The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.

It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.

French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.

archive

  • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    18 hours ago

    it would really be something else if they fought them off successfully and the united states looked like pussies and assholes

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They already do. US is currently the only country pushing for surrender (note, it’s not just Ukraine, peace plan forces stuff from US too, including industry help and money) while negotiating with terrorists. It will take a very long time for me to see US in the same light I used to. Imagine US surrendering to ISIS. Beyond humiliating.

    • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      it would really be something else if they fought them

      No it wouldn’t be. Germany is suggesting forced conscription already, and so is France. I don’t want to see young men thrown into the meat grinder to satisfy the imperial wishes of either Europe or Russia

      • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        you raise a good point, and to be honest i haven’t figured out what the morally correct answer to this is.

        • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          In my opinion, the morally correct answer is to have a mild relation with Russia, consisting of trade and not much more. Europe would get access to a huge pool of resources to boost its industry, and stopping to antagonize our neighboring countries would help to drive down military tensions in the continent.

          NATO was conceived as an anti-Soviet military pact, and any excuse for its usefulness expired after 1991. Now it’s just a military playground for US interests, keeping European money flowing to the Wunderwaffen of the USA Military Industrial Complex, and maintaining Yankee military bases in the continent.

            • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The way it was from the late 90s to the early 2010s: by allowing them to have their Russian sphere of influence (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan…) the same way US ans Germany enjoy their own.

                • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  I wish you had the same level of concern for Mexicans, Venezuelans, Argentinians, Guatemalans, Cubans, Hondurans and Puertorricans. As a western citizen you should be primarily concerned with the consequences on the sphere of influence of your country.