Quote:Because Trump is rightly tired of the U.S. paying for Ukraine’s defense, the world is turning on him. Ukrainian officials are criticizing America, Europe is calling Trump “Hitler,” and Ukrainian soldiers on Twitter are removing American flags from their uniforms—all because the American gravy train is about to dry up. With Trump demanding a better deal for the American people, the world will have to fend for itself. Europe is experiencing adolescent angst now, as it is forced to man-up, come of age, and move out from under the U.S. protective umbrella.

Fact: The U.S. WILL NO LONGER BE PAYING FOR IT!
It’s time for Europe to step up and defend itself. While it’s unfortunate that many Europeans may die unnecessarily, part of me anticipates the vindication of watching weak, woke European militaries—crippled by declining birthrates and a post-Christian, soy-boy-vegan culture—be decimated by Russian conscripts.

The consensus among many on Twitter and in liberal media that the U.S. has burned its bridges with Europe and that Europe will now move on without the U.S. as a trade and defense partner is absurd. The U.S. cannot be replaced as a market. With a population of 330 million and an average income exceeding $82,000 annually—more than double Europe’s average—there is no viable replacement. And if such a replacement exists, why wasn’t Europe trading with this mythical nation before?

For decades, the U.S., China, and Russia have invested heavily in defense, leaving Europe far behind. Europe would need to spend 10% of GDP each year to catch up over the next 20 years. However, in that same period, the U.S., Russia, and China would continue increasing their spending. Realistically, it would take about 30 years for Europe to reach any semblance of parity. And this assumes that Europe lifts its restrictions on nuclear weapons and other advanced weapons that the U.S., Russia, and China possess. And with Europe’s demographic decline, the pool of military-aged men and women will continue to shrink.

No, Europe isn’t “moving on” or “teaching the U.S. a lesson.” The U.S. is not obligated to defend Ukraine. Europe cannot defend it on its own. What’s most frustrating is that Trump offered Zelensky a deal, exchanging defense for minerals, which Zelensky rejected in favor of free money. Yet now, Twitter and liberal media portray the U.S. as the villain. Fine! Teach the U.S. a lesson. Stop taking our money, stop selling us goods, and stop using the U.S. dollar. Go ahead and adopt the Chinese yuan or the Ethiopian money unit and see how far that takes you.

Facts: Putin is bad. Russia invaded Ukraine. Zelensky was elected and has the right to defend his nation. However, the U.S. is not obligated to pay for it.

The U.S. will no longer fund Europe’s defense or tolerate major trade imbalances. Trump has expressed frustration at Europe and other allies profiting from advantageous trade with the U.S. while the U.S. shoulders their defense costs. U.S. tariffs on imports, even from allied countries, aim to reduce this trade imbalance and encourage American manufacturing independence—policies that the U.S. has the right to enact. Demanding that Europe step up and defend itself, or even defend Ukraine, is entirely within the U.S.’s rights.

There is no law requiring the U.S. to defend Ukraine or Europe. NATO’s terms do not specify that the U.S. must defend everyone, only that it, as a NATO member, participates in the defense of other NATO members if they are attacked. It does not state that the U.S. should bear the entire burden. Additionally, Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Europe unilaterally deciding to go to war with Russia would not qualify for U.S. defense participation under NATO.

Originally, Trump opened Ukraine peace dialogue with Russia, excluding both Ukraine and Europe from the discussions. However, he begrudgingly agreed to allow Europe a place at the table, but only as a junior partner or observer, reflecting his belief that the U.S., as the primary financier of Ukraine’s and Europe’s defense, should dominate the negotiations. This aligns with sentiments expressed in the Financial Times, which suggests that Europe is relegated to the “kids’ table” in these talks. Trump’s stance underscores his view that, as the principal financial backer, the U.S. should have the final say in shaping the outcome, while Europe remains on the sidelines.

Link

So European members of NATO have a lot bigger military budget than Russia in other words.

(02-22-2025 06:31 PM)Todor Wrote:  So European members of NATO have a lot bigger military budget than Russia in other words.

And they arent allies

Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

I have never considered myself an isolationist, but I think the EU has taken great advantage of us with little return.

Tell them to pay for their own defense jointly, or piss off.

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

They might have to pull back on some of their social safety net programs, like healthcare, education, housing, etc.

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

All a bunch of BS. Cumulatively speaking their population exceeds ours. Eff NATO.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(02-23-2025 08:05 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-22-2025 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lots of kinda odd assumptions here. I agree---Europe is in trouble---but I dont think its as bad as some might think. First---Russia's army has lost a lot of thier best trained men and their most modern equipment. Thus, building a credible deterrent force is a somewhat lower bar than it was before 2022.

I also suspect the direction some of the smaller European nations may go might not exactly do anything for the security of the world we live in. I have a feeling these nations are learning they can get more bang for their limited buck not trying to recreate the massive US Defense Department and are better off with fewer expensive tanks, more cheap multi-use drones----and a nuke program. Any country with nukes is far more protected than they could ever be with 10,000 tanks---and for a lot less money. A few dozen mobile launchers that can fire cruise or ballistic missiles tipped with nukes would be all any front line EU nation bordering Russia would need to deter future expansion of Russia. Yes, Russia could turn them into a parking lot with their massive arsenal of nukes---but a half dozen nukes slamming into to thier biggest cities is still more than capable of ruining Russia's day. The resulting Russian nation that remained after taking such a nuclear assault would be reduced to a third world country with nukes. It may not be mutually assured destruction----but its probably close enough and far more economical than building a replacement for the US military.

That said---there are a lot of things the US does that are going to be near impossible for these European nations to accomplish simply due to the economies of scale that nations like the US or China can muster. The budget of a small nation is going to be hard pressed just to field the basic military---troops, tanks, APC's, artillery, SAM launchers, trucks--maybe a few choppers and a handful of fixed wing fighter/strike jets. They simply barely have the budget to cover the basics---there wont be anything left to fund high end specialties like satellite survelliance/communication, AWACs, electronic warfare aircraft, long range force projection/carriers, etc. Maybe they could create a consortium of some sort to do it----but my guess is they will likely have to rely on the US for most of those kind of capabilities for quite some time to come.

All a bunch of BS. Cumulatively speaking their population exceeds ours. Eff NATO.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

And frick the Ukraine

The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

Why cant everyone see this.

Its baffling.

Screw Europe, we saved them from the Nazi's and now we are expected to save them from themselves. The hell you say.

(02-23-2025 08:39 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

Why cant everyone see this.

Its baffling.

Because a mainstay of progressive ideology is to root out common sense where and whenever it is encountered. People thinking for themselves is the very antithesis of the hive mind that progressivism seeks to control.

This is an interesting situation.

Does the US spend more money on defense than other nations? Yes. Are prices higher in the US for defence personnel and material higher? Yes. Does the US have lower corruption in the defense sector than other nations? Yes, believe it or not. Does the US have higher overhead and defense research costs than other nations? Yes. Do US citizens have enough personally owned weapons to discourage any military invasion? Yes. Does the US have the most far-flung military in the world, creating all kinds of logistics challenges? Yes.

So, we have this situation where the US spends a bunch of money, but has higher costs. However, compared to many nations less of that money is lost through corruption, but less gets spent on fighting capability due to high overhead costs, bureaucracy, and research. Fortunately, we have so many privately owned weapons that no military is going to try to invade us directly.

Europe has some of these same issues. High costs, high overhead, but comparatively less corruption. However, they don't have the privately owned weapons to act as a deterrent. In general, they are also deployed throughout the world, though not as much as the US. That is starting to change with France pulling back in Africa and the UK/Canada pulling back in Afghanistan and the MidEast.

Meanwhile, Russia is expanding in Africa, now stationing men in all the African countries that France just left. However, their goals and focus are military, and not the mishmash of military/humanitarian/nation building that France was doing. It helps them with minerals and economic leverage, but hurts them by further extending their supply lines and taking experienced and skilled manpower away from Ukraine.

We are headed for a fairly major war in Africa, and Russia now controls most of the central region. Is their position setting them up for the next war, or just causing problems for their current war by diverting forces to ground they simply can't control?

Finally, Russia has a heavily armed fortress bordering the two NATO nations of Poland and Lithuania. Thus, all the pundits saying "what if Russia stationed troops in Mexico" - well, effectively they already have. They have a fortress city bordering two countries they have repeatedly invaded. It seems to me that continually threatening to cut off Königsberg, building fortresses around it, and continually calling for it to be an independent, un-armed city should be a big part of our negotiating strategy.

https://odysee.com/@HistoryLegends:6/how...t-africa:4

(02-23-2025 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:39 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

Why cant everyone see this.

Its baffling.

Because a mainstay of progressive ideology is to root out common sense where and whenever it is encountered. People thinking for themselves is the very antithesis of the hive mind that progressivism seeks to control.

The crazy thing is it's not liberals here who are the most hard core Ukraine supporters.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(02-23-2025 09:46 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:39 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

Why cant everyone see this.

Its baffling.

Because a mainstay of progressive ideology is to root out common sense where and whenever it is encountered. People thinking for themselves is the very antithesis of the hive mind that progressivism seeks to control.

The crazy thing is it's not liberals here who are the most hard core Ukraine supporters.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I think liberals more broadly support Ukraine. But, those you'd normally consider right, or conservative, here who support them seem to be much more vocal about it. But that makes sense, the liberals, by and large, can't really tell you why they support Ukraine, they just do (because they've been to told to). At least the righties can articulate reasons arrived at by analysis and logic which may or may not be somewhat flawed. At least there's a process there.

So I paused my TV, and I am looking at a minerals map of Ukraine. It shows 4 large deposits of rare earth minerals in the territory still controlled by Ukraine, and then one additional giant deposit that straddles both Ukranian and Russian controlled ares, with about 60-70% of that one in the Russian part.

In addition, there are huge deposits of titanium and zirconium all over Ukraine in both areas, and a lot of lithium in the Ukranian controlled area.

Source appears to be Earthstar Geographics, OpenMapTiles, and Microsoft, from 2022.

Michael Waltz just did an interview on Fox. He said the US objectives in Ukraine are to:

* Get compensated for the aid we have already sent to Ukraine

* Get a cease fire and then a stop to the war, and

* Get Europe to do much more for its own defense.

Have to disagree with you here.

First, Israel has been the biggest recipient of our foreign aid since WW2. For such a small country, that is a huge per-capita assistance, dwarfing other nations. Then you have scammers like the "International Fellowship of Christians and Jews" taking money from American Christians and giving it to Jews in Israel - never the reverse. If you add up the private aid given to Israel, it is also a huge amount. Yet Israel persecutes Christians, limits their religious practice, and gives them second-class status. Finally, when 9-11 happened, Russia built a beautiful monument dedicated to friendship, the lost lives, and the war against terror. When the USS Liberty incident happened, Israel at first denied, then deflected, then paid a token amount - no monuments, no sincere apology, no firings, no real accountability. (Note that my grandparents served as Missionaries in Israel in the early 80s, so I am predisposed to favor Israel, and did for many years until the reality was undeniable. It is yet another testament to the maxim that "Power corrupts.")

I love Japan - beautiful country. You can feel safe wandering around Tokyo at 2 in the morning. People are helpful, despite the language barrier. I would hate to have them as an enemy. But, they have not really helped us out militarily. Contrast with South Korea. During the Viet Nam war, despite having their own ongoing border war with North Korea and invasions by their assassins, they sent 320,000-350,000 military personnel to fight the Commies starting in 1965. Australia sent smaller numbers to Viet Nam, but also fought bravely and well. The Aussies have also supported us in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention WW2. The Aussies have been a better ally than Japan.

Finally, as has been said, "We have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." Just like with conference realignment in college football, we have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. Nations change, needs change, and the world changes.

(02-23-2025 08:21 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  The U.S. has two true allies. Japan(for trade, their common sense society, commitment to uphold tradition and heritage) and Israel for religious roots.

Everybody else has sucked off the US teat and taken advantage of us for our whole lifetime.

There may be a lot of things true about the Jews and Israeli leadership, but Israel is the promised land. I’ll give them whatever weapons they want to defend from Muslim Jihadi scum.

Japan may not offer military help, but they are a fair and reliable trade partner and investor. Allies move like that.

We have to give something in return for military help from anybody else. As far as current military allies, we have none from a maga Republican standpoint. Others want to profit from wars with our weapons and sell our hand-out weapons and spread their NATO/EU globalism

Show up to Ukraines capital with the weapons we are supervising the use of, demand our money, pack up our weapons and leave. We don’t need their minerals.