could have fooled me... you've been plugging Russia's fascist propaganda here for quite some time...
don't believe me? See 2.
Enzo, you keep being a PITA as semper incapabile to step out of your neo-liberal / neo-con fascist bubble of global political "West" which will go down soon and sooner.
The Ukraine war together with the neo-liberal politics of your kins mechanistically resulting from it as mere 'reaction' are the de facto reason why living standards in Europe have kept declining so that the people start craving for political alternatives in considerable amounts, finally.
Any more questions? - Support your local Sheriff (not Omar Sharif, may he rest in peace).
So I'm just filling in some gaps here but I'm getting a sense that you're okay with fascism in France because they deserve it for not supporting the leftists? And a happy-for-you side effect will be that they'll withdraw support for Ukraine, right?
So I'm just filling in some gaps here but I'm getting a sense that you're okay with fascism in France because they deserve it for not supporting the leftists? And a happy-for-you side effect will be that they'll withdraw support for Ukraine, right?
This should be a wake up call to the US Democratic party. Seems that the lurch to the right is a result of folks unhappy with higher prices and immigration. The same things that keep Biden's poll numbers in the crapper.
What many people in Europe want (as per the EU elections) are things the media and political establishment try to publicly ignore, like:
Less weapons for Ukraine, less bellicosity, more cheap energy, low prices in the supermarket, and less foreigners.
Europeâs insurgent Right wonât change anything The right-wing populists do not have a common agenda on Europeâs most pressing issues, and when they get a sniff of power they tend to bend towards the EU establishment anyway.
As for the elections over the weekend, the expected lurch to the far right has occurred. Democracy is like a drunkard stumbling home, it very rarely can follow a straight line. That said, there is still a strong center in the European Parliament.
This lurch to the right is basically a protest vote and will reverse some time in the future, when people realise the far right don't have any solutions either. It's like Brexit all over again.
In Germany the groundswell behind the AfD is fuelled by the disaffected, namely eastern German states and also rural areas in Western Europe. Much like the States I guess. All the people who don't want to change, or at least don't want to feel forced to have to change. Denial sums it up quite nicely. Also supported by a lot of affluent voters who are scared of losing what they have.
For Europe's climate goals it is a disaster.
This should be a wake up call to the US Democratic party. Seems that the lurch to the right is a result of folks unhappy with higher prices and immigration. The same things that keep Biden's poll numbers in the crapper.
In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russiaâs illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meet this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATOâs common defence efforts. In 2024, two thirds of Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.
There are still deadbeat NATO members even though Trump decreased the number with his threats. Before Trump it was less than half of the members honored their commitments. Namely one third of the members as illustrated above.
Here's something recent which states that currently only 35% of NATO members are making that 2% commitment in contrast to NATO's own statements above.
Controversial comments by former President Donald Trump turned attention to the alliance. Here's which member countries are meeting a defense spending benchmark.
By Elliott Davis Jr.
March 7, 2024, at 3:55 p.m.
your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. What I wrote is totally consistent with NATO's 2% investment guideline.
Moreover, my point was that post-Trump, the failure for most NATO members to meet the 2% guideline in 2023 is pretty much unchanged (as your figures so clearly show). In other words, Trump didn't achieve a damn thing. The uptick in 2024 in defence spending in 2024 can be solely attributed to Russian aggression.
PS .. quotes from Trump "they fail to pay the bills", "they owe us an enormous amount of money".. etc. .. do I need to go on?
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight. So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ? I could ask the same about the U N.
Sorry to disillusion you, but Trump didn't make anybody pay up. NATO is not a protection racket and doesn't work that way (to flog a dead horse, but hey, if you think it is just injured or lame, feel free to keep pushing the idea). Each NATO member itself decides on its defence budget, the U.S. included. The only person who made NATO members reconsider their defence spending was Putin. You can see that the closer a nation is to Russia, the higher its defence spending relative to GDP. I wonder why?
In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meet this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts. In 2024, two thirds of Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.
There are still deadbeat NATO members even though Trump decreased the number with his threats. Before Trump it was less than half of the members honored their commitments. Namely one third of the members as illustrated above.
Here's something recent which states that currently only 35% of NATO members are making that 2% commitment in contrast to NATO's own statements above.
Controversial comments by former President Donald Trump turned attention to the alliance. Here's which member countries are meeting a defense spending benchmark.
As for the elections over the weekend, the expected lurch to the far right has occurred. Democracy is like a drunkard stumbling home, it very rarely can follow a straight line. That said, there is still a strong center in the European Parliament.
This lurch to the right is basically a protest vote and will reverse some time in the future, when people realise the far right don't have any solutions either. It's like Brexit all over again.
In Germany the groundswell behind the AfD is fuelled by the disaffected, namely eastern German states and also rural areas in Western Europe. Much like the States I guess. All the people who don't want to change, or at least don't want to feel forced to have to change. Denial sums it up quite nicely. Also supported by a lot of affluent voters who are scared of losing what they have.
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight.
So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ?
I could ask the same about the U N.
Sorry to disillusion you, but Trump didn't make anybody pay up. NATO is not a protection racket and doesn't work that way (to flog a dead horse, but hey, if you think it is just injured or lame, feel free to keep pushing the idea).
Each NATO member itself decides on its defence budget, the U.S. included. The only person who made NATO members reconsider their defence spending was Putin. You can see that the closer a nation is to Russia, the higher its defence spending relative to GDP. I wonder why?
The result, as this week has demonstrated, is an infantilised political class terrified at the prospect of losing its transatlantic overlord.
Which brings us to the alternative view: that a more isolationist America under Trump would be an opportunity for Europe to finally develop its own strategic autonomy.(UnHerd)
All that Trump did was shake down the deadbeats. Made them pay up. Made a call for the rest of the members to start pulling their own weight.
So who needs NATO ? Is its usefulness and purpose over ?
So perhaps we shouldnât be surprised that this is exactly what the US has achieved by dragging the whole of Europe, via Nato, into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. It has allowed the US to reassert its waning hegemony over Europe; it has driven a deep wedge between Europe and Russia; and it has condemned Germany to deindustrialisation.
Of course, one could argue that European leaders have largely brought this upon themselves. But it is also the natural outcome of an âallianceâ that has always treated European nations as subordinates. The result, as this week has demonstrated, is an infantilised political class terrified at the prospect of losing its transatlantic overlord. Which brings us to the alternative view: that a more isolationist America under Trump would be an opportunity for Europe to finally develop its own strategic autonomy.
Russia invading Ukraine is not a proxy war started by the US. Ukraine was kept out of NATO to reduce Russia's perception that it would be a threat to them. Fat lot of good that did. You are right that the European countries need to up their military and their influence to counteract Russia.
So perhaps we shouldnât be surprised that this is exactly what the US has achieved by dragging the whole of Europe, via Nato, into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. It has allowed the US to reassert its waning hegemony over Europe; it has driven a deep wedge between Europe and Russia; and it has condemned Germany to deindustrialisation.
Of course, one could argue that European leaders have largely brought this upon themselves. But it is also the natural outcome of an âallianceâ that has always treated European nations as subordinates. The result, as this week has demonstrated, is an infantilised political class terrified at the prospect of losing its transatlantic overlord. Which brings us to the alternative view: that a more isolationist America under Trump would be an opportunity for Europe to finally develop its own strategic autonomy.
