Nothing black pills me more than reading the comments of warmongering libs of Lemmy. If you're arguing for doubling Germany's military, you should be required to wear a red armband.
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
38 points (97.5% liked)
World News
33405 readers
1010 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I loathe the idea of agreeing with Trump and friends, but I do think he is right in pushing for Europe to be more self reliant and battle ready. I distinctly remember Obama pushing Europe to increase defense spending and he got some pledges but I don't think they bore much fruit. Trump's harder stance may have and might be forcing Europe to step up a bit more. Even if so, he still could have handled the whole situation a bit better. Less public belittling and NATO bashing, for example, even if he and this representatives are taking a harder stance behind the scenes.
The US wants Europe to buy more American weapons to fuel their military industrial complex.
NATO is picking fights and bombing half the world and then starts whining that they are losing their colonial superpower status when people fight back.
If Europe re-arms, why the fuck would it need the US and why the fuck would it still be a slave to the dollar when IT could have the world reserve currency? The entire basis of transatlanticism is that the yanks hold the sticks so none of the leaders in Europe gets funny ideas like in the early 20th century.
How world leaders can be so mundane and pathetic as a rando at the local bodega is one of history's greatest mysteries. What happened to all of the competent people that we're left with absolute scrotum skin flakes of politicians.
Absolutely agree, I think what Trump and his henchmen are doing will ultimately be good for the EU, whether that's their intention or not. (I think it's not btw.) What he seems to completely ignore is that it undermines their influence.
If Europe now bets on it's own chips, military tech and strength, currency, etc., this means the US loose economic and geopolitical weight. And on top of that, the perception of the US as an unwavering ally is lost. The US are now perceived more and more hostile. This means he can expect more opposition from the EU when he tries to do whatever random shit he comes up with.
He's so incredibly arrogant, he thinks everyone is so dependent on the US that they can't refuse them anything, now and forever. I'm not sure I'd want to take that bet while I don't have to.
I mean, if Europe doesn't need the USA, that's good for them? Like, congrats?
The reserve currency is a tricky thing and will likely hurt the USA in the long run. If nothing else, America won't be able to export its inflation.
But if that leads to more options for international trade, it's possible that the world as a whole benefits.
Tell me, in the history of the human race, when has someone with the biggest stick not use it when its vassals step out of line. People think the US is different than Russia. It isn't, it just has better PR.
Sure. And that reinforces my point, better for Europe to have its own stick.
Beyond which, amid AI, aging populations, global warming, blah blah, many countries are going to face serious internal challenges. At least for the USA, the pressure will make the global hegemony harder to sustain. Amid surging debt, it's not hard to envision a world where the USA literally can't afford to shield Europe. Get saner minds than Trump leading the USA, and it may be possible to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial relationship of peers.
The world will be a lot safer if we all have big sticks we can use to hit each other with.
I mean yeah, it can work exactly that way. The Cold War was horrifically bloody in many countries and regions, but the USA and USSR directly slugging it out would have bathed the world in much more blood. Likewise, the Soviets and China going at it in a full scale war after the Soviet-Sino split would have been horrific.
It's a high risk strategy but not one without rewards.
In that instance there were only two guys with sticks, if I understood you correctly you want to add another stick to the mix.
There were three guys with sticks. China couldn't project power far but Soviet-Sino relations were strained and the risk of war was high because they share borders.
I'd love for there to be a world with no sticks period but humanity is a long way from that. Europe becoming the forth guy with a stick could force everyone else, and especially Russia, to be more cautious. And if it comes to blows, the EU/UK are gonna want to have that stick.
If you're EU/UK and multiple parties are around you with big sticks, would you rather be defenseless or have a stick?
I see myself as a pacifist.
Hopefully we reach a war-free era in the not so distant future and humanity prospers.
Every one entering into a new stick race won’t get us there any quicker sadly. Stick sellers on the other hand look forward to a bright and prosperous future.
True, sticks won't bring about world peace on their own. Might save Europe from getting whacked for now.
I think more sticks in a time of climate collapse is a recipe for disaster. I’d prefer to see our governments commit to pumping co2 out of the atmosphere instead of enriching the local stick merchant.
.world users are never gonna beat the dr strangelove allegations
