31–40 of 147 posts
Atlanticist polls are probably more interesting (if there even is such a thing) when considering which questions they didn't even ask, rather than the questions they asked confirming all the establishment positions anyway.
Let me know, because I want to make sure that I'm aligned with this mystical Western Atlantacist Anglo-Saxon (insert Russian propaganda snarl-word du jour) hive mind.
Kind of a misleading title, but an interesting article. It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country. Some of these opinion polls are not particularly useful though, as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US. I’m not sure it’s all that relevant how much a western EU country feels about th…
> It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country. Look at the Denmark graph (adversarial going up). I do not think in that case it is about "the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks" but about the US itself doing that.
You can hardly expect the guy attacking you to have your back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.
France has an independent nuclear deterrent. I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?
That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.
France and UK have a nuclear arsenal. France specifically has said they are willing to extend their policy to cover other EU countries. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we will end up using those weapons against eachother, again. As if we haven't seen that film before. Or even worse, keep selling them to Israel as Germany is doing, because one genocide was not enough and two wrongs make a right.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately. If he's being downvoted for his "selling wea…
Then again… Yugoslavia maybe not the best example here…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has an independent nuclear deterrent. I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?
> I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we will end up using those weapons against eachother, again. As if we haven't seen that film before. Or even worse, keep selling them to Israel as Germany is doing, because one genocide was not enough and two wrongs make a right.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately. If he's being downvoted for his "selling wea…
Wars and military matters are literally life and death. I try not to speculate about downvotes, but here I expect there are people who are primed to get quite emotional when someone tells them they shouldn't start arming up.
Yes, because Russia's propaganda, espionage and corruption arm has been focusing on the far-right parties for the past two decades, breaking from their previous focus on the far left.
Atlanticist polls are probably more interesting (if there even is such a thing) when considering which questions they didn't even ask, rather than the questions they asked confirming all the establishment positions anyway.
Is there an establishment in the room with us right now? Let me know, because I want to make sure that I'm aligned with this mystical Western Atlantacist Anglo-Saxon (insert Russian propaganda snarl-word du jour) hive mind.