NATO in military terms means the US, with a little help from others. When your only meaningful adversary other than the Ukrainians themselves has e.g. 11 large aircraft carriers that can and maybe will come calling, and that military can be directed by one guy, I think it’s important to assess how well you can predict his reactions.
We can be glad Trump is gone in other words 
Judging by what Trump has actually done, I think the safest bet is that he would do as little as possible and instead enforce the wall towards Mexico.
I agree, but the fact remains that Russia has invaded under Biden’s watch rather than Trump’s, and I’m not sure what the explanation is.
@kwlf, the facts speak for themselves.
I think it’s better and more accurate to say that Europe should on the basis of evidence be concerned that it’s relying on a completely inept 2020-on US Federal Executive Branch to protect Europe from aggression outside its borders. I hope that the US voter and taxpayer will do a better job in selecting its future Federal executives than it did in 2020, and I think it’s time for the EU to grow up, divert tax revenues from nonsense, and instead look after (and pay) for its own defense.
I agree with Silvaire insofar as I think the EU (or the wider Europe, incl. UK, Norway, Switzerland etc.) must not rely on the US to keep themselves safe from outside aggression.
The US should remain our partners, but we shouldn’t be dependent on them the way we are now. That was understandable maybe in 1950 when Europe was in ruins and divided by an Iron Curtain, but not in 2023.
Peter is not alone on doubting that a “European Army” is a workable approach. I for one still think it is the best longterm solution for nations that never want to fight each other again anyways, but either way we need to get our sh*t together one way or another.
Russia has invaded under Biden’s watch rather than Trump’s
Could be any number of reasons, but it is possible that Putin (who is basically a street bully, with appropriate assessment skills of his adversary) would have been too scared of what Trump (who was just too “random”) might have done.
Europe should on the basis of evidence be concerned that it’s relying on a completely inept 2020-on US Federal Executive Branch to protect Europe from aggression outside its borders.
That may be true but what is the solution? Europe will not be able to protect itself from Russia, in any foreseeable future. There are just too many reasons, from a historically underfunded military, to pacifism.
UK and France have relied on nukes but do we want the rest of Europe having them? We can see they probably do not prevent somebody having a “local go”; look at how careful the US is to avoid escalation. Russia has a history in this e.g. Czechoslovakia.
The fortunate thing is that Russia is much less strong than we thought it was.
That may be true but what is the solution? Europe will not be able to protect itself from Russia, in any foreseeable future. There are just too many reasons, from a historically underfunded military, to pacifism
That might change with some encouragement. Putin is providing some…
The US needs to keep the pressure on by showing disinterest in Europe. Europeans resent it, and don’t like the guy who was doing it, but it was the right thing to do. As was the US back slapping Putin while making it clear you’d kill him if he crossed us or our friends. Basic power politics, as now being neglected by the current Federal Executive bunch who are nothing but over-promoted bureaucrats.
Silvaire wrote:
I think it’s better and more accurate to say that Europe should on the basis of evidence be concerned that it’s relying on a completely inept 2020-on US Federal Executive Branch to protect Europe from aggression outside its borders.
There are different ways to look at this. The pre-2020 guy is apt indeed, but there’s no denying he’s also a textbook asshole, pardon my French. Some people tolerate this trait in their candidates, some don’t, and some require it.
MedEwok wrote:
must not rely on the US to keep themselves safe from outside aggression.
A key point here is outside aggression. It’s NOT outside aggression. It’s from within. Russia is a neighboring country, part of Europe, more so than UK in many ways. This “us” vs “them” is very much anglo-american thinking. Some “us” vs some other “us” is very much what Europe is all about. It has always been like that. The crazy part is that it doesn’t seem to end anytime soon.
Putin clearly see it the way it really is. The entire Europe has become henchmen for the USA. This is a big problem for Putin (only God knows why though), but it’s no problem for us, and it is no problem for the USA, except for Trump. But I mean, everything that is not Trump, is a problem for Trump. Pretty similar to Putin in that respect.
The problem with Europe is that it is not united, and never will be by the looks of it. Too many languages, too many cultures. We are just a bunch of tribes fighting each other.
Peter wrote:
We have no idea at all how Trump might have reacted. He was quite fond of Putin
Fond? Probably on the level of envying him for being an autocratic ruler. Other than that, ever heard of kompromitat? Google it. Pretty obvious.
In any case, @Silvaire, while I’m not a fan of the Biden administration, the one thing these guys get right, IMO, is the response to the Russian invasion. Europe and particularly Germany (and Italy and Austria) would just have looked the other way.
