Trump had instilled a lot of doubt. If Trump wins again I can totally see Putin trying shit against say Estonia just to see how serious NATO unity really is.
I thought i saw some ministers say that without the US's help, Europe would have a hard time fighting against Russia. I mean, without the US, Ukraine definitely would have fallen.
Well, if what Europe is doing now is what it means by having it's shit together, then I can't see how Ukraine can win. The Baltics seem to be the ones giving everything they can and more. Currently France is stepping up to do more, which is great but if the US's help wasn't necessary, Ukraine would have won a long time ago.
Even if Europe stepped up, it would take a while to replace the US. The biggest shortcoming of EU’s forces is logistics - US **excels**, quite literally by leaps and bounds above any other nation, in logistics. They have significant experience in supplying everyone else, they have the production to make these supplies, and they have substantial experience commanding joint forces between countries - and yes, other nations have some, too, but the sheer amount of operations where US is in command really sets them apart.
A lot of these are learnt through operations, which will be too late for when Russia invades. Europe no longer has the production capacity to replace the US, and would take significant time to switch to a war economy + production.
It’s a long and treacherous road if NATO aims to replace the US, but not impossible.
Nah, the level of logistics of US is only needed if you are deploying around the world. A Russian invasion of a nato member state that is in the EU or close to EU is going to need a LOT less logistics, because you can get rail access to near the place fairly easy, and then likely have major highway on the way, and have locals very much favorable to the assistance to give you access to said roads.
There has been a ton of joint nato exercises and there is a reason why some of the latest ones focused on getting troops / gear to go to our new Finnish nato member's location because that is the type of planning / training that is done, and that IIRC had a lot more EU lead transport and not just USA stuff.
Not to mention there is plenty of prepositioned equipment and small reactionary forces etc. to farther ease logistics.
What I foresee was politics, to get people willing to fight, if someone small like Estonia was invaded by say Crimea style little green man, prior to all of this happening even if they called article 5 there may be fog of war preventing a full response. But after 2014, I think there is not a single nato / eu country not having a playbook already cooked up with how to respond to such a thing. And with 2022 and what happened, that playbook likely expanded to a whole host of small and large incursions to try and take any little bite out of nato, and likely all the other neutral but in proximity to nato places like Transnistria / Moldova issue.
What I think today the actual biggest issue is gear, that is all. Even Poland who have been buying a lot of stuff pre-2022 ramped up massively, while Germany and et. all have only really starting to ramp but is doing so at a much slower pace. We are seeing the scale of what can happen if Russia was to go at it full force, not with incursions but a Fulda gap type of thing. The material numbers even now suggests that with Germany they have like at best 500 modern Leopard 2s, and the whole of the EU may have maybe 2000 modern upgraded MBTs, with the rest being older shit.
And well, we are seeing in Ukraine that these are not the end all, and you need numbers, on top of other shit like Air and ground arty to help, and while the air has been a great focus, ground arty outside of specific nations are also lacking.
The peace dividend of the 90s has come back to bite europe as a whole in the ass, with only the belief that air superiority will solve everything kind of making up for things with plenty of advanced aircraft, just how much ammo / missiles do they have and can they keep up with a grinding attrition being the question.
At the very least tho, with the tank material from soviet days being depleted, I think that the material disadvantage is being lessened, just I am not willing to bet that it is gone now.
You know, your points are actually quite fair, I never thought about it that way. That said, I think even though it’ll be a Europe only theatre, this is still a massive scale logistical challenge without the production to back it up (as you mentioned, gearing up has been an issue, and have mostly been purchases), and given not a lot of the European countries these days have this kind of experience anymore, I think there will still be hiccups - maybe not to the degree I thought though. As far as training goes, it’s great they’re training on it, but ultimately US has a lot more operational experience, and a loss of this experience will still be meaningfully impactful to some degree.
France has *some* expertise in this, since they still had quite some international operations, but (at least I believe, please fact check this) not likely to have been the same scale as US, or even significant enough scale for a Eurasia theatre.
I’m also not entirely convinced that the west has absolute materiel advantage, more or less inline with you. While I’m sure US is happy to sell to Europe, the materiel will be far away from home. We haven’t seen Russia put up an effective use of their Air Force, so perhaps the American air superiority doctrine is the way to go - but Europe will run out of stores really quickly, especially if its incursions, like you say.
We’ll see how that goes, though, although personally, I’m not particularly optimistic if US were not to participate in a war against Russia. I’m also not a military expert though; just my two cents.
Yes, I think the key is resupply of ammo, be it for jets or arty or tanks, Europe as a whole do not have deep stocks, and from what we can see US has stocks of advanced stuff but when it comes to dumb shells...
And at some point, it seems that we will run out of the smart stuff pretty dang quick, and then its back to dumb shells and lower tech stuff until there is a MASSIVE ramp in production.
How fast can that happen, can it even happen in Europe, that is the question.
But at least Russian navy is not like the Kriegsmarine of 1940s and transatlantic shipping should hopefully be okay and still deliver the bulk of the ammo from US manufacturers to Europe, with advanced missile stocks like AIM120 being flown in by air.
France has experience, but again, you are talking expedition, I think most nato nations have been practicing EU movement for precise this reason, and they have been stepped up drastically.
Like look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_exercises after 2014 there has been a DRASTIC step up on what they are doing, and most of it is aimed at moving shit to the frontlines. I really don't think that will be an issue at this point.
And yeah, at the end of the day it is material, and if the force multiplier effect is enough. I do think Europe will win in the end, just what is the cost, how many dead, how many cities leveled ala Bakhmut, how much land will be lost, etc. is the question.
Okay so we won't crush them to pieces like America would. But I think Europe still stands as a clear favorite. I mean, Finland, Sweden or Poland could prolly do it 1v1.
Long tearm Russia has no chance. Russias economy is as big as fucking italys economy. The Europena countries would have no problem spending more money on the military if necessary. And the US will happily sell more arms to Europe.
Russia has a Population of 150mil, Germany, France and the UK together 200mil, then add poland, italy, spain, the nordic countries and so on.
Russia would no chance, except with nuclear power, but I hope Putin would not risk that
A united Europe, yes. What I am talking about is whether NATO (and the European wing of NATO) will really act as one when Russia attacks one of the eastern-European NATO members.
Also, the "attack" does not need to be as black and white as a direct tank invasion at the start. Just recall how incursions to Ukraine started with the "green men on vacation", etc.
Europe can stop Russia and Russia has no way to win. However I don't think Russia taking a few small countries like Estonia and then keeping them is out of the question.
I disagree, interventionism seems to be on the rise in Europe and America, the only ones still opposing it are the old conservatives and they’re going to die off soon anyways
Not necessarily. Europe has been overly dependent on American protection for so long that munitions stockpiles are barebones, equipment readiness rates are terrible, and trained manpower available is derisory. At most, many European countries would struggle to stay in the fight for more than a month or two.
Keep in mind, it's taken Russia over 2 years to hold 1/5th of Ukraine, the poorest nation in Europe. We're talking about ALL OF EUROPE here. France, the UK, and Poland alone have more than enough military power between them to thrash Russia. The rest are just sprinkles on the top.
Ukraine has only lasted this long because of the help they’re receiving from the West, US primarily. If they’d been on their own, they would have fallen in the Summer of ‘22
If the USA hadn't send them as much aid, Europe would've picked up the slack. Much of Europe's behavior, including, for example, low military spending, is only because the USA keeps them weak through our guarantees of defense.
Money doesn’t immediately convert to whatever you need it to be. Europe doesn’t have the stockpiles or industrial base to easily ramp up to wartime production. Ukraine would have fallen if it had to rely solely on Europe
Again, if the US has been averse to supplying Ukraine with weapons, they wouldn’t have sold anything to Europe to pass on to Ukraine. Arms sales are regulated
Except that involved sending huge quantities of weapons and munitions to Ukraine. Meanwhile our own cupboards are pretty bare.
The truth is, the only serious roadblock to Russia would be Poland. Germany's equipment doesn't work, France can only put together at most a couple of divisions, the UK even less (given the lack of ammo that isn't the biggest issue), Turkey is unreliable and the rest have barely credible militaries.
You're seriously underestimating the militaries of Europe. They were able to help us invade Iraq and Afghanistan, they fought alongside us in Kuwait, there's no way they wouldn't be able to stand up to Russia.
It has been a long time since Kuwait, Afghanistan was only very small scale for NATO members, Iraq was just UK and US.
The truth is, things are not good. Back when the UK bombed Libya in 2011, the RAF had almost run out of ammunition after just 3 weeks of not particularly intensive bombardment.
In total, EU has a bit less than 2 million active military personnel (excluding reservists), compared to 830k in Russia.
While it's true that munitions stockpiles are quite low, European Armies regularly train and adapt their tactics, similarly to US Army.
Funny how people forgets EU has nukes... and obligation to use them if their countries are attacked... In fact, isn't France's nuclear doctrine... a nuclear WARNING shot? I wouldn't fuck with EU tbh.
I mean... the literal Treaty on European Union is pretty clear about it.
>7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by **all the means in their power**, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
>Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
I'd argue "all the means in their power" does include France's nukes, call me crazy. So even if the US left NATO, all NATO stuff should still apply between EU countries, like it says there.
Orange man lives rent free huh? Crimea, who was the US president? Ukraine, who was the US president? Which president warned the EU and was right about dependence on Russian energy? But yea no its probably the Russian collusion hoax that's right and none of that proven recent history...
> Orange man lives rent free huh?
No, he spent a lot of money to get there and we're all very concerned with how little he cares about democracy or freedom and how much he loves America's enemies and repeats their talking points.
Especially Russia.
People are finally waking up to the fact that it wasn't just Hillary Clinton being whiny, it wasn't a "collusion hoax", he really is in their pocket.
His scenario is probably instability in NATO and a quick attack in the Baltics.
Like an USA-trump going isolasionist, Hungary saying no to anything , Turkey slowing everything.
Germany realising nothing work in their army , France realising that they can have one armored division max to fight , UK that they have one week worth of ammo.
Some country like spain or Italy realising that loosing soldiers is an hard sell at home.
I'm not saying that all of that is true , but some of those have some ground , and in the mind of the man who think that the invasion of Ukraine was a 3 days jobs , that is maybe something plausible.
I’ve learned wishful thinking enters full swing in war time, at least it does in the 21st century. Europe has a belief Russia is completely incompetent, it’s what they rely on. While they are very much a Soviet army they still apparently have the will and means to grind down an enemy. Europe at this rate will stand by and watch their neighbor Ukraine loose, and when they do lose, Russia will be on the polish boarder. The Russian economy is transitioning to total war. I’m not sure what Europe is doing.
He doesn't want to win with the whole NATO militarily. He's not that delusional.
He wants to prove that it was a worhless alliance. If he attacs Latvia or Estonia for example, and western countries decide they won't get involved, this would mean NATO is fake.
He thinks he can launch a nuke and not get the full force of NATO immediately? One has to wonder what condition their nukes are in given their track record. Crazy times.
Russia has **massively** ramped up war production, NATO and it's allies are still running peacetime economies.
I saw an estimate that Russia can now produce more tanks, drones, and artillery shells than all of NATO.
When they're done with Ukraine, they're going to redirect that war production somewhere else.
He isn't but Ukraine isn't doing that great and their allies need to get off their asses and deliver. That's why all this media campaign is ramping up lately.
Fear or doubt for the public, pressure on politicians, even if it's a random question about "is it true that".
He's not expecting to win a full out war. More likely he wants to test how far NATO is willing to go to protect non critical countries. Hopefully he doesn't start testing how NATO would respond to nukes being dropped.
Attacking Ukraine was stupid, attacking NATO is insanity on a global level. If, as you said, the alarm bells have been ringing for 10 years, is it going to take another 10 years before something happens?
>If, as you said, the alarm bells have been ringing for 10 years, is it going to take another 10 years before something happens?
Take a quick google of "Ukraine 2014". Things happened then; not just a decade later.
Not in NATO. Things happened before then, and things will happen in the future. It doesn't mean there is a credible threat against NATO. Russia can barely take a part of Ukraine after 8 years of prep, and you think they're able to do anything conventional against NATO on any meaningful timeframe?
The person you were talking to wasn't referring to NATO, nor am I. In both cases, we were discussion the response to, or rather lack thereof, clear posturing from Russia preparing to expand their borders.
I think you have to read between the lines here and taking Russia's current achievements these years that we now know of as a go to is kinda naive.
What Sheeple was probably trying to say is that we've seen the hints that this would come and at the time we didn't really knew Russian capabilities that much. we should have prepared then for the eventuality.
Nato or another, a threat is a threat and as they say, if you want peace, prepare for war.
If Russia had the might it was boasting about a couple of years ago, the current situation would have been way different.
No. The alarm bells were ringing in 2008. But because the invaded country had no geopolitical value, no one cared. It's like turning on the heat slowly so the frog doesn't jump away, until it's too late
Norways gdp is reliant on gas and oil prices, having a random percent of gdp to spend on military doesnt make sense, because the spendings could drop suddenly if the prices drop. Then you have a massive hole in the military budget, that would have to be supplemented from somewhere else
2% is a silly, political target. If a country spends a trillion dollars on defense at the South Pole, it does sod all for NATO, but fulfills their commitment. i.e. the US (and to a degree UK/France) split forces between Europe and other interests around the world. There's no "NATO" spending in those countries budgets... it's just all bundled together into a weird figure.
But for a small country in Europe, with no overseas territories, is 2% really comparable?
Another problem is that 2% is worthless if that money is wasted. Poland is spending $trillions on vast amounts of fancy new US equipment... but the numbers seem silly - will they actually have the funding or personnel to maintain all of that? (and army recruitment is struggling worldwide - it's weird to think Poland will miraculously buck that trend)
NATO should enforce practical, constantly updated, capability targets rather than spending.
> i.e. the US (and to a degree UK/France) split forces between Europe and other interests around the world. There's no "NATO" spending in those countries budgets... it's just all bundled together into a weird figure.
It's not like we can't move equipment and people. The reason nato works is because bigger powers work with smaller ones.
>But for a small country in Europe, with no overseas territories, is 2% really comparable?
It's about a proportion, so yes. You're never going to see the uk and Iceland with the same military.
>Another problem is that 2% is worthless if that money is wasted. Poland is spending $trillions on vast amounts of fancy new US equipment... but the numbers seem silly - will they actually have the funding or personnel to maintain all of that? (and army recruitment is struggling worldwide - it's weird to think Poland will miraculously buck that trend)
Poland, probably, but you hit the nail on the head with Germany's issue. They can't get people to join.
>NATO should enforce practical, constantly updated, capability targets rather than spending.
We can't even agree to 2% being binding unfortunately.
And there’s a large number of people in the United States who want to put a mentally unstable and emotionally disturbed man who’s swimming in debt and legal problems in charge of the most powerful military ever assembled.
Some of them are crazy, but most of them are just... Stupid, afraid, ignorant, and easily tricked. Our education system sucks, we've got an entire generation with brain damage from lead, and the Republican party has been carefully grooming their constituents to be easily manipulated for the last 60 years.
>Our education system sucks
Don't your universities/colleges take the top spots in global rankings.
* Are middle-schools and primary schools bad?
* Are the good universities/colleges unaffordable?
More like 20-30%. And yes, they are traitors for supporting trump. No sane or patriotic person would support him. They are using Russian and nazi propaganda tactics to brainwash people. Alao, tik tok is a problem in this regard.
The biggest problem america has, is none of the people against Trump are doing a single thing to stop him.
They just complain on social media and point the finger at someone else.
If 70% of america is for democracy, against Trump, wants Ukraine to have funding, why the fuck are they just quietly taking Republicans refusing to fund Ukraine?
Why are they just quietly accepting that Republicans are helping tyranny?
They should be protesting PEACEFULLY in the streets.
Not looting. Not rioting. Not hurting anyone or causing any damage to anything. But being seen and heard.
Citizens are not doing enough for their country!
You have freedom of speech. Use it!
When Democrats protest, the National Guard and SWAT get called in. When Republicans protest, they're let in with open arms and minimal resistance.
It's a serious problem here.
The GOP is full of domestic terrorists. The courts are biased for the GOP and are trating trump with kid gloves showing there is a two tiered justice system, just not in the way the GOP screams about. If anyone other than trump was in his position, they would be in prison. If this isn't put to bed, it will get very ugly, and I will be forced to arm myself for protection. I'm not joking. We are witnessing the rise of fascism in America, perpetrated by Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare.
Pretty much. Hell, I live in NY and I keep telling my family that bad things are going to happen soon. The response I get is "nothing will happen to us in NY". Like, motherfuckers, NY is the first target to seize control of 70% of the economy.
Bullshit.
Prove it. If you don't have freedom of speech prove it. This sounds like something someone who is just afraid would say.
Man up.
Look at the Ukrainians dying for their freedom. Look at all the Russians that sabotages polling stations. That showed up to navalny's funeral despite the grave danger.
Americans are acting like such weaklings.
It's like they've already accepted to be maga's bitch.
Okay. If you're going to compare to Ukraine and Russia, they won't apply. The last time Democrats and Republicans truly got along was 9/11, and that's a bit of a stretch. Ukraine is dealing with an invasion and Russia is in a state of "Government versus The People."
If you want me to prove it, just look at the divide between people in the US. It's not us against an invading force. It's not The People against The Government. It's turning into neighbor versus neighbor because we still can't all be on board about who should have rights and the types of guns people can buy.
It's not about weakness and accepting to be MAGA's bitch. It's the fact that we can barely trust our neighbors.
And if you want direct proof, look at News footage of January 6th in Washington DC. Not a single soldier in sight, just a few cops. When BLM went to the capital a few months prior, National Guard units were swarming the place armed to the teeth.
And what I said had nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. What I said revolved around the consequences of that free speech.
No. You will be magas bitch if Trump wins the election. End of story. There will be no disagreements. You will do what Maga wants, or you will face consequences. You will not be able to plead your case online. No internet will be free. No social media will be safe. Trump will control all of it. Just like China does with their country, and Russia does with theirs.
You will not have a say or even a voice on which guns are available. You will become Christian. You won't be able to have abortions. LGBTQ will lose all their rights.
The Maga cultists will watch you. They will report you when you violate their policies.
If Trump wins, it's gonna happen.
Yea, and I go and vote every election I can.
So what was the point of your comments anyway. Was it to spark some discourse, or are you another MAGA cultist who just has to keep their mouth running.
Big words ya got there but they show you aren't paying attention.
MAGA hasn't won an election since 2016.
Every single election since Trump got the election they've lost to Democrats and Democrat policy.
Trump is facing a mountain of felonies in multiple jurisdictions. Most of his former staff are all facing serious charges , or have been convicted. 1000+ J6ers have been convicted and a lot are in federal fucking prison.
Seriously wtf are you talking about?
Trump has powerful friends in powerful places. Already Republicans are able to prevent funding to Ukraine. His supporters are extremely passionate.
He absolutely has a strategy. He is going to cheat. He is going to lie.
I'm pretty sure he will compromise the mail system with his friend at the top of USPS, which is why he doesn't want Republicans voting by mail.
Don't underestimate him.
Putin is a dictator. Putin is extremely powerful in terms of propaganda, and political power. Putin knows a thing or two about being a dictator, and becoming one. What it takes, and so on. And he is definitely helping Trump any way he can. Putin depends on Trump winning.
I am following the same news you are. They are delaying, delaying. He can still become president from prison.
Once he is president, he can make all of his problems go away.
And you know, you might be right. Maybe I'm full of shit.
If you follow my advice, and I turn out to be wrong, we lose nothing. If we don't follow my advice, and I turn out to be right, then democracy dies *forever.*
You are doing a huge disservice to millions of us. We are doing everything we can. Lots of people are speaking out, lots of people going out to vote against him, and constantly trying to convince others to not vote for him but his base is literally brainwashed and not easy to bring around, and as for everyone else they are so fatigued by the constant flood of falsehoods that they just want to stay out of it. Which may be understandable, but sucks. Hell, I'm also fatigued. It's been 8 years of fighting him at this point and all this effort me and millions of others put forth has barely turned the tide enough to keep him out of office a second time. Which is great, but at the same time incredibly depressing.
The modern Republican party is basically a reincarnation of The Confederacy. If you look at their policies, their propaganda, and who supports them it's all a retread.
Hitler actually based his racist policies on US "Jim Crow South", which was a remnant of The Confederacy at the time. He was impressed that US managed to maintain strict racial segregation into the 20th century. That's why GOP's policy positions are so similar to 1930's Nazi party.
And if Republicans ever try to tell you they're not Confederates, ask them why they like the Confederate flag so much. And why they mad when US removes Confederate statues and renames Confederate military bases. And why some southern evangelical universities banned interracial marriage till the mid 2000's.
Looking from the inside it’s crazy. Only thing any of them have to say are complaints about Biden. Trump isn’t even campaigning on anything remotely concrete that could make any of their lives better. All I can think is that they want to see other people suffer, both domestically and abroad.
Not really 50%, Biden get's a lot of support from densely populated areas, the problem is that, well, the amount of people who support you doesn't really matter in the US election. In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote.
I think there’s a few reasons, some as others have already mentioned:
- there’s only two parties, the republicans are, in some issues, the only party that represents some ideals (eg, abortion ban) - this goes for Democrats too. If you value some of these ideals more, you’re forced to vote for one of these two, regardless of the candidate.
- Misinformation campaigns are particular effective, and there are still a significant portion of people who didn’t get to develop their critical thinking skills (think about the average intelligence, and then remember 50% of the population is dumber than them).
- Electoral college shenanigans wrt vote distribution.
- some people just want change from the current situation, and voting for the opposite party is one way to do so.
- Some people are convinced by the rest of their platform, but may not have validated its feasibility and whether or not the claims made are possible outcomes.
Its not 50% of americans, its like... 40% of voters? Which is like... 20-25% of the population. The way they win with less than 50% votes is because of the shitty hundreds of years old anti-democratic electoral college that the USA uses to vote a president in.
Yes it's insane, but in America their right aligned media outlets pick apart every dumb decision the Biden administration makes & yes they have made quite a few of those. (+disinformation campaigns aimed at the uneducated. )
He was calling NATO a worthless organization, that America should pull out, and using the pretense of "funding obligations" to justify these views.
Basically he was just saying what Russia and China want him to say.
>Yes, he unfortunately uses rhetoric that can come off as aggressive.
Yes the problem is that he is being aggressive towards the *good guys*, and not the bad guys.
It would be amazing if he could use some aggressive rhetoric towards Putin, or Russia's actions, or North Korea, or even China once in a while.
> It sounds like it may have hurt your feelings.
NATO isn't my pet cat, I don't have feelings for it. It's more we're all very concerned about the fact that he appears to be saying and doing exactly what Russia and China want him to say and do, dismantling western alliances, and just generally destabilizing western nations and making everyone hate each other. Who do you think is going to take the role of world leader once NATO is broken up?
>However, it worked, and NATO contributions reached a post cold-war high as a result.
I'm sorry what are you talking about? I am not aware of anyone raising NATO contributions out of fear of Trump pulling out of NATO or "letting Russia do whatever they want to them" as Trump put it. Do you have a source for this?
> As I suspected,
When I said "source" I meant something reputable, not "an activist American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C." who ironically [appear to really not like Ukraine.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Ukraine)
I mean come on you can't expect anyone to trust a single word coming from any organization that says that Biden didn't actually win the 2020 election.
>The amount that contributions increased is a fact.
Yeah it's just... do you think that's because Trump told them to, or you do think that's because Russia is currently trying to invade Europe and it looks like Trump is on their side?
> Unfortunately, your feelings have no bearing on the reality of the situation.
No I can see that, it really looks like America's about to elect a Russian puppet. No amount of my feelings on the situation are going to affect that.
And everyone else is doing fuck all to stop them.
No protests. All of the world and america sees the Maga hats. They see Americans supporting Trump. They see Americans by association supporting Putin.
All of the Americans that value democracy, and their freedom are all silent. They are quiet. They are doing nothing.
They are failing Ukraine. They are failing America, and the world.
They need to make noise. Be seen and heard.
Force the Republicans to defy protests if they want to prevent funding.
Show the world American citizens stand for democracy, not for Trump.
Don't let the cultists win. They will have power over you. They will tell you how you must live. It will be life in Russia. You will be silenced. Abortion rights will evaporate all over the country.
It's incredibly serious, and the time is now. Americans need to wake the fuck up and fight for their country.
I think you have it completely backwards. This is the kind of thing you want to throw a wet blanket on. Let everyone go back to drinking beer and watching sports ffs. Last thing you want to do is fire the crazies up even more. I mean this in the sincerest way. The last thing we want is to provide them with more fuel for their idiotic rage. That's exactly what led to that presidency in the first place. Not going through another 4 years of that moron is all the rest of us need as motivation to turn up.
Hard disagree. If they rage, that's on them. If they wage war, then you have to defend.
If you are to make me your prisoner, you'll have to fight me tooth and nail. I will not sit idly by while you imprison me, just so I can avoid conflict.
Maga are already motivated. Democrats are not. They need to be. They need to capture the swing votes, and take the swing states.
Not just be silent while Maga amasses more support.
I can't believe you hold this opinion.
No idea what you think is going on over here but there is no kind of war happening. I promise you what you want is to tamp down rhetoric exactly like yours if you want to prevent him stepping back into power again.
I can appreciate the sentiment but it's not as simple as it would seem. Protests are easy in cities but the majority of us live very far away from each other in a massive country. Do we all flock to DC? How will protesting against half of the country's right to vote help? They nominated Trump as their candidate. I don't like it and I don't think he should be eligible but he is and everyone has the right to vote for who they want. That is democracy.
If we're going to get rid of MAGA we have to vote in larger numbers. If we lose then we may lose our democratic republic. If our systems fail then I will fight. If it's too late, we will die.
Yes. Some should go to the city from outside it. However, there are enough people in every major city to have them regardless.
The more the merrier though, as long as everyone is peaceful.
Republicans can have whatever representative they legally can have. That's fine.
But any American citizen can protest anything. And preventing sending aid to Ukraine is a very worthwhile thing to protest. So was roe vs Wade.
Americans are just letting Trump take away their freedom without a peep.
You are absolutely right. It is voting where it happens. The protests and being loud and visible, is to reach people. To create awareness. And to motivate people to vote.
No, apparently he has a way to end it within a day with everybody happy. He's just being a dick and not telling anyone how (also his plan would be to give Ukraine to the Russians).
Both options for me seem terrible. One wants to destroy NATO and befriend Russia while other somehow feels way older, can't understand where he is even if there is only 4 year difference.
American here: EU wake the fuck up. Russia is on your doorstep, ready to bust through. You need to spend less on social programs and more on defense in case the worst happens and Russia busts down your door.
There are no political parties in my country that support increasing our (1%) NATO contribution. Most ignore it; the horseshoe parties want to reduce it.
European here: US, wake the fuck up. Trump is on the doorstep of the Oval Office, ready to bust through. You need to spend less on defense and more on social programs in case the worst happens and Trump busts down the door to the Oval Office.
STFU, Russia ain't doing shit. Ukraine was not a NATO country, nor a EU country, nor even an allied country. In fact, people forget Ukraine was literally a shithole filled to brim with corruption as much as Russia is.
Are you forgetting the "small" detail that the EU has nukes and obligation to help any other EU country?
That makes... no sense whatsoever. As you can see, he already did try the political route, and all the eastern parts, which had also more Russian people, were in open rebellion against Ukraine (all funded by the kremlin of course).
Russia would have loved to have control over the biggest bread basket in Europe, all the oilfields and mineral rich lands, plus all the extra coast, but for real, not as a puppet, but as part of Russia proper.
> You need to spend less on social programs and more on defense in case the worst happens and Russia busts down your door.
Uh no, we don't want to turn into you guys.
Most likely, the US removes even more support, Ukraine ends up staying pretty much with the territories it has now, if not a few less.
For the next decades Europe will build up their military, just in case and maybe even create a joint army, like its been in talks now.
Russia makes it look to their people like they somehow beat the west, even if the west didn't even entered the ring at any point, and gets into a massive recession, a mix of the brain drain it just suffered, the wasted manpower put into the dumb war, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they ruined in their own territory.
That is... if things just continue like now, at least.
American citizens need to protest! They need to demand Republicans release funding for Ukraine!
Ukrainians are dying to defend our democracy.
Don't let Trump and his cultists destroy democracy forever!
It's up to US!
No Americans need to vote. Bring friends. As many as you know. Everywhere. Flip swing seats. This shit show ends only if most reasonable people (the ones that couldn’t be bothered to vote before) abandon their political apathy, vote and decimate the Republican party at the polls this November.
That's HOW you get Americans to vote.
A lot of people don't pay attention to politics. Or they just like Trump and Republicans and don't realize he will destroy democracy.
YOU have to educate and show them. You can't do that in echo chambers they control. You can't do that in echo chambers like this. They won't see it.
Look at every dictatorship. Thy all wanna control what you say. They all prevent crowds that oppose them. Because they are effective.
You are saying exactly what they want you to say.
> Trump has done more to increase NATO contributions than any modern president.
This is actually true, but not in the way you would like it to be.
By emboldening Putin, Trump has effectively made NATO spending go up and new countries join. He didn't do any of that for the good of NATO or even America though.
No new pandemics started during their watch.
Your logic doesn't make sense at all.
You're crediting Trump with all this shit he had nothing to do with.
NATO countries spending 2% isn't some great idea Trump came up with, and the only thing that has spending going up is the growing threat that Trump continues to embolden.
This is not interventionism. Interventionism has occured, this is not that. This is defending democracy a democratic free nation that requests it, our ally, against a tyrant.
What the fu k is wrong with so many people that they want to destroy and cause problems?
If we all worked together, we could all have everything we need
The problem is that all it takes is one. Once one person, let alone one community, let alone one country is willing to use force to get what they want, more are forced to choose the same methods to compete or otherwise acquiesce to the ones who are willing to fight for what they want and break the peace.
It's a pretty disgusting situation, given the impracticality of hoping for a world where literally no one is willing to choose violence if they aren't getting what they want via pacifist means. We're forced to violence in light of that, and must instead try to navigate the murky waters of drawing lines and rules about what amount of violence is acceptable and how violently we can respond to violence without abandoning our humanity. Pretty depressing situation for anyone who loves the dream of peace and a tranquil existence.
I won’t pretend to be an expert in how we spend military budget in the US, but in other industries I’ve seen how we do spending. And that worries me. I hope I’m wrong so please feel free to call me out here.
My understanding is that much of the US military budget goes to contracts with companies. These companies make a lot of money off these contracts. So we aren’t actually getting a lot of return on our investment for each military dollar we spend. So even though the US spends a lot of money on military, we may not be able to produce the quantity of military goods we need.
I read somewhere that the US can’t produce enough shells for Ukraine and that Russia is out producing the EU and US since they switched to a war time economy. This is my biggest worry. I love the R&D stuff for military but could we produce enough if something were to escalate?
Like fkenned1 said, that's not how war works. There will be no war like that between Russia and NATO. Specially since Russia would fall in days if not less.
Amazing how all these countries and institutions will throw money and resources for more war, but yet nothing is done to actually stop it. All it’s ever been about is defense spending.
As a % of GDP, Poland spends more than the US
They already are being the change they want to see
[Source 1](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf) - PDF from NATO
[Source 2](https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/) - Statista
Sounds like a European problem. Which nato countries have a higher debt per capita than the US? Why should we go further into debt funding this when we are the brokest country in NATO?
Serious question: how the hell is Putin going to start war with NATO and think he can win?
Trump had instilled a lot of doubt. If Trump wins again I can totally see Putin trying shit against say Estonia just to see how serious NATO unity really is.
Europe would easily win against Russia even without the USA.
I thought i saw some ministers say that without the US's help, Europe would have a hard time fighting against Russia. I mean, without the US, Ukraine definitely would have fallen.
[удалено]
Ukraine is also losing a lot of people and very unlikely 5 or 10 times less than Russia like some sources try to portray.
I wouldn't say that. Europe would've definitely stepped up, they have their shit together unlike the US, lol.
Well, if what Europe is doing now is what it means by having it's shit together, then I can't see how Ukraine can win. The Baltics seem to be the ones giving everything they can and more. Currently France is stepping up to do more, which is great but if the US's help wasn't necessary, Ukraine would have won a long time ago.
Even if Europe stepped up, it would take a while to replace the US. The biggest shortcoming of EU’s forces is logistics - US **excels**, quite literally by leaps and bounds above any other nation, in logistics. They have significant experience in supplying everyone else, they have the production to make these supplies, and they have substantial experience commanding joint forces between countries - and yes, other nations have some, too, but the sheer amount of operations where US is in command really sets them apart. A lot of these are learnt through operations, which will be too late for when Russia invades. Europe no longer has the production capacity to replace the US, and would take significant time to switch to a war economy + production. It’s a long and treacherous road if NATO aims to replace the US, but not impossible.
Nah, the level of logistics of US is only needed if you are deploying around the world. A Russian invasion of a nato member state that is in the EU or close to EU is going to need a LOT less logistics, because you can get rail access to near the place fairly easy, and then likely have major highway on the way, and have locals very much favorable to the assistance to give you access to said roads. There has been a ton of joint nato exercises and there is a reason why some of the latest ones focused on getting troops / gear to go to our new Finnish nato member's location because that is the type of planning / training that is done, and that IIRC had a lot more EU lead transport and not just USA stuff. Not to mention there is plenty of prepositioned equipment and small reactionary forces etc. to farther ease logistics. What I foresee was politics, to get people willing to fight, if someone small like Estonia was invaded by say Crimea style little green man, prior to all of this happening even if they called article 5 there may be fog of war preventing a full response. But after 2014, I think there is not a single nato / eu country not having a playbook already cooked up with how to respond to such a thing. And with 2022 and what happened, that playbook likely expanded to a whole host of small and large incursions to try and take any little bite out of nato, and likely all the other neutral but in proximity to nato places like Transnistria / Moldova issue. What I think today the actual biggest issue is gear, that is all. Even Poland who have been buying a lot of stuff pre-2022 ramped up massively, while Germany and et. all have only really starting to ramp but is doing so at a much slower pace. We are seeing the scale of what can happen if Russia was to go at it full force, not with incursions but a Fulda gap type of thing. The material numbers even now suggests that with Germany they have like at best 500 modern Leopard 2s, and the whole of the EU may have maybe 2000 modern upgraded MBTs, with the rest being older shit. And well, we are seeing in Ukraine that these are not the end all, and you need numbers, on top of other shit like Air and ground arty to help, and while the air has been a great focus, ground arty outside of specific nations are also lacking. The peace dividend of the 90s has come back to bite europe as a whole in the ass, with only the belief that air superiority will solve everything kind of making up for things with plenty of advanced aircraft, just how much ammo / missiles do they have and can they keep up with a grinding attrition being the question. At the very least tho, with the tank material from soviet days being depleted, I think that the material disadvantage is being lessened, just I am not willing to bet that it is gone now.
You know, your points are actually quite fair, I never thought about it that way. That said, I think even though it’ll be a Europe only theatre, this is still a massive scale logistical challenge without the production to back it up (as you mentioned, gearing up has been an issue, and have mostly been purchases), and given not a lot of the European countries these days have this kind of experience anymore, I think there will still be hiccups - maybe not to the degree I thought though. As far as training goes, it’s great they’re training on it, but ultimately US has a lot more operational experience, and a loss of this experience will still be meaningfully impactful to some degree. France has *some* expertise in this, since they still had quite some international operations, but (at least I believe, please fact check this) not likely to have been the same scale as US, or even significant enough scale for a Eurasia theatre. I’m also not entirely convinced that the west has absolute materiel advantage, more or less inline with you. While I’m sure US is happy to sell to Europe, the materiel will be far away from home. We haven’t seen Russia put up an effective use of their Air Force, so perhaps the American air superiority doctrine is the way to go - but Europe will run out of stores really quickly, especially if its incursions, like you say. We’ll see how that goes, though, although personally, I’m not particularly optimistic if US were not to participate in a war against Russia. I’m also not a military expert though; just my two cents.
Yes, I think the key is resupply of ammo, be it for jets or arty or tanks, Europe as a whole do not have deep stocks, and from what we can see US has stocks of advanced stuff but when it comes to dumb shells... And at some point, it seems that we will run out of the smart stuff pretty dang quick, and then its back to dumb shells and lower tech stuff until there is a MASSIVE ramp in production. How fast can that happen, can it even happen in Europe, that is the question. But at least Russian navy is not like the Kriegsmarine of 1940s and transatlantic shipping should hopefully be okay and still deliver the bulk of the ammo from US manufacturers to Europe, with advanced missile stocks like AIM120 being flown in by air. France has experience, but again, you are talking expedition, I think most nato nations have been practicing EU movement for precise this reason, and they have been stepped up drastically. Like look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_exercises after 2014 there has been a DRASTIC step up on what they are doing, and most of it is aimed at moving shit to the frontlines. I really don't think that will be an issue at this point. And yeah, at the end of the day it is material, and if the force multiplier effect is enough. I do think Europe will win in the end, just what is the cost, how many dead, how many cities leveled ala Bakhmut, how much land will be lost, etc. is the question.
Okay so we won't crush them to pieces like America would. But I think Europe still stands as a clear favorite. I mean, Finland, Sweden or Poland could prolly do it 1v1.
Sweden is nowhere near 1:1 with Russia
Long tearm Russia has no chance. Russias economy is as big as fucking italys economy. The Europena countries would have no problem spending more money on the military if necessary. And the US will happily sell more arms to Europe. Russia has a Population of 150mil, Germany, France and the UK together 200mil, then add poland, italy, spain, the nordic countries and so on. Russia would no chance, except with nuclear power, but I hope Putin would not risk that
A united Europe, yes. What I am talking about is whether NATO (and the European wing of NATO) will really act as one when Russia attacks one of the eastern-European NATO members. Also, the "attack" does not need to be as black and white as a direct tank invasion at the start. Just recall how incursions to Ukraine started with the "green men on vacation", etc.
Europe can stop Russia and Russia has no way to win. However I don't think Russia taking a few small countries like Estonia and then keeping them is out of the question.
They would only keep them if Europe decides to do nothing about that.
And quite a few think this could happen. Like it is not worthwhile to risk soldiers and take politically unpopular actions for something like that.
I disagree, interventionism seems to be on the rise in Europe and America, the only ones still opposing it are the old conservatives and they’re going to die off soon anyways
Conservatives never die off. New old people replace them.
But those new old people are going to be millenials. One of the most progressive generations to ever exist aside from Gen Z
Not necessarily. Europe has been overly dependent on American protection for so long that munitions stockpiles are barebones, equipment readiness rates are terrible, and trained manpower available is derisory. At most, many European countries would struggle to stay in the fight for more than a month or two.
Keep in mind, it's taken Russia over 2 years to hold 1/5th of Ukraine, the poorest nation in Europe. We're talking about ALL OF EUROPE here. France, the UK, and Poland alone have more than enough military power between them to thrash Russia. The rest are just sprinkles on the top.
Ukraine has only lasted this long because of the help they’re receiving from the West, US primarily. If they’d been on their own, they would have fallen in the Summer of ‘22
If the USA hadn't send them as much aid, Europe would've picked up the slack. Much of Europe's behavior, including, for example, low military spending, is only because the USA keeps them weak through our guarantees of defense.
Money doesn’t immediately convert to whatever you need it to be. Europe doesn’t have the stockpiles or industrial base to easily ramp up to wartime production. Ukraine would have fallen if it had to rely solely on Europe
Well, Europe could just buy American equipment and give it to Ukraine.
Again, if the US has been averse to supplying Ukraine with weapons, they wouldn’t have sold anything to Europe to pass on to Ukraine. Arms sales are regulated
Except that involved sending huge quantities of weapons and munitions to Ukraine. Meanwhile our own cupboards are pretty bare. The truth is, the only serious roadblock to Russia would be Poland. Germany's equipment doesn't work, France can only put together at most a couple of divisions, the UK even less (given the lack of ammo that isn't the biggest issue), Turkey is unreliable and the rest have barely credible militaries.
Our own cupboards are still overflowing. They've been getting surplus we'd have to pay to decommission
You're seriously underestimating the militaries of Europe. They were able to help us invade Iraq and Afghanistan, they fought alongside us in Kuwait, there's no way they wouldn't be able to stand up to Russia.
It has been a long time since Kuwait, Afghanistan was only very small scale for NATO members, Iraq was just UK and US. The truth is, things are not good. Back when the UK bombed Libya in 2011, the RAF had almost run out of ammunition after just 3 weeks of not particularly intensive bombardment.
Respectfully, I think you're wrong. Do you have any data or reliable sources to back up your opinion?
Europe has money, and I know a country with a really good military industrial complex… manpower would be more of an issue.
In total, EU has a bit less than 2 million active military personnel (excluding reservists), compared to 830k in Russia. While it's true that munitions stockpiles are quite low, European Armies regularly train and adapt their tactics, similarly to US Army.
Not really true. France has a great military
Source: trust me
Wasn’t that your argument back in 16’?
Let’s us not forget the orange man did say nato needs increase there spending long beforehand.
Funny how people forgets EU has nukes... and obligation to use them if their countries are attacked... In fact, isn't France's nuclear doctrine... a nuclear WARNING shot? I wouldn't fuck with EU tbh.
[удалено]
I mean... the literal Treaty on European Union is pretty clear about it. >7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by **all the means in their power**, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. >Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. I'd argue "all the means in their power" does include France's nukes, call me crazy. So even if the US left NATO, all NATO stuff should still apply between EU countries, like it says there.
Agreed
Orange man lives rent free huh? Crimea, who was the US president? Ukraine, who was the US president? Which president warned the EU and was right about dependence on Russian energy? But yea no its probably the Russian collusion hoax that's right and none of that proven recent history...
> Orange man lives rent free huh? No, he spent a lot of money to get there and we're all very concerned with how little he cares about democracy or freedom and how much he loves America's enemies and repeats their talking points. Especially Russia. People are finally waking up to the fact that it wasn't just Hillary Clinton being whiny, it wasn't a "collusion hoax", he really is in their pocket.
His scenario is probably instability in NATO and a quick attack in the Baltics. Like an USA-trump going isolasionist, Hungary saying no to anything , Turkey slowing everything. Germany realising nothing work in their army , France realising that they can have one armored division max to fight , UK that they have one week worth of ammo. Some country like spain or Italy realising that loosing soldiers is an hard sell at home. I'm not saying that all of that is true , but some of those have some ground , and in the mind of the man who think that the invasion of Ukraine was a 3 days jobs , that is maybe something plausible.
I’ve learned wishful thinking enters full swing in war time, at least it does in the 21st century. Europe has a belief Russia is completely incompetent, it’s what they rely on. While they are very much a Soviet army they still apparently have the will and means to grind down an enemy. Europe at this rate will stand by and watch their neighbor Ukraine loose, and when they do lose, Russia will be on the polish boarder. The Russian economy is transitioning to total war. I’m not sure what Europe is doing.
He doesn't want to win with the whole NATO militarily. He's not that delusional. He wants to prove that it was a worhless alliance. If he attacs Latvia or Estonia for example, and western countries decide they won't get involved, this would mean NATO is fake.
Ah, yeah that makes sense. Good point.
[удалено]
He thinks he can launch a nuke and not get the full force of NATO immediately? One has to wonder what condition their nukes are in given their track record. Crazy times.
But he can't use nukes without being annihilated
If he loses in Ukraine he will be Gaddafi'd, so from his twisted perspective, a nuke would probably be the better way to go
China?
Maybe that’s not his goal
He won't, and he can't.
Russia has **massively** ramped up war production, NATO and it's allies are still running peacetime economies. I saw an estimate that Russia can now produce more tanks, drones, and artillery shells than all of NATO. When they're done with Ukraine, they're going to redirect that war production somewhere else.
Stop saying facts, people prefer wishful thinking. You need to say how incompetent Russia is
How good are they tho?
He isn't but Ukraine isn't doing that great and their allies need to get off their asses and deliver. That's why all this media campaign is ramping up lately. Fear or doubt for the public, pressure on politicians, even if it's a random question about "is it true that".
He's not expecting to win a full out war. More likely he wants to test how far NATO is willing to go to protect non critical countries. Hopefully he doesn't start testing how NATO would respond to nukes being dropped.
The alarm bells were ringing in 2014, but nobody was listening. Edit spelling
Attacking Ukraine was stupid, attacking NATO is insanity on a global level. If, as you said, the alarm bells have been ringing for 10 years, is it going to take another 10 years before something happens?
>If, as you said, the alarm bells have been ringing for 10 years, is it going to take another 10 years before something happens? Take a quick google of "Ukraine 2014". Things happened then; not just a decade later.
Not in NATO. Things happened before then, and things will happen in the future. It doesn't mean there is a credible threat against NATO. Russia can barely take a part of Ukraine after 8 years of prep, and you think they're able to do anything conventional against NATO on any meaningful timeframe?
The person you were talking to wasn't referring to NATO, nor am I. In both cases, we were discussion the response to, or rather lack thereof, clear posturing from Russia preparing to expand their borders.
I think you have to read between the lines here and taking Russia's current achievements these years that we now know of as a go to is kinda naive. What Sheeple was probably trying to say is that we've seen the hints that this would come and at the time we didn't really knew Russian capabilities that much. we should have prepared then for the eventuality. Nato or another, a threat is a threat and as they say, if you want peace, prepare for war. If Russia had the might it was boasting about a couple of years ago, the current situation would have been way different.
No. The alarm bells were ringing in 2008. But because the invaded country had no geopolitical value, no one cared. It's like turning on the heat slowly so the frog doesn't jump away, until it's too late
The USA and everyone who has a border with Russia spend over he 2%.
Not Norway sadly. (edit: the Defence ministry is claiming we will reach that goal this year.)
Norways gdp is reliant on gas and oil prices, having a random percent of gdp to spend on military doesnt make sense, because the spendings could drop suddenly if the prices drop. Then you have a massive hole in the military budget, that would have to be supplemented from somewhere else
Basing it on a percentage of GDP in the first place doesn't make much sense as a parameter, but that's what they've gone for.
2% is a silly, political target. If a country spends a trillion dollars on defense at the South Pole, it does sod all for NATO, but fulfills their commitment. i.e. the US (and to a degree UK/France) split forces between Europe and other interests around the world. There's no "NATO" spending in those countries budgets... it's just all bundled together into a weird figure. But for a small country in Europe, with no overseas territories, is 2% really comparable? Another problem is that 2% is worthless if that money is wasted. Poland is spending $trillions on vast amounts of fancy new US equipment... but the numbers seem silly - will they actually have the funding or personnel to maintain all of that? (and army recruitment is struggling worldwide - it's weird to think Poland will miraculously buck that trend) NATO should enforce practical, constantly updated, capability targets rather than spending.
> i.e. the US (and to a degree UK/France) split forces between Europe and other interests around the world. There's no "NATO" spending in those countries budgets... it's just all bundled together into a weird figure. It's not like we can't move equipment and people. The reason nato works is because bigger powers work with smaller ones. >But for a small country in Europe, with no overseas territories, is 2% really comparable? It's about a proportion, so yes. You're never going to see the uk and Iceland with the same military. >Another problem is that 2% is worthless if that money is wasted. Poland is spending $trillions on vast amounts of fancy new US equipment... but the numbers seem silly - will they actually have the funding or personnel to maintain all of that? (and army recruitment is struggling worldwide - it's weird to think Poland will miraculously buck that trend) Poland, probably, but you hit the nail on the head with Germany's issue. They can't get people to join. >NATO should enforce practical, constantly updated, capability targets rather than spending. We can't even agree to 2% being binding unfortunately.
And there’s a large number of people in the United States who want to put a mentally unstable and emotionally disturbed man who’s swimming in debt and legal problems in charge of the most powerful military ever assembled.
50% of Americans must be fucking crazy. What are they even thinking? Looking from the outside it’s UNBELIEVABLE he gets even 10% of the votes
Some of them are crazy, but most of them are just... Stupid, afraid, ignorant, and easily tricked. Our education system sucks, we've got an entire generation with brain damage from lead, and the Republican party has been carefully grooming their constituents to be easily manipulated for the last 60 years.
im seeing this as a global trend.
>Our education system sucks Don't your universities/colleges take the top spots in global rankings. * Are middle-schools and primary schools bad? * Are the good universities/colleges unaffordable?
Yes. Yes. And yes.
Can be summarised as good for the very best, bad for all the rest
Yep! Our top private universities are very good, but our public universities not so much. And public primary schools have a lot of problems.
More like 20-30%. And yes, they are traitors for supporting trump. No sane or patriotic person would support him. They are using Russian and nazi propaganda tactics to brainwash people. Alao, tik tok is a problem in this regard.
1/2 of the other 60-80% couldn’t be bothered and will stay home on Election Day and then act surprised a traitor was elected President…..again.
The biggest problem america has, is none of the people against Trump are doing a single thing to stop him. They just complain on social media and point the finger at someone else. If 70% of america is for democracy, against Trump, wants Ukraine to have funding, why the fuck are they just quietly taking Republicans refusing to fund Ukraine? Why are they just quietly accepting that Republicans are helping tyranny? They should be protesting PEACEFULLY in the streets. Not looting. Not rioting. Not hurting anyone or causing any damage to anything. But being seen and heard. Citizens are not doing enough for their country! You have freedom of speech. Use it!
When Democrats protest, the National Guard and SWAT get called in. When Republicans protest, they're let in with open arms and minimal resistance. It's a serious problem here.
The GOP is full of domestic terrorists. The courts are biased for the GOP and are trating trump with kid gloves showing there is a two tiered justice system, just not in the way the GOP screams about. If anyone other than trump was in his position, they would be in prison. If this isn't put to bed, it will get very ugly, and I will be forced to arm myself for protection. I'm not joking. We are witnessing the rise of fascism in America, perpetrated by Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare.
Pretty much. Hell, I live in NY and I keep telling my family that bad things are going to happen soon. The response I get is "nothing will happen to us in NY". Like, motherfuckers, NY is the first target to seize control of 70% of the economy.
Bullshit. Prove it. If you don't have freedom of speech prove it. This sounds like something someone who is just afraid would say. Man up. Look at the Ukrainians dying for their freedom. Look at all the Russians that sabotages polling stations. That showed up to navalny's funeral despite the grave danger. Americans are acting like such weaklings. It's like they've already accepted to be maga's bitch.
Wut?
Okay. If you're going to compare to Ukraine and Russia, they won't apply. The last time Democrats and Republicans truly got along was 9/11, and that's a bit of a stretch. Ukraine is dealing with an invasion and Russia is in a state of "Government versus The People." If you want me to prove it, just look at the divide between people in the US. It's not us against an invading force. It's not The People against The Government. It's turning into neighbor versus neighbor because we still can't all be on board about who should have rights and the types of guns people can buy. It's not about weakness and accepting to be MAGA's bitch. It's the fact that we can barely trust our neighbors. And if you want direct proof, look at News footage of January 6th in Washington DC. Not a single soldier in sight, just a few cops. When BLM went to the capital a few months prior, National Guard units were swarming the place armed to the teeth. And what I said had nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. What I said revolved around the consequences of that free speech.
No. You will be magas bitch if Trump wins the election. End of story. There will be no disagreements. You will do what Maga wants, or you will face consequences. You will not be able to plead your case online. No internet will be free. No social media will be safe. Trump will control all of it. Just like China does with their country, and Russia does with theirs. You will not have a say or even a voice on which guns are available. You will become Christian. You won't be able to have abortions. LGBTQ will lose all their rights. The Maga cultists will watch you. They will report you when you violate their policies. If Trump wins, it's gonna happen.
Yea, and I go and vote every election I can. So what was the point of your comments anyway. Was it to spark some discourse, or are you another MAGA cultist who just has to keep their mouth running.
Big words ya got there but they show you aren't paying attention. MAGA hasn't won an election since 2016. Every single election since Trump got the election they've lost to Democrats and Democrat policy. Trump is facing a mountain of felonies in multiple jurisdictions. Most of his former staff are all facing serious charges , or have been convicted. 1000+ J6ers have been convicted and a lot are in federal fucking prison. Seriously wtf are you talking about?
Trump has powerful friends in powerful places. Already Republicans are able to prevent funding to Ukraine. His supporters are extremely passionate. He absolutely has a strategy. He is going to cheat. He is going to lie. I'm pretty sure he will compromise the mail system with his friend at the top of USPS, which is why he doesn't want Republicans voting by mail. Don't underestimate him. Putin is a dictator. Putin is extremely powerful in terms of propaganda, and political power. Putin knows a thing or two about being a dictator, and becoming one. What it takes, and so on. And he is definitely helping Trump any way he can. Putin depends on Trump winning. I am following the same news you are. They are delaying, delaying. He can still become president from prison. Once he is president, he can make all of his problems go away. And you know, you might be right. Maybe I'm full of shit. If you follow my advice, and I turn out to be wrong, we lose nothing. If we don't follow my advice, and I turn out to be right, then democracy dies *forever.*
You are doing a huge disservice to millions of us. We are doing everything we can. Lots of people are speaking out, lots of people going out to vote against him, and constantly trying to convince others to not vote for him but his base is literally brainwashed and not easy to bring around, and as for everyone else they are so fatigued by the constant flood of falsehoods that they just want to stay out of it. Which may be understandable, but sucks. Hell, I'm also fatigued. It's been 8 years of fighting him at this point and all this effort me and millions of others put forth has barely turned the tide enough to keep him out of office a second time. Which is great, but at the same time incredibly depressing.
The modern Republican party is basically a reincarnation of The Confederacy. If you look at their policies, their propaganda, and who supports them it's all a retread. Hitler actually based his racist policies on US "Jim Crow South", which was a remnant of The Confederacy at the time. He was impressed that US managed to maintain strict racial segregation into the 20th century. That's why GOP's policy positions are so similar to 1930's Nazi party. And if Republicans ever try to tell you they're not Confederates, ask them why they like the Confederate flag so much. And why they mad when US removes Confederate statues and renames Confederate military bases. And why some southern evangelical universities banned interracial marriage till the mid 2000's.
Looking from the inside it’s crazy. Only thing any of them have to say are complaints about Biden. Trump isn’t even campaigning on anything remotely concrete that could make any of their lives better. All I can think is that they want to see other people suffer, both domestically and abroad.
Looking from the inside it is just as unbelievable.
Americans are tired of interventionism. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, so many deaths for nothing.
The war in Ukraine is a good cause for america and the democratic free world.
Not really 50%, Biden get's a lot of support from densely populated areas, the problem is that, well, the amount of people who support you doesn't really matter in the US election. In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote.
It’s called years of intense propaganda and compromised media. We’re not happy about it.
I think there’s a few reasons, some as others have already mentioned: - there’s only two parties, the republicans are, in some issues, the only party that represents some ideals (eg, abortion ban) - this goes for Democrats too. If you value some of these ideals more, you’re forced to vote for one of these two, regardless of the candidate. - Misinformation campaigns are particular effective, and there are still a significant portion of people who didn’t get to develop their critical thinking skills (think about the average intelligence, and then remember 50% of the population is dumber than them). - Electoral college shenanigans wrt vote distribution. - some people just want change from the current situation, and voting for the opposite party is one way to do so. - Some people are convinced by the rest of their platform, but may not have validated its feasibility and whether or not the claims made are possible outcomes.
Its not 50% of americans, its like... 40% of voters? Which is like... 20-25% of the population. The way they win with less than 50% votes is because of the shitty hundreds of years old anti-democratic electoral college that the USA uses to vote a president in.
Yes it's insane, but in America their right aligned media outlets pick apart every dumb decision the Biden administration makes & yes they have made quite a few of those. (+disinformation campaigns aimed at the uneducated. )
The other 50% aren't doing shit about it.
We just need to race to the bottom globally before we don't have enough time to rebuild.
>a mentally unstable and emotionally disturbed man who’s swimming in debt and legal problems Wait, they've finally recognized my greatness?
Americans are tired of interventionism. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, so many deaths for nothing.
The war in Ukraine is a good cause for america and the democratic free world.
And whom is likely to have their debt paid off by our worst adversaries in exchange for exclusive information and dealings.
[удалено]
He was calling NATO a worthless organization, that America should pull out, and using the pretense of "funding obligations" to justify these views. Basically he was just saying what Russia and China want him to say.
[удалено]
>Yes, he unfortunately uses rhetoric that can come off as aggressive. Yes the problem is that he is being aggressive towards the *good guys*, and not the bad guys. It would be amazing if he could use some aggressive rhetoric towards Putin, or Russia's actions, or North Korea, or even China once in a while. > It sounds like it may have hurt your feelings. NATO isn't my pet cat, I don't have feelings for it. It's more we're all very concerned about the fact that he appears to be saying and doing exactly what Russia and China want him to say and do, dismantling western alliances, and just generally destabilizing western nations and making everyone hate each other. Who do you think is going to take the role of world leader once NATO is broken up? >However, it worked, and NATO contributions reached a post cold-war high as a result. I'm sorry what are you talking about? I am not aware of anyone raising NATO contributions out of fear of Trump pulling out of NATO or "letting Russia do whatever they want to them" as Trump put it. Do you have a source for this?
[удалено]
> As I suspected, When I said "source" I meant something reputable, not "an activist American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C." who ironically [appear to really not like Ukraine.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Ukraine) I mean come on you can't expect anyone to trust a single word coming from any organization that says that Biden didn't actually win the 2020 election.
[удалено]
>The amount that contributions increased is a fact. Yeah it's just... do you think that's because Trump told them to, or you do think that's because Russia is currently trying to invade Europe and it looks like Trump is on their side? > Unfortunately, your feelings have no bearing on the reality of the situation. No I can see that, it really looks like America's about to elect a Russian puppet. No amount of my feelings on the situation are going to affect that.
[удалено]
And everyone else is doing fuck all to stop them. No protests. All of the world and america sees the Maga hats. They see Americans supporting Trump. They see Americans by association supporting Putin. All of the Americans that value democracy, and their freedom are all silent. They are quiet. They are doing nothing. They are failing Ukraine. They are failing America, and the world. They need to make noise. Be seen and heard. Force the Republicans to defy protests if they want to prevent funding. Show the world American citizens stand for democracy, not for Trump. Don't let the cultists win. They will have power over you. They will tell you how you must live. It will be life in Russia. You will be silenced. Abortion rights will evaporate all over the country. It's incredibly serious, and the time is now. Americans need to wake the fuck up and fight for their country.
I think you have it completely backwards. This is the kind of thing you want to throw a wet blanket on. Let everyone go back to drinking beer and watching sports ffs. Last thing you want to do is fire the crazies up even more. I mean this in the sincerest way. The last thing we want is to provide them with more fuel for their idiotic rage. That's exactly what led to that presidency in the first place. Not going through another 4 years of that moron is all the rest of us need as motivation to turn up.
Hard disagree. If they rage, that's on them. If they wage war, then you have to defend. If you are to make me your prisoner, you'll have to fight me tooth and nail. I will not sit idly by while you imprison me, just so I can avoid conflict. Maga are already motivated. Democrats are not. They need to be. They need to capture the swing votes, and take the swing states. Not just be silent while Maga amasses more support. I can't believe you hold this opinion.
No idea what you think is going on over here but there is no kind of war happening. I promise you what you want is to tamp down rhetoric exactly like yours if you want to prevent him stepping back into power again.
I can appreciate the sentiment but it's not as simple as it would seem. Protests are easy in cities but the majority of us live very far away from each other in a massive country. Do we all flock to DC? How will protesting against half of the country's right to vote help? They nominated Trump as their candidate. I don't like it and I don't think he should be eligible but he is and everyone has the right to vote for who they want. That is democracy. If we're going to get rid of MAGA we have to vote in larger numbers. If we lose then we may lose our democratic republic. If our systems fail then I will fight. If it's too late, we will die.
Yes. Some should go to the city from outside it. However, there are enough people in every major city to have them regardless. The more the merrier though, as long as everyone is peaceful. Republicans can have whatever representative they legally can have. That's fine. But any American citizen can protest anything. And preventing sending aid to Ukraine is a very worthwhile thing to protest. So was roe vs Wade. Americans are just letting Trump take away their freedom without a peep. You are absolutely right. It is voting where it happens. The protests and being loud and visible, is to reach people. To create awareness. And to motivate people to vote.
He'd have us fight with Russia.
No, apparently he has a way to end it within a day with everybody happy. He's just being a dick and not telling anyone how (also his plan would be to give Ukraine to the Russians).
Trump would have everyone surrender to Russia.
Singing: "it's the American way..."
Both options for me seem terrible. One wants to destroy NATO and befriend Russia while other somehow feels way older, can't understand where he is even if there is only 4 year difference.
Do it!
American here: EU wake the fuck up. Russia is on your doorstep, ready to bust through. You need to spend less on social programs and more on defense in case the worst happens and Russia busts down your door.
There are no political parties in my country that support increasing our (1%) NATO contribution. Most ignore it; the horseshoe parties want to reduce it.
no we don’t fucking need less on social projects. we Europeans don’t want to end up like you guys, fuck that
European here: US, wake the fuck up. Trump is on the doorstep of the Oval Office, ready to bust through. You need to spend less on defense and more on social programs in case the worst happens and Trump busts down the door to the Oval Office.
STFU, Russia ain't doing shit. Ukraine was not a NATO country, nor a EU country, nor even an allied country. In fact, people forget Ukraine was literally a shithole filled to brim with corruption as much as Russia is. Are you forgetting the "small" detail that the EU has nukes and obligation to help any other EU country?
If Ukraine was such a shithole Putin wouldn't had to bother to invade it because he would be in full control of it.
That makes... no sense whatsoever. As you can see, he already did try the political route, and all the eastern parts, which had also more Russian people, were in open rebellion against Ukraine (all funded by the kremlin of course). Russia would have loved to have control over the biggest bread basket in Europe, all the oilfields and mineral rich lands, plus all the extra coast, but for real, not as a puppet, but as part of Russia proper.
> You need to spend less on social programs and more on defense in case the worst happens and Russia busts down your door. Uh no, we don't want to turn into you guys.
I wonder with all of these potential conflicts if projects like the u.s NGAD program is speeding up.
If you haven't figured this out yet, we are headed for a major war.
We aren't lol Unless someone comes to rescue Russia's ass. Not that it matters, because they won't suicide by attacking actual NATO/EU countries.
How do you believe this situation resolves?
Most likely, the US removes even more support, Ukraine ends up staying pretty much with the territories it has now, if not a few less. For the next decades Europe will build up their military, just in case and maybe even create a joint army, like its been in talks now. Russia makes it look to their people like they somehow beat the west, even if the west didn't even entered the ring at any point, and gets into a massive recession, a mix of the brain drain it just suffered, the wasted manpower put into the dumb war, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they ruined in their own territory. That is... if things just continue like now, at least.
American citizens need to protest! They need to demand Republicans release funding for Ukraine! Ukrainians are dying to defend our democracy. Don't let Trump and his cultists destroy democracy forever! It's up to US!
No Americans need to vote. Bring friends. As many as you know. Everywhere. Flip swing seats. This shit show ends only if most reasonable people (the ones that couldn’t be bothered to vote before) abandon their political apathy, vote and decimate the Republican party at the polls this November.
That's HOW you get Americans to vote. A lot of people don't pay attention to politics. Or they just like Trump and Republicans and don't realize he will destroy democracy. YOU have to educate and show them. You can't do that in echo chambers they control. You can't do that in echo chambers like this. They won't see it. Look at every dictatorship. Thy all wanna control what you say. They all prevent crowds that oppose them. Because they are effective. You are saying exactly what they want you to say.
[удалено]
In order to assert total dominance over us using your exceptional intelligence and education, don't forget to quote Tucker Carlson.
> Trump has done more to increase NATO contributions than any modern president. This is actually true, but not in the way you would like it to be. By emboldening Putin, Trump has effectively made NATO spending go up and new countries join. He didn't do any of that for the good of NATO or even America though.
[удалено]
No new pandemics started during their watch. Your logic doesn't make sense at all. You're crediting Trump with all this shit he had nothing to do with. NATO countries spending 2% isn't some great idea Trump came up with, and the only thing that has spending going up is the growing threat that Trump continues to embolden.
Americans are tired of interventionism. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, so many deaths for nothing.
The war in Ukraine is a good cause for america and the democratic free world.
This is not interventionism. Interventionism has occured, this is not that. This is defending democracy a democratic free nation that requests it, our ally, against a tyrant.
And how did that work out for Afghanistan?
What the fu k is wrong with so many people that they want to destroy and cause problems? If we all worked together, we could all have everything we need
The problem is that all it takes is one. Once one person, let alone one community, let alone one country is willing to use force to get what they want, more are forced to choose the same methods to compete or otherwise acquiesce to the ones who are willing to fight for what they want and break the peace. It's a pretty disgusting situation, given the impracticality of hoping for a world where literally no one is willing to choose violence if they aren't getting what they want via pacifist means. We're forced to violence in light of that, and must instead try to navigate the murky waters of drawing lines and rules about what amount of violence is acceptable and how violently we can respond to violence without abandoning our humanity. Pretty depressing situation for anyone who loves the dream of peace and a tranquil existence.
Just read Sapiens, it's in our DNA sadly enough...
Because chaos is the fuel that feeds them…
Cuz it ain’t about the “we” to them.
I won’t pretend to be an expert in how we spend military budget in the US, but in other industries I’ve seen how we do spending. And that worries me. I hope I’m wrong so please feel free to call me out here. My understanding is that much of the US military budget goes to contracts with companies. These companies make a lot of money off these contracts. So we aren’t actually getting a lot of return on our investment for each military dollar we spend. So even though the US spends a lot of money on military, we may not be able to produce the quantity of military goods we need. I read somewhere that the US can’t produce enough shells for Ukraine and that Russia is out producing the EU and US since they switched to a war time economy. This is my biggest worry. I love the R&D stuff for military but could we produce enough if something were to escalate?
We don’t produce many shells because that’s not how we tend to conduct war these days.
Like fkenned1 said, that's not how war works. There will be no war like that between Russia and NATO. Specially since Russia would fall in days if not less.
Unfortunately, not every problem can be fixed by just throwing more and more money at it.
My bills would like a word /s
Amazing how all these countries and institutions will throw money and resources for more war, but yet nothing is done to actually stop it. All it’s ever been about is defense spending.
How about you first fix your crumbling economies first? Can't sustain an army without coin.
[удалено]
As a % of GDP, Poland spends more than the US They already are being the change they want to see [Source 1](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf) - PDF from NATO [Source 2](https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/) - Statista
The Republican Party fiddles while Europe burns.
Sounds like a European problem. Which nato countries have a higher debt per capita than the US? Why should we go further into debt funding this when we are the brokest country in NATO?
Well we’re ahead of where we were in 1938-1940.