Donald Trump’s declaration at the NATO summit that the U.S. had returned to war with Iran didn’t lead to the usual gasping allies or perplexed officials.
If anything, it cemented Europe’s increasing reliance on itself.
As motorcades sped out of Ankara’s presidential place and down the barricaded streets ringing the Turkish capital on Wednesday, a half-dozen European officials said the ceasefire’s end only stiffened their resolve to be less dependent on the American militarily and stand alone.
“After seeing what’s happening in Iran and Ukraine, we first of all, have to build our own military might, and then everybody will respect us: Americans, Russians, Iranians or Chinese,” said a European official. “The more muscles you have, the less political anger you show.”
Um, I was assured this war was over. Or have we always been at war with
Eurasi… Iran?“The more muscles you have, the less political anger you show.”
lockheed martin happy
For now perhaps. If USA doesn’t change its policy after Trump it will start losing European customers.
Already happening. I might take a decade, but american military companies are fucked. Trust is broken permanently
This is crap. Most countries in Europe are vassals of the US Empire. NATO was designed this way specifically.
When European kick US troops out and shut down their hundreds of bases I’ll believe it. Until then its just hot air.
After seeing what’s happening in Iran and Ukraine, we first of all, have to build our own military might, and then everybody will respect us
I can’t… this is more than braindead. I’m sure all your enemies have so much respect. No one is definitely afraid to attack you/hit you back. I’m from Baltics and I’ve already accepted the fact that I might have to fight Russians. I don’t understand the logic of respecting someone who is coming to attack you. I have vast respect towards Canada tho. They never threaten us, they (we) have always acted friendly. That’s respectable. I would not hesitate to help a Canadian. I would not hesitate to kill an invading Russian, no matter how much more powerful they are.
That’s not the same type of respect
Respect might not be the most suitable word for this. But enemy being afraid to hit you if you have a big enough stick does work. Nuclear weapons have been the best peacekeepers since the invention of those. Being part of NATO is probably the one and only reason why russia attacked Ukraine instead of Baltics.
And when the attack happens, it’s good to have a functional military industrial complex at our back supporting us instead of becoming forest brothers again.
It’s the right word but in this context it means “take seriously,” not “have esteem or admiration for.”
I’ve always believed that fear does not equal respect. I know bullies think differently, but obedience is self-preservation, not respect for others, basically implying self-respect.
This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. This kind of mentality allowed two world wars to happen. Stop looking at geopolitics like if it was a football game. It’s not the politicians dragging us into war, it’s common people giving for assumed war is inevitable. You all will be the world’s distruction once again. It’s really insane how humans have the tendency to repeat history despite having knowledge of it.
I don’t agree, regardless, doing the opposite is what got us in the Ukraine war. Well, that, and Russia being in control of the US government off course
I kind of disagree. Imagine what would happen in WW 2 if the allied forces didn’t have the combined strength to fight a war? The appeasement of Germanys demands didn’t yield peace nor did it protect jews or other minorities. It takes at least two to start a war, but only one to start an invasion, mass murders, genocide.
While yes, if all militaries where abandoned and no one would be willing to fight, we could have peace. But look at the world today or any other time in history and tell me about a time when there wasn’t a single aggressor in the world.
War is inevitable when there is one lunatic in the world which enough followers.
I have to believe there has to be a better way to avoid wars than an arms race.
IIRC correctly both world wars were preceded by a phase where countries invested in armaments after seeing their neighbors doing the same. And at some point you’re gonna want to use all those weapons you paid for. It’s the proverbial powder keg waiting for a spark.
Instead I’d very much prefer to have a diplomatic solution, where the response to a military buildup is not more military.
We have seen what sanctions are doing to Russia right now, and the full effect of those will be probably felt for years to come regardless of the outcome of that war. Now imagine it was normal to do that not after the war started, but as soon as a country starts to prepare for one. I bet that would make leaders think twice about it.
Yeah, the arms enable the size of the conflict, but it it was just tribes, sticks and stones, the conflict would’ve started. The keg not just the weapons, it was a collective mindset. The lack of cooperation in a very densely populated area and the spark were enough for a conflict. Kids wanted to join the war before they finished school. How fucked up is that?! You see this kind of conflicts whereever you look in the animal kingdom. Humans are an exception because their conflicts are often much more violent in comparison to other mamals. Should we strive for something better? Absolutely. But rolling on the back because we’re peasefull doesn’t help distributing more cooperative and peacefull mindset. I know this is a bit of bender talk. “They must learn of our peacefull ways. By force!”. Yet, I encourage everyone to be able to defend according to a realistic threat. Trans people and POC in the US should get their AR15s, the EU should get air defense, artillery, drones. That doesn’t mean I want anybody to shoot someone.
The sanctions have not stopped Russia from fighting the war. It is clearly not enough to just sanction a country. Especially with the world splitting into different blocks right now and China and somewhat the US liking countries like Russia. So strong sanctions are no longer a viable option for everything. Similar story with Iran btw.
Also arms races have ended peacefully. The Cold War certainly did. The trick here is to still have the credibility to be able to defend yourself. Having a strong military is part of that.
The sanctions didn’t stop Russia, and the Maginot Line didn’t stop Germany. No system is perfect, but I prefer not to have countries invest in weapons if possible.
You could argue that nuclear weapons managed to deter a third world war, but they also created a very tangible risk of wiping out humanity. I’m not sure I like that trade-off.
Finally, keep in mind that the full effect of the sanctions hasn’t manifested yet. It’ll be a long, long time before Russia recovers from this war, and it’ll be a reminder for all wannabe warmongers of the consequences of invading another countries for quite a while.
the Maginot Line didn’t stop Germany.
France declared war on Germany, after Germany invaded Poland. In that sense the Maginot line actually worked to deter Germany from invading France.
So what’s the end goal? Start a war to stop a war? Arms race have very often ended with war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union disintegrated from the inside, using it as an example of a “succesful” rearming race feels intellectually dishonest, especially when we have countless of examples of arms race ending in war.
The goal is to show the other side that you are willing to fight and at best a war is impossible to win for them. The issue here is that just saying it does not work, you have to pay for it, so the other sides believes it.
In this case Russia has proven they willing to go to war. They also have a fairly large military and have repeatedly threatened other European countries. So they need to show that they are willing to fight Russia. The big issue is that the US, who has a stronger military than Russia and has made claims they would not protect European allies. So they need to show that they have both the means and will to defend themself. Hence more military spending, moving soldiers closer to Russia and so forth.
The ideal outcome would be Russia collapsing again or a deal, where both sides agree to reduce their military. However it has to be both sides.
Exactly. We know very well that 1st world war started because europe was in full rearming, but some powers felt that war was inevitable and was better to do it sooner than later.
This is a bit naive. War and conflicts are way more complicatee than “one lunatic in the world”. Conflicts have always a reason. We can agree with it or not, but believing it’s all caused by one monster leader that it’s followed blindly by the people is just a very common propaganda point, which has been used for the last >2000 years and in basically every conflict we knoe about. One of the main reason armed conflicts happen is because each side feels the other one is rearming. This becomes a circle and a spiral that it’s hard to stop, especially when the arms industry has such ppwerful lobbies.
“If you want peace prepare war” right? Now let’s look how many years of peace the romans had in their entire history thanks to this doctrine.
Well, yeah, one lunatic may be a bit short here, but the principal stands, that it doesn’t need rearmment for someone to want what the others have. I think the argument for starting a war is often “the others are a thread to our way of living” which results in violence. This thread m ay or may not be objectively true, depending on the conflict. But was Iran a thread for the US? Or a family in Lebanon a thread to Israel? Some jews to Germany? Some dude liking other dudes a threat to my sexual preference? Someone else identity, religion a threat to mine? Kid slayed in Bucha a threat to a Russian soldier? Objectively, I would say, no. But yet, these subjective threads result in violence and the question stands, would I recommend someone who would otherwise become a victim recommend to prepare? And to that, I’d answer yes. Is the current war on Ukrainian territory just, and Russia in the right? And if so, where does their right to invade Ukraine end exactly? Because often enough the goal post in violent conflicts is moved when the “loosing party” makes concessions. The world wars both ended, not because Germany said “well this is enough for us” but because they where defeated in the battlefield. Do nations generally use their military just for defense? Unfortunately, no.
it doesn’t need rearmment for someone to want what the others have.
I guess you mean military power here. How do you achieve that without rearming?
who would otherwise become a victim
This is the assumption that i’m challenging. Obviously, to make people accept spending billions in rearming there must be the threat of becoming a victim dangling above our head, hence the constant scaremongering about Russia attacking a NATO country any moment. Before were the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea… at moments it’s China, sometimes it’s Iran. There is constantly an enemy to defend from, which justifies military spending.
And to that, I’d answer yes
And this scared instinctive reaction, which ignores any other factor that isn’t pure and irrational fear (pumped and justified by the state apparatus of every single NATO country) is how the weapons industry is laughing their way to the bank, while we leave in fear because of yet another enemy at the doors.
Yes it is dangerous, but at the same time it’s kinda short-sighted or maybe even delusional not to prepare for an invasion from a country that has time and time again claimed to want to invade you, not even acknowledge that you should exist and even has multiple times gone through with the threats towards other countries.
Though there are good examples of how this process can be halted. Like EU, up until ww2, war was the norm between different nations in Europe. Only after ww2 most countries in Europe started to go through the trust building process to avoid war and European Union was created. Russia hasn’t gone through that process, the opposite even. Time and time again it has proven it can’t be trusted.
What you are saying is misleading from many pojnts of view:
- Russia never stated they want to invade europe, quite the opposite. You can think they are lieing, and that’s an opinion,but who is saying that Russia will invade europe any moment is mostly the EU. We have reports from the secret services of Poland, the US and other european countries that sat Russia is definitely not preparing an invasion. These reports are vert underreported in western media, but they are easy to find in specialized media.
- your second statement is false. The concept of “never again” related to wars came out after WWI, not the 2. Seems a small detail, but it’s not. Also, the european union is not a political entity, but purely commercial. The political part was never really developed (despite the promises). In fact the articles of reciprocal defense are very weak.
- while the trust in Russia is subjective and i can even agree with you, it’s a much weaker point when your main security partner is the US… Also, you don’t need to trust Russia to understand that they will not attack NATO, it’s enough to take a break from the very partisan info bombardement we receivr every day and look at the geopolitics and geoeconomics.
The alternative if somebody attacks you is to surrender and/or be defeated.
And usually the losers have to repay the legit war, so your life is going to chango to the worse by a a lot…
War is not a video game or a movie. You are banalizing an extremely complex subject.
didnt someone big at NATO threaten Iran alongisde trump
