3 ms·

> For without the us [sic] guarding europe Those words hit harder when you've an executive that isn't beholden to Russia or threatening to fucking annex part o

• brianwawok 10mo ago
  That’s great, I’d love a strong European military. Can you help Ukraine enough so it can win? If not you can’t defend your own countries alone.
  • messe 10mo ago
    Ah yes, because the US has been sooooo fucking supportive recently. Give me a fucking break. Your GDP is bigger than ours, and you claim to give more aid to Ukraine, but you haven't even remotely matched it. The sheer fucking arrogance of you. > Can you help Ukraine enough so it can win? Can you (the American executive) stop collaborating with Russia[1]? > If not you can’t defend your own countries alone. Are we talking about the EU or Europe here? Because only one is relevant to the Euro here. It's important to get this right, because it does tend to get confused by bystanders from the far side of the Atlantic. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/25/trump-envoy-on-russia-ukraine-peace-deal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/25/trump-envoy-...
    • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > only one is relevant to the Euro The Baltics are in the Eurozone. If Russia invaded the Baltics tomorrow, Europe would be dependent on America to stay intact. That isn’t really a risk one wants to take with a reserve asset.
      • kibwen 10mo ago
        It's worth emphasizing this: without the US Navy, the remaining European powers don't have the naval force to stop Russia from blockading the Baltics. And without the ability to break such a blockade, there's little hope in aiding the Baltics against a land invasion from Russia and Belarus. Russia wants a land route to Kaliningrad, and they'll take it at this rate.
        • lumost 10mo ago
          My understanding is that European Air and Ground forces have been able to deter or destroy Soviet/Russian Naval operations in the North and Baltic Seas since the start of the cold war. Land based anti-ship missiles have more than enough range to cover the entire water way on their own. This was a major reason the Soviet Union and now Russia never invested in a large navy outside of Submarines.
        • Epa095 10mo ago
          Where would this blockade be? In the NATO sea (baltic sea)? Covered by European Nato countries at every direction, and then whole entry passes through Denmark.
      • notahacker 10mo ago
        Do central banks really asses the risk of total collapse of the Euro (only) in response to Russia's currently frazzled military launching an invasion against NATO borderlands which NATO fails to mount any effective defence as higher than than the risk the current US administration freezes assets for arbitrary and capricious[1] reasons? In practice, of course, most countries are willing to accept both risks. [1]a lot of states that can be reasonably confident that they won't provoke the US in the manner Saddam Hussein or Putin did whether they're friendly or not can be rather less confident the current president won't take extreme measures in response to something completely innocuous like jailing someone for domestic corruption, being a source of emigrants to the United States or maintaining a trade surplus...
    • oldpersonintx2 10mo ago
      [dead]
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]