4 ms·

Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?”

dukeyukey 2y ago
The US is already effectively saying that.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Yeah when you unilaterally give up your largest bargaining chip, you stop getting any say in what happens.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Which ironically means the US also loses it's leverage. They're already threatening to functionally (if not actually) withdraw from NATO and economically split off via tariffs. The next step is actual invasion, which while sorta-kinda has been talked about with Greenland, probably won't happen.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I can see Trump putting hostile troops in Greenland. Tiny population despite the size, and I think Trump (at least) does not believe Europe would respond seriously. I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin. Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention. (Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).
      - dybber 2y ago
        Europe will respond with drastic economic sanctions that will act quickly. Tariffs are slow to make a difference, but EU have prepared what they call an economic “bazooka”, that will very quickly hit US economy if force is used against a member state.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Sanctions, even well targeted ones, as the only consequence for an invasion, seems to me to likely be a risk Trump is willing to take. Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.
lompad 2y ago
That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.]. Also, france has a first-strike policy. So even without US troops, europe will be fine. A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.
- blargthorwars 2y ago
  >>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
- croemer 2y ago
  > Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
  - lompad 2y ago
    Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
    - croemer 2y ago
weatherlight 2y ago
The US has basically said that. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day, dramatic foreign policy shifts and realignments only make the U.S. even less attractive as an ally and a partner. Decades of relationships are being strained in the attempt of mending ties with a state that never really did much to advance America's interests in the modern era. And it could all be completely undone in four years. The whip lash of back and forth, radical shifts in policy, are as damaging as the acts that directly alienate America's global partners.
PUSH_AX 2y ago
Bidens aid undoubtedly moved the needle, but that’s over and from what I’ve heard weapon deliveries have already stopped. So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?
- croemer 2y ago
  Trump can still make things worse, e.g. explicitly saying "If Putin invaded Estonia, US would stay out of it" or things like this. He hasn't said that (I hope) so there's still some strategic ambiguity - i.e. it's not clear for Putin if Trump is just uttering empty words re letting Europe go or whether he would in the end do defend.
antirez 2y ago
That's not a problem, US is doing that, effectively marginalizing the importance they will have in the future.
nathanlied 2y ago
This is already the expectation from our leaders. It is the belief of a good % of EU leaders that, if Russia were to push into Poland and the Baltic states, and Article 5 was invoked, the US would not respond. Or at least not without some Versailles Treaty-level extortion, as they're trying to do with Ukraine.
ben_w 2y ago
> Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?” If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland. They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1]. The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle. Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up. [0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year [1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.
computerthings 2y ago
Oh, we're already looking at the likelihood of Trump arming Russia and joining the war on the side of Putin. But for some people, although probably a minority, that just increases the resolve. They simply will never be part of something like this: https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqwkie3kc24 https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqw...

dukeyukey 2y ago

The US is already effectively saying that.

alabastervlog 2y ago
Yeah when you unilaterally give up your largest bargaining chip, you stop getting any say in what happens.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Which ironically means the US also loses it's leverage. They're already threatening to functionally (if not actually) withdraw from NATO and economically split off via tariffs. The next step is actual invasion, which while sorta-kinda has been talked about with Greenland, probably won't happen.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I can see Trump putting hostile troops in Greenland. Tiny population despite the size, and I think Trump (at least) does not believe Europe would respond seriously. I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin. Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention. (Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).
    - dybber 2y ago
      Europe will respond with drastic economic sanctions that will act quickly. Tariffs are slow to make a difference, but EU have prepared what they call an economic “bazooka”, that will very quickly hit US economy if force is used against a member state.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Sanctions, even well targeted ones, as the only consequence for an invasion, seems to me to likely be a risk Trump is willing to take. Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.

lompad 2y ago

That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.]. Also, france has a first-strike policy. So even without US troops, europe will be fine. A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.

blargthorwars 2y ago
>>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
croemer 2y ago
> Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
- lompad 2y ago
  Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
  - croemer 2y ago

weatherlight 2y ago

The US has basically said that. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day, dramatic foreign policy shifts and realignments only make the U.S. even less attractive as an ally and a partner. Decades of relationships are being strained in the attempt of mending ties with a state that never really did much to advance America's interests in the modern era. And it could all be completely undone in four years. The whip lash of back and forth, radical shifts in policy, are as damaging as the acts that directly alienate America's global partners.

PUSH_AX 2y ago

Bidens aid undoubtedly moved the needle, but that’s over and from what I’ve heard weapon deliveries have already stopped. So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?

croemer 2y ago
Trump can still make things worse, e.g. explicitly saying "If Putin invaded Estonia, US would stay out of it" or things like this. He hasn't said that (I hope) so there's still some strategic ambiguity - i.e. it's not clear for Putin if Trump is just uttering empty words re letting Europe go or whether he would in the end do defend.

antirez 2y ago

That's not a problem, US is doing that, effectively marginalizing the importance they will have in the future.

nathanlied 2y ago

This is already the expectation from our leaders. It is the belief of a good % of EU leaders that, if Russia were to push into Poland and the Baltic states, and Article 5 was invoked, the US would not respond. Or at least not without some Versailles Treaty-level extortion, as they're trying to do with Ukraine.

ben_w 2y ago

> Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?” If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland. They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1]. The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle. Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up. [0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year [1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.

computerthings 2y ago

Oh, we're already looking at the likelihood of Trump arming Russia and joining the war on the side of Putin. But for some people, although probably a minority, that just increases the resolve. They simply will never be part of something like this: https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqwkie3kc24 https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqw...