European News Thread

Not really. The American troops in Europe are mostly used to coordinate the American interventions in the ME. Those interventions are partly (though not always!) done in consent with the host countries, e.g. the intervention in Libya which was done in agreement with Italy.

Their is no strategic merit for European soldiers on American soil, since there is no interest in military actions in their neighborhood.

First I doubt the US would let EU troops onto her territory and secondly, I have no idea what they should do in Mexico (or Canada for that matter). A nice holidy to get a tan?

US troops in Europe on the other hand are the US stop on their way to far away lands...they need(ed) them here strategically.

The idiocy of having the EU troops in the US to defend the US from a non-existing invading army is equal to the idiocy of the US troops in Europe from a non-existing invading army. The only invaders are the black and Muslim hordes that Europe invited and promised to immediately put on welfare. You don't need the US for that. You can do it all on your own.

BTW, I mentioned Mexico to show the absurdity of NATO and the underlying assumption that only Europe needs the US protection but not the other way around.

If Italy agreed to serve as launching pad for the US ME adventures, Italy should bear the consequences as it has been by being flooded by the Africans via Libya, which was destabilized by the US with Italy's blessing.

Stupid decisions produce stupid results, as they say. So, Italy can now enjoy their new guests who have no intention to ever go home.

And THAT is the current justification to keep NATO? If so, why would the Euro NATO countries agree to paying more as Trump requested?

So which one is it? Is NATO to protect Europe or to assist the US being a world cop?

Officially the former, but believed the latter...that's the crux of the matter. Hence the difficulties for Merkel's gov to sell the Germans the two percent!

I think you nailed the problem here...

I wish Germany and others in the EU would tell the US to get lost and you would be doing yourself and us a big favor. Just for reference, the US spends 700 billion or 40% of the world's military money, runs 500 million fed deficit but has no 30 billion bucks for the wall. That is insane.

Almost forgot: when it's time to empty the latrine at the space station, the US calls Russia to get a ride. As a movie, it would be fiction.

If Trump could get the US to decrease the military spending, he would find lotsa new friends in Europe, me thinks! :)

King Twitler loves the poorly educated...

CNN and those Hollywood Libs have conditioned your mind.

Who would I trust more, Putin who is standing next to me, or the guys who made the US chase those WMD's, spend 5 trillion, and bring 5000 body bags home? And now they work day and night to get me. Hmm...

I have a question. Im sure Ill be called a commie, not by you, but anyhow......

Why do the Europeans hate Putin more than any other of the past Russian leaders before him, the ones that have killed millions of people?

I just watched some of Putins interview with J.Wallce. Hes full of baloney!

Very good question, European liberals don't like him because he will have nothing to do with the nonsense they peddle .

As you correctly observe Putin is not a mass murderer as his predecessors were.

Liberals (commies) hate Putin and Trump equally.

Putin and Trump would do well to cut a deal for peace and good relations, and avoid the poisonous European ideology at all costs.

Sure, Putin is no Lenin or Stalin, but he is still more dangerous than any other Russian leader was until him for the peace in Europe.

Breshnev and Co. had their fair share of blood on their hands, but they never foistered armed confrontations ins Europe and put existing borders into question. They also never broke exiszing treaties like Putin did with the Budapest memorandum.

That does not mean one should not talk with him, quite the contrary. But neithet should one be blind towards the danger he poses to Europe.

how old are you?

Do you remember that little episode with Khrushchev. "Cuban missile crisis" Europe was close to being toast, everyone held their breath.

That was as much Kennedy's fault as Kruschev's, perhaps even more, as some recent historians have pointed out.

Well there you go but it debunks your statement "Putin is no Lenin or Stalin, but he is still more dangerous than any other Russian leader was"

Trump and Putin have a long way to go before they get to the edge of nuclear disaster as Kennedy and Kruschev did,

I was young then but everyone was scared , we were being prepared to build shelters and there were public announcements about what to do when the bomb drops Duck and cover in the US.

Yes ' duck and cover', the purpose of which is solely to annoy you before you are vaporized.

Put your head between your legs and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

Not necessarily, because the Cuban Missile Crisis did not happen solely because the leaders (both Kennedy and Kruschev) were incredibly dangerous, but because the context of the time allowed it to happen. There were few safeguards in place, to prevent a war caused by a misunderstanding or miscalculation, and which were later installed as a consequence of the crisis. The SU after Stalin was mostly content to accept the status quo in Europe and did not try to expand its' influence by violence. Putin however has shown himself to be willing to expand Russia's influence with arms, and has broken with the post-war consensus that European borders should not be changed unilaterally. That is a very dangerous precedent.

And speaking of danger, Putin was in Dresden when the wall came down, and is reported to have been disappointed by the unwillingness of Moscow to supress dissent violently. Who knows how things would have turned out back then, when he had been in charge?

Indeed, he a dangerous sort that play on restoring an Empire be it Russian or Soviet doesn't matter as long as it is an empire. Yet, Germany strengthen his rule by money and stuff, buying gas for exmaple.

Thereby giving him an incentive to not break with Germany and the West completely. It is not simply the Nato soldiers stationed in the Baltics that prevent Putin from trying anything funny there, it is also the danger of losing the last economic link to the West. Even without the military risk, the economic cost to Russia would not be worth it.

History has proven how important those economic connections were in building trust between Russia and West, especially during times of escalation in the 1980s. It was this trust that helped convincing the Soviets to withdraw peacefully from East Germany, because Gorbachev knew that he could rely on Kohls pledges to send food and medications to the Soviet Union in return. Severing all links would simply make Russia act even more agressive, because it would not have anything to lose.

Tacitus makes a good point.
Russians play hard,they always have.But they are scared and have a slight inferiority complex.
I think we in the west over estimate their strength and under estimate their fear.
Respect is very important to Russians too.

Nuclear power begins to be fatally dangerous when come to conclusion that have nothing to lose. That is where NATO and EU pushed Russia. So, NATO would now retreat, or, there would be nuclear war. This with Trump and Putin is all about that.

And USA and western Europe have much more to lose. Much much more. That`s exactly the point.

Right, but in the process enabling him to attack Georgia, take over Crimea, expand to Syria and so on. Thing is as reasonable as your explanation sounds its only a half of the picture. The other half is that Germany is an economy of producers and without export they would stifle and shrink. There is a reasonable suspicion that your explanation is an afterthought and the first consideration of the decision makers was to ensure for German economy to thrive and for the current coalition to stay in power.


They are basically Soviets not Russians, one.


They are primitive in all their cunning. If you kick them - they respect you if you nice to them they think you're weak and they'll kick you.

Experts say the only thing stopping Putin from taking over Crimea would had been Ukraine in NATO.

Should they be? Meaning in consequene actual fighting for Ukraine against the Red Army...are you ready for that?

Enabling meaning - by making trade and deals with Russian that in turn give Putin means to modernize his army and to pay for those operations.

You`ve got to be kidding me!

Replace Russian with Chinese and Putin with Xi and you are describing the US. Dot for dot.

Now, what makes Russia so fearsome while China is a cuddly pussy cat?

Good point, Rich.

Russia has Soviet Union's nuclear weaponry and capacity to nuke the USA into tomorrow. China doesn't - as yet!