Cancelling our alliance makes the US neutral, not an enemy. Why wouldn't they sell? Does the neo-US under Trump hate money? Not that American gear is even necessary to beat a country with a fraction of your GDP, population, military budget.
If it's not a threat, than the argument "if we let them take Ukraine, they'll come for us next" makes absolutely no sense.
-
They can be a nuclear threat, without being an invasion threat - like North Korea to Japan.
-
Just because they are weak and their loss in a war inevitable, doesn't mean they won't attack. Such people overestimate themselves, their war plans rely on the other's side's morale breaking (Russia in Ukraine, Japan at pearl harbor). We can't let them have ukraine because it would encourage them in their delusion that our morale will break when they attack us.
I think it's very relevant who pays for it. Paying for it is the act of an ally, selling that of a neutral. Refusing to sell is hostile, it's siding with Russia - and we haven't even officially ended our alliance yet.
I don't understand your other question, the argument against appeasement. I have neither desire nor need to appease Russia, none. They are evil and weak and getting weaker every day. They should get kicked harder, bleed some more. We should escalate.
Trump already did cut support for Ukraine?
Yes, europe will be able to handle russia on its own, easy. The politicians are largely dickless and slow to adapt to the new reality, starting with merz. But I think another, already pre-programmed, humiliating session of trump's retarded ideas and insults should do it. You could see european politicians' heads slowly emerging from the sand at Davos, before Trump backed down and Rutte kissed his ass again.
On China: You are right to doubt our commitment. Everything else aside, Trump‘s and his supporters‘ comments reek of hubris, jingoism and imperial sickness. And the last thing europe needs is to get sucked into a huge war against a formidable enemy like china because of american pride. So from a european perspective, the alliance is doing less and less for us, and the probability that it could cost us catastrophically keeps increasing.
Americans want a level of compensation (delian tribute, really) we‘re never going to give – because it‘s not like we‘d fall to russian conquest if you just leave ; post WWII yes, but the wolf isn‘t at the door anymore. A chihuaha perhaps, or a wounded pygmy bear – and a panda, but they‘re vegetarian, as far as we know.
Anyway, the question of „who was a bad ally first“ is all rear-view mirror stuff. Whoever „started the breakup“ is irrelevant, we agree the relationship is bad now, so let‘s just end it.
Again, why do you assume that I, as a european, map onto the blue tribe? I oppose the curtailing of your speech and mine in the strongest terms. Actually, I have argued multiple times in defense of free speech against you, lmao. (According to you it‘s "not real" and no one believes in it).
Europeans elect right-wingers too (especially now). Two years ago, biden was your president. As a right-wing european, should I have declared that I am therefore the mortal enemy of all americans, like you do now?
You are not understanding the problem. Talking to me like we‘re negotiating the amount of the „fair share“ I should pay to you, or what I need to do for Ukraine or in our internal politics to accomodate you .
No. Listen to what I‘m saying. You say you have affection for europeans, and I feel the same about americans, but we are beyond that now. Our relationship has been irreparably damaged by trump‘s threats and insults. I am not like trump – saying outrageous things as a negotiating anchor with the intention of backing down to a lower number, or macho trash-talking, empty bragging about my own strength. I mean what I say. I want to make it official that our alliance is cancelled, and americans out of europe.
Wait, how on earth are the europeans the parents in this analogy? Rutte (who should seriously stfu) called Trump Daddy, which is imo one of the sources of his late megalomaniac bender.
I tend to side with the parents on such forums (and the mirror "my mom is a narcissist" type). My prior is that the reasons given by the kids really are stupid. Most of pop psychology consists of inventing reasons why your parents made you a failure.
Wow, that post is evil. Especially the final part where it denies the possibility of healing the relationship. Of course it approvingly cites an "Expert" anonymous psychologist (who else?), who seems to think that threatening to end the relationship with your parents is the best way of winning an argument. A mom cites a clearly stupid reason their kid hates them, people take a step back, and then go "I'd like to go back to the cornflake issue". Beyond parody.
Anyway, that illustrates that I have a moral affinity for the strong. My sympathy initially lies with the US, and also (slightly) with trump against the democrats. But his late behaviour towards us is unacceptable and I just want out. We are no longer friends, I accept that, but we are not children to be abused and threatened at will, and if he continues, then we will be enemies.
It's not great, but in a lesser country, you don't even hear about such things.
oh generally, if you can like people in general. It's ideological convergence mostly: individualism, freedom (especially speech), plus a certain "moral affinity for the strong". I think american hegemony was largely beneficial.
You: have a pathological hatred of the blue tribe, which you transfer onto europeans. One day, frustrated in your attempts to provoke a civil war at home, you'll charge naked at Greenland or Vancouver. Decoupling from such volatile and extreme polarization makes sense, of course.
Clown nose on, clown nose off, shtick. If he's a clown, I don't want him in charge of our defense. If he's not a clown, he hates us, fuck him.
So I interpreted it correctly. Let's just wind this thing down. I am honestly tired of explaining the value of an alliance with a bloc with a huge economy and population and very similar interests. I can't do it anymore, despite being an Americanophile through and through. We are too far apart on what we think the other brings to the table. Or maybe we hate each other like an old couple.
I want merz and everyone to tell trump to fuck off in no uncertain terms and stop giving him face-saving exits. Full tariffs, leave ramstein, etc. It's headed towards it anyway. They are slowly learning to deal with Trump's trick of defect defect defect until he finds resistance.
Any nation can do conscription and pay. Pacifists are always disappointed. People of all ages love war initially, it's cool.
The man is a raging narcissist, if you take him at his word that "he'll come to our rescue 100%", when he started all this by writing "[he] no longer thinks only of peace" because "we" denied him the nobel peace prize, you are far gone. I am not delegating my security to this child with a gun.
He lies so much that people have to invent new categories beyond "liar" for what he is, like "post-truth communicator", but you expect us to trust him, when he shows us only contempt?
Take him seriously, not literally. Suddenly what he says is to be interpreted literally? I'll tell you what he means seriously : "since we are better than them, we will do as we please."
There's talk, and there's what trump is doing. Those aren't jokes, or some trash-talk at the ballgame. When he says he doubts we will come to america's aid, insult aside, that means america possibly won't come to ours. So our alliance is worthless, and we need to make new arrangements immediately.
If he attacks greenland or canada like he threatens, it's even simpler: we'll just shoot, and people will die - maybe even a real war like russia-ukraine. It's not like Ukraine's weakness stopped ukraine from shooting back, like many thought. Or the fundamental stupidity of the operation stopped Putin from attacking.
How do you explain how hard ukraine and russia have been going at it?
People in 1900 didn't think it was 1900, either. They thought they "were over" war, too. Then they partook in it with gusto, partly because of that evergreen illusion.
I'm seeing two types of responses from "our American friends" on Greenland. One is just the ugliest bullying, the joy in humiliating us for no reason, who they equate, in their mind, to the hated blue tribe.
And the other is total complacency; as if ignoring trump's constant threats, insults, and outrageous declarations that one or both allies will not defend the other, was the only option for america's (at this point, nominal) allies, indefinitely. Just pretend it's not happening, quietly absorb any pain that comes your way, and hope that things will go back to the way they were; "Nostalgia as a strategy", as Carney put it. I'm questioning whether war for Greenland or Canada would even wake these people up, or if they'd just act like the Japanese government over manchuria initially: "disregard that, it's just our army, we have nothing to do with that". "Shoot back? C'mon, we're both of christian culture, where's your loyalty to western civ?".
Why Putin? Xi! Russia is defanged, they've had it. Their military, diplomatic power, and fearsome reputation burnt out like so many old tanks. Just in time, so we can finally tell Trump to go fuck himself. Absent the russian threat, there's no reason for the americans to stick around. A chinaman never threatened my sovereign territory. They just love building ports. I already find our new allies so endearing, I'll throw in ramstein air base as a welcome gift.
Sure, why not? You think all the Ukrainians and Russians currently dying were coerced? People have to start realizing that war can easily break out, people will die for their country, and that will be that. No matter how dumb the Glorious Leader's reasons are, how peaceful people appear to be, how deep the cultural and ethnic ties.
No, I don't think they use it all the time. The size of the US fleet is massive overkill for what it's used for. It's like Britain's old policy of having a bigger fleet than the next two powers combined. It wasn't because they needed the ships for some coups in zanzibar or wherever.
You said building a fleet is proof of intention to use it. That's like saying anyone carrying a gun is premeditating murder. You interpret everything china does as aggressive against you, when it's far easier to see it as defensive in nature. The US is scary.
It's also not a coincidence that China has fleets of ships around South America, ostensibly to deplete the fish around the coast (which is bad enough.) But consider how many drones can fit in a shipping container.
They're fishing boats off the coast of Peru. Ukraine's drone containers were smuggled onto russian territory, a few hundred meters from the planes.
And no country goes through the enormous expense of building up a fleet without intending to use it.
Except the US, who, I assume, does it out of benevolence?
A woman who sleeps with Churchill for a million pounds is not a whore in any real sense. Just a rational being responding to incentives. She'd be mentally ill not to. Churchill's just using too-simple a definition for his little PUA trick.
I would call for restraint then - in fact, I would simply maintain my 'don't nuke' policy. You have a 'don't do anything that might provoke Russia to nuke' which is completely different. I urge the same restraint in similar circumstances for both - you want more restraint from the weaker, less dangerous, defensive party.
Ukraine does not have nukes, this analogy does not work at all.
- Prev
- Next

It's annoying to have to endure pearl harbor and then go island by island against a fanatical enemy.
I find your position puzzling: you describe eurocrats as detached from reality but agree with their outdated view of Russian military power?
More options
Context Copy link