Nato alliance experiencing brain death, says Macron

[Lord Thesaurian]

Like I said earlier, if Macron succeeds at playing Napoleon, more power to him. It would be nice to have a backstop to strengthen European defense when the US version of a European army, NATO, experiences internal problems like a Trump presidency. Macron’s criticism of NATO was correct in general terms to begin with.

Right now the situation is that whenever the US goes AWOL, Putin licks his chops as European countries are chased into his fold. As the world gears up for another era of great power conflicts, the US needs strong partners who share our values - Europe.

[Cope]

Like I said earlier, if Macron succeeds at playing Napoleon, more power to him. It would be nice to have a backstop to strengthen European defense when the US version of a European army, NATO, experiences internal problems like a Trump presidency. Macron’s criticism of NATO was correct in general terms to begin with.

Right now the situation is that whenever the US goes AWOL, Putin licks his chops as European countries are chased into his fold. As the world gears up for another era of great power conflicts, the US needs strong partners who share our values - Europe.

No European countries are being "chased into his [Putin's] fold". Virtually every country in Europe (other than Russia) is either in the European Union or aligned with it economically via the Single Market and/or Customs Union. Ukraine - a corrupt and impoverished state which is not in NATO - is one of the only exceptions to this.

More importantly, western Europeans have a very different attitude toward Russia than Americans do: they understand that its history goes back further than 1917, that the Cold War is over, that Russia is now a 2nd. rate power with a smaller GDP than Italy and that Europe doesn't stand to benefit from the US's attempts to monopolize energy markets.

Macron and his federalist friends don't want a European army because they're afraid of the US going "AWOL": they want a European army because they don't like being aligned with US foreign policy full stop. Last time I checked, most European countries (England and Poland being notable exceptions) were more interested in building bridges with Russia than they were with the US. For now, most tolerate America's lead because they find it less objectionable than actually have to shell out for their own defense.

[Vanoi]

More importantly, western Europeans have a very different attitude toward Russia than Americans do: they understand that its history goes back further than 1917, that the Cold War is over, that Russia is now a 2nd. rate power with a smaller GDP than Italy and that Europe doesn't stand to benefit from the US's attempts to monopolize energy markets.

Speak for yourself. Eastern Europe disagrees with that especially on the energy regard and security. They already have to deal with the Russians and now europe allowing the new pipeline that multiple NATO and EU members oppose.

[Cope]

Speak for yourself. Eastern Europe disagrees with that especially on the energy regard and security. They already have to deal with the Russians and now europe allowing the new pipeline that multiple NATO and EU members oppose.

That's why I specifically said western Europeans.

[Vanoi]

That's why I specifically said western Europeans.

Well thats a problem at least in my view. You don't want to lose their support. Especially when any kind of future European Army is going to need all the help it can get considering right now as it is European militaries are pretty . Only France can really project power outside its borders and even then it still needs help. Not one single European military has a capable logistics system for supporting troops overseas. the 2011 Libyan intervention showed how unprepared European militaries are even in a low-intensity conflict. If Western Europe at least wants to do its own thing, its going to seriously need to buff up their militaries.

[Cope]

Well thats a problem at least in my view. You don't want to lose their support. Especially when any kind of future European Army is going to need all the help it can get considering right now as it is European militaries are pretty . Only France can really project power outside its borders and even then it still needs help. Not one single European military has a capable logistics system for supporting troops overseas. the 2011 Libyan intervention showed how unprepared European militaries are even in a low-intensity conflict. If Western Europe at least wants to do its own thing, its going to seriously need to buff up their militaries.

Vanoi, I'm strongly opposed to the militarization of Europe. I know that currently Germany, England and France have no real military capabilities beyond acting as minor partners alongside the United States and I know that they'd need to "buff up their militaries" for the European Union to have an independent foreign policy. That's why I said the only reason that western Europe is happy to follow the US's is lead is because it's preferable to actually having to "shell out for their own defence".

[Lord Thesaurian]

No European countries are being "chased into his [Putin's] fold". Virtually every country in Europe (other than Russia) is either in the Union or aligned with it economically via the Single Market and/or Customs Union. Ukraine - a corrupt and impoverished state which is not in NATO - is one of the only exceptions to this.

More importantly, western Europeans have a very different attitude toward Russia than Americans do: they understand that its history goes back further than 1917, that the Cold War is over, that Russia is now a 2nd. rate power with a smaller GDP than Italy and that Europe doesn't stand to benefit from the US's attempts to monopolize energy markets.

If Europe doesn’t consider Russia a threat, they are welcome to kick out the Americans and test that theory. Putin aims to strengthen Russian influence over European energy, and the latter is a key reason for the Kremlin’s involvement in Syria. In light of the latter, it is not concurrent with the present reality to assert that the US is the one trying to monopolize European energy by offering convoluted and comparatively unprofitable options for Europe to diversify their energy sources and security.

In simple terms: Europe’s consumption of natural gas is increasing, and its domestic production is falling. Its imports have risen rapidly in recent years, and will most likely increase further in the future.

European gas prices are now largely determined by trading on financial markets, but they are often too low for American suppliers to compete. The cost of liquefying gas in the United States and transporting it to Europe doubles its price for American companies. So if they were to sell to customers in Europe at current prices, they would lose money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/b...l-gas-lng.html

"You might buy cheaper from some place else - but it might not be reliable. The point is the same with Russian gas," Perry said, adding that "our friends from Ukraine" could give some insight into the reliability of Russian gas.
https://euobserver.com/energy/144786

Macron and his federalist friends don't want a European army because they're afraid of the US going "AWOL": they want a European army because they don't like being aligned with US foreign policy full stop. Last time I checked, most European countries (England and Poland being notable exceptions) were more interested in building bridges with Russia than they were with the US. For now, most tolerate America's lead because they find it less objectionable than actually have to shell out for their own defense.

Precisely. If France/Germany want to shoulder European defense without the US, they are more than welcome to do so. I won’t hold my breath. Until then, this is all just more backseat driving from our European partners.

[Heathen Hammer]

Like I said earlier, if Macron succeeds at playing Napoleon, more power to him. It would be nice to have a backstop to strengthen European defense when the US version of a European army, NATO, experiences internal problems like a Trump presidency. Macron’s criticism of NATO was correct in general terms to begin with.

Right now the situation is that whenever the US goes AWOL, Putin licks his chops as European countries are chased into his fold. As the world gears up for another era of great power conflicts, the US needs strong partners who share our values - Europe.

"Russian threat" seems to be a dead horse that globalists keep on beating, despite the fact that de-facto Russia has neither means nor motivation to invade its own main source of income.
Trump's presidency is a solution to the problem, which is globalism. Eventual dismantling of NATO and EU would only benefit the populations of US and Europe respectively. Americans would no longer have their money wasted on defense of countries on the other side of the world, while Europeans would get rid of authoritarian bureaucratic nightmare in which they are now, and could then have a limited trade agreement with one another, but without all that federalist one-state nonsense that EU bureaucrats are trying push right now.
Plus let's be honest here, the whole "our values" thing is a BS joke. Most of Western European states are almost as authoritarian as Russia itself, with all the recent arrests of people for things like posing on social media and such.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Trump is proving more effective against US interests and security than all the armies of the world could ever be. 30 years ago the US declared victory over the Russian Empire. Obama infamously quipped that Romney’s concerns about Putin were straight out of the 1980s. Meanwhile, Putin and the GRU were lying in the weeds the whole time. Well played, sir, well played.

A video has emerged that appears to show world leaders joking about Donald Trump at the Nato summit in London, which has been marked by sharp disagreements over spending, future threats including China and Turkey’s role in the alliance.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...at-nato-summit

[fkizz]

Marching into Moscow or Stalingrad facing General Winter just for the glory of an "European Army" does not seem an ideal scenario.

[Ludicus]

My two cents.

We are entering a new world. The future is now. Russia is not anymore the western cement of the NATO. It's China. It is not difficult to foresee an "Asiatic" NATO, probably including Japan, India and Australia. It's the beginning of a new geoeconomic war, and the alleged justification for NATO's survival, Europe's Future Is as China's Enemy – Foreign Policy

The continent can save NATO—but only if it takes Washington’s side in its growing struggle with Beijing.

In reference to China...Press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

For the first time, we addressed the rise of China...as the world changes, NATO will continue to change

China reacts,
1- NATO naming China the enemy will lead to consequences

On October 25, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said..I'm pleased that NATO's moving forward to more thoroughly assess the long-term challenges that a growing and more assertive China presents to the alliance.

2- China's man in Washington says US building 'Berlin Wall against Beijing...

Some people in this country are pointing fingers at the governing party and the national system of China, trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall between China and the US in the economic, technological and ideological fields.

------
In fact,China is the geo-economic rival, not Russia. Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue ...

In the military realm, Russia can be contained, but China cannot. Its military predominance in east Asia will grow over time, compelling the United States to accept greater costs and risks just to secure existing commitments. But it is geoeconomics, rather than geopolitics, in which the contest for world leadership will play out. It is in the domain of geoeconomics that the balance of global influence between the United States and China has begun shifting in China's favor.

The title says all. Experts discuss U.S. policy options toward Russia: Russia: Rival or Partner, or Both? | Council on Foreign Relations
---

To conclude,we are entering uncharted waters.The US is trying to recruit NATO into its global anti-China strategy, Europe remains undecided. Macron stands by NATO "brain death" comment, China rejoices and Macron ends China visit with 40 bilateral contracts in the fields of aviation, agro-food, energy, tourism, health, finance and digital and green pact.

[Heathen Hammer]

Trump is proving more effective against US interests and security than all the armies of the world could ever be. 30 years ago the US declared victory over the Russian Empire. Obama infamously quipped that Romney’s concerns about Putin were straight out of the 1980s. Meanwhile, Putin and the GRU were lying in the weeds the whole time. Well played, sir, well played.

So basically reality is "Russian propaganda" or something?
US didn't real "win" against USSR (which has nothing to do with Russian Empire either), it simply collapsed due to crappy socialist economy. I think globalist Rusophobia is kinda similar to anti-semitism of XX century. Losers and failures like Hillary, Romney and McCain just constantly ranted about "Russian threat" because they needed some foreign boogeyman to scare public into supporting them with or explain why the public didn't vote for these losers. Americans turned out smarter in 2016, and elected the best president they had foreign-policy-wise in decades.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So basically reality is "Russian propaganda" or something?
US didn't real "win" against USSR (which has nothing to do with Russian Empire either), it simply collapsed due to crappy socialist economy. I think globalist Rusophobia is kinda similar to anti-semitism of XX century. Losers and failures like Hillary, Romney and McCain just constantly ranted about "Russian threat" because they needed some foreign boogeyman to scare public into supporting them with or explain why the public didn't vote for these losers. Americans turned out smarter in 2016, and elected the best president they had foreign-policy-wise in decades.

You think alot of things, but never cite or evidence any of them. Spewing your lies, conspiracies and xenophobic rants while accusing others of doing the very same, sans evidence, only undermines your own credibility, not anyone else’s.

[Heathen Hammer]

You think alot of things, but never cite or evidence any of them. Spewing your lies, conspiracies and xenophobic rants while accusing others of doing the very same, sans evidence, only undermines your own credibility, not anyone else’s.

So pointing out the falsehood of neocon-neoliberal rusophobic conspiracy rants is somehow "xenophobic"? Sounds like just another projection from you. And still no credible evidence for your claims.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So pointing out the falsehood of neocon-neoliberal rusophobic conspiracy rants is somehow "xenophobic"? Sounds like just another projection from you. And still no credible evidence for your claims.

More claims from you, same refusal to provide any evidence for them at all, let alone “credible” evidence.

[Heathen Hammer]

More claims from you, same refusal to provide any evidence for them at all, let alone “credible” evidence.

Huh? You made an extraordinary claim that wasn't backed up by a credible source, and now are accusing me of "making more claims" after I called you out, even though I haven't made any actual claims.
So do you have any real source about that Sino-Russian conspiracy of yours, or not? We did make some progress with you where you did reluctantly concede that whole globalist "evil Assad" narrative was false, so perhaps there is hope that we'll reach light in regards to Rusophobic fantasies in this case as well.

[Lord Thesaurian]

*makes claims, denies having made any claims

Have fun repeatedly discrediting yourself.

[Heathen Hammer]

Have fun repeatedly discrediting yourself.

I didn't make any claims, I commented on lack of sources in your argument. You are discrediting yourself here, and projection doesn't really work since anyone can read the thread and see your post and my reply to it.
So do you concede that there is no Sino-Russian conspiracy and that US intelligence officials are just spouting jingoist propaganda?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I didn't make any claims, I commented on lack of sources in your argument. You are discrediting yourself here, and projection doesn't really work since anyone can read the thread and see your post and my reply to it.
So do you concede that there is no Sino-Russian conspiracy and that US intelligence officials are just spouting jingoist propaganda?

You can either
1. Back up your claim that the people working for US intelligence agencies are akin to parasites and Nazis and are therefore inherently not credible
2. Admit that’s just your personal opinion and move on.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can either
1. Back up your claim that the people working for US intelligence agencies are akin to parasites and Nazis and are therefore inherently not credible
2. Admit that’s just your personal opinion and move on.

That wasn't my claim. I guess your MO in debate is make strawman arguments and hope that nobody reads your original post to see that.