You got a friend me sung by Randy Newman plays in the opening scene.
15
ash_ninetyone4 days ago
+3
Euro've a friend in me
3
Jubjars4 days ago
+14
Bring South Korea and Japan in.
Russia's allies wouldn't do something crazy against them or anything.
14
Vulture2k2 days ago
+1
Eurovision defense contest.
1
bikkebakke4 days ago
Read it first as European Onion & Fries.
0
SpatulaWholesale5 days ago
+198
Yes, let's call it the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and invite Canada.
Oh, wait...
198
TWVer4 days ago
+72
Non-American Treaty Organization?..
Oh wait…
72
chiqu3n4 days ago
+21
No-homers club
21
RoundishWaterfall4 days ago
+17
Nations Organized for Pan-European Defense & Operational Security
17
Euclidisthebomb4 days ago
+7
> Yes, let's call it the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and invite Canada. Oh, wait...
Masterful.
7
quickstatcheck4 days ago
+7
NATwO
7
Julian_Thorne4 days ago
+9
call it
The Democracy Alliance
9
mf-TOM-HANK4 days ago
+29
fat donnie's lasting legacy
29
National-Two24174 days ago
+1
He doesn't care about his legacy anymore, only how much $$ he has cause he has lost track of time with his dementia.
1
Actual_Load_39145 days ago
+109
Europe has two real threats.
Russia -- US isn't really helping much here (not anymore at least)
Trump -- nothing needs to be said
109
According-Bet-1415 days ago
+41
So Putin in the East and Putin's BFF in the West.
41
RezzleG5 days ago
+50
>Trump -- nothing needs to be said
I don't disagree on the face of it but at the same time I genuinely think Trump has done something long needed in Europe, and that is showing European leaders that they have heavily relied on the US for too long.
Now promises are being made in most EU countries to significantly boost defence spending, bolster defence capabilities and seek new alliances. Long term, a stronger Europe is significantly better than a US ally.
50
Silver_Middle_72405 days ago
+28
Yep. There is no future where Europe is secure and also dependent on the US for regional threats.
28
Low_Chance5 days ago
+33
In the same way that a home invader with a shotgun "helps" you by showing that you needed more home security
33
frosthowler4 days ago
+4
No, in the same way a petty thug hurling threats (Trump) at you helps remind you that you need better home security when your neighbor (Ukraine) getting murdered by an actual home invader (Russia)seemed to not be "too far away" to realign your thinking.
Russia is the home invader, Trump is the vaccine that hopefully finally acclimates Europe to prepare it to deal with far worse than Trump. But let's be real: Ukraine getting invaded didn't wake Europe up, and so far neither has Trump. Europe needs a realignment on its values and specifically the contract between citizen and state and the duty of one to the other--Trump so far has not done anything that cures Italy's utter incapability to ever run a draft in the defense of Europe, for example.
4
PatientInitial8825 days ago
+6
So let's now.
Everybody happy - as long as that wanna-be dictator in the US doesn't make real on his threats to militarily attack any other NATO members and just sticks to destroying the world economy of course.
And, of course, the US stops relying on Europe to avctually support it in it's insanity.
6
ABoutDeSouffle4 days ago
-2
As someone from Europe, I wish we'd just send letters to Washington that their lease for Ramstein and other bases have been cancelled. Unfortunately, our politicians still believe Trump is a historical outlier and things will "get back to normal" in 2.5y.
-2
Equivalent-Gur4164 days ago
+4
Trump represents something gone very wrong in America and a new administration isn’t going to change that. A Democratic President will try to get things back to normal, but those relationships are changed forever.
4
flukus4 days ago
-2
Europe faces no real threats. Russia can't beat a neighbouring developing country. They have no air superiority, their navy can't operate against a country with no navy and they've spent their cold war stockpiles of heavy armour.
There's gaps where they are too reliant on America or don'thave the necessary stockpiles, but all a stronger military will do is deter Russian imperial delusions, maybe not even that considering they're delusions.
-2
Charming-Ebb-19814 days ago
-16
Yep. Europeans are angry at Trump because he’s forcing them to spend their own money on their military, something they haven’t had to do since the end of World War II. It’s the same concept of paying for your friend’s dinner once and everyone’s grateful, but you do it every weekend for years and the suddenly stop doing it, and they get angry and want to break off the friendship. It also begs the question of what the friendship was based on
-16
RezzleG4 days ago
+13
>Europeans are angry at Trump because he’s forcing them to spend their own money on their military
No. I think Trump is angry at the Europeans because they won't join him in a war which he has apparently won about 10 times already, but in that anger have realised that decoupling from the US long term is a worthwhile venture.
>question of what the friendship was based on
It was based on the US wanting to exert global power against the east through European funding and proxy warfare, but after the shitshow in Iran it is clear that the US doesnt have the international hard power it thinks it has without EU and Oceanic allies assistance
13
thehippieswereright4 days ago
+10
and not the repeated threats of invasion? seriously.
yours, denmark
10
ACompletelyLostCause4 days ago
+9
That's not what happened.
There was an agreement after WWII that in return for the US playing an outsized role in european/NATO defence, European countries would preferentially buy US equipment, rather than buying European or Korean equipment.
This put a lot of money money into the US defence sector that might have otherwise been spent in europe. It was a deal that allowed 'economies of scale' to happen. The long term outcome was that the European defence sector deminished while the US defence sector grew.
Now, many hundreds of billions will be spent on European, Korean or Japanese equipment rather than spent in the US.
You seem to think that the US spent money and got nothing out of it. Do you really think every single 13 US presidents since Truman was moronicly stupid and only Trump was clever enough to spot this 'one simple trick that defence industries hate'?
9
Equivalent-Gur4164 days ago
+4
Well said!
4
StormWhich56294 days ago
+6
Do you think that the US has all of that military hardware over there out of the kindness of our heart?
6
Glittering-Quote-6355 days ago
-10
I’m not sure about that. They would be a better long term ally but if we get kicked to the curb on our bases in Europe we will be significantly weaker. Also, if we lose nato integration working with them will be much more difficult.
I do like the idea of a stronger Europe, but it is a bit comical that Germany is looking to have the most powerful military by 2039… really, had to pick that date? :).
-10
Milkmartyr4 days ago
-16
Europe being so weak was also a factor in legitimizing trump, the anti-trump coalition needs meaningful international allies and they haven't had them. While Russia and Israel are locked in behind the trump side. It's not mutually exclusive
-16
RezzleG4 days ago
+10
Europe has never been weak. It has been top 5 defence spenders globally for 50+ years. As strong as the US? No, not for global reach especially. But weak? Far from it
10
Milkmartyr4 days ago
-7
Europe is extremely weak, they punch far below their weight for the size of their population. They have 450 million people in the EU and the US only has 340 million, but laps them economically and in research and innovation. For example, the US has 14 top-25 universities, the entire EU has 0 (per times higher education, which is UK based). European productivity is horrible (on a per hour basis) even when they work far less, and they're heavily subsidized by the US on things like defense and drug prices. Look at how pharma R&D is funded- Europeans literally enjoy cheaper prices (for commodities as well) off the backs of American workers. And they needed the US to commit 8.5% of their GDP to rebuilding them after WWII, to still end up way behind, so "never been weak" is even more of a stretch.
Russia is extremely active pushing their candidates in the US and dominating the information space. Why doesn't Europe offer anti-misinformation support to the anti-Trump coalition in the US, to counter Russia? Because they are weak.
-7
RezzleG4 days ago
+7
The EU has a larger population but that alone doesn't determine output. The US economy is larger in nominal GDP but in reality the EU (as a bloc) is similiar in range depending on the year and exchange rates. You may as well include UK in EU since they are leaning closer and closer into the bloc.
They have some of the best universities in the world including the best university in the world (Oxford), Zurich and London Imperial.
\>European productivity is horrible (on a per hour basis) even when they work far less,
Europeans work fewer hours and have better work-social life balance on average, better worker rights. If we adjust for hours, the gap shrinks (and is much smaller in some regions than the US-EU stereotype suggests, just look at Rheinmetal being the largest ammunaton provider in the world for example despite working considerably less weekly hours on average).
\>- Europeans literally enjoy cheaper prices (for commodities as well) off the backs of American workers.
You pay more for your prescriptions because your government alows market-based pricing and less centralised negotiation, and Europe uses negotiation on price caps.
\>And they needed the US to commit 8.5% of their GDP to rebuilding them after WWII
Try 3-5%, and the 'Wirtschaftswunder' made Germany a top exporter again less than 10 years later. Where are you getting these figures?
\>Why doesn't Europe offer anti-misinformation support to the anti-Trump coalition in the US, to counter Russia?
Why would they need to interfere in the all powerful US? Alas they do have their own forces, EUSC and campaigns in the baltic states are very strong and clearly are working well in Europe given recent political gains.
A 'weak Europe' is still, currently, top 3 combined militaries below US/China. Out of every country on earth, top 3 doesn't seem to weak to me.
7
Corpus764 days ago
+2
Keep slurping that Trump juice.
2
Milkmartyr4 days ago
-1
“Keep slurping that Trump juice” when im arguing that we need help to beat him is just an incoherent response
-1
ToastNomNomNom4 days ago
+2
China is defo in the equation.
2
BaconISgoodSOGOOD4 days ago
+1
NATOE: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Eh?
1
Slow-Cheesecake-95465 days ago
+3
You forgot about China.
3
Equivalent-Gur4165 days ago
-4
China wants to dominate its region and be treated as the great power it is. China needs trading partners and Europe is an important market. Unlike the US, Europe isn’t a player in the West Pacific, so sure China will try to be dominant in their trade and diplomatic roles, but unlikely to seek military conflict with European nations.
-4
TWFH4 days ago
-3
The typical European mindset of "that ain't my problem" while people die
-3
ShoughThePainAway4 days ago
+5
And when it's their problem it's now the world's problem.. twice.
5
huehuehuehuehuuuu4 days ago
-1
Invasion, no. For trade and employment issues, we need to get our own shit together. When well regulated with properly applied tariffs and vetting rules, Chineses industries shouldn’t be able to get any strangleholds in the EU or Canada.
However some members of our leadership teams are all about that self enrichment. And we don’t have a decently functional mechanism to hold them accountable, as these people are dotted in all parties, at all levels of government.
-1
RegularGeorge5 days ago
-7
Not really. Mostly US has beef with China. So we might be dragged along if we stay with US.
-7
Charming-Ebb-19814 days ago
-7
Why is it the Europeans complain more about Trump than you know, the world leader that’s actually trying to take over their continent that’s also their next-door neighbor? Bottom line, the US is trillions in debt, deal with your own problems and quit whining
-7
thehippieswereright4 days ago
+3
you forgot greenland faster than we did
3
nediamnori4 days ago
+20
I'm sorry, but we should not create a new block. We should stay in the current one and just drop the US if necessary.
20
ABoutDeSouffle4 days ago
+23
NATO is way too US-centered to be effective if the USA decides to paralyse it.
23
MixBlender4 days ago
+7
I think the point of this line of conversation is that there are complications with doing that. As well, when a leader in the states is supportive of NATO, its pretty damn beneficial.
7
bolshoich4 days ago
+3
I imagine this is an active conversation that hasn’t entered the public forum yet.
3
Plastic-Fox02934 days ago
+2
Sounds like a sane plan. Hope the timeline is borderline immediate.
2
PatientInitial8825 days ago
+7
Finally someone is getting it.
7
TheWizard5 days ago
+2
I can't blame any country/bloc or organization to detach itself from the USA moving forward. This includes the closest allies. Trump, and his conservatives in the USA have put any trust in the USA, to rest.
2
Euclidisthebomb4 days ago
+3
APA: Atlantic Pacific Alliance
EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, New Zealand and whomever you think should be added to this. Turkey possibly but it needs a less autocratic leader. Jordan.
3
Linclin4 days ago
+1
Europe, Asia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Philippines, Japan maybe India or Pakistan? Maybe some other South American countries and some other countries.
1
ClubSoda4 days ago
+2
Kremlin is preparing to pop open the champagne bottles since Trump got bored with maintaining stability, peace, and prosperity across the globe.
2
ShoughThePainAway4 days ago
-1
Cool, seems like everyone is over NATO. End it
-1
Reasonable_Cicada6904 days ago
let's goooooooooo
0
Yvaelle4 days ago
-5
Just call it the Democratic Earth Alliance, it's NATO but we kick out America, invite Ukraine, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, SK, Japan, Singapore, etc.
You can accomplish a whole lot more when you have the cartels working With you... probably
1
SpaceNigiri4 days ago
-9
And at this point, also China
-9
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
-50
You mean all the countries that literally cant fight without U.S. aid? Those countries? The ones that will take at least 30 years to build and field anywhere near the U.S. heavy lift capabilities?
-50
Ecstatic_Dirt8525 days ago
+24
Fight whom? The only fight the eu is having is with Russia and the US is already not helping with that. Not wanting a global fleet or enough nukes to blow the whole world up thrice also really lowers the amount of military spending you need.
24
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
-9
I guess all the U.S equipment in that conflict just doesn't exist...
-9
Good_Restaurant152 days ago
...something tells me if the US isn't around to spend its' tax-payer money on guns/bombs to give to those countries, maybe that would be a good thing for everyone involved?
But I suppose you just love the fact that the US has been arming terrorist groups around the world for decades, with the excuse that "They weren't always terrorists"... Riight...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal -- Because the US is some shining beacon of salvation, right?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexico-demands-answers-flood-us-military-grade-weapons-drug-cartels
How about we sort our own problems before we go around pretending to help others with theirs?
0
Russian_Turtles2 days ago
+1
I never said the U.S. is some beacon of morality. It's just like any other country. It's going to follow exclusively its own interests. Frankly the U.S. is corrupt, but to act like Europe isn't is just naive. If it wasn't for primarily U.S. intelligence and weapons then Ukraine probably wouldn't be a sovereign nation anymore. The U.S. government smugglng weapons into Mexico in a folly attempt to track and arrest arms traffickers has nothing to do with the production and sale of weapon systems. The ATF shouldn't exist imo anyway. it's just a bureaucratic entity whose entire purpose is to arrest or murder law abiding citizens by looking for mistakes in paperwork or other small inconsistencies. Regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. weapons industry. For example the premier fighter in Europe is an American plane, the F35a. It's flat out superior to anything European and its really not close. They also almost exclusively rely on U.S. missiles and bombs to keep their militaries functioning. If the U.S. decides to just stop selling aim120 for example, then most of Europe cant even fly sorties with their fighters outside of short range IIR based missiles and MBDA Meteor which is FAR more expensive than aim120 and is available in much smaller numbers and isn't integrated on any 5th generation platform. Though the Meteor is very slowly being integrated onto F35, this is still entirely a U.S. run project for export. The only real exception is France because it forces domestic production of all weapon systems. If the U.S. stops selling weapons to the rest of the world, then most of Europe can't even defend itself properly.
1
Equivalent-Gur4165 days ago
-2
I think he’s voicing what is rapidly becoming the consensus among European policy makers, aside from the particular structure he’s suggesting. I certainly hope so. It’s completely rational and achievable to build a defense coalition complemented by an enhanced defense industry. Russia is the main threat.
-2
pizzasoup5 days ago
+12
Guess which country is longer interested in sending them aid. They should be planning in case this regime continues.
12
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
-1
I mean they probably should yeah, but literally every NATO member besides france hasn't any real capability to fight beyond its borders.
-1
LSF6045 days ago
+9
That's by American design in the first place. Protection in exchange for being part of the American empire and deferring to USA on most matters. USA doesn't actually want the European to build its own weapons for example. But it's heading that way now. And it will be worse for both parties.
9
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
I mean sorta. It's American because no other country in NATO had anywhere near enough material and manpower to actually fight the USSR. America was the only one with enough industrial base left after ww2. Nothing to do with some U.S. conspiracy to control countries. I agree the dissolution of NATO would be probably the most earth shattering thing to happen within our lifetimes.
0
LSF6045 days ago
+6
well sure, but america didn't do it out of the goodness of its own heart. It did it to build its economic empire. Its not a conspiracy. Its not even secret. Its a client state system. Its mutually beneficial. Its certainly not american charity.
6
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+1
It's more a symptom of circumstance than anything else.
1
MinorKeyEnjoyer5 days ago
+2
and they’re ramping up defence spending massively and planning to change that so what’s your point here exactly?
2
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+6
That defense procurement takes time. A lot of time. Europe screwing itself over for 30+ years isn't exactly a good play. If the current world leaders cant work together after 80 years then that's ridiculous. To throw away the effective alliance of NATO over 1 president is a little shortsighted imo.
6
KanataToGoldenLake5 days ago
+36
You mean those countries that the US have been begging for help over the last month or so in a war that the US started and is loosing?
36
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
-32
What war is western europe involved in? Ukraine is involved in a serious conflict with russia and most of the equipment used there is ukrainian and U.S. made...
-32
Equivalent-Gur4165 days ago
+3
Massive infusions of tanks and munitions from Western Europe. American made, because of NATO. Ukraine is a world leader in drones, which are a lot more useful in facing Russia next door than ICBMs or aircraft carriers.
The very fundamentals of warfare are changing rapidly; Ukraine gets it but the US is lagging.
3
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
-14
Drones aren't replacing manned aircraft for quite a while yet. ICBMs are still very much relevant. just not the doomsday scenario everyone has thought they'd be for years now. Ukrainian drones are over hyped. At least the small quad copter style ones. They're very effective, and c**** but they're not replacing anything, merely augmenting the capabilities of units. Aircraft carriers are 100% going to be very, very important if you want to fight a war anywhere away from your home turf.
-14
SPQR-Tightanus5 days ago
+13
>The ones that will take at least 30 years to build and field anywhere near the U.S. heavy lift capabilities?
I don't think they need US heavy lift capabilities.
The goal is not to project power in some good forgotten country on the other side of the planet for questionable political gains.
The goal is to be able to deter Russia.
13
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+3
NATO has been built on U.S. heavy lift capabilities. None of nato can fight much further than thier own borders without u.s. assistance. Its been that way since ww2. I'm sure those countries watching Ukraine spill their blood is preferable to being invaded. Perhaps The rest of NATO can actually pull a Germany and actually start producing equipment.
3
Livid-Click-22245 days ago
+5
Ukraine is now a world leader in unmanned warfare (drones, robots etc). Europe needs to get closer to them and learn from their success against Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/08/madyar-robert-brovdi-ukraine-military-vladimir-putin?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
5
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+2
Drones are nice, but they're not the be all end all. At the end of the day, infantry isn't going away. The larger combat capable drones aren't new at all and the small quadcopter ones are mostly useful to infantry for organic reconnaissance to the unit. I hate to say it, but Ukraine's success mostly came from half the world throwing everything they could at the problem and raw tenacity. Without outside assistance Ukraine would've stopped being able to fight simply due to a lack of resources.
2
Livid-Click-22244 days ago
+1
Well Russia has plenty of resources- why can’t they win?
1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
I mean with enough time and resources pooled they likely would. Regardless of soldier or equipment quality. Hell if Russia actually kept its soldier payed well enough to not be selling off tons of equipment, it might have already won tbh. If the world hadn't thrown equipment at Ukraine in droves like they did, Ukraine would likely be a Russian province rn. Ukraine's experience fighting the conflict for years before the 2022 invasion as well, as U.S. supplied intel and reconnaissance. Ukraine has held through a complicated series of events where luck and sheer will to not give up was probably the biggest factor, not because Ukrainians are better fighters than anyone.
0
Livid-Click-22244 days ago
+3
Russian conscripts are unmotivated. No surprise since Putin treats them like cannon fodder.
3
SPQR-Tightanus5 days ago
-1
> Ukraine's success mostly came from half the world throwing everything they could at the problem and raw tenacity.
The US is exactly the same except the "raw tenacity" part.
-1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+2
You underestimate Americans. The problem is the U.S. isn't even close to running out of anything and wont be for a long while yet. America has been the one bailing Europe out for half a century now.
2
MinorKeyEnjoyer5 days ago
+10
why would Europe need to fight “much further than their own borders” when the goal is to deter aggression?
this coward replied then blocked me
10
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+5
I mean that most NATO members can't even move their troops beyond their own border. Unless you expect just fight Russia peace meal one country after another?
5
dxps70984 days ago
+1
The point of a defence pact is not to fight beyond your own borders and neighborhood. Being able to project power across the world is the imperial bargain Europe made with the US after ww2.
NATO is here to enable and simplify the US bring able to project power into the European arena. But the flipside is that it also allowed the US to project power everywhere else. That wasn't the purpose but a consequence.
Pooling NATO military spending primarily in the US was another pillar that the US had benefited from and kept European countries dependent on the US, preventing Europe from becoming too string and independent.
It's been a fantastic deal for the US and after the war, Europe really had no choice. Safety for dependence and financing the imperial capabilities of the US.
But at this point, the calculus has shifted on both sides of the equation and the balance needs to be revised. The US is no longer guaranteeing the safety promised so Europe cannot abide by the dependence and propping up the global force projection capabilities of the US.
1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+1
So whats Europe going to do when Russia or China decides to do something that conflict with their interests? What if Argentina for example gets invaded? Will the UK just fight it alone? Should France just abandon morocco and other former french colonies? Defense planning is going to require those heavy lift capabilities and U.S. technology and equipment. Pretty much everyone in the western world uses the Aim120 and thats exclusively produced by Raytheon and that's a u.s. company. Europe Has no 5th gen capability aside from what they've purchased from the U.S.. Europe has the MBDA Meteor but as of currently its only integrated on the Eurofighter and Rafale which are both fairly low production aircraft. Compared to something like F35 which is the real premier fighter in Europe. Moreover, the only reason that Europe is freaking out and trying to build up their military quickly is strictly because Europe as a whole has relied on U.S. defense spending as a crutch. There's a reason Europe has no 5th gen fighters at all and it's not because they're too stupid to build a decent 5th gen. Its about the political cost as well as the financial burden that it would cost Europe to design, build, test, and then produce a good 5th gen. Even most of the 6th gen programs have hit major walls as far as financial burden becomes too high in a lot of these countries. I simply don't see the point of abandoning NATO period. From a U.S. perspective they need to pull out of Europe and leave European defense to the Europeans for the simple reason that China is a massive threat to the free world. The only reason China hasn't started invading its neighbors like Russia has already is because of the U.S..
1
Equivalent-Gur4165 days ago
+1
Between Poland and Ukraine, there’s a strong front ready to oppose Russian aggression. Now Germany is arming. I prefer peace, as does Europe, but Russia only understands force and strength.
1
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+4
Looking at raw numbers, Poland has a real chance of being the new military leader in Europe. They just have a ton of stuff. Ukraine is also showing that while you can run 100 different systems, it frankly sucks. Its a completely massive burden on logistics that isn't easily solved. That's the biggest issue facing a Non U.S. aligned Europe today imo. It's not one army, its a collection of like 30 different armies. Most of them don't even speak the same language. These hurdles can be overcome, but if Europe wants to fight on the same level as the U.S. then they're going to have to likely standardize on larger pieces of equipment such as tanks, apcs, and aircraft. Though most of Europe lacks any 5th gen capability that hasn't been purchased from the U.S. they do have very good 4.5+ gen aircraft and are mostly standardized.
4
RezzleG5 days ago
+8
Europe isn't incapable. It already spends collectively hundreds of billions per year on defence and has advanced tech with modern militaries. It has plenty of its own 'heavy lifting' in the A400M/C-17, but it does lose out on the global reach that the US provides. Luckily for a defensive bloc the global reach wouldn't be the greatest concern. Even without US help the EU as a combined military would be one of the greatest militaries on earth, and the sheer productive power of the EU would outclass even the US in sustained warfare.
Not to mention, that many EU allies are decoupling from the US, including Japan/SK/Aus/Canada and more. By forcing Europe and other countries to decouple, the US is (perhaps unknowingly) paving the way for a serious alliance.
8
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+4
They cant fight much further than their own borders. And as far as Russia goes, the U.S. has donated more equipment than any NATO member to Ukraine specifically to fight Russia.
4
RezzleG5 days ago
+4
They wouldn't need to, it would be a battle of attrition and, assuming conventional warfare, the EU wins that battle every time. How do you suppose Russia do anything at all against a united EU? They can't invade via land, their navy is weak and their air force has absolutely no chance against the EU's. All they can do (and have been doing) is sell oil to rebuild, using meat wave techniques and hiring foreign mercenaries. They stand no chance against the EU.
4
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+2
I mean at this point they probably couldn't but you have Ukraine to thank for that. For a country that had as many disadvantages as it did and to still be fighting the war 4 years later is impressive. Most of NATOs individual nations couldn't have pulled that off. Germany couldn't have. I would've had more faith in Finland holding off Russia and they were in a similar situation to ukraine prior to the war.
2
RezzleG4 days ago
+2
They wouldn't have been able to at any point. Russia have always had a high man-power and good ground fleet but comparatively weak airforce and navy. An invade on any European nation (again, assuming conventional warfare) would have been disasterous for Russia. Even pre-Trump the EU collectively would fend Russia off alone, but now post tariffs the EU is in a better position than it ever has been.
\>Most of NATOs individual nations couldn't have pulled that off. Germany couldn't have
Germany could have with funding via the EU and US absolutely, most EU countries could. Despite their huge manpower their economy is nowhere near as strong as the EU.
\>Finland holding off Russia and they were in a similar situation to ukraine prior to the war.
As before, any country could. Finland is never a single entity. The EU would always be there to help them fight, and Russia has no chance against the EU.
2
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+1
Europe historically hasn't helped Finland with much. It's likely that without NATO membership Europe wouldn't help Finland. Russia isn't the USSR, but it still has capabilities that most of Europe lacks.
1
RezzleG4 days ago
+3
Doesn't realy matter historically who has helped who, what matters is where the current alliances stand, at least initially. In which case, Finalnd is clearly aligned with the EU and NATO, and Russia does not stand a chance against either even excluding the US.
Russia had huge manpower and best-in-class ground forces, and still do, but their manpower has taken a huge hit, their forces are being deminished and their airforce and navy are weak. Where Russia excels as is soft power style exertion in politics and forein affairs and it has always done that very well. Times are changing however, when that interference runs out (which it is, EU countries are releasing 'anti-spy' technology on a frequent basis, Russia is not left with much left - there is no way, without nuclear weapons, that Russia hopes to have any chance against the EU,
3
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+1
We can look at historical examples of countries flipping to Nazi aligned then to soviet or allied aligned depending on what suits them best at the moment. What makes you think that's changed and that Europe is some unified mass? Europe cant even standardize on small arms. let alone politics and everything else. If Russia was really as impotent as you claim, they wouldn't be able to hold or take ground in Ukraine. Yet they do and they gain more ground every day. despite all of the allied aid. Against the EU, Russia has quite a bit more power than anyone in the region. About the only NATO member that "might" be able to actually go full on peer to peer with Russia is France. Finland is another one I would have to say would have a chance because they've been on their own for so long and their military strategy and equipment reflects that reality but that's going to be another defensive style trench war where no one can actually take much ground like Ukraine. People keep saying war is changing, but its really not. We just have more/better tools.
1
RezzleG4 days ago
+2
\>Europe cant even standardize on small arms. let alone politics and everything else
Which has been a barrier on a solidified EU army. I'm not saying that they are \*\*currently\*\* at that point, becuase as you correctly say, there are several political and moral boundaries which stop that, but that gap is becoming shorter and shorter each day. France, Germany and others (inc. UK MoD) are calling for a joint EU military. Steps are already being taken to do that via joint procurement loans and shared technology, and through US partial withdrawl those plans are only happening quicker. As the US draws further away, the EU grows stronger as a collective force.
\>If Russia was really as impotent as you claim, they wouldn't be able to hold or take ground in Ukraine
At what cost? They had huge gains in the beginning, yes. But how much have they lost vs what Ukraine have lost? If they cannot annex a country the size of Ukraine within all these years how can they hope to make advances vs EU+NATO (without US)? They can't, at least without a world war.
\>Russia has quite a bit more power than anyone in the region.
They don't, when you look at the stats. They have a ton more nukes, and you can't ignore that fact, but in conventional warfare, not only does EU have more troops, theirs is more advanced, better funded, better positioned strategically and more powerful overall. The only benefit they have is being a single force, but that doesn't mean much when your navy and airfirce are so compareively weak.
\>Finland is another one I would have to say would have a chance because they've been on their own for so long
Not anymore. This is 2026. Everyone has a side. Finland chose theirs.
2
Livid-Click-22245 days ago
+3
That all stopped in early 2025 when Trump took over. Since then it’s been Europe providing most military and financial assistance.
3
el_dude_brother25 days ago
+3
Yeah time to move on, the US is on the decline, we need to move forward to the future
3
Russian_Turtles5 days ago
+3
Thats going to take 30+years, What will Europe do in the meantime.
3
el_dude_brother25 days ago
+2
Europe has a huge arms industry and now building weapons for Ukraine and using their real time knowledge of war. It wont take 30 years. Things move on quickly.
The US has weak leadership and no allies. They are in a weaker position.
2
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+5
The U.S. still has more troops, equipment and fighting experience than anyone else on the planet. Including any other NATO member state. And you completely underestimate the cost and ability to build a full fleet of heavy lift capability. Especially for one as large as Europe is going to need. Europe has a large arms market, The U.S. arms market is simply bigger. Out of the 20 largest arms companies 9 of them are U.S. companies only 5 are even European. The U.S. has lots of allies as well, you know, NATO isn't dissolved.
5
el_dude_brother24 days ago
+1
The US is big but badly run and of they pull out of europe strategically weak.
Also the fact Russia has just paid off the president and he can still do whatever he wants proves the weakness of US system. On their own without Nato china is stronger
China and europe are the future
1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+2
If you think Europe is any better run than America I'm sorry to break it to you, but it isn't. Neither is China. China isn't stronger than the U.S. in pretty much any meaningful military metric. It's really not even close. They have a ton of missiles and field/rocket artillery but not a ton of anything else.. They have virtually no expeditionary capability and likely wont for at least another 20 years or so at the current rate. Their infantry is second rate at best. Their tanks and IFVs have massive issues. Their aircraft are simply not up to American or even European standards. China isn't doing nearly as well as they'd have you believe.
Moreover, While I'm sure its very convenient to believe that Putin just payed Trump to do "something." Its far more likely that trump is simply catering to his base.
2
el_dude_brother24 days ago
-1
Its literally been confirmed many times that Trump has worked for Russia since the 1980s.
Pulling out of Nato has zero benefit to the US. Strategically its stupid, logisitically its stupid. Its a great boast to Russia and China. So is isolating your own neighbours.
The US has had great military for 50 years yet never won a war. Its alot more than just troops and equipment.
Especially as logistically the US and its domestic bases are very far away from where any action would be.
-1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+2
The U.S. has won multiple wars/conflicts in the last 50 years. Gulf war? Us intervention in Iraqi Kurdistan? Operation freedom eagle? U.S. intervention in Pakistan? Invasion of Grenada? Look I could go on, but you're obviously just spouting nonsense. You keep eating all that Chinese propaganda though. The U.S. has bases in 49 countries beyond their own borders.
2
Exotic_Expert694 days ago
+1
No one is questioning that the US has the world’s strongest military. The only problem is that the US is currently being helmed by a corrupted and demented wannabe dictator that for some reason (\*cough\* kiddie p*** \*cough\*) does anything for Putin.
1
Russian_Turtles4 days ago
+1
I mean Trump is an idiot, That's very clear. But we've got 3 more years of this and it's over. If he tries to stay in power after that it will 100% cause a civil war in the U.S and that would be catastrophic for the entire western world.
1
huntsab20904 days ago
Which is exactly what zach said when he said disband nato.
119 Comments