A compromise is possible whereby the Europeans are pressured by the US into stockpiling their Ukrainian-destined arms in Poland and Romania for swift shipment across the border if hostilities re-erupt sometime after a ceasefire, armistice, or peace treaty is agreed to.
If Trump were serious, he need only tell that europeans loudly and publicly that the United States will not ride to their rescue, should Russia retaliate in whatever form.
Has he not said so already, more or less explicitly? I believe if he makes a deal with Putin and Europe doesn't abide, Europe is on its own (I hope\believe Europe will fold as quickly as a house of cards, btw)
Yes, but there are also Italian, Franch and German companies. And quite a lot of weapons production in the formerly neutral Sweden as well as Switzerland, by now de facto a Nato country... None of these countries is Trump-friendly.
I think Trump has made it clear that if the European heroes want to go to war, they will do it without US backing or support. And they won't even have our tears when the Russians start lobbing cruise missiles at their men so far from home.
nah, Trump pisses on them. They worked against him and shamelessly, mendaciously hand-in-hand with the Democrats to smear and destroy him. He loathes NATO and the EU as third-rate powers without their Adored Leader USA. It proves what I always thought, that the ONLY reason NATO existed ever was to ensure the USA fought the next war they provoked on their behalf. The admission of the Baltic enclaves (that now apparently include Poland, Lithuanian at last!) sewed that deal up and NATO was on its way to war. Then came Trump. Don’t expect it — he isn’t going to war in Europe. Take it to the bank.
Those globalists crying crocodile tears over Ukraine losing its “freedoms” due to the Special Military Operation are indifferent to the Nazi complexion of the thugocracy in Kiyev.
Trump would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours Now it’s nearly 2 1/2 months since he became president and the war is still going on. They have a lot of talk and endless meetings But nothing happens Trump is a bully and he shouts loud but nothing happens Putin is much smarter than Trump and have outplayed him. Instead of peace Trump and USA are now in conflict with EU and NATO. The ridiculous plan about ceasefire is a joke and Russia will of course not accept it because Why should they? USA NATO EU started their war against Russia in 2014.
So, we are back to the heart and life-support of the conflict: The flow of hardware into Ukraine. The NATO nations of Europe just have to snap out of thinking in terms of war. If they do not, they just might get what they want. It is just very difficult to believe they are truly afraid of Russia running them over. Based on the facts this scenario is absurdly impossible. On the other hand NATO nations can dance into a war that lasts many years and self-destruct their own economies. And that would be a very heavy price for submitting to their own nightmare. They initiated this conflict and their present best option is settle down and coexist with a Russian Federation that is getting stronger economically and militarily as well.
the Europeans got too used to their "supporting role" in all aspects of European life. It was the US that called the shots. The governments have forgotten how to think through problems logically. It seems that they still exist frozen in the Cold War madness, where the USSR (which means "Russia" to them, just as it did to the USA) was the enemy of every war game and always rolled right over eastern Europe and central Europe, NATO's staked lambs, to go for the jugular in France and Germany. Wakey, wakey, Europe. Time to get up, pull on the big boy pants, and take care of your own problems instead of trying to take over Ukraine.
@Feral Finster I wonder if that would do it. There seems to be a determination by the globalist elites who control the CIA, MI6, and the EU to continue to profiteer by war. There are trillions at stake. Trump is doing what he can, but he is being stymied in just about every direction. It could be Trump will triumph over all these forces, but at the moment the elite globalists are engaged in doing everything they can to make Trump appear impotent.
Trump's ability to work with Putin is a HUGE threat to their profits!
This is a titanic struggle. I am trying to think of an historical example that is similar to this. But I cannot recall any President other than Lincoln or Washington who so threatened the powers that [shouldn't]be. What Trump is trying to do is reform the corruption not only in the 3 branches of the US government, but all the tentacles of the US government across the seas, in the EU/NATO. He is also attempting to upend the order set in place that puts the US at the bottom of international relations which Obama and Biden tried to set in place. (Remember "leading from behind"?)
Andrew, I agree that the envisioned pre-positioning of NATO countries' weapons in Poland makes sense as a compromise between the pro-dialogue US and the more stubborn Europeans.
However, the article presumes that Trump will not directly confront Europe over its hostile attitude toward Russia. I would like to offer a counter argument by posing and answering the following questions:
Will Trump directly confront Europe over its hostile attitude toward Russia. Yes, I think that this is inevitable as I'll explain below.
A few basic questions:
Why is a strong united EU a net benefit to the USA?
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine important to the USA?
Assuming a fulsome US detente with Russia, what would be the net value of NATO to the USA?
Assuming that the US remains in NATO after the Ukraine conflict, what geopolitical role should the USA play in Europe going forward?
Is a strong united EU a net benefit to the USA? No emphatically. The European Union, its bureaucracy and the individual ruling parties that dominate European politics are clear enemies of Trump and Trumpism. There is no way that the liberal-globalist European establishment will ever be willing partners with conservative-nationalist Trump. The European establishment is doing everything it can to frustrate Trump's desire to end the Ukraine conflict and re-integrate Russia into the economy of the West. One of the US benefits from ending the Ukraine conflict will be the blow delivered to the prestige of the (very pro-war & anti-Trump) center-left EU elites. In my opinion, American policy can only benefit by weakening or better yet dismantling the EU.
Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine important to the USA? No, emphatically. If Ukraine is not partitioned and demilitarized it will continue to offer opportunities for outside forces to use it as a cat's paw against Russia. Poland and Germany especially will view Ukraine as a buffer state which can be manipulated by virtue of its poverty. Poland and Germany are competitors for military leadership in Cental Europe and each will be unable to resist attempting to turn Ukraine into a military satellite. A military competition in Central Europe to rearm Ukraine is not in US interests since a militarized Ukraine under Polish or German auspices would create the same security dilemma for Russia that has led to the current Ukraine conflict. A weak and poor Ukraine will sap resources from the EU, and a weak, poor, peaceful and divided Ukraine will check all the boxes for both the US and its new Russian ally.
Assuming a fulsome US detente with Russia, what would be the net value of NATO to the USA? NATO's value, as in during the Cold War is to balance Russia at the strategic level. During the Cold War US hegemony over Western Europe was contingent on the threat from the East. When that threat went away after the end of the USSR, Europe began feeling more confident and began a process of ideational military independence.
The asymmetry between Russia and it various small neighbors has meant historically: coalition invasions of Russia and/or Russian creation of buffer states in Central and Eastern Europe. The Baltics, Poland, and Finland were at times erased as polities because of the inherent instability of this geopolitical asymmetry.
In contrast to today, the Cold War was a period where geopolitical asymmetry and tension was replaced with a geopolitical symmetry in the form of bipolar hegemony. The task of Trump's detente is to reestablish the Cold War balance. Russia must feel secure, and its smaller neighbors must feel secure from both Russia and larger nearby powers. Only a renewed US hegemony over Western and Central Europe can accomplish this. NATO's important role in America's European hegemony is that NATO provides a stable treaty-bound framework that resists the frequent vagaries of America political party politics.
NATO's value is the stability that it imparts to American hegemony in Europe as is its double role of making a European Army redundant. Nothing would be more antagonistic to renewed American hegemony that a putative European Army under the control of the European Commission. For these reasons the US should remain and dominate NATO.
Assuming that the US remains in NATO in a post-detente Europe, what geopolitical role should the USA play in Europe going forward? The US should resume its Cold War role as a stabilizing counterweight to Russia. A strong NATO under renewed US domination is the best guarantee for peace in Europe.
Ukraine and EUROPEAN ALLIES OF THE UFST have been DUPED. My opinion is that PUTIN is playing FUHRER Trump and his FASCIST MINIONS. Putin is Ex-KGB he knows the in and outs of Geopolitics, far more then FUHRER Trump and his FASCIST MINIONS. Putin knows that Europe’s Military is depleted from insistence of the UFST . The European Countries can not keep supplying Weapons to Ukraine without weakening their Military’s capabilities to Defend themselves or Ukraine. FUHRER Trump sees this as an OPPORTUNITY to resupply EUROPEAN COUNTRIES with UFST weapons made by UFST MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. True the EUROPEAN COUNTRIES can produce their own Weapons but need the Resources to fulfill all European Military needs.
Four American soldiers went missing during war games conducted by NATO in the swamps of Lithuania close to the border with Belarus. NATO bigwig Rutte announced that the four Americans had "died". President Trump has said he was not briefed on the subject. Could there be a sabotage angle to the disappearance, ergo, European bosses of NATO might have ordered the killings of American soldiers to get even with Mr Trump for the latter's rapproachment with Russia bypassing Brussels?
The EU has not shown the slightest willingness to honour any express or implied commitments of ceasefire in its proxy war against Russia, and it intends to continue with this proxy war more especially in terms of bombing of Crimea which it brands as "occupied Ukrainian territory" and refuses to include that region in the ambit of any commitment for cessation of hostilities or fire with Russia.
I am likely to be the minority opinion here: The Europeans need a bit more time to turn around. This longer latency should have been expected by Mr. Putin, if not by DJT. And despite my low opinions of the European leaders in the last decade, I do think they deserve a little bit more time. The USA can turn on a dime if it wants to for the Ukraine War because the war should not have been launched from the perspective of the US interests. Furthermore, the USA is far away, and Oreshnik cannot reach the USA as yet. The US combat casualties in Ukraine are likely lower than those of the European countries. The general public does not like this war even for those who planted the Ukraine flags in their front yards.
But for the European nations, it is a very different situation. (1) The people of Europe had been awed by the speed of the Red Army moving West after Operation Citadel was abandoned in 1943. While Patton's 3rd army moved fast, his army was mostly sweeping after the German forces had withdrawn. Red Army usually had to face strong and skillful German rearguard operations. (2) Central and Western Europe had been devastated by the end of WW2. Dependency on the Americans was the only choice. However, we need to consider the resource depletion in Europe. (why would Hitler want to conquer Russia?) That is why the Marshal Plan plus all the effort from the European nations were still considered insufficient and American forces were needed. (3) Although the situation changed after the USSR dissolution, the Europeans descended into the bad habits of social welfare and exhausted themselves again. Some of them likely had woken up to the bad old idea of looting Russia to keep Europe alive, but there was simply no such force by 2022. When Biden wanted the Ukraine war for his and his puppet masters' purposes, the EU countries happily rode along. They knew they had neglected their duties in self-defense, and simply hoped the Americans could significantly weaken Russia so as to buy time for Europeans. (4) Now the lies about the war cannot be popped up anymore and Americans are not only leaving Ukraine but also planning to reduce the weighting in Europe. The panic is not simply among the political leaders, but also among the general public. It is not that the European general public is dumber than the American conservatives, but rather one's perspective is necessarily different when bombs are dropping much closer to home.
Europe has no choice but to "surrender unconditionally" to Russia to achieve peace and then purchase Russian resources to earn a living by Europeans' traditional strength: versatility, flexibility, artistic and creative ability, and the will to pay due diligence to make ordinary things great (a trait shared by the Japanese.) However, recognizing this brutal truth is difficult, and trusting Russia has no intention to roll westward is difficult. After all, the number one motto in military preparedness is to consider the capabilities of the hypothetical enemy, not to trust one's own instinct about what the enemy's intention is. Looking at the capability side without considering the intentions, then Europeans has no other way but to become a united military dictatorship Like post WW2 Germany. To convince the Europeans that a better way exists, Europeans actually needs more than a little bit of time.
Just a note: pls don't fall for this narrative that social welfare is the problem of Europe.
I know it's in great fashion these days, but it usually comes from countries where they never had it and don't understand it (e.g. USA). Public welfare may and does have many issues, but it's not the source of our problems; in fact it's the parachute that holds things together in bad times. Liberal economists who fanatically criticise it fail to see that shifting welfare from the public to the private sector is just playing numbers around (e.g. when AIG had to fail, the public finances were impacted anyway. Other ex. % GDP for health in the USA is not less but actually double than in Europe, just to achieve poorer health statistics).
As a counterproof: I think in Russia they also inherited from the soviet times the belief in strong public services and welfare (public education, health, transport, pensions, etc) - I ask for confirmation from people living there - and yet in the Alt-Media we see the RF described as a model of vibrant society as opposed to the "decadent" EU.
Thanks. I would see social welfare more as a way to smooth out the running of every society, like a lubricant in an engine.
The current problems are simply all those that we read on the alt media (political system, fake democracy, economic troubles, etc) but for now at least the living standard in western Europe are still probably among the highest in the world, whatever the fake official economic statistics. We surely live much better than in the USA. The path forward though is a frightening fall, especially if we jump into wars.
I also believe in the coming transformation of the US (successful or not), cutting off the welfare system is about the last thing to do. We need to get people employed first before dramatically changing the existing welfare system of any kind, because transition takes time. Bringing back manufacturing takes time, retraining the workforce takes time, etc. If a national machine needs lubrication, there are probably few more important junctures than right now to make sure the transition is smooth.
Removing sanctions of exclusion from SWIFT which had been imposed by the EU on Russia was part of the 2022 Black Sea Grain deal brokered by the UN, but the EU reneged on its commitments and refused to lift the SWIFT blockade imposed by it on Russia. Time will tell whether this time is going to be any different.
Pragmatism dictates that Russia cannot be expected to enter into ceasefire in the Ukrainian theatre so long as Europe continues to wage its proxy war against Russia not just on Ukrainian mainland but also on Russian mainland territory occupied by European proxy troops launched from Ukraine.
Poland's chief of security, Dariusz Lukowsky has appealled for urgent replenishment of Poland's armamentarium, announcing that Poland's stocks of ammunition at the current level of attrition from deliveries to Ukraine, will suffice to last a few weeks at maximum on the home front, and only for 5 days in some cases. It is suspected that NATO plans are in offing for brisk transfers of gargantuan quantities of sophisticated weaponry ultimately destined for Ukraine, from Germany, France, Switzerland to military depots situated in Poland, under the ruse of rejuvenating Poland's domestic stocks allegedly depleted from aid-transfers to Ukraine.
The EU intends to resume large scale arms transfers to Ukraine after temporarily stockpiling them in Polish depots, on the pretext that it will not honour any armistice deal reached between Russia and the US so long as the provinces of Zaporzhye, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson are not returned by Russia to Ukraine along with payment of war indemnity. Envisaging such a scenario, the Russian Foreign ministry has wisely announced that Russia will not share control over the Zaporzhye nuclear power plant with either Ukraine or any third country.
the combined mean age (it is mean, too) of the European movers-and-shakers is about 5 years old. They are going to show the USA! and Russia! They are opposing the Black Sea grain deal that the US has offered Russia, the one that earlier Europe demanded because the world was starving, although many tons of released grain went to Europe itself, which was not in the least hungry back then. This current agreement was simply a revival of the earlier one that Russia deep-sixed because the more-united-than ever Europeans decided not to implement any of the provisions benefitting Russia. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, they wish to continue feeding war in Ukraine and live in feverish anticipation of putting their soldiers in there to die. So much confused and shallow thinking going on in Europe today. I'm mesmerized watching this slow suicide they are engaging in, where they cannot exist without war even as the war they want drains their economic and political power. I guess they got used to being the "logistics crew" in the rear while the Americans went to real war and dropped real bombs, and yet still sharing equally in the glory of vanquishing some much weaker "foe." It must be an addictive feeling of smugness. They have no freaking idea what "going to war" really means, they've rewritten WWII history into a fairy tale of western European glory and that's about how informed they are about "war is hell." And when the war (sobbing) ends, they demand it be on the loser's terms. Europe is a basket case.
If Trump were serious, he need only tell that europeans loudly and publicly that the United States will not ride to their rescue, should Russia retaliate in whatever form.
Watch european tails tuck between european legs.
Has he not said so already, more or less explicitly? I believe if he makes a deal with Putin and Europe doesn't abide, Europe is on its own (I hope\believe Europe will fold as quickly as a house of cards, btw)
That applied to military intervention, and moreover was not explicit enough to convince european rulers.
Yet... They are still hoping to sunk any deal before it is agreed
Of course. As I said, *if* Trump were serious....
Sure... that "If" is the keystone...
In the MIC space Britain has only two remaining industrial companies of any size: BAe, and Rolls Royce. Both are totally dependent on the US market.
If he wants to get his way on this, Trump has a few levers to pull.
Yes, but there are also Italian, Franch and German companies. And quite a lot of weapons production in the formerly neutral Sweden as well as Switzerland, by now de facto a Nato country... None of these countries is Trump-friendly.
I think Trump has made it clear that if the European heroes want to go to war, they will do it without US backing or support. And they won't even have our tears when the Russians start lobbing cruise missiles at their men so far from home.
nah, Trump pisses on them. They worked against him and shamelessly, mendaciously hand-in-hand with the Democrats to smear and destroy him. He loathes NATO and the EU as third-rate powers without their Adored Leader USA. It proves what I always thought, that the ONLY reason NATO existed ever was to ensure the USA fought the next war they provoked on their behalf. The admission of the Baltic enclaves (that now apparently include Poland, Lithuanian at last!) sewed that deal up and NATO was on its way to war. Then came Trump. Don’t expect it — he isn’t going to war in Europe. Take it to the bank.
Those globalists crying crocodile tears over Ukraine losing its “freedoms” due to the Special Military Operation are indifferent to the Nazi complexion of the thugocracy in Kiyev.
Trump would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours Now it’s nearly 2 1/2 months since he became president and the war is still going on. They have a lot of talk and endless meetings But nothing happens Trump is a bully and he shouts loud but nothing happens Putin is much smarter than Trump and have outplayed him. Instead of peace Trump and USA are now in conflict with EU and NATO. The ridiculous plan about ceasefire is a joke and Russia will of course not accept it because Why should they? USA NATO EU started their war against Russia in 2014.
So, we are back to the heart and life-support of the conflict: The flow of hardware into Ukraine. The NATO nations of Europe just have to snap out of thinking in terms of war. If they do not, they just might get what they want. It is just very difficult to believe they are truly afraid of Russia running them over. Based on the facts this scenario is absurdly impossible. On the other hand NATO nations can dance into a war that lasts many years and self-destruct their own economies. And that would be a very heavy price for submitting to their own nightmare. They initiated this conflict and their present best option is settle down and coexist with a Russian Federation that is getting stronger economically and militarily as well.
Aurelien provided an interesting explanation concerning the leaders of western europe in terms of the mythology of 1968.
the Europeans got too used to their "supporting role" in all aspects of European life. It was the US that called the shots. The governments have forgotten how to think through problems logically. It seems that they still exist frozen in the Cold War madness, where the USSR (which means "Russia" to them, just as it did to the USA) was the enemy of every war game and always rolled right over eastern Europe and central Europe, NATO's staked lambs, to go for the jugular in France and Germany. Wakey, wakey, Europe. Time to get up, pull on the big boy pants, and take care of your own problems instead of trying to take over Ukraine.
@Feral Finster I wonder if that would do it. There seems to be a determination by the globalist elites who control the CIA, MI6, and the EU to continue to profiteer by war. There are trillions at stake. Trump is doing what he can, but he is being stymied in just about every direction. It could be Trump will triumph over all these forces, but at the moment the elite globalists are engaged in doing everything they can to make Trump appear impotent.
Trump's ability to work with Putin is a HUGE threat to their profits!
This is a titanic struggle. I am trying to think of an historical example that is similar to this. But I cannot recall any President other than Lincoln or Washington who so threatened the powers that [shouldn't]be. What Trump is trying to do is reform the corruption not only in the 3 branches of the US government, but all the tentacles of the US government across the seas, in the EU/NATO. He is also attempting to upend the order set in place that puts the US at the bottom of international relations which Obama and Biden tried to set in place. (Remember "leading from behind"?)
Andrew, I agree that the envisioned pre-positioning of NATO countries' weapons in Poland makes sense as a compromise between the pro-dialogue US and the more stubborn Europeans.
However, the article presumes that Trump will not directly confront Europe over its hostile attitude toward Russia. I would like to offer a counter argument by posing and answering the following questions:
Will Trump directly confront Europe over its hostile attitude toward Russia. Yes, I think that this is inevitable as I'll explain below.
A few basic questions:
Why is a strong united EU a net benefit to the USA?
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine important to the USA?
Assuming a fulsome US detente with Russia, what would be the net value of NATO to the USA?
Assuming that the US remains in NATO after the Ukraine conflict, what geopolitical role should the USA play in Europe going forward?
Is a strong united EU a net benefit to the USA? No emphatically. The European Union, its bureaucracy and the individual ruling parties that dominate European politics are clear enemies of Trump and Trumpism. There is no way that the liberal-globalist European establishment will ever be willing partners with conservative-nationalist Trump. The European establishment is doing everything it can to frustrate Trump's desire to end the Ukraine conflict and re-integrate Russia into the economy of the West. One of the US benefits from ending the Ukraine conflict will be the blow delivered to the prestige of the (very pro-war & anti-Trump) center-left EU elites. In my opinion, American policy can only benefit by weakening or better yet dismantling the EU.
Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine important to the USA? No, emphatically. If Ukraine is not partitioned and demilitarized it will continue to offer opportunities for outside forces to use it as a cat's paw against Russia. Poland and Germany especially will view Ukraine as a buffer state which can be manipulated by virtue of its poverty. Poland and Germany are competitors for military leadership in Cental Europe and each will be unable to resist attempting to turn Ukraine into a military satellite. A military competition in Central Europe to rearm Ukraine is not in US interests since a militarized Ukraine under Polish or German auspices would create the same security dilemma for Russia that has led to the current Ukraine conflict. A weak and poor Ukraine will sap resources from the EU, and a weak, poor, peaceful and divided Ukraine will check all the boxes for both the US and its new Russian ally.
Assuming a fulsome US detente with Russia, what would be the net value of NATO to the USA? NATO's value, as in during the Cold War is to balance Russia at the strategic level. During the Cold War US hegemony over Western Europe was contingent on the threat from the East. When that threat went away after the end of the USSR, Europe began feeling more confident and began a process of ideational military independence.
The asymmetry between Russia and it various small neighbors has meant historically: coalition invasions of Russia and/or Russian creation of buffer states in Central and Eastern Europe. The Baltics, Poland, and Finland were at times erased as polities because of the inherent instability of this geopolitical asymmetry.
In contrast to today, the Cold War was a period where geopolitical asymmetry and tension was replaced with a geopolitical symmetry in the form of bipolar hegemony. The task of Trump's detente is to reestablish the Cold War balance. Russia must feel secure, and its smaller neighbors must feel secure from both Russia and larger nearby powers. Only a renewed US hegemony over Western and Central Europe can accomplish this. NATO's important role in America's European hegemony is that NATO provides a stable treaty-bound framework that resists the frequent vagaries of America political party politics.
NATO's value is the stability that it imparts to American hegemony in Europe as is its double role of making a European Army redundant. Nothing would be more antagonistic to renewed American hegemony that a putative European Army under the control of the European Commission. For these reasons the US should remain and dominate NATO.
Assuming that the US remains in NATO in a post-detente Europe, what geopolitical role should the USA play in Europe going forward? The US should resume its Cold War role as a stabilizing counterweight to Russia. A strong NATO under renewed US domination is the best guarantee for peace in Europe.
It's extremely simple for Trump. He will eat the Europeans alone and return triumphant to take more.
Ukraine and EUROPEAN ALLIES OF THE UFST have been DUPED. My opinion is that PUTIN is playing FUHRER Trump and his FASCIST MINIONS. Putin is Ex-KGB he knows the in and outs of Geopolitics, far more then FUHRER Trump and his FASCIST MINIONS. Putin knows that Europe’s Military is depleted from insistence of the UFST . The European Countries can not keep supplying Weapons to Ukraine without weakening their Military’s capabilities to Defend themselves or Ukraine. FUHRER Trump sees this as an OPPORTUNITY to resupply EUROPEAN COUNTRIES with UFST weapons made by UFST MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. True the EUROPEAN COUNTRIES can produce their own Weapons but need the Resources to fulfill all European Military needs.
Four American soldiers went missing during war games conducted by NATO in the swamps of Lithuania close to the border with Belarus. NATO bigwig Rutte announced that the four Americans had "died". President Trump has said he was not briefed on the subject. Could there be a sabotage angle to the disappearance, ergo, European bosses of NATO might have ordered the killings of American soldiers to get even with Mr Trump for the latter's rapproachment with Russia bypassing Brussels?
The EU has not shown the slightest willingness to honour any express or implied commitments of ceasefire in its proxy war against Russia, and it intends to continue with this proxy war more especially in terms of bombing of Crimea which it brands as "occupied Ukrainian territory" and refuses to include that region in the ambit of any commitment for cessation of hostilities or fire with Russia.
I am likely to be the minority opinion here: The Europeans need a bit more time to turn around. This longer latency should have been expected by Mr. Putin, if not by DJT. And despite my low opinions of the European leaders in the last decade, I do think they deserve a little bit more time. The USA can turn on a dime if it wants to for the Ukraine War because the war should not have been launched from the perspective of the US interests. Furthermore, the USA is far away, and Oreshnik cannot reach the USA as yet. The US combat casualties in Ukraine are likely lower than those of the European countries. The general public does not like this war even for those who planted the Ukraine flags in their front yards.
But for the European nations, it is a very different situation. (1) The people of Europe had been awed by the speed of the Red Army moving West after Operation Citadel was abandoned in 1943. While Patton's 3rd army moved fast, his army was mostly sweeping after the German forces had withdrawn. Red Army usually had to face strong and skillful German rearguard operations. (2) Central and Western Europe had been devastated by the end of WW2. Dependency on the Americans was the only choice. However, we need to consider the resource depletion in Europe. (why would Hitler want to conquer Russia?) That is why the Marshal Plan plus all the effort from the European nations were still considered insufficient and American forces were needed. (3) Although the situation changed after the USSR dissolution, the Europeans descended into the bad habits of social welfare and exhausted themselves again. Some of them likely had woken up to the bad old idea of looting Russia to keep Europe alive, but there was simply no such force by 2022. When Biden wanted the Ukraine war for his and his puppet masters' purposes, the EU countries happily rode along. They knew they had neglected their duties in self-defense, and simply hoped the Americans could significantly weaken Russia so as to buy time for Europeans. (4) Now the lies about the war cannot be popped up anymore and Americans are not only leaving Ukraine but also planning to reduce the weighting in Europe. The panic is not simply among the political leaders, but also among the general public. It is not that the European general public is dumber than the American conservatives, but rather one's perspective is necessarily different when bombs are dropping much closer to home.
Europe has no choice but to "surrender unconditionally" to Russia to achieve peace and then purchase Russian resources to earn a living by Europeans' traditional strength: versatility, flexibility, artistic and creative ability, and the will to pay due diligence to make ordinary things great (a trait shared by the Japanese.) However, recognizing this brutal truth is difficult, and trusting Russia has no intention to roll westward is difficult. After all, the number one motto in military preparedness is to consider the capabilities of the hypothetical enemy, not to trust one's own instinct about what the enemy's intention is. Looking at the capability side without considering the intentions, then Europeans has no other way but to become a united military dictatorship Like post WW2 Germany. To convince the Europeans that a better way exists, Europeans actually needs more than a little bit of time.
Just a note: pls don't fall for this narrative that social welfare is the problem of Europe.
I know it's in great fashion these days, but it usually comes from countries where they never had it and don't understand it (e.g. USA). Public welfare may and does have many issues, but it's not the source of our problems; in fact it's the parachute that holds things together in bad times. Liberal economists who fanatically criticise it fail to see that shifting welfare from the public to the private sector is just playing numbers around (e.g. when AIG had to fail, the public finances were impacted anyway. Other ex. % GDP for health in the USA is not less but actually double than in Europe, just to achieve poorer health statistics).
As a counterproof: I think in Russia they also inherited from the soviet times the belief in strong public services and welfare (public education, health, transport, pensions, etc) - I ask for confirmation from people living there - and yet in the Alt-Media we see the RF described as a model of vibrant society as opposed to the "decadent" EU.
Excellent point. So social welfare is an attempt to fix the consequences of the real problems. What are the real problems in your opinion? Thank you.
Thanks. I would see social welfare more as a way to smooth out the running of every society, like a lubricant in an engine.
The current problems are simply all those that we read on the alt media (political system, fake democracy, economic troubles, etc) but for now at least the living standard in western Europe are still probably among the highest in the world, whatever the fake official economic statistics. We surely live much better than in the USA. The path forward though is a frightening fall, especially if we jump into wars.
Yes. I am reminded. I agree with your point.
I also believe in the coming transformation of the US (successful or not), cutting off the welfare system is about the last thing to do. We need to get people employed first before dramatically changing the existing welfare system of any kind, because transition takes time. Bringing back manufacturing takes time, retraining the workforce takes time, etc. If a national machine needs lubrication, there are probably few more important junctures than right now to make sure the transition is smooth.
Removing sanctions of exclusion from SWIFT which had been imposed by the EU on Russia was part of the 2022 Black Sea Grain deal brokered by the UN, but the EU reneged on its commitments and refused to lift the SWIFT blockade imposed by it on Russia. Time will tell whether this time is going to be any different.
Pragmatism dictates that Russia cannot be expected to enter into ceasefire in the Ukrainian theatre so long as Europe continues to wage its proxy war against Russia not just on Ukrainian mainland but also on Russian mainland territory occupied by European proxy troops launched from Ukraine.
Poland's chief of security, Dariusz Lukowsky has appealled for urgent replenishment of Poland's armamentarium, announcing that Poland's stocks of ammunition at the current level of attrition from deliveries to Ukraine, will suffice to last a few weeks at maximum on the home front, and only for 5 days in some cases. It is suspected that NATO plans are in offing for brisk transfers of gargantuan quantities of sophisticated weaponry ultimately destined for Ukraine, from Germany, France, Switzerland to military depots situated in Poland, under the ruse of rejuvenating Poland's domestic stocks allegedly depleted from aid-transfers to Ukraine.
The EU intends to resume large scale arms transfers to Ukraine after temporarily stockpiling them in Polish depots, on the pretext that it will not honour any armistice deal reached between Russia and the US so long as the provinces of Zaporzhye, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson are not returned by Russia to Ukraine along with payment of war indemnity. Envisaging such a scenario, the Russian Foreign ministry has wisely announced that Russia will not share control over the Zaporzhye nuclear power plant with either Ukraine or any third country.
the combined mean age (it is mean, too) of the European movers-and-shakers is about 5 years old. They are going to show the USA! and Russia! They are opposing the Black Sea grain deal that the US has offered Russia, the one that earlier Europe demanded because the world was starving, although many tons of released grain went to Europe itself, which was not in the least hungry back then. This current agreement was simply a revival of the earlier one that Russia deep-sixed because the more-united-than ever Europeans decided not to implement any of the provisions benefitting Russia. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, they wish to continue feeding war in Ukraine and live in feverish anticipation of putting their soldiers in there to die. So much confused and shallow thinking going on in Europe today. I'm mesmerized watching this slow suicide they are engaging in, where they cannot exist without war even as the war they want drains their economic and political power. I guess they got used to being the "logistics crew" in the rear while the Americans went to real war and dropped real bombs, and yet still sharing equally in the glory of vanquishing some much weaker "foe." It must be an addictive feeling of smugness. They have no freaking idea what "going to war" really means, they've rewritten WWII history into a fairy tale of western European glory and that's about how informed they are about "war is hell." And when the war (sobbing) ends, they demand it be on the loser's terms. Europe is a basket case.