What exactly are you seeing that is giving you that impression?
After hearing the President of Finland talk at the EU conference this last weekend I got the exact opposite impression.
Someday Agent Krasnov will be exposed?I hope one day Trump's close relationship with Putin will be exposed for what appears to be already known, just not verified yet.
I think this quotation explains this phenomenon pretty well:The sheer scale of Rs going on TV to whine endlessly that Zelensky was rude is truly something to behold. Apparently being "strong" just means complaining a lot when you've fucked something up and everybody saw you do it.
What exactly are you seeing that is giving you that impression?
After hearing the President of Finland talk at the EU conference this last weekend I got the exact opposite impression.
The bold portion is the key to Trump. The asshole wouldn't throw a bucket of water on a burning man unless the man first agreed to turn over his life savings and two daughters.The most I see Trump ever doing is selling weapons and ammunition.
Someday Agent Krasnov will be exposed?
Hrrmm.....
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842/
In 1987, a young real estate developer traveled to the Soviet Union. The KGB almost certainly made the trip happen.
- As Trump tells it, the idea for his first trip to Moscow came after he found himself seated next to the Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin.
- The ambassador—“fluent in English and a brilliant master of negotiations”—charmed the busy Trump, telling him: “The first thing I saw in the city is your tower!”
- Dubinina said: “Trump melted at once. He is an emotional person, somewhat impulsive. He needs recognition. And, of course, when he gets it he likes it. My father’s visit worked on him [Trump] like honey to a bee.”
- Trump continued: “One thing led to another, and now I’m talking about building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government.”
Trump told the story in The Art of the Deal IIRC about the first time he saw his name in a newspaper. He got goosebumps, it totally made his day. The seeds of a scoundrel were planted.
- Dubinina said: “Trump melted at once. He is an emotional person, somewhat impulsive. He needs recognition. And, of course, when he gets it he likes it. My father’s visit worked on him [Trump] like honey to a bee.”
The bold portion is the key to Trump. The asshole wouldn't throw a bucket of water on a burning man unless the man first agreed to turn over his life savings and two daughters.
Europe Races to Repair a Split Between the U.S. and Ukraine
European leaders pledge to assemble a “coalition of the willing” to develop a plan for ending Ukraine’s war with Russia, which they hope could win the backing of a skeptical President Trump.www.nytimes.comLoading…
archive.is
I was reacting to this NYT article. My interpretation is that they're still pinning their hopes on Trump doing a 180 and providing strong security guarantees for their plan to work. The most I see Trump ever doing is selling weapons and ammunition.
I really, really hope that they operate under the assumption that the worst-case scenario is the most likely outcome.Did we read the same article?
“Starmer has two goals,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group. “Build an offer with the Ukrainians and Europeans that keeps the U.S. positively engaged in Ukraine’s security, while simultaneously preparing for a worst-case scenario where that may not prove possible.”
That will require European countries to shoulder a much heavier burden in the continent’s defense. Mr. Starmer pushed leaders to follow Britain in bolstering its military spending. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, said several countries had pledged to do so, though he declined to name them.
I really, really hope that they operate under the assumption that the worst-case scenario is the most likely outcome.
They should have been planning on a worst case scenario 3 years ago. Today they're worried they couldn't maintain 30k troops in Ukraine even if a ceasefire was signed and they were allowed in.Multiple countries in the EU are planning on exactly this worse-case scenario.
The problem for Europe is that for Decades the US has tried to squelch any effort by the Allied European governments to create a military group separate from NATO. The US historically for NATO was a enabler, they would bring the space assets, airlift capability etc. Basically the glue that holds a military force together because the US didn't want Europe conducting military operations themselves. You talk about "big boy pants for Europe" but for decades the US made sure that Europe didn't put on the "big boy pants". The EU isn't a military organization. The US actions have up-ended decades of precedent in that the US would participate in any European operation and it would be NATO lead. Now Europe is looking to enable a military operation outside of NATO with no active US support. This type of change doesn't happen overnight.
They should have been planning on a worst case scenario 3 years ago. Today they're worried they couldn't maintain 30k troops in Ukraine even if a ceasefire was signed and they were allowed in.
It's the US's fault that they don't spend enough on their militaries? Yes the EU isn't a military organization but that doesn't prevent the need for a military. Trump told them the same thing in his last term, that they weren't spending enough but this is all the US's fault?
That's plain BS. They decided they didn't need a military after the fall of the USSR. Because before then they most definitely had sizeable military forces even if I'd agree the US still provided a lot of the logistics for NATO.
Did we read the same article?
“Starmer has two goals,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group. “Build an offer with the Ukrainians and Europeans that keeps the U.S. positively engaged in Ukraine’s security, while simultaneously preparing for a worst-case scenario where that may not prove possible.”
That will require European countries to shoulder a much heavier burden in the continent’s defense. Mr. Starmer pushed leaders to follow Britain in bolstering its military spending. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, said several countries had pledged to do so, though he declined to name them.
Or it's just public posturing while they make other preparations.I don't know what Starmer, and the rest of Europe (who are probably not all on the same page, as each other or as Starmer) are now thinking. But his comment that "I do not accept that the U.S. is an unreliable ally" suggests to me that reality has not fully sunk in.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
Just passed by CNBC and they said all of them are down except LHX and GD due to them having a lot of European exposure. When I was associated with L3, the corporate strategy was to be a supplier to the primes.
Funny,
Thank you Mr President.
LibsOfTikTok? That come on your daily Klan email?
Thank you Mr President.
LibsOfTikTok? That come on your daily Klan email?
Look who's tweet you were reposting, you twit.That’s libtard network CNN bud.
I'm not going to defend the US's actions, but I don't see us going to war with Europe tomorrow so you can end with the hyperbole. I don't think they should be expecting us to do the heavy lifting every single time. Europe has a combined GDP nearly the same as the US but yet can barely support 30k troops outside their own borders. I can find article after article mentioning the state of disrepair most European armies are in. You're only supporting my idea that they expected the US to do it all if they're completely incapable on their own.Should Europe have been planning on that the US would switch to Russia's side as worse case scenario?
Can you define what spending "enough" on Defense looks like?
How much do Nato members spend on defence?