Russian invasion of Ukraine

roubaixtuesday said:
View attachment 147778
Click to expand...
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — In a win for Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, the United States on Monday failed to get the U.N. General Assembly to approve its resolution urging an end to the war without mentioning Moscow’s aggression. And the assembly approved a dueling European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding Russia immediately withdraw from Ukraine.

I’ve got a sinking feeling that Starmer will be able to shift Trump from his deal or no deal, blackmailing Ukraine
Macron visible drew back when Trump was speaking about “doing deals” Macron said we have provided 60% of loans and grants.
 
Last edited:
The European leaders have stood strong against the bullshit that Trump and Vance have spouted, and that Vance briefing to Europe would’ve got their backs up even more.
 
Ronnie the Rep said:
Europe does need to step up, no question. But if you don’t want to abide by agreements or treaties don’t sign them. If you do sign them you have to stick to them. USA signed up for NATO and is the only country to ever call in its services. Trump is now trying to rape ukraine of its resources and do a deal with Putin. He has no authority or mandate to negotiate so.

I suggest he stay in the US and keep feeding all you guys his bullshit and leave the rest of the world to live their lives
Click to expand...
We agree there, NATO has requirements about military investment and the likes of Germany, the Netherlands and Italy have ignored them for years. The idea that we need to foot the bill for Germany or Italy's security in perpetuity is ridiculous, particularly when there are still people walking around who fought them or lost family in the fight.

We're not pulling out of NATO but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to pull their weight. That's what they signed up for. The UK does despite its complicated fiscal picture. Poland does despite the fact its still recovering from communism. So where do these wealthy European nations get off?
 
117 M34 said:
Did the Afghanistan war reduce the risk of terrorism in Europe?
Click to expand...
Probably not. Did WWI reduce the risk of war in Europe? Clearly not, but the war was fought anyway. Nobody has a crystal ball.
 
WT86 said:
They remember, but Afghanistan was a minor thing compared to the ~375k Americans who died in Europe last century fighting insane European wars, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars spent rebuilding and protecting Europe after. Islamic terrorism was a threat to Europe as well, so the idea it was purely altruistic action by Europe doesn't bear scrutiny. The idea that we owe mainland Europe anything on balance doesn't pass the laugh test for most Americans.
Click to expand...

The US didn't enter WW2 to assist insane Europeans, it reversed it's isolationist policies that had previously left Europe to get on with the war, and entered it when it was directly attacked by an agressor nation and the axis forces declared war on the US. Even Pearl Harbour wasn't enough in and of itself, it was issues such as the likelihood that Japan would exit a successful SE Asia war with vast natural resources across a large swathe of Asia Pacific and massively inhibit US trade. Add in the fact that US shipping was already and would become increasingly vulnerable to German submarine warfare. Maybe the thing that ultimately tipped America's hand was the fact that the Germans had already made sufficient tactical mistakes to open up the possibility that, absent of US intervention, the existing allies could have defeated Nazi Germany albeit at much greater cost and more importantly from the US perspective with the outcome that the Soviet Union took control of much larger swathes of Europe. That US forces focused on Europe first was a tactical decision that suited both the US and UK. The US entry into the war undoubtedly reduced total casualties for a number of allied countries but American troops died defending American interests.
 
Last edited:
WT86 said:
We agree there, NATO has requirements about military investment and the likes of Germany, the Netherlands and Italy have ignored them for years. The idea that we need to foot the bill for Germany or Italy's security in perpetuity is ridiculous, particularly when there are still people walking around who fought them or lost family in the fight.

We're not pulling out of NATO but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to pull their weight. That's what they signed up for. The UK does despite its complicated fiscal picture. Poland does despite the fact its still recovering from communism. So where do these wealthy European nations get off?
Click to expand...
As I said, no problem about military spending but trump is acting like an old style robber baron demanding mineral rights and sucking up to Putin. Unfortunately, he can no longer be considered the leader of the free world. With him it’s USA and fuck everyone else
 
Ronnie the Rep said:
As I said, no problem about military spending but trump is acting like an old style robber baron demanding mineral rights and sucking up to Putin. Unfortunately, he can no longer be considered the leader of the free world. With him it’s USA and fuck everyone else
Click to expand...
They could sign the deal then go back on it in a few years anyway, Trump will hopefully be dead by then and Putin.
 
:) Trump said we contributed 1billion and Macron just said we contributed 130billion :)Macron contributed quite a few corrections to the lies in Trumps speech, even mentioned the cooperation we gave in Sudan also mentioned bucher sp?

Back on tarrifs
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top