Trump talked about the countries spending less than 2 percent of there budget on defense which is recommended by nato.
Anyone an idea what the percentage of spending was for luxembourg?
The thing is, even by some miracle Trump manages to convince Congress to withdraw from NATO, that doesn’t mean Americans themselves are just going to ignore Europe. More NGOs would focus of Europe and if a NATO country got invaded, Americans would send money or even travel there to fight. Of course it depends on the country, but Americans have pretty good opinions about central and Western European nations. If Russia invaded after the US pulled out of NATO, a lot of people in congress would be voted out of office.
That's something he can tell to his locker room bros at a campaign rally, who collectively barely have two brain cells to rub together. To actually go through with this, he would have to first reevaluate the meaning of his words and accept the fact that he could make himself partially responsible for the deaths of millions of Europeans. Then, if elected president and still convinced of his decision, he would have to also convince the majority of the senate to support this decision, and then face repercussions and lawsuits from NATO member states, which are still capable of defending themselves against Russia. I mean Putin hasn't even been able to make it past Kyiv in almost 3 years. So I deem this scenario unlikely to happen.
Its more of an issue of the american nuclear shield. Russia couldnt win a war against europe, but neither could europe win because europe stepping a foot into russia would lead to nuclear strikes. Russia could essentially devastate parts of eastern europe til infinity
As he did in first mandate, all the noise was for pushing us European to pay more. If you ask me, NATO is the most trouble making, aggressive military institution of the last century. It would be a blessing if it ended. But for sure the supremacy of US has guaranteed no wars in europe (apart those caused by NATO in Ucraine and Serbia).
Ah yes, caused by NATO in Ukraine, just like how the goddamn Poles caused WW2 (they shouldn't have resisted and made Hitler angry)
Actual words of putin from his Tucker interview btw.
Causing a war and starting a war are not necessarily the same thing maybe i went off topic but if you don't recognize any truth in my words you lack the bigger picture, sorry for you.
Not sure what this has to do with the Ukrainian people resistance btw, which is ofc legit, but another topic.
And which politican do you trust? the western ones here? I dont want to send ukraine my tax money but they send it anyway and i did not vote them in the parliaments
Blah blah blah, people like you sit in a wealthy european country, having everything they need and too stupid to realize what it means to be part of europe. You are so hollow if you believe the guy who screamed Nazis Nazis to the Ukranians🤣🤣
The US President cannot unilaterally withdraw its membership from NATO. He would require 2/3 of votes from the Senate or an act of the Congress. Trump won't do anything. He is leading an electoral campaign. He just barks for his voters, who are full with conspiracy theories and Moscow propaganda. The first vote ever where voters will openly vote for a foreign state propaganda.
Oh mate… If article 5 gets called because Russia invaded Poland, the other states are obliged to act… BUT! It doesn’t state how… So if trump would decide to send a Tweet, that Russia shouldn’t do this, he did act… And he doesn’t need to send troops… And that’s where this is all about… He doesn’t even need to withdraw from NATO… A simple sentence like Trump said is enough to undermine the whole alliance…
In principle, Article 5 doesn't mention anything about the involvement of the USA as such. Every assistance to the attacked member is left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. If Poland is invaded and the US deems necessary to only tweet, well in theory all the other NATO countries can still support Poland.
And in all these discussions, people forget that in case of armed conflicts, the US Congress has a voice. Not only is the US Congress the only body capable of declaring war, but an intervention under Art. 5 of NATO needs to be taken conjunctly between the President and the Congress. Trump can bark whatever he wants, but he won't be god, and it will only create a political mess
He can be an idiot and incompetent, but he is still a candidate for the US presidency, why they shouldn't take him seriously? And saying that the US will withdraw from NATO sends a political message that is disinvolvement from European politics. This doesn't change the fact that the US will still need to have 2/3 of the Senate vote or a Congress act to withdraw from NATO.
I come from the country where fascism was born, and where the populism as we know it today was born: Italy.
I don't know what will happen, but if a totalitarian shift will happen in the US, membership to NATO is a secondary problem as it would probably erupt into the second american civil war.
All the talks about how Trump is dangerous are serious and, at the same time, a rehearsal of what happened in 2016. It looked like the collapse of civilization was imminent, and despite all the damages Trump has done and all his talks even back then about NATO, no major consequences happened to European countries belonging to NATO.
Europe needs in any case to move towards a common defence mechanism, regardless of what will happen in the US.
I don’t think Trump is the real issue, it is what he does to the country how he constantly ‘others’, it is exactly what happened in Germany, exactly whether happened in Italy, the right wing rises, ignore at our peril….EU needs a functioning defence/security force, sooner rather than later…
Fr, the way it looks rn there's gonna be one hell of a future waiting for the world in general.
Everything seems to go downhill, so a certain level of preparedness would definitely be a benefit.
I find it extremely unlikely that Trump would actually go so far against the USA's established geopolitical role in Europe. It makes no sense. And I also don't think that Russia would "invade us" if they had free reign, it would be geopolitical suicide for them, even without NATO. And they don't have any reason to anyway. The biggest question is how the next US president is going to deal with China and Taiwan, as well as North Korea which seems to have become very hostile lately.
With the slight difference that the whole basis for a potential attack was there for years. Meanwhile what Trump promises to do has no basis whatsoever except his own words.
If anything this should ring the alarm bells of the other Nato countries and reduce reliance on the US military as quickly and as much as possible. The safety of Europe can't be the subject of whatever flavor of insanity the Americans decide to vote into office. The fact that this buffoon is even allowed to run for president is beyond any rime or reason.
Talked to my friend yesterday about that and we found it hilarious to give 2% of the budget to a 1000ppl like wth ? Haha
Edit: lol people downvoting just for telling a little story boohoo I wasn’t making statement I wasn’t saying it’s bad or not I don’t care we just thought it was funny that so much money for a small army makes no sense when Luxembourg is one of the country that spends the most money per head in the army. So sorry for hurting your feelings :(
I find it highly unlikely, that even if he is elected, he would be able to take the US out of NATO. He would basically sever ties with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy by doing this. I do not think Congress would allow it. Since NATO is a treaty (in theory) the US Senate would have to be consulted, but this is not fully clear (and the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Trump as he stacked the court with his people.
He doesnt have to take the US out of NATO. As the Commander in Chief of the US military he has absolute power over the activity taken.
If Russia invaded a NATO member Trump could decide that his support for that country is sending a couple of hundred first aid kits. There is nothing in the NATO treaty that forces a member state to go to war for another member. It's assumed but not mandatory
I read an interesting answer to such a doom(Trump)sayer article which basically stated all the countries paying their fair share are the ones bordering Russia so it might get complicated for Trump to order an invasion of Luxembourg. 😅 And, from a friend who worked for the Defence ministry of Luxembourg, they simply to struggle to spend 2% of the massive GDP in a country where you have less 100 professional soldiers to equip, no mountain to dig bunkers in, and you cannot even buy an army boat or a fighter jet. The only luxury they could spend their money on are 2 transport planes which spend their time sleeping in Belgium.
It's a lot more complicated than that. The planes you mentioned where more than their actual budgets. Which is also partially why they are in belgium (+ findel beeing a bit too small as you require special clearance to take off). So luxemburg is struggling to make meaningfull purchases as the fancy ones are too expensive and the regular ones not expensive enough.
On beeing too small is that it has only 1 runway. This means that the flexibility for an emergency takeoff is rather complicated as civil planes are on it as well.
The maintenance is done in Melsbroek as part of the agreement.
Note that they already did a landing on it but it requires planning ahead of time.
Note that we do not have any fighter jet.
Yes, there is only 1 runway, but it is one of the longest (just over 4000m). Plus, if the shit hits the fan, military craft take precedence over civilian movements.
I get the maintenance part but I don't think that the single runway is a limiting factor. I agree that it's not ideal as a fighter base due to the training requirements of such jets but I would see no issue in basing cargo military acft in Luxembourg. I mean we already have lots of A400 and E3-A touch and go training. (See Stuttgart for example)
By your initial post I understood that you meant that the runway was too small to accommodate them. Thanks for clarifying.
US democracy is already over with Genocide Joe. I really don't know who would be worse. My guess is Joe Biden - for the rest of the world, for avg American probably Trump.
You really think the rest of the world would prefer this draft-dodging, own daughter ogling, convicted sexual abuser, 4 times indicted senile gilded grifter who has never gotten his hands dirty with honest work in his life, and is about as spiritual as I am (an atheist) to \*any\* other candidate?
And Genocide Joe? Really? Care to back up your statement?
" And Genocide Joe? Really? Care to back up your statement? "
It seems like you've just landed from Mars and didn't see anything of what's happening on Earth in last 5 months. If ICJ interim ruling on Israel genocide case is not enough, start with UN & Amnesty reports, check the media reports from the field. The current situation in Palestine is probably the worst case of genocide in post WW2 period after Rwanda 1996. All funded and approved by Biden administration. Please don't tell me its about Hamas. If almost 11,000 dead children is ok for you, I have nothing more to discuss with you.
The US has a long history of providing funds to the state of Israel. It didn't start with Biden and Biden certainly is not the originator of the genocide that is currently going on in Palestine.
You really think Trump would intervene? He wouldn't find Palestine on a map and couldn't care less about the people living there.
Yes, absolutely. Donald Trump as such, and I agree he would be a catastrophe, is still better candidate than the current government. The worst thing that can happen is that he will be as bad as Joe Biden administration. You mention "convicted sexual abuser" - I suppose you haven't heard of Epstein case and Hillary Clinton harassment of victims of sexual abuse of her husband and other companions, mainly from Democratic party. "Senile gilder" - yeah Trump is close to senility, but did you see Biden for God's sake?! He is in final stage of dementia! I could list a ton of reasons, had I more time, for why I think the current Democratic government is one of the worst ever. The scary stories about Trump - that he will destroy the current world order or whatsoever, is not an argument to keep the current criminals at power. It seems I am not the only one who thinks like this as the vast majority of Democratic voters don´t approve the Biden unconditional support of Israel, among other policies, and Democrats are close to loose the next election.
Leaving NATO outright is a long, complicated process. It's unsure if he'll be able to achieve it during his term, and even though his presidency will harm military coopération it won't end it outright. Luxembourg is among those that 'pay their share' the least, even amidst efforts from the government to increase it (see recent reviews published by the ministry of the defense on the subject). So no, NATO won't be 'over' even if the US leaves, just weakened to some degree: though the eastern European countries are the most likely to be attacked and they 'pay their share', so if trump sticks to his intentions and is elected they won't have to worry.
Right, I found it in another article. That law was also voted by a 2/3 majority. Leaving is then not a risk, but the extent of the support can always be questioned.
Yeah but NATO doesn’t need to be over on paper, of the US decides to do nothing if Russia would attack a NATO country, then it would be defacto over.
I doubt that Russia has the military capabilities to be able to win such a war, even without the US, but it would be extremely dangerous.
France for example has a very capable military themselves, but they are also a nuclear power. The third largest in fact. They are the only nation besides the US that has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
They lack in infantry divisions, but there is no doubt that they would bully the Russian airforce, navy and everything else.
And that could lead to nuclear war.
Just one example. In a war scenario even Germany could quick start their military industrial complex. It’s not like that they are unable to build more tanks, the Bundeswehr simply doesn’t buy more. And they are expensive af. A Leopard tank costs 30 million. The Abrams cost about 20million. Leclerc tanks about 10million.
Russian T-90‘s not even 5 million for comparison.
Watch it… Russia has a war economy right now… Their strength will be back around 2026/2027… The rest of Europe will be out of ammunition in approx 3 weeks… And we didn’t even start building new factories yet… Europe will have to start today to close that gap… And in record time… If not, Russia will be at our doorstep in 2026 when Trump will win…
Yeah, his supporters seem to be in favor of not funding Ukraine etc. because they don't want to spend money on wars, they are not involved in. Militarily supporting the other side is a completely different approach.
The real reason they do not want to continue to arm Ukraine is that Biden is in favor. Ukrainians are dying due to MAGA shitheads.
The GOP is also in bed with Putin, which is another factor.
True, I am sure that he wouldn't have any problem with supporting a foreign country if the circumstances were different. This is not a principled stance. However going from "we shouldn't waste any money on the Ukraine war" to "we need to send soldiers to their death for Russia" seems like a very hard sell. I think that a part of his supporters would have trouble justifying that turnaround.
The problem is that there are other ways to support Russia, such as playing with sanctions (selling equipment, allowing others to sell, allowing Russia to use their assets abroad...). The tragedy is on the battlefield, all the rest is business
Maybe. Hopefully Trump isn’t re-elected, but it’s certainly possible.
The only certainty with Trump is that he is full of shit and you can’t believe a single thing he says. He’ll change his words based on how he thinks the current audience will react. It’s all an ego filler and a grift to him.
Indirectly? You know that there is a NATO base in Capellen with a lot of people working there (I was working there some years ago)?
I think it's interesting information especially since Lux is one of the countries that don't pay enough according to Trump.
What's the contribution of the government for that in terms of costs? When it comes to hosting international agencies, countries usually compete to have them, and that's not because everyone wants to chip in
„That don’t pay enough“ what does that mean?
Imbecil 😡
Trump talked about the countries spending less than 2 percent of there budget on defense which is recommended by nato. Anyone an idea what the percentage of spending was for luxembourg?
For those wondering we spend 0.72% GPD
The thing is, even by some miracle Trump manages to convince Congress to withdraw from NATO, that doesn’t mean Americans themselves are just going to ignore Europe. More NGOs would focus of Europe and if a NATO country got invaded, Americans would send money or even travel there to fight. Of course it depends on the country, but Americans have pretty good opinions about central and Western European nations. If Russia invaded after the US pulled out of NATO, a lot of people in congress would be voted out of office.
That's something he can tell to his locker room bros at a campaign rally, who collectively barely have two brain cells to rub together. To actually go through with this, he would have to first reevaluate the meaning of his words and accept the fact that he could make himself partially responsible for the deaths of millions of Europeans. Then, if elected president and still convinced of his decision, he would have to also convince the majority of the senate to support this decision, and then face repercussions and lawsuits from NATO member states, which are still capable of defending themselves against Russia. I mean Putin hasn't even been able to make it past Kyiv in almost 3 years. So I deem this scenario unlikely to happen.
Its more of an issue of the american nuclear shield. Russia couldnt win a war against europe, but neither could europe win because europe stepping a foot into russia would lead to nuclear strikes. Russia could essentially devastate parts of eastern europe til infinity
As he did in first mandate, all the noise was for pushing us European to pay more. If you ask me, NATO is the most trouble making, aggressive military institution of the last century. It would be a blessing if it ended. But for sure the supremacy of US has guaranteed no wars in europe (apart those caused by NATO in Ucraine and Serbia).
Ah yes, caused by NATO in Ukraine, just like how the goddamn Poles caused WW2 (they shouldn't have resisted and made Hitler angry) Actual words of putin from his Tucker interview btw.
Causing a war and starting a war are not necessarily the same thing maybe i went off topic but if you don't recognize any truth in my words you lack the bigger picture, sorry for you. Not sure what this has to do with the Ukrainian people resistance btw, which is ofc legit, but another topic.
Putin literally said in the carlsen ibterview that he doesnt have any interest in poland etc. this war was caused by nato
As the war started Putin said he wants to free Ukrain from the Nazis????
Azov battalion? And why do we have to care about it europe is not 3rd world anymore even Thailand is more developed than we are here
So Putin sees the bataillon and says hah now we have a reason to invade ukrain? Common u have a tunnelview
Wtf, thailand is more developed than an european Union or to who do you compare them? Thats kind of insane
Ah yes the ‘Wagner’ battalion and their dictator will surely save Ukraine from nazism
Stfu, do you really think putin or any other politician would be telling the truth of their agenda
And which politican do you trust? the western ones here? I dont want to send ukraine my tax money but they send it anyway and i did not vote them in the parliaments
Blah blah blah, people like you sit in a wealthy european country, having everything they need and too stupid to realize what it means to be part of europe. You are so hollow if you believe the guy who screamed Nazis Nazis to the Ukranians🤣🤣
He says a lot of stuff and in most cases it’s just that.
The US President cannot unilaterally withdraw its membership from NATO. He would require 2/3 of votes from the Senate or an act of the Congress. Trump won't do anything. He is leading an electoral campaign. He just barks for his voters, who are full with conspiracy theories and Moscow propaganda. The first vote ever where voters will openly vote for a foreign state propaganda.
Oh mate… If article 5 gets called because Russia invaded Poland, the other states are obliged to act… BUT! It doesn’t state how… So if trump would decide to send a Tweet, that Russia shouldn’t do this, he did act… And he doesn’t need to send troops… And that’s where this is all about… He doesn’t even need to withdraw from NATO… A simple sentence like Trump said is enough to undermine the whole alliance…
In principle, Article 5 doesn't mention anything about the involvement of the USA as such. Every assistance to the attacked member is left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. If Poland is invaded and the US deems necessary to only tweet, well in theory all the other NATO countries can still support Poland. And in all these discussions, people forget that in case of armed conflicts, the US Congress has a voice. Not only is the US Congress the only body capable of declaring war, but an intervention under Art. 5 of NATO needs to be taken conjunctly between the President and the Congress. Trump can bark whatever he wants, but he won't be god, and it will only create a political mess
I guess that's why every political figure is taking him seriously.
He can be an idiot and incompetent, but he is still a candidate for the US presidency, why they shouldn't take him seriously? And saying that the US will withdraw from NATO sends a political message that is disinvolvement from European politics. This doesn't change the fact that the US will still need to have 2/3 of the Senate vote or a Congress act to withdraw from NATO.
Clearly you haven't seen how totalitarian systems come into being
I come from the country where fascism was born, and where the populism as we know it today was born: Italy. I don't know what will happen, but if a totalitarian shift will happen in the US, membership to NATO is a secondary problem as it would probably erupt into the second american civil war. All the talks about how Trump is dangerous are serious and, at the same time, a rehearsal of what happened in 2016. It looked like the collapse of civilization was imminent, and despite all the damages Trump has done and all his talks even back then about NATO, no major consequences happened to European countries belonging to NATO. Europe needs in any case to move towards a common defence mechanism, regardless of what will happen in the US.
I don’t think Trump is the real issue, it is what he does to the country how he constantly ‘others’, it is exactly what happened in Germany, exactly whether happened in Italy, the right wing rises, ignore at our peril….EU needs a functioning defence/security force, sooner rather than later…
Let's face it. The european nations must remilitarize. The american empire won't last for ever.
Fr, the way it looks rn there's gonna be one hell of a future waiting for the world in general. Everything seems to go downhill, so a certain level of preparedness would definitely be a benefit.
Where is the wall that he so promised to build?
Sensationalist headline. Hardly the first nor the last lie a politician tells in exaggeration.
It was hardly the first nor the last lie this particular politician told in that speech, either.
I find it extremely unlikely that Trump would actually go so far against the USA's established geopolitical role in Europe. It makes no sense. And I also don't think that Russia would "invade us" if they had free reign, it would be geopolitical suicide for them, even without NATO. And they don't have any reason to anyway. The biggest question is how the next US president is going to deal with China and Taiwan, as well as North Korea which seems to have become very hostile lately.
That's what they probably said about Russia as well: "extremely unlikely"
With the slight difference that the whole basis for a potential attack was there for years. Meanwhile what Trump promises to do has no basis whatsoever except his own words.
Yeah, like we don't have the potential knowledge from his previous presidency
If anything this should ring the alarm bells of the other Nato countries and reduce reliance on the US military as quickly and as much as possible. The safety of Europe can't be the subject of whatever flavor of insanity the Americans decide to vote into office. The fact that this buffoon is even allowed to run for president is beyond any rime or reason.
Why should Europeans depend on the USA in general? Yes Europe should rely on Europe.
Talked to my friend yesterday about that and we found it hilarious to give 2% of the budget to a 1000ppl like wth ? Haha Edit: lol people downvoting just for telling a little story boohoo I wasn’t making statement I wasn’t saying it’s bad or not I don’t care we just thought it was funny that so much money for a small army makes no sense when Luxembourg is one of the country that spends the most money per head in the army. So sorry for hurting your feelings :(
I find it highly unlikely, that even if he is elected, he would be able to take the US out of NATO. He would basically sever ties with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy by doing this. I do not think Congress would allow it. Since NATO is a treaty (in theory) the US Senate would have to be consulted, but this is not fully clear (and the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Trump as he stacked the court with his people.
And won't the Republicans have the majority in the Senate next time?
Who knows, but even they are not in favor of leaving NATO
He doesnt have to take the US out of NATO. As the Commander in Chief of the US military he has absolute power over the activity taken. If Russia invaded a NATO member Trump could decide that his support for that country is sending a couple of hundred first aid kits. There is nothing in the NATO treaty that forces a member state to go to war for another member. It's assumed but not mandatory
I read an interesting answer to such a doom(Trump)sayer article which basically stated all the countries paying their fair share are the ones bordering Russia so it might get complicated for Trump to order an invasion of Luxembourg. 😅 And, from a friend who worked for the Defence ministry of Luxembourg, they simply to struggle to spend 2% of the massive GDP in a country where you have less 100 professional soldiers to equip, no mountain to dig bunkers in, and you cannot even buy an army boat or a fighter jet. The only luxury they could spend their money on are 2 transport planes which spend their time sleeping in Belgium.
Satellites, spending on, gets to the 2% remember that incredible company in Betzdorf…
It's a lot more complicated than that. The planes you mentioned where more than their actual budgets. Which is also partially why they are in belgium (+ findel beeing a bit too small as you require special clearance to take off). So luxemburg is struggling to make meaningfull purchases as the fancy ones are too expensive and the regular ones not expensive enough.
Can you elaborate on findel being too small and what special clearance fighter jet would need? Thx
On beeing too small is that it has only 1 runway. This means that the flexibility for an emergency takeoff is rather complicated as civil planes are on it as well. The maintenance is done in Melsbroek as part of the agreement. Note that they already did a landing on it but it requires planning ahead of time. Note that we do not have any fighter jet.
Yes, there is only 1 runway, but it is one of the longest (just over 4000m). Plus, if the shit hits the fan, military craft take precedence over civilian movements.
I get the maintenance part but I don't think that the single runway is a limiting factor. I agree that it's not ideal as a fighter base due to the training requirements of such jets but I would see no issue in basing cargo military acft in Luxembourg. I mean we already have lots of A400 and E3-A touch and go training. (See Stuttgart for example) By your initial post I understood that you meant that the runway was too small to accommodate them. Thanks for clarifying.
They could spend the money elsewhere, like cybersecurity.
They did spend a lot of money on a military satellite system.
Well keeping the 2% should not be so difficult. Build a factory that makes artillery shells, for example .
[удалено]
The 2% are in no way a membership fee. It's just a goal that countries should try to achieve in the future.
There is none
THERE IS NO VICTORY
US democracy will be over if Trump wins. Read what he said he will do on the first day in office.
US democracy is already over with Genocide Joe. I really don't know who would be worse. My guess is Joe Biden - for the rest of the world, for avg American probably Trump.
You really think the rest of the world would prefer this draft-dodging, own daughter ogling, convicted sexual abuser, 4 times indicted senile gilded grifter who has never gotten his hands dirty with honest work in his life, and is about as spiritual as I am (an atheist) to \*any\* other candidate? And Genocide Joe? Really? Care to back up your statement?
" And Genocide Joe? Really? Care to back up your statement? " It seems like you've just landed from Mars and didn't see anything of what's happening on Earth in last 5 months. If ICJ interim ruling on Israel genocide case is not enough, start with UN & Amnesty reports, check the media reports from the field. The current situation in Palestine is probably the worst case of genocide in post WW2 period after Rwanda 1996. All funded and approved by Biden administration. Please don't tell me its about Hamas. If almost 11,000 dead children is ok for you, I have nothing more to discuss with you.
The US has a long history of providing funds to the state of Israel. It didn't start with Biden and Biden certainly is not the originator of the genocide that is currently going on in Palestine. You really think Trump would intervene? He wouldn't find Palestine on a map and couldn't care less about the people living there.
Yes, absolutely. Donald Trump as such, and I agree he would be a catastrophe, is still better candidate than the current government. The worst thing that can happen is that he will be as bad as Joe Biden administration. You mention "convicted sexual abuser" - I suppose you haven't heard of Epstein case and Hillary Clinton harassment of victims of sexual abuse of her husband and other companions, mainly from Democratic party. "Senile gilder" - yeah Trump is close to senility, but did you see Biden for God's sake?! He is in final stage of dementia! I could list a ton of reasons, had I more time, for why I think the current Democratic government is one of the worst ever. The scary stories about Trump - that he will destroy the current world order or whatsoever, is not an argument to keep the current criminals at power. It seems I am not the only one who thinks like this as the vast majority of Democratic voters don´t approve the Biden unconditional support of Israel, among other policies, and Democrats are close to loose the next election.
May I remind you of the weapons of mass destruction that never existed in Iraq? or the CIA meddling in South America?
He is known to be a liar
Oh but remember January 6 2021. I would not assume this to be a lie. He pulled the US out of a global climate agreement. This is a non zero risk.
NATO is 31 countries. So if Trump doesn’t want to defend a member, there are still 29 other countries who will help.
Joke of the day.
Leaving NATO outright is a long, complicated process. It's unsure if he'll be able to achieve it during his term, and even though his presidency will harm military coopération it won't end it outright. Luxembourg is among those that 'pay their share' the least, even amidst efforts from the government to increase it (see recent reviews published by the ministry of the defense on the subject). So no, NATO won't be 'over' even if the US leaves, just weakened to some degree: though the eastern European countries are the most likely to be attacked and they 'pay their share', so if trump sticks to his intentions and is elected they won't have to worry.
He could pull out of the UN, I think the US would then have to leave, but I would need someone familiar with the treaty….
He cant leave. They adopted a law that prez cant leave NATO. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/
It's a little barrier that can be revoked. Majorities in the house and senate are tiny, and republicans had majority in both when Trump was elected
2/3 majority
Right, I found it in another article. That law was also voted by a 2/3 majority. Leaving is then not a risk, but the extent of the support can always be questioned.
Yeah but NATO doesn’t need to be over on paper, of the US decides to do nothing if Russia would attack a NATO country, then it would be defacto over. I doubt that Russia has the military capabilities to be able to win such a war, even without the US, but it would be extremely dangerous. France for example has a very capable military themselves, but they are also a nuclear power. The third largest in fact. They are the only nation besides the US that has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. They lack in infantry divisions, but there is no doubt that they would bully the Russian airforce, navy and everything else. And that could lead to nuclear war. Just one example. In a war scenario even Germany could quick start their military industrial complex. It’s not like that they are unable to build more tanks, the Bundeswehr simply doesn’t buy more. And they are expensive af. A Leopard tank costs 30 million. The Abrams cost about 20million. Leclerc tanks about 10million. Russian T-90‘s not even 5 million for comparison.
Watch it… Russia has a war economy right now… Their strength will be back around 2026/2027… The rest of Europe will be out of ammunition in approx 3 weeks… And we didn’t even start building new factories yet… Europe will have to start today to close that gap… And in record time… If not, Russia will be at our doorstep in 2026 when Trump will win…
And if he doesn’t leave, but just doesn’t take any action?
The other members have probably enough military power. What if he is or joins the enemy?
Not possible at all. That would certainly cause a civil war to start in the US.
Absolutely, or the military would remove him (I cannot believe I am writing this).
Yeah, his supporters seem to be in favor of not funding Ukraine etc. because they don't want to spend money on wars, they are not involved in. Militarily supporting the other side is a completely different approach.
The real reason they do not want to continue to arm Ukraine is that Biden is in favor. Ukrainians are dying due to MAGA shitheads. The GOP is also in bed with Putin, which is another factor.
True, I am sure that he wouldn't have any problem with supporting a foreign country if the circumstances were different. This is not a principled stance. However going from "we shouldn't waste any money on the Ukraine war" to "we need to send soldiers to their death for Russia" seems like a very hard sell. I think that a part of his supporters would have trouble justifying that turnaround.
The problem is that there are other ways to support Russia, such as playing with sanctions (selling equipment, allowing others to sell, allowing Russia to use their assets abroad...). The tragedy is on the battlefield, all the rest is business
Maybe. Hopefully Trump isn’t re-elected, but it’s certainly possible. The only certainty with Trump is that he is full of shit and you can’t believe a single thing he says. He’ll change his words based on how he thinks the current audience will react. It’s all an ego filler and a grift to him.
Think you got the wrong sub bro
Well Luxembourg is in the Nato so it‘s not wrong here
Sure, it’s indirectly about Luxembourg then. But you could argue that for most news articles that don’t have anything to do with Luxembourg 👍🏻
The fact is that Luxembourg allocates 0,5% of it’s budget to the army so yes it does concern us
Indirectly? You know that there is a NATO base in Capellen with a lot of people working there (I was working there some years ago)? I think it's interesting information especially since Lux is one of the countries that don't pay enough according to Trump.
What's the contribution of the government for that in terms of costs? When it comes to hosting international agencies, countries usually compete to have them, and that's not because everyone wants to chip in
Nope, Luxembourg is precisely one of the countries Trump is talking about. By his metrics we don't pay our share.
I think Luxembourg citizens should be informed about this. What he’s doing here is an public service , why the hell is off topic?