6 ms·

Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides. It will align with the US reluctantly because even a bat shit crazy US is better than Russia. China plays it t

Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides. It will align with the US reluctantly because even a bat shit crazy US is better than Russia. China plays it too close to the chest to be a friend.

throwaway_20357 8mo ago
Indeed. As the US abandons it, the EU seemingly has no other choice than to find ways to align with Russia now.
dh2022 8mo ago
I think Europe can handle Russia by itself quite well. The Baltics are vulnerable, but Poland will definitely kick Russia's butt in a military engagement. Poles will defend EU's eastern flank. I expect Europe to distance itself from US. Let's see.
- omnimus 8mo ago
  I think you are underestimating how entrenched and strong US lobby is. European governments are filled to the roof with US boosters whos whole wealth is tied to what US wants. Even people like Macron have been bribed by US companies for decades. And now with huge hard right turn in europe all those “nationalists” will just bend over even more to get US lobby money and consulting contracts. They are already tied to national oligarchs so they welcome Trump and will likely sell off Ukraine to get “peace” and slowely dismantle EU. The aim is that every country will follow hungary and slovakia - corrupted, weak and undemocratic.
  - padjo 8mo ago
    I think you have a very poor understanding of European politics. Not even Meloni and Farage will get behind this sort of behaviour from the US.
    - omnimus 8mo ago
      Farage whos been campaigning for Trump in US multiple times? Meloni who is Elon Musks bestie going on dates together? Their disapproval of Trump is simply calculation. They would have been hurt too much otherwise. Once most of europe will go their way (europe has huge hard right turn incoming) the rhetoric will change. It will be normalized, they will sell europe in name of anti-regulation, lack of innovation and “incompetence” of other eu states.
      - padjo 8mo ago
        Campaigning for Trump was useful for Farage when Trump was a fun edgy character that his base liked. This Greenland stuff is deeply unpopular across the entire political spectrum in Europe, there is no way to back selling off a sovereign territory to the US and have a hope of winning an election.
        omnimus 8mo ago
        That's the same thing what am i saying. But what do you think Farage would do if he was already in power? Contradict his ally? They would cook up some angle so both of them would get something out of it. Farage is already busy downplaying the situation and steering the discussion away.
        padjo 8mo ago
        You think Denmark is not the US’s ally? They would happily cook up an angle but there is absolutely no world where that angle involves selling Greenland and that appears to be the only result Trump will accept, presumably so he can go down in history as the first President to expand the United States in a long time.
        omnimus 8mo ago
        Denmark is US ally. But would you say Denmark is Trumps ally? Doesn't look like it.
  - dh2022 8mo ago
    It looks like the behavior of EU governments contradict what you wrote. Germany is not selling off Ukraine (last week Merz re-affirmed full support for Ukraine's security) And the US are now being hated by Europeans. Supporting Donnie's latest lunacy is not a winning political move in EU. For example, France, Germany, and Sweden sent troops in Greenland to protect against US, all those US boosters in their governments be damned. So I think what I wrote makes sense: EU will distance itself from US and will be able to protect itself against Russia. It helps EU that today's Russian military is not the one from 1943/44/45 - but it is the one from 1918 (corrupt and ineptly led).
    - omnimus 8mo ago
      Most of the western europe would have carved up Ukraine already to get “peace”. But baltics/nordics/poland won't budge. Western europe is scared to send weapons let alone send any actual military help. When crowdfunding is rivaling countries support then it doesn't look like they are taking it seriously.
      - dh2022 8mo ago
        Which part of Western Europe is afraid to send weapons? Britain who sent Shadow missiles to Ukraine? Germany who sent tanks? France who committed troops on the ground if there is a peace treaty in Ukraine? Germany, UK, and France have continuously asked for all territory to be given back to the Ukraine-which is the opposite of wanting to carve up Ukraine. Another one of your posts that is contradicted by reality.
        omnimus 8mo ago
        I wish you were right and western europe will get involved with actual troops. Hopefully the situation is changing… but “reality” is that germany sent like 20 tanks. Ukraine has over 1200 in their disposal. Poland send almost 400… i mean even Netherlands (to their credit) sent 5x more tanks than Germany. I guess as the situation will get more dire, western europe will have turn around but its been going on for what 4 years? They better do stuff. Because if hard right - likes of AfD gets into power there is high chance they will just leave Ukraine to Russia.
padjo 8mo ago
I don’t buy this at all. Russia is a relatively small economy with a tiny fraction of the EU population. The US is not going to launch a shooting war with Europe. Europe is not going to back down here. This Greenland thing is deeply unpopular in the US. It’s only a conflict because of one senile old man who will be dead soon.
- xiphias2 8mo ago
  It's not just 1 old man. Most of the wars Trump does is just a logical continuation of the military industrial complex strategy, he just doesn't hide it at all. Venezuela was already a target, Panama was already conquered, and I'm sure Greenland was in plans already.
  - padjo 8mo ago
    Venezuela has been an issue for all administrations since Bush. Greenland has never been an issue because there is absolutely no rationale for it. The US can put as many troops there as it likes and is welcome to try to profitably extract minerals from a frozen wasteland. This is just Trump wanting legacy because he’s a narcissist.
    - cudgy 8mo ago
      Wrong. Greenland has been an issue all the way back to the times of Seward in 1868.
      - padjo 8mo ago
        Why stop there, let’s reconsider the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. Greenland has not been an issue in over 100 years.
        cudgy 8mo ago
        Still wrong though.
  - 8mo ago
palata 8mo ago
> Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides. Well, Europe effectively has enemies on both sides right now.
- jleyank 8mo ago
  Germany is used to that, and it never seemed to deter them in the past. Us has a hard time deploying lots of troops vs Europe. Shoulder and truck launched weaponry, 3 shifts, 7 days.
  - palata 8mo ago
    > Germany is used to that Are you talking about a situation from a century ago?
    - jleyank 8mo ago
      It’s repeated over the last several centuries with similar players. Not sure there was a Germany before Freddy the Great. Austria was different and had different concerns.
  - cudgy 8mo ago
    Following Germany really paid off didn’t it?
    - jleyank 8mo ago
      Prussia and Britain defeated France, Austria and Russia in the 1700’s. Prussia and Britain defeated France in the 1800’s. Germany then threw away this association to catastrophic results in the 1900’s. The US is doing such dissociation now.
tpm 8mo ago
It will not align with the US if that means territorial losses. Russia is an economical lightweight that's causing a bit of a headache on the eastern border but for the EU looking weak would make things so much worse.
mjmsmith 8mo ago
But would you trust the bat shit crazy US to protect you from Russia?
- schubidubiduba 8mo ago
  Sure, if I give them enough mineral resources in exchange. Current US is a thug running a protection racket lmao
  - tim333 8mo ago
    I'm not sure giving mineral resources is reliable. See The Ukraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement of 2025 and "Trump says Zelenskiy, not Putin, is holding up a Ukraine peace deal" a couple of days ago.
anal_reactor 8mo ago
> Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides Neither can the US. Imagine Europe supporting China in exchange for China backstabbing Russia - entire Ukraine and Belarus and maybe even Kaliningrad suddenly are up for grabs for EU while China gets Russian territories that it has historical claims to. Then China gets access to European technology (ASML and Airbus) which means that the US stops having massive technological advantage and suddenly the conquest of Taiwan starts being more realistic. China and Europe are too far away physically to come in direct conflict, especially as EU doesn't care about being a superpower. This is unimaginable right now, but the more EU decouples from the US because of its unreliability, the more it might actually work out.
- fatbird 8mo ago
  No one wants Kaliningrad now because it's 100% Russian. Annexing it means adding a Russian fifth column to your country. I'm surprised by this, but my general opposition to ethnic cleansing has been weakened by understanding how Russia uses Russian migration to subvert nations from within. Transnistria, an independent Russian dominated portion of Moldava, exists entirely because Russians moved there in large numbers with the support of the Russian government to give them an ethnic wedge. Were I in charge in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Poland or the Baltics, I would seriously consider expelling all ethnic Russians.
- cudgy 8mo ago
  Seems you forgot about these things called nuclear missiles.
  - anal_reactor 8mo ago
    No I didn't. Nuclear missles are only relevant when the existence of the country itself is at stake. But when the war is at the edges of the country, then losing territory is preferable over nuclear war. Think about it - in case shit hits the fan, would you rather cede some territory like Alaska or Guam, or would you start nuclear war which results in complete annihilation of all major US cities?

Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides. It will align with the US reluctantly because even a bat shit crazy US is better than Russia. China plays it too close to the chest to be a friend.

throwaway_20357 8mo ago

Indeed. As the US abandons it, the EU seemingly has no other choice than to find ways to align with Russia now.

dh2022 8mo ago

I think Europe can handle Russia by itself quite well. The Baltics are vulnerable, but Poland will definitely kick Russia's butt in a military engagement. Poles will defend EU's eastern flank. I expect Europe to distance itself from US. Let's see.

omnimus 8mo ago
I think you are underestimating how entrenched and strong US lobby is. European governments are filled to the roof with US boosters whos whole wealth is tied to what US wants. Even people like Macron have been bribed by US companies for decades. And now with huge hard right turn in europe all those “nationalists” will just bend over even more to get US lobby money and consulting contracts. They are already tied to national oligarchs so they welcome Trump and will likely sell off Ukraine to get “peace” and slowely dismantle EU. The aim is that every country will follow hungary and slovakia - corrupted, weak and undemocratic.
- padjo 8mo ago
  I think you have a very poor understanding of European politics. Not even Meloni and Farage will get behind this sort of behaviour from the US.
  - omnimus 8mo ago
    Farage whos been campaigning for Trump in US multiple times? Meloni who is Elon Musks bestie going on dates together? Their disapproval of Trump is simply calculation. They would have been hurt too much otherwise. Once most of europe will go their way (europe has huge hard right turn incoming) the rhetoric will change. It will be normalized, they will sell europe in name of anti-regulation, lack of innovation and “incompetence” of other eu states.
    - padjo 8mo ago
      Campaigning for Trump was useful for Farage when Trump was a fun edgy character that his base liked. This Greenland stuff is deeply unpopular across the entire political spectrum in Europe, there is no way to back selling off a sovereign territory to the US and have a hope of winning an election.
      - omnimus 8mo ago
        That's the same thing what am i saying. But what do you think Farage would do if he was already in power? Contradict his ally? They would cook up some angle so both of them would get something out of it. Farage is already busy downplaying the situation and steering the discussion away.
        padjo 8mo ago
        You think Denmark is not the US’s ally? They would happily cook up an angle but there is absolutely no world where that angle involves selling Greenland and that appears to be the only result Trump will accept, presumably so he can go down in history as the first President to expand the United States in a long time.
        omnimus 8mo ago
        Denmark is US ally. But would you say Denmark is Trumps ally? Doesn't look like it.
- dh2022 8mo ago
  It looks like the behavior of EU governments contradict what you wrote. Germany is not selling off Ukraine (last week Merz re-affirmed full support for Ukraine's security) And the US are now being hated by Europeans. Supporting Donnie's latest lunacy is not a winning political move in EU. For example, France, Germany, and Sweden sent troops in Greenland to protect against US, all those US boosters in their governments be damned. So I think what I wrote makes sense: EU will distance itself from US and will be able to protect itself against Russia. It helps EU that today's Russian military is not the one from 1943/44/45 - but it is the one from 1918 (corrupt and ineptly led).
  - omnimus 8mo ago
    Most of the western europe would have carved up Ukraine already to get “peace”. But baltics/nordics/poland won't budge. Western europe is scared to send weapons let alone send any actual military help. When crowdfunding is rivaling countries support then it doesn't look like they are taking it seriously.
    - dh2022 8mo ago
      Which part of Western Europe is afraid to send weapons? Britain who sent Shadow missiles to Ukraine? Germany who sent tanks? France who committed troops on the ground if there is a peace treaty in Ukraine? Germany, UK, and France have continuously asked for all territory to be given back to the Ukraine-which is the opposite of wanting to carve up Ukraine. Another one of your posts that is contradicted by reality.
      - omnimus 8mo ago
        I wish you were right and western europe will get involved with actual troops. Hopefully the situation is changing… but “reality” is that germany sent like 20 tanks. Ukraine has over 1200 in their disposal. Poland send almost 400… i mean even Netherlands (to their credit) sent 5x more tanks than Germany. I guess as the situation will get more dire, western europe will have turn around but its been going on for what 4 years? They better do stuff. Because if hard right - likes of AfD gets into power there is high chance they will just leave Ukraine to Russia.

padjo 8mo ago

I don’t buy this at all. Russia is a relatively small economy with a tiny fraction of the EU population. The US is not going to launch a shooting war with Europe. Europe is not going to back down here. This Greenland thing is deeply unpopular in the US. It’s only a conflict because of one senile old man who will be dead soon.

xiphias2 8mo ago
It's not just 1 old man. Most of the wars Trump does is just a logical continuation of the military industrial complex strategy, he just doesn't hide it at all. Venezuela was already a target, Panama was already conquered, and I'm sure Greenland was in plans already.
- padjo 8mo ago
  Venezuela has been an issue for all administrations since Bush. Greenland has never been an issue because there is absolutely no rationale for it. The US can put as many troops there as it likes and is welcome to try to profitably extract minerals from a frozen wasteland. This is just Trump wanting legacy because he’s a narcissist.
  - cudgy 8mo ago
    Wrong. Greenland has been an issue all the way back to the times of Seward in 1868.
    - padjo 8mo ago
      Why stop there, let’s reconsider the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. Greenland has not been an issue in over 100 years.
      - cudgy 8mo ago
        Still wrong though.
- 8mo ago

palata 8mo ago

> Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides. Well, Europe effectively has enemies on both sides right now.

jleyank 8mo ago
Germany is used to that, and it never seemed to deter them in the past. Us has a hard time deploying lots of troops vs Europe. Shoulder and truck launched weaponry, 3 shifts, 7 days.
- palata 8mo ago
  > Germany is used to that Are you talking about a situation from a century ago?
  - jleyank 8mo ago
    It’s repeated over the last several centuries with similar players. Not sure there was a Germany before Freddy the Great. Austria was different and had different concerns.
- cudgy 8mo ago
  Following Germany really paid off didn’t it?
  - jleyank 8mo ago
    Prussia and Britain defeated France, Austria and Russia in the 1700’s. Prussia and Britain defeated France in the 1800’s. Germany then threw away this association to catastrophic results in the 1900’s. The US is doing such dissociation now.

tpm 8mo ago

It will not align with the US if that means territorial losses. Russia is an economical lightweight that's causing a bit of a headache on the eastern border but for the EU looking weak would make things so much worse.

mjmsmith 8mo ago

But would you trust the bat shit crazy US to protect you from Russia?

schubidubiduba 8mo ago
Sure, if I give them enough mineral resources in exchange. Current US is a thug running a protection racket lmao
- tim333 8mo ago
  I'm not sure giving mineral resources is reliable. See The Ukraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement of 2025 and "Trump says Zelenskiy, not Putin, is holding up a Ukraine peace deal" a couple of days ago.

anal_reactor 8mo ago

> Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides Neither can the US. Imagine Europe supporting China in exchange for China backstabbing Russia - entire Ukraine and Belarus and maybe even Kaliningrad suddenly are up for grabs for EU while China gets Russian territories that it has historical claims to. Then China gets access to European technology (ASML and Airbus) which means that the US stops having massive technological advantage and suddenly the conquest of Taiwan starts being more realistic. China and Europe are too far away physically to come in direct conflict, especially as EU doesn't care about being a superpower. This is unimaginable right now, but the more EU decouples from the US because of its unreliability, the more it might actually work out.

fatbird 8mo ago
No one wants Kaliningrad now because it's 100% Russian. Annexing it means adding a Russian fifth column to your country. I'm surprised by this, but my general opposition to ethnic cleansing has been weakened by understanding how Russia uses Russian migration to subvert nations from within. Transnistria, an independent Russian dominated portion of Moldava, exists entirely because Russians moved there in large numbers with the support of the Russian government to give them an ethnic wedge. Were I in charge in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Poland or the Baltics, I would seriously consider expelling all ethnic Russians.
cudgy 8mo ago
Seems you forgot about these things called nuclear missiles.
- anal_reactor 8mo ago
  No I didn't. Nuclear missles are only relevant when the existence of the country itself is at stake. But when the war is at the edges of the country, then losing territory is preferable over nuclear war. Think about it - in case shit hits the fan, would you rather cede some territory like Alaska or Guam, or would you start nuclear war which results in complete annihilation of all major US cities?