Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

It is you who are being absurdly reductionist when you contort 'Russia is not capable of threatening the US' into 'the US can't successfully mount a land invasion of Russia', or whatever strawman you're trying to build here.

The US has no need or interest in invading Russia. It has no need or interest in defending Ukraine, for that matter, but they've done so because they're doing a grand and noble thing. It is wild that Europeans expect and demand that the US funds the cost of the Ukraine war, which is happening in Europe, while Europe itself is not even willing to agree to stop buying Russian gas and oil.

The original point stands - Russia is not capable of being a threat to the US, and in as far as Russia is capable of being a threat to Europe, this is primarily a European issue, not a global one. At the very least, Europe should shoulder the lion's share of defending its own continent, rather than demanding everyone else does it for them for free.

>> This kind of hubris is exactly why the American empire will end sometime this century.

>> The American lifestyle will suffer some harsh adjustments at all levels, probably in a few decades, at most.

Cool. Since I've been pretty open about the fact I'm not American, I don't see what any of this has to do with me. And I certainly don't see what any of this has to do with international security. Seems like you're just venting some hatred for Americans. It's quite telling how every time someone takes the US side on anything online, Europeans bring out the greatest hits parade of anti-American tropes, fresh off 2004-era Reddit.

Maybe the Americans could invest in their own social net if they weren't spending trillions of dollars to defend you. Cutting US military spending in half, much of which could come from vacating the US presence in Europe, would give the US hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on their own country. Their own society. Their own healthcare.

And maybe when Europe realises it can't pay for its absurdly dysfunctional welfare systems and its own security, it will have the same hard choices to make that the rest of the world have been making since the dawn of time! Big changes are coming for European lifestyles, much bigger than anything coming for the US.

What does the US security presence in Europe actually get the US? Mollycoddled adult children, complaining on the online platforms that the US built, using the global economy the US protects, from homes that the US defends, about how icky those Americans are.

>> And FYI, Europe has already tripled its defense spending. I hope none of it gets spent on US tech of any kind.

Yes yes, we've all heard much talking about the Zeitenwende. Talking is what Europe does best, after all. Maybe German soldiers can stop running around with broomsticks instead of guns now? [0] So Europe is fine and dandy now, right? No need to NATO to continue, judging from all the fighting words coming out of folks like Kaja Kallas?

This is such an incoherent, Internet-pilled perspective. "The US empire is bad and should end, but also the Americans must stay and protect me on the other side of the world forever, but also I don't need them at all and I am actually perfectly capable of defending myself, thank you very much, but also them leaving is a huge betrayal and must be prevented at all costs -"

Good God, which is it? Either the US overseas presence is good and should continue to protect Europe, or it's bad and the Americans can go home and you'll take care of yourself.

Ironically, I think we're actually agreed on your future prediction. The US 'empire', to use your words, will end soon. Problem solved, Yankee go home, you kids have fun. I sincerely hope Europe doesn't get itself invaded, but that will really be a matter for Europe to figure out.

[0] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/german-sold...

Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy.

In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this.

If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.

The question is whether Europe is going to be capable of maintaining that level of defensive action on its own. I hope the answer is yes. Sadly, I'm left extremely sceptical from observing European politics.

1. The USA has put up military infrastructure around the world by its own volition. 2. The USA is the richest country in the world.

> The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vicarious beneficiaries in that we have access to affordable food we can eat.

So what is the handout here, exactly? Your argument is an oxymoron.