Politics

mdwest said:

Read the second half of the article.. it lays out exactly what I have been saying..

the easier path is for Trump simply to not participate in NATO.. that kills what we know as NATO today... and he doesnt have to actually "leave"..

Click to expand...

deewayne2003 said:

Manhattan has a population of 1.6mil people and 30 gas stations ..... figure it out!

Click to expand...

RLD said:

I think the big unsolved question is how immediate the threat of Iran using nuclear weapons was, and if those weapons could reach the United States.

There is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and Iran is a signatory. A proven breech is supposed to be referred to the UN security council to be dealt with. That never happened, possibly because Iran would not allow proper inspections.

More broadly, every country has a right to defend itself against attack, or the immediate threat of attack. Your defense, though, like all military actions, has to be proportionate to the threat. If there was a court that heard these cases the Iranian lawyer would argue that a) they were not developing nuclear weapons, and b) those weapons were not close to being developed (ie they were a distant threat not an immediate one) and c) that those weapons were not capable of reaching the United States and thus were not a threat to U.S. at all, and d) the U.S. response was disproportionate. An American lawyer would more or less argue the opposite.

The truth is I don't know what the status of Iran's nuclear program was, I don't trust Trump to be honest and I don't trust Iran to be honest either. I do think, on an objective basis that killing the head of state and trying to wipe out their navy, air force, etc is well beyond what is needed to stop any nuclear threat that may have existed.

If you have the time there are some great books out there on the International Law of Armed Combat, some written by respected serving military men (ie practical rather than political) that can give you a good grounding in this stuff. But I warn you it is a rabbit hole that can eat up a lot of your time. It's a fascinating area, and a lot of it was just plain ol' made up to be used at Nuremberg to deal with the left over Nazis, a movement lead by the United States. Some aspects of it go back to the Lieber Code from President Lincoln. The United States deep investment and involvement in the creation of the law of war makes Trump's and the Breck Girl's (my nickname for Hegseth) lack of interest in it particularly unsettling for international observers like me.

Click to expand...

KJE81 said:

It’s possible I’m reading the chart incorrectly, but the way I interpret it is that one bar represents all U.S. assistance, another represents assistance from the EU as an institution (i.e., from the EU budget), and the remaining bars show assistance from other individual NATO/EU countries beyond what’s already included in the EU-level bar?

View attachment 756649

Ukraine bilateral aid allocations by country 2025| Statista

Since 2022, the U.S. has provided the most bilateral aid to Ukraine as of December 2025, followed by the EU institutions.

www.statista.com

Click to expand...

Doug Hamilton said:

Many Europeans suffer from TDS. Sad.

Click to expand...

steve white said:

EU had TDS in the first administration. I remember parades where they had Trump in whity-tighty undies as parade floats. I was surprised and a little insulted at the time.

Click to expand...

Pondoro said:

Russia has little to counter these fighters..their fighters are technologically obsolete.

Click to expand...

KJE81 said:

It’s possible I’m reading the chart incorrectly, but the way I interpret it is that one bar represents all U.S. assistance, another represents assistance from the EU as an institution (i.e., from the EU budget), and the remaining bars show assistance from other individual NATO/EU countries beyond what’s already included in the EU-level bar?

View attachment 756649

Ukraine bilateral aid allocations by country 2025| Statista

Since 2022, the U.S. has provided the most bilateral aid to Ukraine as of December 2025, followed by the EU institutions.

www.statista.com

Click to expand...

mark-hunter said:

You dont learn from recent history, dont you?
You are still imagining top gun dog fights?
"Goose, I am switching to guns now!" Sharp manouver and getting that mig at electronic crosshairs.

New war is fought differently
Ukraine had nothing to match Russian strategic bombers' - yet they hit them effectively on tarmac in their bases with drones. Ups.

You see Irans response, lately, hitting bases , with primitive missiles, and with slow moving drones, including hitting awacs? (first awacs ever destroyed by enemy, but also Ukranians managed to hit russian equivalent of awacs, same way with drones on tarmac in the base)

Russians I think can do the same with Oreshnik missile, having entire Europe and european bases in range.
The question is only how many they can produce, and how many they have already produced.

They dont need T-72 tanks.
In my opinion taking the tanks as a measuring stick of army capability is wrong. None of massive tank assaults was succesfull in recent war: Russian (with Russian tanks) nor Ukranian (with russian and western tanks)

The doctrine of mass tank assault, as like thousands of t55 tanks in assault across European steppe, is obsolete, and not effective in modern battle. New counter weapons emerged.

Ukraine and Iran war proved one more thing: there is no such thing as perfect air defense.
And bases are vulnerable and within range

I think its more complicated than what you were saying.

Click to expand...

Pondoro said:

What is perceived might happen if war brake out between Russia and NATO is that the russians will try to take and occupy the eastern part of Norway bordering Russia..to secure their bases on the Kola peninsula.. Their nuclear attack subs and boomers have their base in Poljarny..

To do that they need boots on the ground..not just missiles and drones. We just ordered missile artillery to counter such an attack..

They will certainly attack the harbour and railroad from Narvik into Sweden and Finland as this will be the logistic route to supply troops further inland.. Cold Response 2026 consentrated on rehearsing that scenario..

Click to expand...

Wheels said:

Just curious regarding the general feel of the population in Europe. With Russia bogged down in Ukraine and not strong enough to force a victory after four years. Are Europeans concerned that Russia is strong enough and want to establish a two front war by invading Western Europe.

Click to expand...

Mark A Ouellette said:

That is me thinking a few years ahead.
Iran clearly wants to control the Middle East if not the world.

Now, what would the world controlled by Iran be like? Can you say Sharia?

Click to expand...

Datchew said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039208590293315917

Very interesting account.
Perhaps we're going in to extract plutonium/ uranium and such.

Hard to read Trump, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

deewayne2003 said:

There are many ways to tell the truth and the screen shot of your graph is not one of them.

Your graph says that the "EU council" contributed 0 in military aid, while the USA contributed $65bil.

Further, per the numbers supplied by the article - the US provided $47bil in financial aid while the combined 27 nations of the EU contributed a combined $81bil...... so yes the US provided over 50% of the financial aid to a nation on the opposite side of the earth as did the EU.

The EU provided $2.85bil in humanitarian aid while the US provided $3.42bil or 20% more than all of the EU combined!

Click to expand...

Wheels said:

Decent short article regarding Iran nuclear program compared to North Korea.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039299981408927975

Click to expand...