Future President Donald J. Trump (aka Мудак Mk.2)?

[Arneb]

He did win the Iowa Caucus, you know.

Does America not know better than making a known criminal, a traitor, and a loser who is on Putin's payroll and likes guys like Xi and Kim President again?

Over here, we could view this with an attitude of , but the man has already stated he will not help Europe against a Russian attack, so basically, it's your election, our problem.

[Lance]

I have no idea what the fuck is wrong with us.

[Мастер]

Florida man runs for president.

[Мастер]

but the man has already stated he will not help Europe against a Russian attack, so basically, it's your election, our problem.

Problem, or opportunity?

The population of western Europe dwarfs that of Russia, and so does its GDP. Europe has all the resources it needs to support a military more than capable of defending the rest of the continent from Russia, with the possible exception of one thing - the will to do so.

[Arneb]

There is that, absolutely. Putin has no problem wiping out a few hundred thousand of his young. We do. AND he got the nukes, Britain and France aren't going to use theirs to defend Lithuania. Or Poland. Or the Czech Republic. Or us.

A well-placed 15 kt on Potsdam, nothing that destroys the German government, but close enough to take out the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister if they happen to be at home on a weekend - just to show who's boss, and a clear signal to the UK and France, this needn't happen to you. Just don't move while we move in. And Donnie is sitting pretty im the White House saying, if Germany had acted as smart as I told them to, they wouldn'thave had these problems... Aaah, lefties. I knew it wouldn't end well with thaz ugly Merkel bitch.

Sorry if I sound despondent. But the one reason we can enjoy the freedoms we have was three nuclear powers telling the Soviet Union, one Red Army boot on West Berlin ground at the wrong time, and it's total annihilation for both of us. Just don't. M'kay?

Thaz will be over if Trump is re-elected, over anf beyond turning the US into a Facist tyranny. He and his cronies are busy planning the takeover, and ths time, they are not a clueless shit-show. This time, they are competent.

[Мастер]

There is that, absolutely. Putin has no problem wiping out a few hundred thousand of his young. We do. AND he got the nukes, Britain and France aren't going to use theirs to defend Lithuania. Or Poland. Or the Czech Republic. Or us.

A well-placed 15 kt on Potsdam, nothing that destroys the German government, but close enough to take out the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister if they happen to be at home on a weekend - just to show who's boss, and a clear signal to the UK and France, this needn't happen to you. Just don't move while we move in. And Donnie is sitting pretty im the White House saying, if Germany had acted as smart as I told them to, they wouldn'thave had these problems... Aaah, lefties. I knew it wouldn't end well with thaz ugly Merkel bitch.

Sorry if I sound despondent. But the one reason we can enjoy the freedoms we have was three nuclear powers telling the Soviet Union, one Red Army boot on West Berlin ground at the wrong time, and it's total annihilation for both of us. Just don't. M'kay?

Thaz will be over if Trump is re-elected, over anf beyond turning the US into a Facist tyranny. He and his cronies are busy planning the takeover, and ths time, they are not a clueless shit-show. This time, they are competent.

So is Donald Trump’s complaint about Europe and its collective military accurate then?

Europe has an economy about the same size as the US’s, and a larger population. What can the US do, that Europe cannot?

Unless they don’t want to . . .

[Arneb]

His criticism wasn't accurate - he saw these things as business deals, saying the Europeans are "ripping us off", in his usual total lack of strategic thinking -, but it had a point. A point that was made by numerous U.S. administrations: If we talk collective security, there should be a collective effort. The Merkel II administration committed to a 2 % of GDP budget target for military expenditure but shamelessly flunked out of it on numerous occasions, baffling most of our allies, not only the U.S..

Given the political will (a big if), as you stated, there should be nothing the U.S. can do that Europe can't. However, we are not the USE, with a President/PM and a ministry of defence. It is a lot harder to get 28 countries to do what 50 States can under a central government. And, not to forget, we have would-be traitors - Hungary, Turkey, Slovakia, Poland, if they chose to get the PiS gouvernment back - among our ranks who aren't about defending freedom and democracy at all and find Russia's way of governance quite appealing. Basically, add any European country including us, if they give in to the populist temptation from the right.

And of course, Trump could withdraw his support just like that and signal uncle Volodya about it - Europe may be able to do various things, but probably not in a few weeks or months. You don't build a formidable, unified military just like that. And, of course, that will thing - I just read how in 2007, Prés. Sarkozy offered the German government nuclear participation in the decision structures of the force de frappe - an unprecedented move, which the German gouvernment refused out of hand. Because why should they get their hands dirty with a nuclear option if everyone - everyone except uncle Volodya - was talking peace, détente, globalization, trade, commerce, human rights and pink clouds.

A prominent German Social Democrat, party leader and minister in two Merkel gouvernments, once said to U.S. criticism of the sluggish German response to mounting military pressure and lack of political will to make the Bundeswehr a formidable army. "Since 1945 you've worked on transforming the aggressive militarist Germany into a bunch of peaceniks, willingly and unassumingly crawling under Uncle Sam's big nuclear umbrella. And you succeeded. We aren't a danger to anyone. How do you expect the mindset you promoted to change in a snap?" So yes, they don't want to, and that probably won't change too soon. Hell, I've got two sons, I want them to have a life that doesn't end in a trench.

[Arneb]

[Мастер]

Hell, I've got two sons, I want them to have a life that doesn't end in a trench.

I'd like for them not to end up that way also, the way some Ukrainians are ending up (and some Russians also, many of whom would probably prefer not to be there).

But rather than depending on a foreign power that may be unreliable, perhaps it is time to be independent. Russia's population is roughly comparable to the population of two of the larger Western European countries (e.g., France plus Germany, or Italy plus the UK plus another small country), and its economy is smaller than Germany's alone, even measured by GDP.

Europe can do it. Does it want to?

[Arneb]

As I said, we are probably too sluggish about this. And to boot, not too few in Europe would actually like Ukraine and us fall under Russion supremacy.

The logic of being in the Western camp during the Cold War was, free security from Uncle Sam in exchange for no own nuclear program, no own military ambiotion and plenty of military cooperation (bases, recon, support from one's own military). I think this was an excellent deal for the U.S. allies, but also for the U.S. themselves. Cooperation has its advantages, but that is not a concept you can put into someone like Donald Trump.

As Selensky is wont to say (and rightly), Ukraine is not only fighting for herself. She's fighting our fight, too.

[Heid the Ba]

Given the UK's reliance on Trident missiles and US software I wouldn't be too sure we could launch a strike if the US didn't want us to. They have no official veto but who knows what is buried in the software.

As for a ground war, the British Army would be hard pushed to put two of the current five brigades into Germany in any meaningful timescale. Even then they are not configured for fighting the Russians (or any western nation). With thirty days notice, and assuming spares etc. are available, the British Army can put 150 tanks in the field. Provided that field is in England. The BAOR pulled out of Germany a couple of years ago and we have no military presence on the mainland.

[Lianachan]

Where does NATO fit into this? Can the US ignore an attack on a member?

[Arneb]

Big Orange certainly thinks he can. I don't know how the deployment of nuclear weapons is organized in NATO, but I find it hars to believe anyone but the Prez could light the fuse on American nukes.

[Мастер]

Given the UK's reliance on Trident missiles and US software I wouldn't be too sure we could launch a strike if the US didn't want us to. They have no official veto but who knows what is buried in the software.

As for a ground war, the British Army would be hard pushed to put two of the current five brigades into Germany in any meaningful timescale. Even then they are not configured for fighting the Russians (or any western nation). With thirty days notice, and assuming spares etc. are available, the British Army can put 150 tanks in the field. Provided that field is in England. The BAOR pulled out of Germany a couple of years ago and we have no military presence on the mainland.

So, does it have to be that way?

[Heid the Ba]

Where does NATO fit into this? Can the US ignore an attack on a member?

No.
"Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."

[Heid the Ba]

Given the UK's reliance on Trident missiles and US software I wouldn't be too sure we could launch a strike if the US didn't want us to. They have no official veto but who knows what is buried in the software.

As for a ground war, the British Army would be hard pushed to put two of the current five brigades into Germany in any meaningful timescale. Even then they are not configured for fighting the Russians (or any western nation). With thirty days notice, and assuming spares etc. are available, the British Army can put 150 tanks in the field. Provided that field is in England. The BAOR pulled out of Germany a couple of years ago and we have no military presence on the mainland.

So, does it have to be that way?

At least for the next five years, even if the UK started to build up now it would be that long to get things up and running but the Army barely maintains numbers never mind increasing them.

[Мастер]

Where does NATO fit into this? Can the US ignore an attack on a member?

No.
"Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."

The things is, it doesn't specify what the nature of the action to be taken is, and there is no enforcement mechanism.

But, should the US ignore any significant military attack against a NATO member, I suspect that would result in the end of NATO.

At least for the next five years, even if the UK started to build up now it would be that long to get things up and running but the Army barely maintains numbers never mind increasing them.

Donald Trump was first elected in 2016, so that's over seven years ago.

[Heid the Ba]

Donald Trump being elected was no reason for the UK to vastly increase its military forces.

[Мастер]

Donald Trump being elected was no reason for the UK to vastly increase its military forces.

Arneb’s concern is that Trump will pull the US out of NATO, and leave Europe to its own devices.

If that is not a realistic concern, or if Europe is ready to face potential threats on its own, then there’s nothing to worry about.

[Arneb]

I think the answer to both questeions is "yes". It is a realistic concern, and Europe is not ready to face the potential threat. Lack of unity, lack of political will, a backlog of long-overdue investment in military cpabilities, lack of perception of a threat in the population, lack of willingness to sacrifice money, lifestyle and, ultimately, our own lives and those of our children are all part of the mix.

That said, I cannot see it as an "opportunity" that the U.S. and Europe, who should be bonded by a load of common interests, culture, friendship and values, decide, willingly, not to support each other militarily because of petty grievances. It puts the Western "community of values" ("Wertegemeinschaft", as we like to say here) to shame that Ukraine has to fight our fight putting their own children into the line of fire with goddamn little support from us smug Western countries. Facing a credible threat of effective countermeasures, uncle Volodya probably wouldn't have lit the petrol tank. And yes, I hand it to you that Uncle Sam and his mighty big stick are a very convenient combination to hide behind and enjoy the drinks while othes go at it.

[Richard A]

All of this is true. On the other hand, history suggests otherwise. At least some of the Nazis who ended up doing relatively short prison terms - and there were a surprising number of them - or even some who were too junior to have done more than the 2 years as PoWs used to say that World War II was so unnecessary, that Hitler had never wanted a war with France or the UK. I remember the descendant of one of them that I was at college with. (Yes, there were a few descendants of Nazis, Ustaše and the like at Cambridge in the late 80s. "Who goes to war over Poland? You're Aryans - Germany never wanted to fight you." (Leaving aside that quite a few non-Aryans had made their way to the far west of Europe by then.) But when it came to it, the Franco-Polish defence pact was honoured. The Baltics the rest of Europe would happily abandon - Arneb is right on that. Probably Poland as well. But if Russia came back across the Neiße, or even looked likely to do so, I think Britain and France would work out that it was us next.

But the elephant in the room is the nuclear one. Mutually assured destruction or acceptance of Russian domination? Hmmm. That was a calculation that Ukraine didn't have to make as they knew that Putin would not drop a nuke on Kiev. For the same reason that Israel in 1967 was not going to flatten east Jerusalem. He wants at least certain bits of it in one piece. Probably Odessa as well - that has iconic significance for a man like Putin, even if not in quite the same league as Kiev. Lvov possibly, but he wouldn't have wanted the complication of a fallout over Poland prematurely. But he would happily nuke anything west of the Bug. The 15kt bomb on Potsdam - which would mean that although much of Berlin would be physically intact, much of the population would find out soon that the fallout was going to kill them as well - would indeed make the point. Western Europe, give it up now and most of you will survive. And hey, as Arneb also hints, people who were willing to support the likes of Suella Braverman would probably find life under Putin OK.

[Мастер]

Something else has occurred to me.

Word on the street (well, at least some of the streets) is that this reluctance to support Ukraine in the US is not a Republican thing, but a Trump thing. Some in congress are using it cynically to get what they want on other issues (kind of like how Erdogan exploited Sweden's NATO membership application), but others are unwilling to push hard for Ukraine support, because they don't want to offend Trump.

Now, there are some house and senate seats that are genuinely competitive between parties, but a lot of them are considered "safe" for a variety of reasons, including gerrymandering (in the case of the house). For the Republicans holding those seats, the threat to their continued employment is not losing to a Democrat in the general election, but losing to another Republican in the primary election. And the probability of that happening goes up a lot if you cross Trump (just ask Liz Cheney).

But, the primary elections are talking place now, and if I am not mistaken, will be over by June - different dates in different states. So once the candidates get past that hurdle, they have little immediate threat to their continued employment.

So, in the coming months, as the states hold their primary elections, will some of the congresspeople and senators regrow a spine? (Or perhaps grow one for the first time?) Or will they continue to cower before their orange lord and master?

[Arneb]

My money won't be on Republicans growing spines, of all things. Slime glands, relaxing anal musculature, wider recta, reflexive belly positioning when seeing orange - but spines? Hardly.

[Мастер]

My money won't be on Republicans growing spines, of all things. Slime glands, relaxing anal musculature, wider recta, reflexive belly positioning when seeing orange - but spines? Hardly.

Well there’s a selection bias here.

Liz Cheney was consistently ranked as one of the most conservative members of congress.

But not any more, because she is no longer in congress.

The reason she is no longer in congress is because she did have a spine. She supported the (second) impeachment of Trump.

She still seems to harbour political ambitions, possibly even including the presidency. Will she have, or has she already had, a spinectomy? I don’t know.

[Arneb]

She is quote the oddball, you'll admit. But there is one Republican I have some grudging respect for if even for the fact that, to her, he isn't conservative enough.