European leaders should have started preparing for another Trump presidency long ago. They had been warned.
Now, leaders should envisage a world where NATO no longer exists—or where the United States is no longer the leading force in the alliance, writes Phillips Payson O’Brien, Professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland. He is the author of The Strategists: Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler—How War Made Them, and How They Made War.
“In some ways, this is more scary psychologically than in practice. Europe—which is to say, the democratic countries enmeshed in institutions such as NATO and the European Union—has the economic and technological resources to underwrite a serious defense effort. It has a large and educated enough population to staff modern armed forces. It also has some strong and growing military capabilities. For instance, European states either have received or will receive in the coming years as many as 600 F-35 fighters—the most advanced and capable aircraft in the world. Such a force could dominate the skies against a clearly inferior Russian opponent.”
[Edit to include the link.]
So if you don’t endorse European support to Ukraine or Europe/Ukraine using American weapons, what do you want here? Do you want them to simply give up and surrender their land to Russia? Do you want only European countries to supply weaponry and equipment? I’m not sure what options are actually left after those are out or how to read this comment in general. The 600 F-35s are presumably already ordered, which is why there’s a concrete number to report on.
Yes, that’s exactly what they want.
“American war” is in their comment, and if you take even just a 5s look at their profile you can see them moaning about “Ukrainian propaganda”.
They are firmly on the side of Russia. A tankie. Lemmy has an unbelievable amount of them.
Removed by mod
Your political views notwithstanding — your condescending attitude is not helping.
Approach the argument in good faith and do me the favour of not yelling political slurs and stalking my comment history, and we’re all good .
Fair ?
I have to say, that was a sub-par attempt at a straw man argument. I’ve seen far better.
Alas, the existence of US military bases outside of the US does not mean that Russia invading Ukraine is the US’s fault – It’s Russia’s fault.
You are also deliberately calling NATO bases US bases. They aren’t. They are NATO bases. NATO is a defence treaty where every member joined willingly. In fact, more are seeking to join, because of Russia’s aggression.
And yes, you are a tankie. Plain and simple.
Removed by mod
Now show me these hundreds of others of US bases in Europe.
Oh wait, you can’t. They have 128 bases in total outside of the US, with a disproportionate amount of those in South Korea. Ergo, your claim that there are hundreds of them in Europe was a complete fabrication.
You evidently do not understand geopolitics if you believe Russia invading Ukraine is the US’s war.
And as for yelling slurs… mate, you literally just called myself and others mentally disabled for disagreeing with your pro-Russia tankie nonsense.
Now, I don’t know where you’re from, but where I live, calling someone disabled as an insult is definitely frowned upon, and considered a slur.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
@[email protected]
Do yourself a favor and stay away from wherever you get this stuff.
These US military bases are Nato bases, and no country has ever been ‘forced’ to join the alliance. Its latest members, Sweden and Finland, have been committed to neutrality for decades, and only joined after Russia invaded Ukraine. Neutrality may work well if your neighbors commit to international law and human rights, which is unfortunately not a given as we learnt once again in February 2022.
Removed by mod
There no treaties in place that afford Ukraine protection I’m afraid .
European countries sending weapons to Ukraine do not need treaties. Russia invading a European country means that Russia might invade another European country. It is just a lot cheaper to just send weapons and other support to Ukraine and have Ukraine be bombed and their soldiers dead, then to end up in a direct war with Russia.
For the US Ukraine is a problem, as being soft on Russia, means other countries who want more land could attack countries, which the US has intressts in. For example China might see the US Ukraine support and figure invading Taiwan, just means they need to pay a lot of money to US lobbiest to avoid a US response. That might be wrong, but certainly not a good look.