia could do nothing to keep their trusted and strategically important ally. This is the "threat" we are facing.
As for these negotioations, the US and Russia deliberately exluded Europe from the talks leading up to this disastre. That Trump and Vance are Putin's bitches should be beyond obvious now. You can't cook up any exuses for them.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
My mostly amareurish knowledge level is the following: We are weak on the intelligence level because we have factually ceded most of the IT business to America. If you think about it, almost every system in the world that wants to be compatible with viable software is going to be run by Microsoft, or apple.
Asian competitors are still dependant on being compatible with western software if they want a slice of the cake. They are just as competent but also need to be granted certain licenses.
It is grossly underestimated how big the threat is on the IT level if a country decides to limit or stop its services on that level. Or even sabotage it.
Imagine that you live in a random European country and your OS refuses to boot because another country providing the service is required to deny you access to their infrastructure for strategic reasons.
Which is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think that all of Russia runs on Linux and owns no apple branded phones. So that‘s leverage on them too as long as they don‘t develop on their own.
In other words, you are likely overestimating how much influence European countries have in their decision making when it comes to their military decisions.
Or maybe I‘m drunk and stupid, in which case you are free to correct me.
This war is not an area of expertise to me, but I'm not sure that's right. If anything, this war has shown how important the low tech aspect is. Just having more men and more guns is a huge deal. Sure, things like Starlink for Ukraine or US intel sharing are important, but so having men on the ground.
Sure, the EU is behind in tech (mostly a self-inflicted problem as I understand it, which would be par for the course over there). But it's not like American tech companies don't want to do business with Europe.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the Europeans don't want to put up the money or spend political capital on their defense generally. They thought they could count on America to do everything, all while complaining about the US the whole time. Europe and friends has more people and a higher GDP than Russia, by a huge margin. Again, this criticism of Europe is not new and it's not unique to Trump. Even when I was kid I had a sense that Europeans thought they were so great but never actually did anything of importance. This is just roosting time for the chickens.
Wdym by roosting time for the chickens? Fuck you for making me laugh at that btw.
As far as I see it, nothing was out of the ordinary until Trumps first term. Ever since then, it‘s been the apocalypse in slow motion, and I don‘t know which one of the four horses he calls Melania in bed.
And what the flying fuck is Europe and friends. We‘re mostly getting by on tourism and ‚productivity‘ whatever the fuck that means nowadays. We don‘t plan ahead for Russian tourists annexing our countries.
It's a twist on the idiom of "the chickens are coming home to roost" i.e. "well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I found the Robert Gates speech I referenced. Gates was a Republican Obama had as a sec. of defense. He gave this speech in 2011, and I have pasted the most relevant part here.
Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.
President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.
With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:
By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures; By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.
It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.
Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
Looking back it's amazing prescient. Don't say you weren't warned. Although part of this is actually Obama/Dems fault. They didn't take Putin seriously enough, as we famously know from the Romney/Obama presidential debate.
You weren‘t warned sounds condescending in this context. I can‘t take accountability for past decisions.
The US has an interest into keeping its currency alive. Every currency is a promise that its value can be translated to an equivalent at the present rate of exchange.
If it forfeited its validity to be exchanged/accepted in Europe, Asia, and South America at the same time, it would collapse.
And the dollar collapse is something Putin has been boldly predicting. And Europe betting against, by holding onto it.
But with Trumps way of doing things, it seems like he is working against making his currency attractive.
I don't mean to be condescending to any particular poster, sorry. America's great advantage is that pretty much everyone else is in even worse shape than we are. So long as we don't let our debt cause an actual collapse the dollar system should be safe. I don't know how it's value would be "forfeited." Again, as long as people can use to hold onto value or exchange for goods and services it will be useful. And there still is no alternative. Again not my sphere, but from what I read the issue with, say, the Chinese taking over is not just about trust. It's that they control the value of their currency and it's distribution too tightly for it to be a dollar substitute. I don't believe a word the muppet Putin says, from what I read and what I can tell the US dollar isn't going anywhere soon. That doesn't mean we are stupid about it, but asking Europe to help defending themselves is hardly earth-shattering. America has China and the east to worry about. Putin is a piker in comparison, if the Euros can't even deal with that....
When you say America has the East and China to qorry about, what makes you think it isn‘t the same for us ?
We‘ve relied on being intertwined since the end of WW2. But there‘s hardly any going back from that. And we face the same issues.
Trump thinks this is exploitation of the US because of military spending, probably, but it‘s the war at our doorstep, not yours, and it‘ll have to be paid for, the resources you supplied.
According to Macron, in my understanding, Russia will have to pay for that, with its frozen assets, but only if it loses the war and agrees to the use of the assets afterwards.
Am I wrong in thinking that the EU is far less worried about China's rise than the US? Don't they kind of view it as "not our problem"?
I would just frame the problem differently. High levels of trade and cooperation are good. I just don't know how the European nations can carry on about themselves while being less and less relevant. Sure, we'll sell the EU the things it needs. But it's not clear they want to buy them.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
And while I'm not a fan of Trump's approach here, people acting like he's some traitor are probably the same people who think the bureaucracy has a God given right to be an opposition party whenever there is a Republican president. Trump won on this, public sentiment is no longer so lopsided. "The right side of history" people making fools of themselves yet again.
There are many sides to every deal.
Finland and Sweden just recently joined NATO. They have already have what they need to push back a Russian invasion.
The US has been spending way more money on the military than they need to for any plausible scenario. When they have actually used their sledge hammer, the results have been mixed to put it mildly.
Europe has spent less, but the military is the only part of the US public sector which can stand up to comparison to EU countries. If you were the EU, would you think: yeah, let's do that!
Of course the US wants the EU to spend more, but the main motivation is selling expensive weapons they know will never be turned against them.
Russia is weak, and will be in no position to invade anywhere for a long time. Assad folded in days, and Russia could do nothing to keep their trusted and strategically important ally. This is the "threat" we are facing.
As for these negotioations, the US and Russia deliberately exluded Europe from the talks leading up to this disastre. That Trump and Vance are Putin's bitches should be beyond obvious now. You can't cook up any exuses for them.
tbf the states closer to Russia have done a better job. But it seems like Macron, for example, talks a big game and then does very little.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but your post seems to display some of the odd things I mentioned. If Russia is no big deal then why is everyone freaking out? He's clearly a threat to Ukraine. No one has yet provided a rational reason for why the US should be doing so much more than Europe is. People use very "large" language to argue that America's standing in the world will be tarnished if it doesn't do everything it can. But fewer and fewer people in the US care for what the hypocrites across the pond think, if they ever did. Like I said in my first post. If Europe is so great, then go deal with it. The EU alone is bigger than Russia, if it had taken it's head out of the sand it would have heeded the warnings it was getting years ago.
The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
Here was Zelensky's scheduled interview after the WH summit:
On February 28 2025 17:50 Acrofales wrote: Obviously regulating the market doesn't help the market. But only tools who gobbled up Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy think the market needs helping. The market is irrelevant when it doesn't serve society. And guess what: it doesn't! Deregulating the market has fairly consistently from Reagan until now shown a whole bunch of predatory behavior is encouraged and none of that trickles down, ever. I'd give examples, but I'm sure you know of some obvious ones from oil companies and banks.
Finally, you seem to claim that monopolies exist only if companies can throw up regulatory moats. That seems to ignore about a billion other reasons for monopolies to form. Let's start with the OPEC cartel in the mid 20th century, the de Beers diamond monopoly, and Chiquita Banana are obvious examples of large companies staying large by controlling supply of a limited resource. Not by innovating or staying ahead of the competition in some other ways. And then there's the newer generation of tech monopolies, where the network effect and walled gardens are an important way of preventing people from leaving a platform freely even when you enshitify everything.
Also, want to see how deregulating more would work? The Martin Shkreli and Elizabeth Holmes of the world would be even more free to rip you off.
The claim I refuted was about efficiency and regulation exclusively, externalities are another subject I simply corrected a wrong argument.
The service free markets provide to society is abundance, its not targeted, it doesnt care if people with no self control eat deep fried oreos to death, you think offering them is a disservice to society I don't, I believe consumer choice should be the true democratic regulator and there are very few exceptions to this.
Regarding your examples of monopolies:
OPEC - these are government entities lol, so yeah the vast majority of monopolies are state owned.
De Beers - The founder was a colonial prime minister who secured the mining rights of diamonds in all of south africa for 100 years, they repeated the same model by bribing governments in africa for exclusive rights, they were dependent on the African government to enforce their monopolic extraction, now that they can no longer do that their market share dorpped to 30%.
Chiquita - The same model as De Beers, they "bought" south american governments to block any other company from trading bananas by force, hell they even overthrew governments, now that they no longer can do that their global market share is 17%.
Chiquita and De Beers are not free market monopolies, they used state violence to enforce them in colonial times.
Tech corporations aren't monopolies, Google, apple, microsft Facebook et al compete fiercely and are a few future missteps away from total collapse like we've seen many times before in fact the avg. lifespan of tech companies is very shoft.
Martín Shkreli jacked the price of the epipen because government-mandated-insurance has to buy it from him, if US healthcare were free-market and some guy jacked the price 700% on epipen people would simply buy the other epinefrin injectors for a fraction of the cost.
Elizabeth Holmes was literally commiting fraud from investors lol, so yeah fraud is a crime, it doesnt have anything to do with regulations.
On February 28 2025 17:50 Acrofales wrote: Obviously regulating the market doesn't help the market. But only tools who gobbled up Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy think the market needs helping. The market is irrelevant when it doesn't serve society. And guess what: it doesn't! Deregulating the market has fairly consistently from Reagan until now shown a whole bunch of predatory behavior is encouraged and none of that trickles down, ever. I'd give examples, but I'm sure you know of some obvious ones from oil companies and banks.
Finally, you seem to claim that monopolies exist only if companies can throw up regulatory moats. That seems to ignore about a billion other reasons for monopolies to form. Let's start with the OPEC cartel in the mid 20th century, the de Beers diamond monopoly, and Chiquita Banana are obvious examples of large companies staying large by controlling supply of a limited resource. Not by innovating or staying ahead of the competition in some other ways. And then there's the newer generation of tech monopolies, where the network effect and walled gardens are an important way of preventing people from leaving a platform freely even when you enshitify everything.
Also, want to see how deregulating more would work? The Martin Shkreli and Elizabeth Holmes of the world would be even more free to rip you off.
The claim I refuted was about efficiency and regulation exclusively, externalities are another subject I simply corrected a wrong argument.
The service free markets provide to society is abundance, its not targeted, it doesnt care if people with no self control eat deep fried oreos to death, you think offering them is a disservice to society I don't, I believe consumer choice should be the true democratic regulator and there are very few exceptions to this.
Regarding your examples of monopolies:
OPEC - these are government entities lol, so yeah the vast majority of monopolies are state owned.
De Beers - The founder was a colonial prime minister who secured the mining rights of diamonds in all of south africa for 100 years, they repeated the same model by bribing governments in africa for exclusive rights, they were dependent on the African government to enforce their monopolic extraction, now that they can no longer do that their market share dorpped to 30%.
Chiquita - The same model as De Beers, they "bought" south american governments to block any other company from trading bananas by force, hell they even overthrew governments, now that they no longer can do that their global market share is 17%.
Chiquita and De Beers are not free market monopolies, they used state violence to enforce them in colonial times.
Tech corporations aren't monopolies, Google, apple, microsft Facebook et al compete fiercely and are a few future missteps away from total collapse like we've seen many times before in fact the avg. lifespan of tech companies is very shoft.
Martín Shkreli jacked the price of the epipen because government-mandated-insurance has to buy it from him, if US healthcare were free-market and some guy jacked the price 700% on epipen people would simply buy the other epinefrin injectors for a fraction of the cost.
Elizabeth Holmes was literally commiting fraud from investors lol, so yeah fraud is a crime, it doesnt have anything to do with regulations.
Free market monopolies don't exist, because there is no such thing as the free market.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
On February 28 2025 17:50 Acrofales wrote: Obviously regulating the market doesn't help the market. But only tools who gobbled up Ayn Rand's pseudophilosophy think the market needs helping. The market is irrelevant when it doesn't serve society. And guess what: it doesn't! Deregulating the market has fairly consistently from Reagan until now shown a whole bunch of predatory behavior is encouraged and none of that trickles down, ever. I'd give examples, but I'm sure you know of some obvious ones from oil companies and banks.
Finally, you seem to claim that monopolies exist only if companies can throw up regulatory moats. That seems to ignore about a billion other reasons for monopolies to form. Let's start with the OPEC cartel in the mid 20th century, the de Beers diamond monopoly, and Chiquita Banana are obvious examples of large companies staying large by controlling supply of a limited resource. Not by innovating or staying ahead of the competition in some other ways. And then there's the newer generation of tech monopolies, where the network effect and walled gardens are an important way of preventing people from leaving a platform freely even when you enshitify everything.
Also, want to see how deregulating more would work? The Martin Shkreli and Elizabeth Holmes of the world would be even more free to rip you off.
The claim I refuted was about efficiency and regulation exclusively, externalities are another subject I simply corrected a wrong argument.
The service free markets provide to society is abundance, its not targeted, it doesnt care if people with no self control eat deep fried oreos to death, you think offering them is a disservice to society I don't, I believe consumer choice should be the true democratic regulator and there are very few exceptions to this.
Regarding your examples of monopolies:
OPEC - these are government entities lol, so yeah the vast majority of monopolies are state owned.
De Beers - The founder was a colonial prime minister who secured the mining rights of diamonds in all of south africa for 100 years, they repeated the same model by bribing governments in africa for exclusive rights, they were dependent on the African government to enforce their monopolic extraction, now that they can no longer do that their market share dorpped to 30%.
Chiquita - The same model as De Beers, they "bought" south american governments to block any other company from trading bananas by force, hell they even overthrew governments, now that they no longer can do that their global market share is 17%.
Chiquita and De Beers are not free market monopolies, they used state violence to enforce them in colonial times.
Tech corporations aren't monopolies, Google, apple, microsft Facebook et al compete fiercely and are a few future missteps away from total collapse like we've seen many times before in fact the avg. lifespan of tech companies is very shoft.
Martín Shkreli jacked the price of the epipen because government-mandated-insurance has to buy it from him, if US healthcare were free-market and some guy jacked the price 700% on epipen people would simply buy the other epinefrin injectors for a fraction of the cost.
Elizabeth Holmes was literally commiting fraud from investors lol, so yeah fraud is a crime, it doesnt have anything to do with regulations.
Free market monopolies don't exist, because there is no such thing as the free market.
A free market, like free-flowing traffic, requires rules that, when followed, make it a free market. These rules include penalties and fines against anyone caught using their power to drive another competitor from the market by any means except selling better products at lower prices.
So there has to be some regulating forces for there to be a market. All countries I know of have more and less (in different areas) than the minimum required for a free market. Marketing should perhaps be forbidden in a free market as an example.
I think the major thing that all countries does is stop companies from using violence within their borders to compete. If they push around a weaker nation somewhere else isn't always enforced, thus violence is still a factor and we have no free market on even the most basic premise.
On March 01 2025 17:08 Yurie wrote: A free market, like free-flowing traffic, requires rules that, when followed, make it a free market. These rules include penalties and fines against anyone caught using their power to drive another competitor from the market by any means except selling better products at lower prices.
So there has to be some regulating forces for there to be a market. All countries I know of have more and less (in different areas) than the minimum required for a free market. Marketing should perhaps be forbidden in a free market as an example.
I think the major thing that all countries does is stop companies from using violence within their borders to compete. If they push around a weaker nation somewhere else isn't always enforced, thus violence is still a factor and we have no free market on even the most basic premise.
I disagree, you don't need rules (beyond the obv non agression principle), things like "price fixing" are very difficult to pull of in a free market because there is a lot of competition and all you need is one company to not adhere to the price fixing and it collapses.
Monopolies happen through violence but in developed countries the only entity that can use legally violence is the state, so companies bribe the government and they create the monopoly for them, like pharmaceutical companies through the FDA.
Marketing while very annoying is unenforzable and just an overall terrible idea that I dont think you've tought through.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
It's actually Xi and China using Russia to bleed Europe.
On March 01 2025 16:48 baal wrote: The service free markets provide to society is abundance, its not targeted, it doesnt care if people with no self control eat deep fried oreos to death, you think offering them is a disservice to society I don't, I believe consumer choice should be the true democratic regulator and there are very few exceptions to this.
Who cares then about the wellbeing of a citizen? The state? The citizen itself? There are people without self control. In a free market you now have an incentive to lower self control as much as possible to make people consume your product as much as possible. You now have an incentive to find superstimuli and exploit these to make people do your bidding, i.e. predatory behavior to better your business under the guise of r&d. Algorithms, molecules, audiovisual stimuli are all developed to keep people hooked, not to persuade them for your case. A hypercapitalist company free for all will just end up in a society where its citizens are no different than broilers being force fed. There's nothing meritocratic, there's nothing innovative, there's no equality. Only growth in wealth gap, extracting resources from those most vulnerable.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
EU is not a single country and it's not dictatorship where a decision can be made swiftly. EU has so many countries with leaders of different political ideologies. One thing is for sure, the EU needs to commit more help now after this meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy.
EPT
