Europe - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 2,133 comments
- 119,628 views
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,740
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
It might be because just about every attempt to do so has been a failure and certainly no been safer.
That aside the EU isn't the body to do it, UNHCR would be far better placed to do so, but I'm going to hazard a guess that even if either option were used a certain group would still not want to take people in, regardless of need.
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's not even an almost. It entirely does that. It ignores the fact that people who are willing to risk drowning to reach Australia are unlikely to be deterred by any level of hardship that doesn't include near-certain death, which I imagine would violate some sort of international law.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Exciting a normally staid, stodgy, pinkies and canapés NATO meeting, The Don riled up folks in dandy fashion by the following quip in front of global news media:
“We are protecting Germany, we are protecting France, we are protecting all of these countries and then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they are paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. I think that is very inappropriate.”
He added: “It should never have been allowed to happen. Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting 60-70% of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline.
“You tell me if that’s appropriate because I think it’s not. On top of that Germany is just paying just a little bit over 1% [of GDP on Nato defence contributions] whereas the United States is paying 4.2% of a much larger GDP. So I think that’s inappropriate also.”
His comments were linked to his push for other European countries – particularly Germany – to pay more for Nato’s defence needs.
“I think it is unfair,” Trump said. Other US presidents had raised European defence spending levels in the past but he was intent on dealing with it. “We can’t put up with it,” he said.
Germany’s plan to increase its defence expenditure to the Nato target of 2% of GDP by 2030 was not good enough, Trump said. “They could do it tomorrow,” he added.
Stoltenberg seemed surprised by the force of Trump’s remarks. He attempted to respond, saying mildly: “Even during the cold war, Nato allies were trading with Russia.”
Asked about Trump afterwards, he responded diplomatically, restricting himself to saying the US president’s language had been “direct” and “frank”.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, will get a chance to respond when she and Trump have a one-to-one meeting scheduled for later on Wednesday. There had already been expectations it would be a testy encounter, and this appears even more likely after Trump’s opening remarks.
According to reports in the US media, Trump is keen to see Merkel replaced as chancellor. His outburst could be part of a strategy to try to undermine her at a time when she is domestically vulnerable.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ald-trump-says-germany-is-captive-of-russians
“We are protecting Germany, we are protecting France, we are protecting all of these countries and then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they are paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. I think that is very inappropriate.”
He added: “It should never have been allowed to happen. Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting 60-70% of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline.
“You tell me if that’s appropriate because I think it’s not. On top of that Germany is just paying just a little bit over 1% [of GDP on Nato defence contributions] whereas the United States is paying 4.2% of a much larger GDP. So I think that’s inappropriate also.”
His comments were linked to his push for other European countries – particularly Germany – to pay more for Nato’s defence needs.
“I think it is unfair,” Trump said. Other US presidents had raised European defence spending levels in the past but he was intent on dealing with it. “We can’t put up with it,” he said.
Germany’s plan to increase its defence expenditure to the Nato target of 2% of GDP by 2030 was not good enough, Trump said. “They could do it tomorrow,” he added.
Stoltenberg seemed surprised by the force of Trump’s remarks. He attempted to respond, saying mildly: “Even during the cold war, Nato allies were trading with Russia.”
Asked about Trump afterwards, he responded diplomatically, restricting himself to saying the US president’s language had been “direct” and “frank”.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, will get a chance to respond when she and Trump have a one-to-one meeting scheduled for later on Wednesday. There had already been expectations it would be a testy encounter, and this appears even more likely after Trump’s opening remarks.
According to reports in the US media, Trump is keen to see Merkel replaced as chancellor. His outburst could be part of a strategy to try to undermine her at a time when she is domestically vulnerable.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ald-trump-says-germany-is-captive-of-russians
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
To be fair, his grasp on how America works also seems to be, lacking.
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Who really benefits the most from US bases in Europe?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Does power rule the world? Does might make right and ends justify the means? Is Trump pretty clearly in the process of getting rid of Merkel and May from the world scene?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Maybe he is but I'm not sure how that would benefit the US until he does it with every world leader and replaces them with himself.
Actually, that could be his plan
Isn't his plan, to destabilise Europe, ruin long standing American alliances and to help spread nationalism throughout the world western, in order to help make Russia more powerful?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Great question!
In the beginning, after WWII, Europe was a complete basket case and needed the Marshall Plan, NATO and other resuscitation measures to get back on its feet. Lately, NATO has been a major instrument of US encroachment on Russia. So on these scores US bases in Europe would seem to benefit Europe. On the other hand, US bases in Europe have proved vital in our GWOT.
But on balance, and IMO, it may be that the time has come to shrink or even end NATO altogether.
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
The whole point behind NATO and to an extent the EU was to stop that bunch of constant quarrelling family members - the countries that reside within continent of Europe - from the fights that drew the rest of the planet into two world wars. Surely we are, as members of the NATO collective, stronger together?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Of course you are. But perhaps you've become too strong and need to be whittled back some? That's my guess as to what Trump is thinking. He is for America First. He wants the US to be sovereign and self reliant. He wants you to be sovereign and self-reliant, too. But of course that's absurd.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
This all misses the point that "NATO spending" is each country's own spending on itself. If some countries spend less than the arbitrary GDP percentage* on their own defence then they're "weaker" than Trump's NATO vision (whatever that may be). If Trump wants those countries to spend more on themselves militarily then that only serves to strengthen them, surely?
*We already know that the GDP threshold really is arbitrary given that GDP fluctuates and some significant military spends aren't strictly year-on-year
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
All that misses the point that the US is ****ing tired of propping you Europeans up. Go do what you want. We are going to stop spending borrowed money on you. It's as simple as that.
but...
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks,[6]after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
What he wants is for NATO to be dissolved in its current form and a replacement treaty drawn up that's more favourable to US interests.
The US still fears a stronger Russia. It still requires a heavy presence in western Europe if it's to a) have any deterrent to a potential Russian invasion of Europe and b) an effective surveillance network as close to the Russian borders as possible.
If Germany (and the UK too as we import most of our natural gas from Russia as well) wants to buy it's energy from a neighbour and therefore in effect leaves itself reliant on that neighbour - the neighbour in this case being Russia - then that's their/our problem and one IMO that's quite worrying. But it's none of Trump's business if Germany and the UK etc decide that's what in their best interests.
'My' justification for NATO is that it helps, prevent wars. Since NATO came into being, Art5 has been invoked once, and the country that invoked it was the USA.
Seems that if America really wants to withdraw from it, so shortly after using it after a monumental attack on it's homeland, it just another example of how America cannot be trusted, even by its allies.
It's worth noting that this comes after Trump initiated a trade war against the EU.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
So, what are we left with? A Europe in thrall to Russia for energy, and in thrall to the US for military defense? What a sick joke! But I agree none of this is our business, except insofar as it profits us. I'm an antiwar libertarian. I don't want to fight any war except if we are attacked. I don't want to spend our tax dollars and borrowed money for your defense. Do it yourself.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
( Ignoring your spelling) Really like digging deep into the minutiae, don't we?
In principle, collective defense seemed a sound strategy at the time. Maybe it succeeded. But Afghanistan and the GWOT was, IMO, an unsound and irresponsible waste of time, money and life.
You'll have to forgive me, I struggle quite badly with dyslexia and sometimes auto-correct/google only confuses the matter!
If the principle and strategy is sound, why should NATO be disbanded or the US leave? The Afghan campaign might have been a folly, but that doesn't make NATO less valid.
It also seems fairly simplistic to view Europe as relying on Russian gas/oil and thus, controlled by Russia. Russia's GDP is shocking and it's oil and gas reserves are all it realistically has keeping it up. Russia cannot leverage the sale of its gas and oil in the same way Germany can't use the buying of it to demand things of Russia.
It's a balance, and its a balance that largely works. The reason Russia are so happy that Trump is President, is because he's more than willing to destabilise international treaties and isolate the US.
The figures Trump used, where also, unsurprisingly wrong.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Times change. There are other strategies and principles that might be more profitably pursued. For instance, it is envisioned by the neocons currently trying to cluster around Trump, that the ultimate goal is to attack, invade and dismember Russia. The choicest provinces and resources would be distributed to our favored allies. Hint, hint. How would you like to suddenly own a huge percentage of the world's oil, gold, rare minerals, fresh water, timber and arable land??
What?
Trump, the person who got into office with help from the Russians, is trying to break up international alliances and bodies, so he can invade and conquer Russia? Russia, who's biggest ally, is China? Russia, that has a standing army size of over a million troops, with a further two million in reserve?
I wouldn't want the UK, or any other nation, to own or control any part of Russia, Russia belongs to the Russians!
