Well, Trump can obviously give absolutely anything as an executive order, because why not? He doesn't care a shit about how the Republic works and is sidelining the Congress and attacking the judiciary.

Well, Trump can obviously give absolutely anything as an executive order, because why not? He doesn't care a shit about how the Republic works and is sidelining the Congress and attacking the judiciary. — ssu

So, in your opinion, there is no legal or de facto barriers to stop Trump from declaring himself El Presidente for life with unlimited executive powers?

Sounds like the USA's constitution and political structure isn't worth defending because the Founding Fathers created a flawed country that has lasted well past its use or repair by date.

Due for a new model? Maybe it's getting that new model now?

confused and surprised by the evidence smile

Even if Finnish politicians are as virtuous as you claim (the rise of right-wing populism in Finland, pro-Russian sentiment and problematic future of NATO makes me doubt Finns are immune from growing political polarisation and controversies), — neomac

The migration issue has naturally been a similar discussion as in other parts of Europe, however the True Finns -party, which is the local populist party, is and has been accepted into coalitions and actually is now in the present administration. However unlike the typical populists, they are all for Ukraine. Here is the party leader giving a speech to the Ukrainian parliament and getting a standing ovation:


But, more to the point, how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other states’ leaders, does actually empower Finnish politicians to instill wider social cohesion among nations, make them understand the utter peril of political polarization and get the real support of their people, genuinely answer to the worries of the people, and that the best thing is to tell things how they are, don't lie? — neomac

Quite confusing what you say here. First of all, domestic politics should be left to sovereign states. You don't start messing in others own politics and work with all administrations from one country. It's an issue that at normal relations you wouldn't touch at all (unlike Vance did). But to get wider cohesion, well, basically Finland got Sweden also to join in NATO, even if Sweden had to haggle a lot with Turkey. — ssu

OK I’ll note down that you are happier of your politicians than other Europeans of theirs, fine.
But you still do not get how basic (common sensical?) my comment was. I’ll try another way.
Think of ordinary commercial services (like the ones for power supply or mobile communication). What do you do when you have an issue with this type of services? First, you try to see if you can fix it yourself, if you can’t you call the help desk. If the help desk can’t fix it, they will call the admins. If the admins can’t fix it, they will call the experts (development, infrastructure, etc.). But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem won’t replicate).
Now we have been discussing for a while of international conflicts like the one in Ukraine or Palestine, or the troubles with the American or Russian foreign politics. These problems are of such kind that single individuals can neither fix by themselves, nor see them fixed just by escalating to higher levels of expertise. Indeed, it’s powerful people on the top of the hierarchy which are struggling to find fixes. Or worse if/whenever they come up with one, maybe it’s not the one you wished for, actually it could even be the opposite.
Keep repeating something like “in Finland things work swell because there are Finnish moral champions running their governments, why can’t they do the same in Russia or the US or the EU, or Israel, etc.?” as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. Indeed, Finnish politicians’ exemplar behaviour by itself doesn’t trigger the political resolution you wished for. Nor you can escalate those problems to Finnish politicians so that by virtue of their moral virtues those problems get fixed. And the reason of that is not much that the Finnish politicians should not interfere in other sovereign countries politics to fix their problems, but more that Finnish politicians most likely can’t fix those problems even if their moral imperative was to interfere. Why can’t these problems be fixed in a morally satisfying way as in Finland? That’s what needs to be understood better. Maybe it’s because the nature of the conflict in Ukraine or in Palestine is more complex and politically costly than the problems handled by Finnish political moral champions, and/or that pre-existing selective factors that favored the rise of moral champions in Finnish politics do not exists in the US or Russia, etc. In other words, Finnish politicians are not EMPOWERED by their moral status to fix the world issues we are discussing, or worse, to shield Finland from the nasty cascading consequences of those world issues.

In other words, as long as the information flow in Western-style democracies has certain features that by institutional design can be hacked by authoritarian regimes against Western democracies themselves (not vice versa), and independently from Western people or politicians’ best intentions or education, prohibiting social platforms from collecting data won’t off-set this asymmetric advantage which authoritarian regimes are benefiting from as authoritarian. — neomac

First, do cut down with the sentences. Very hard to read.

Secondly, a functioning democracy, a republic, needs a lot from both it's citizens and it's institutions. Those institutions have to function so that the citizens appreciate them, which isn't something that you get only with free elections. Those countries incapable of having a functioning republic will have the extremely stupid idea of authoritarianism being the solution. It won't be, it will make just things far worse, because an authoritarian state can easily just let loose unrestricted corruption, oligarchy or nepotism. — ssu

Stupid or not, the risk of a spiralling political polarization inside democracies can end up in the political protracted paralysis of necessary reforms to effectively addressing growing internal or external challenges. And this polarizing escalation can eventually bring about civil wars or the rise of authoritarianism. Does knowing this risk help people avoid polarization? Hopefully yes, but there are also reasons to doubt. Why? Because in democracy people want to be free to oppose policies and politicians they do not like, vocally and publicly so. That’s an in-built feature of Western democracies. It doesn’t matter which side one is on.
And feeling morally entitled per se doesn’t mitigate this effect at all, and not only because there people can also diverge over moral issues. Indeed, morally self-entitled citizens do not want to self-censor themselves, “people must know the truth” (like that of “universal human rights violation”). And if others warn them about the risks of being instrumental to hostile foreign powers, they may exercise their “critical thinking” and certainly suspect that some immoral political villain is using this argument to induce self-censorship, out of fear that the truth will eventually triumph. So they are going to voice their moral outrage even harder, and if others do not want self-entitled moral political activists to censor themselves on the contrary they give them a megaphone, these others might surely share their moral battles in politics. Unfortunately that’s precisely how foreign authoritarian powers can hack self-entitled political militants to foment political polarization. The paradoxical conclusion is that being instrumental to foreign hostile powers is justified if it is inspired by moral outrage, apparently no matter if this is going to backlash against them.
In other words, democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking (all traits typical of Western democratic institutions and pedagogy) put together can be source of polarization that a foreign attacker can exploit against democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking.

So here is a bitter conclusion on the limits of viewing politics in moral terms:
1. Appeal to morality doesn’t fixes per se clashes in moral sensitivity over lots of political issues: wealth redistribution, immigration, abortion, gender relations, religion, environment, etc.
2. Leading by moral example is effectively depending on moral sensitivity (e.g. if I'm politically left-leaning I'll look for moral champions in the left-side of the political spectrum, if I'm politically right-leaning vice versa). Besides it doesn’t necessarily bring about the morally desirable collective behaviour in people by itself (namely without law enforcement), because people can be morally fallible no matter what is morally desirable. BTW one way people show moral fallibility is their disposition to detect hypocrisy in others more than in themselves, and often for the wrong reasons (since they assume their moral sensitivity to be the universal moral compass).
3. Political activism to moralize homeland politics is exploitable by rival foreign powers. And anti-Western authoritarian regimes have an asymmetric advantage to sow division over Western democracies.

So, in your opinion, there is no legal or de facto barriers to stop Trump from declaring himself El Presidente for life with unlimited executive powers? — kazan

Basically just the sycophant acolytes around him advising that his base wouldn't like it. As I posted on another thread, the most likely outcome here is a "competitive authoritarianism" where there are elections and a opposition, but the whole structure is rigged towards the leader. There will be elections, but sure as hell Trump will do what he already tried the last time around.

Sounds like the USA's constitution and political structure isn't worth defending because the Founding Fathers created a flawed country that has lasted well past its use or repair by date.

Due for a new model? Maybe it's getting that new model now? — kazan

It's not flawed or well past it's use. That would be basically what the authoritarians will market: Trump, or the "El Presidente" as in the Latin American model, has to circumvent the "corrupt" Parliament and judges. That's their line here. So they are already giving here "the new model".

It's from the "El Presidente" playbook: the opposition is the enemy and thus it has to be fought every way possible. The kind of consensus building that happens in a democracy is wrong and trying to make changes through legislation takes too much time and his the possibility of the "enemy", the opposition, to go against it.

But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem won’t replicate). — neomac

You simply have a defective product. It's your loss.

as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. — neomac

Look, what I'm saying that if you want a functioning democracy, a prosperous country, then a lot of things have to be right. And if go to the DRC, we cannot think to change things to be like Switzerland. But what we can do is that they could be at least like in Botswana? Probably yes. That would be a huge improvement. First of all, you cannot think that a country is a democracy without all the necessary institutions and by just having elections.

Why can’t these problems be fixed in a morally satisfying way as in Finland? That’s what needs to be understood better. — neomac

Because you have to start with the reality that you have. Like for example the US. What it desperately needs is for it's citizens to think that the government works for them, and not the oligarchs. The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. What is happening now that some are pinning their hopes on an idiot reforming things and others are seeing how blatantly even without any fig leaf of the republic working as it's supposed to do.

The blatant error is thinking that somehow it's billionaires, that already enjoy the current system, would somehow reform the system. But Americans believe that these people are some kind of supermen. Poor people are stupid, billionaires have to be really smart, because they are billionaires, right? The public reaction to the shooting of a CEO is telling. What the country would have needed is for example that during the Financial Crisis, the Wall Street banks would have been treated like how the government treated the Savings & Loans bankers. That would have given credibility to the system.

Stupid or not, the risk of a spiralling political polarization inside democracies can end up in the political protracted paralysis of necessary reforms to effectively addressing growing internal or external challenges. — neomac

Indeed it can. Polarization makes it difficult even to approach the other side in order to make any agreements. As one observer noted from the Parliament of the Weimar republic when he saw that the coffee tables in the cafeteria were marked by parties, you cannot have a democracy. If members of opposing parties cannot have a coffee together, democracy won't work!

In other words, democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking (all traits typical of Western democratic institutions and pedagogy) put together can be source of polarization that a foreign attacker can exploit against democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking. — neomac

Of course bad actors will abuse things like freedom of speach and so on. But the authoritarian looks at democracies being weak with all the woke nonsense. Yet in fact it's the authoritarians who are in the fundamentally weak, because they actually fear their people.

1. Appeal to morality doesn’t fixes per se clashes in moral sensitivity over lots of political issues: wealth redistribution, immigration, abortion, gender relations, religion, environment, etc. — neomac

Yes, but just look at those questions. They basically have a question of morality inside them, even if many aren't just a moral problem. You cannot "appeal" to morality. You have to make your case for your solution to the moral problem.

2. Leading by moral example is effective depending on moral sensitivity. Besides it doesn’t necessarily bring about the morally desirable collective behaviour in people by itself (namely without law enforcement), because people can be morally fallible no matter what is morally desirable. BTW one way people show moral fallibility is their disposition to detect hypocrisy in others more than in themselves, and often for the wrong reasons (since they assume their moral sensitivity to be the universal moral compass). — neomac

Yet leading by example goes only so far. If others won't pick up your example, refute that your wellbeing and prosperity happen because of "your example", they won't go along.

3. Political activism to moralize homeland politics is exploitable by rival foreign powers. And anti-Western authoritarian regimes have an asymmetric advantage to sow division over Western democracies. — neomac

And that usually can hit back at you very hard, if you aren't sensitive enough. Giving the "You People" talk to a crowd on how they should do a you do can sound arrogant and contemptuous. Anti-Western authoritarian government will do their propaganda, but if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions.

But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem won’t replicate). — neomac

You simply have a defective product. It's your loss.

as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. — neomac

Look, what I'm saying that if you want a functioning democracy, a prosperous country, then a lot of things have to be right.

…

First of all, you cannot think that a country is a democracy without all the necessary institutions and by just having elections.

…

Because you have to start with the reality that you have. Like for example the US. What it desperately needs is for it's citizens to think that the government works for them, and not the oligarchs. The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. — ssu

Not sure if these claims are meant to be objections to my arguments, because they sound pretty in line with what I’ve already said.

But the authoritarian looks at democracies being weak with all the woke nonsense. Yet in fact it's the authoritarians who are in the fundamentally weak, because they actually fear their people. — ssu

Russian is authoritarian, China is authoritarian, the US is moving from democracy to authoritarianism.
Russia, China and the US seem to be stronger than democracies like France, Italie, UK and Germany.
In some sense, in authoritarian regimes political leaders won their fear of people, more than political leaders in democratic regimes.
Besides, after compering authoritarian regimes, one can notice that the popular support for Putin doesn’t seem as weak the popular support for the Iranian leader in Iran.

The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. — ssu

if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions. — ssu

Precisely, but the problem is that in authoritarian regimes, “people” exclusively refers to the relative majority that vocally supports or silently tolerates the regime, also in a period of crisis where protracted collective sacrifices are required, the rest is forced into political irrelevance and suppression. While, in democracy, “people” doesn’t exclusively refer to the relative majority that vocally supports or silently tolerates the regime, but includes also people and political movements that criticise the regime. So in a period of crisis where protracted collective sacrifices are required, there are always margins for disputes and blame gaming.

Anti-Western authoritarian government will do their propaganda, but if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions. — ssu

"more than half (52%) of Gen Z thinks that "the UK would be a better place if there was a strong leader in power who doesn't have to worry about parliament and elections" and a third (33%) believe that "it would be better if the army led the country"
https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2025-01/Gen%20Z%20Trends%20Truth%20and%20Trust_0.pdf

Luckily I don't represent Gen Z.

Trump didn't come into power in a vacuum.

From your link:

White working-class men are hardest-hit: only
14.6% entered higher education in 2021, the
lowest of any ethnic or socioeconomic group.
One in three is economically inactive – a figure
that has doubled since the early 1990s – leaving
nearly two million young men out of work.
This leaves many struggling to find their place
in the world.

And this is the reason why the fascination. And just why the crusade against wokeism and the support for anti-immigration policies. And why populist movements are so popular.

It's an universal phenomenon in the West. I assume it's even a bigger issue in the UK, which has long had a very clear class system. Usually for boys who relate to the blue-collar background, school isn't a place for. Yet the similar issue is happening also in the Nordic countries, where a similar class divide isn't so apparent in the society.

Does this morning's meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump / Vance, which amounted to an ugly (and highly undiplomatic ) ambush -- on air, no less -- represent how the administration will respond to representatives of the EU? Emmanuel Macron and Kier Starmer were received in the normal diplomatic manner, as representatives of France and UK, not as representatives of the EU, at least as I saw it.

Is the administration's foreign policy becoming as far outside of previous norms and as bizarre as R. F. Kennedy Jr.'s approach to disease control and prevention? Kennedy cancelled an important meeting where virologists zero in on the strains of influenza to target in the next batch of late 2025 flu vaccine. Kennedy considers the measles outbreak in Texas (among Mennonites) as 'normal'. No, it isn't normal. Measles had been eliminated in the US 25 years ago. And he has NOT backed off the erroneous claim that vaccinations cause autism.

Whoever's writing the software for this matrix is going off the rails.

The part where Trump saw Putin and him as victims of the same plot does tell other nations that flattering Trump won't be enough to get the results in the world they live in.

Trump only understands force or sucking his dick. Since sucking his dick means letting go of democratic principles that's a no go.

Europe needs to do everything, and I mean everything, to become independent from the US. Start by stomping the billionaires enabling Trump to the curb by simply prohibiting microtargeting European citizens. This will blow up at least their business case here and stop the industrialized propaganda systems. But if we do it, much like with GDPR, other countries will follow. Next, industry policy, secure resources and ensure we can upcycle everything ourselves to whatever we need, from solar panels to tanks. Finally, integrate defensive capabilities. If we take every army together, Europe is already the best equipped army in the world - it's logistics and policies keeping them separated.

Meanwhile, support Ukraine unwaveringly. While I will always maintain that the proxy war of NATO/USA against Russia largely contributed to the start of the war, that doesn't mean we can fail them again through another betrayal.

Trump and Vance's assault on Zelenskyy is roughly copied from Lavrov's stated sentiment towards Ukraine in 2024. The alignment seems clear enough anyway. Trump and Vance were "speaking Kremlin", well, I guess that part was clear enough.

, Europe comes in snack-sized bites, though, as far as Putin is concerned.
Mounting an effective counter is challenging.

Not really. Attacking and holding land takes a lot more manpower than defending it. But as I said, the problem isn't manpower or material, it's the ability to cooperate logistically.

Any new stable security arrangement for Europe will have to involve some kind of agreement with Russia. If we keep making this a holy war against the big bad, effectively preventing diplomacy with Russia, then this will never end. We are in no position to defeat Russia anytime soon without the US, so the war will drag on, costing a lot of lives... and you end up essentially in the same place having the negotiate with Russia.

What's worse is that, we don't have the military industry to supply the war in the short term, so we will have to look to the US for that, no doubt on bad terms given the position we are in,... and that will make us effectively technologically dependant on them for decades to come.

The US instigated the war by pushing Russia into a corner, now they turn their backs on it, and we are just going to take up the crusaders mantle in an attempt to crush Russia like a bunch of zealots... it's all so dumb.

Europe is absolutely capable of defeating Russia in terms of war-making capacity. Russia, even at its more rapid pace of gains in recent months, would have to spend over a millennia at war to conquer all of Ukraine. They are down to sending out men to conduct frontal assaults with golf carts and passenger cars instead of armored vehicles. Their artillery advantage has shrunk dramatically, etc.

What Europe lacks is the political will and courage to defeat Russia, and make the sacrifices that would come with actual wartime defense spending and actually cutting off Russian energy sales. German defense spending remains below half of pre-1990 levels, as does French spending. The more comparable situation, given an active war in Europe, would be the 50s and 60s and spending to GDP now is about 25-33% of those rates, which are more in line with active deterrence.

It's not the case that, three years into the war, Europe and the US were incapable of mobilizing the resources to give Ukraine artillery superiority, armor superiority, or even air superiority. They simply decided it was too expensive, a decision they stuck with long after it was clear that "escalation" was not a real issue.

What is Michel Houellebecq's phrase on mainstream secular French culture, "a civilization that has lost its will to live?"

Europe is absolutely capable of defeating Russia in terms of war-making capacity. Russia, even at its more rapid pace of gains in recent months, would have to spend over a millennia at war to conquer all of Ukraine. They are down to sending out men to conduct frontal assaults with golf carts and passenger cars instead of armored vehicles. Their artillery advantage has shrunk dramatically, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would agree that it probably could defeat Russia given enough time, but it's not like we would be able to conquer back the territory to force the conditions we want any time soon. Maybe more important is the why of all of this. It's a war instigated by the US we initially didn't want (Merkel and Hollande were against it), and ultimately it isn't really in our long term strategic interest. What is most important is a stable European security system (without the US so they don't have to come bail us out every 10 or so years) which would have to include some arrangement with Russia if it wants to succeed. Fighting a bitter war until the end probably makes the prospect for that a lot more dubious.

And let's not forget the elephant in the room, they have a lot of nukes. Do we really want to see how far we can go before they use them?

What Europe lacks is the political will and courage to defeat Russia, and make the sacrifices that would come with actual wartime defense spending and actually cutting off Russian energy sales. German defense spending remains below half of pre-1990 levels, as does French spending. The more comparable situation, given an active war in Europe, would be the 50s and 60s and spending to GDP now is about 25-33% of those rates, which are more in line with active deterrence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There's a lot of political will at the moment, but yes the question is how much are people really willing to give up for it. The issue here is that there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. You have an aging population and low fertility rate, which means you probably need more immigration to get enough active working population to keep the economy somewhat going. But then immigration is allready causing massive political frictions all over Europe. This is the way this whole thing can really spiral out of control i.e. a drawn out war, more budget for the army, less budget for welfare and other nice things, which in turn creates more discontent, etc etc.

What is Michel Houellebecq's phrase on mainstream secular French culture, "a civilization that has lost its will to live?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the culture has become to negative or negating in that it has come to consist mostly of things not to do. A lot of mores, regulation and social distribution that keeps an open and diverse society reasonably ordered and sufficiently affluent. But it doesn't really inspire much.

They say culturally we're 5 years or so behind the US. I think we can expect something similar like what is happening now in the US. The particular thing in Europe is that those far right voices allways have been "contained" by keeping them out of governement, societal dialogue and media, which has left issues like immigration and identity undealt with. Now these parties have found their way to the young voters via social media and its changing the entire dynamic.

When Trudeau celebrated a Ukrainian Nazi in the Canadian parliament a couple years back it served as an ointment against the pro-Ukrainian propaganda in Canada. What the hell are we supporting again? I doubt European leaders are as stupid, and will show a little more due diligence in who they glorify, but how do Europeans feel about glorifying a president who nationalizes his press, cancels elections, and bans and persecutes the opposition?

This sort of question was asked of the Commission a few years back, and the answer was unwavering in its support for Zelensky, ensuring us that “regular dialogues” about freedom and human rights were occurring between EU and Ukraine, and other bureaucratic gobbledegook. A couple years later the abuses have only continued.

I’m curious as to why The Commission and its biggest supporters wish to aid the little dictator, and with so much gusto?

A country at war is never pretty NOS.

But to answer your question, some have their own interest, a lot have Russofobia, and most really believe our own propaganda.

Here's the real issue though, and it hasn't a whole lot to do with Urkraine being Nazi's or some such, because Europe has outsourced its foreign policy and defence to the US the past 70 years, most strategic thinking in Europe has been lost... they've mostly just been following the line set out by the alliance, i.e. the US.

I take your point regarding the ineffective suction. Further attempts will occur.

The way that Trump described himself and Putin suffering from the same hoax indicates how much more important what happens to him is compared to anyone else. Trump does not understand Putin as an agent independent from himself.

I support your call for more integration in Europe. While you are at it, start diverging from the multinationals who are owning the crap out of the U.S.A.

I will leave the discussion of proxy wars for another day.

@ssu Compliment for the Fins and a blueprint for other EU countries in the Dutch newspaper NRC:

“Finnish society has always continued to prepare for the unpredictable. Exactly what we now need to do in the Netherlands.

This vigilance is reflected in the entire Finnish society. The professional army of approximately 25,000 soldiers can quickly be expanded to 280,000 in times of war. In total, the country has almost 900,000 reservists, or 16 percent of the population. Many CEOs of large companies are also reservists.

In addition, every organization of any size has a chief resilience officer, who monitors cyber attacks and other disruptions, for example. Furthermore, various government bodies actively prepare citizens for crisis situations. In addition, when building roads, viaducts and tunnels, account is already taken of the use by tanks and other large equipment, while in the Netherlands only a limited number of bridges and roads are suitable for heavy military transport.

In Finland, everyone knows what their role is when a crisis breaks out. Take, for example, maintaining emergency supplies of important items and food. More than 1,500 organisations and communities ensure – under the auspices and at the expense of the government – ​​that there is always enough fuel, food and medicine. The organisations involved divide up the responsibilities and decide among themselves who will take on which task in the event of a crisis. In addition, representatives of ministries, security services, NGOs, companies and specialists meet monthly.

What the Finns also do is organise ongoing simulation training sessions that allow employees of all kinds of organisations to experience, for example, the effect of a 72-hour power outage. Whether it concerns the supply of food, maintaining communication or caring for family, all vital functions are vulnerable in a crisis.

We can also learn from Finland in the field of education and information provision, especially in view of the increasing amount of disinformation and fake news. Urging citizens to create an emergency kit is not enough; we need to teach companies and people throughout society better how to prepare for crises. This can be done with very concrete, practical information about how to act in the event of a certain type of disruption. But it is also important to teach people how to be digitally safe, and how to recognize fake news and disinformation. It can also help if we make people aware of our democratic achievements, and how vulnerable they are. This is of course a long-term matter, but the need is there, and without awareness we are unprepared.”

(machine translated)

But then, we do have the madman right next to us with a country, which has only the idea of being an empire.

I'm a long time reservist and been in the voluntary training of reservists for decades. I remember once sitting down with fellow reserve officers and non-coms who have dedicated quite a lot to voluntary work for the military and said: "I guess none of us would be here, if on our Eastern border there would be Canada." They all agreed. None of them likely would have gone to the military in that position. I definately wouldn't have, because I thought it would be a nightmare for me. Well, it wasn't, especially afterwards.

And this is the absolute question for the Dutch, the country is one of most strategic places for Europe with having the important artery of Rotterdam. Yet you have all around quite nice countries. Belgium isn't bellicose towads you and the Germans aren't either coming. Spanish are even less are thinking of taking back their old possessions. When the Soviet Empire had it tanks in East Germany, that was close enough for you to have a large army and conscription. It was easy to see the threat. Now it's far more difficult, because Russia isn't threatening the territory of the Netherlands. But it will try to attack and dissolve the EU just as it tries to dissolve NATO. And that does create a threat.

In my view Netherlands has been one country, that has really put it's cards into the existence of NATO. When Elon Musk is wanting the US to ditch NATO and UN (which the latter would have tremendous effect on UN decisions towards the Palestinian conflict), this is a new situation. The dramatics won't end up these weeks that we have seen now.

Perhaps it's the contrast to what comes out of America, but European leaders seem to be dealing with the new situation quite well and understanding the situation. At least I'm hopeful.

I'm not. I think it's easy to speak support and much harder to actually do it and get consistent support for it over a longer time period (which we'll need). You'd think this sort of thing transcends party politics but it's very clear in the Netherlands they don't.

Spanish are even less are thinking of taking back their old possessions. — ssu

We declined the fantasy of taking back our old possessions since the day we lost them all! :rofl:

We declined the fantasy of taking back our old possessions since the day we lost them all! :rofl: — javi2541997

But the absurdity of it to us Europeans does tell about the insanity of Putin. An European politician saying similar things and we would think he's lost his marbles. Spaniards understand that they have lost their empire. The British understand that they have lost their empire. What we now have to show the Russians that they too have lost their empire and the they will just do enormous harm to themselves in trying to regain back that empire.

If every European nation would pick from it's history when it was the largest and declare this to the "be the natural state" and then demand that these territories belong to them and any state now existing in them are purely "artificial", we easily understand what kind of a Pandora's box we would open. And we understand that EU was formed because many millions of Europeans had died in two World Wars. Nowhere else has there been such a massacre of people. It's because of those millions of dead that the idea of European integration did achieve so much.

Yet people like Putin (and Trump) don't see it as this way. And a lot of appeasers come to proclaim that these insane visions are "realpolitik".

I'm not. I think it's easy to speak support and much harder to actually do it and get consistent support for it over a longer time period (which we'll need). You'd think this sort of thing transcends party politics but it's very clear in the Netherlands they don't. — Benkei

It will be a coalition of the willing. Always. And that's fine with me.

I wouldn't like an EU that would behave like an imperial entity. Europe doesn't need the integration that Napoleon or Hitler attempted to do. Besides, a confederation of democratic states will always look like a laughable crowd of chickens to an autocrat.

When you say 'supporting Ukraine unwaveringly', you mean to prolong the war?

If so, I think you grossly underestimate how dire the situation will become in Ukraine if the Americans pull the plug. The country has been hollowed out in every way, and there's no way of telling what will happen to it after the Americans leave, or who will be in charge.

I've advocated before that after NATO/USA fucked up by thinking Putin was bluffing before the start of the war they should've put boots on the ground instead of having Ukrainians die for our security (and their sovereignty). Without US support boots on the ground is possibly the only viable alternative for EU if they want to make sure land grabs aren't rewarded.

The idea that caving now doesn't prolong the war is only true with regard to the Ukrainian theatre but we are at war with Putin whether we like it or not. He's made that abundantly clear through all the cyber warfare and campaign influence Russia exercises in Europe with the complicit support of US tech giants (who love to sell distribution for propaganda as long as it turns a profit).

Moreover, a weakened Europe that gives in to Trumpian demands means we relegate ourselves to being vassal states of the USA but now unwillingly. It's, hopefully, a bridge too far for EU politicians.

EDIT: On a final note; it's about high time principles start governing policy again as that's the only true road to security. Pragmatism and opportunism have bred terrorism and antagonistic views across the world against the West; let their hatred pour over the USA idiot in charge - the EU should leverage that undercurrent and position itself as a trustworthy partner not out to police the world but to facilitate cooperation and peace.

European boots on the ground at this stage of the war is courting disaster.

Without the Americans, the Europeans will have to reinvent the wheel in virtually every domain and reboot their entire military industry. Meanwhile, Ukraine will be a crumbling, porous husk.

I don't disagree with the general direction you're thinking in, but to try and do so while also preserving Ukraine is not feasible.

Ukraine would likely not survive long enough for the Europeans to get their things in order, and it would put Europe on a war footing with Russia. The Russians have their allies backing them, while the Europeans will probably lose their principal strategic ally.

Personally, I think the fact that the Russians are willing to settle for a deal under the current circumstances is a clear indicator that they have no interests in needlessly antagonizing Europe.

If they wanted a larger part or even all of Ukraine, now would be the time to press their advantage.