Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: 1, 2, 3 Next

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
The great Brussels stitch-up Over dinner last night, von der Leyen was crowned again

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 18, 2024 - 3:33am

ColdMiser wrote:

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.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 11, 2024 - 1:23am
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.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 9:29am
"The War Racket in Germany" What happens when everyone starts to believe in the con?

ColdMiser

ColdMiser Avatar

Location: On the Trail
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 7:44am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

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.

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender:

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 3:43am

kurtster wrote:

You are very wrong about how NATO is funded.

The 2% defence investment guideline

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.

Only 35% of NATO Countries Meet the Groupâs Defense Spending Target

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?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 1:22am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

kurtster wrote:

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?

You are very wrong about how NATO is funded.

The 2% defence investment guideline

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.

Only 35% of NATO Countries Meet the Group’s Defense Spending Target

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.

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender:

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 12:33am

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender:

Posted: Jun 10, 2024 - 12:08am

kurtster wrote:

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?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Jun 9, 2024 - 11:04pm

thisbody wrote:

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 ?

I could ask the same about the U N.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Jun 9, 2024 - 5:38pm
bad news all around

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm

thisbody wrote:

Nato is one of the key institutions through which the US has exercised its control over post-war Western Europe

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.

(UnHerd)

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.

Nice troll, though.

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 5, 2024 - 10:09am

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 25, 2023 - 1:08pm
R_Pwrote: ð

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Nov 25, 2023 - 11:32am
thisbody wrote: What Geert Wilders' victory means for Dutch society

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 25, 2023 - 7:27am
What Geert Wilders' victory means for Dutch society

thisbody

thisbody Avatar

Location: North (doubtful)
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 25, 2023 - 12:51am
Sudden surge in support for Europeâs right-wing parties due to migration and deep dissatisfaction with Europeâs mainstream parties

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Apr 3, 2022 - 7:31pm
Why is Hungary a NATO member?

Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 9, 2022 - 5:25am
kurtster wrote: Trump actually sent weapons (defensive). FTA: In 2019, Trump moved to block the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation connected to Bidenâs son. Zelensky made no such announcement, and the hold-up triggered the first impeachment of Trump. https://www.politico.com/news/...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 8, 2022 - 9:31pm

haresfur wrote:

So here's the thing I don't get. If putin wanted to invade Ukraine, he easily could have done it with no US response when trump was president. As soon as trump was elected, I figured Ukraine was a goner. Why did he stop at Crimea? My only guess is that he doesn't really give a shit about Ukraine but is using it to drive a wedge between US and western Europe. But I really don't know.

imo ...

You are completely wrong on everything you stated. While Obama only gave Ukraine blankets and pillows, Trump actually sent weapons (defensive). Putin stopped at Crimea because Trump was elected. I know you and nearly everyone else here still believes the Steele Dossier and that Trump was Putin's bitch. The demonetization of Putin /Russia by the democratic party with the phony Russia, Russia, Russia hoax is why things are the way they are today. And it drove Putin into the open arms of Xi. I hold the DNC directly responsible for this.

Putin does not want Ukraine to join NATO. Putin wants Ukraine back more than anything else and for a multitude of reasons. Also reading the comments below, everyone seems to forget the genocide of 4+ million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin.
.
In spring 1933 death rates in Ukraine spiked. Between 1931 and 1934 at least 5 million people perished of hunger all across the U.S.S.R. Among them, according to a study conducted by a team of Ukrainian demographers, were at least 3.9 million Ukrainians.

Another win for socialism and collectivism. Not.

Page: 1, 2, 3 Next