European leaders have now not only lost faith in Donald Trump’s U.S. presidency, but also in America’s hegemony as a whole. But short-term challenges make an immediate divorce unwise.
They made their ‘allies’ pay a 10% surcharge… and then spent the ammunition on a fruitless war with Iran instead. So, no, they are not sending weapons or ammunition any more.
The US must own major shares in EU weapon manufacturers. They knew the war was coming at the latest when Biden warned about it, but more likely when Russia sent the green men or even earlier. They will get their share.
The big picture is that China is taking over all markets and the EU is compensating by creating demand. It also creates the opportunity to go to war with China.
From an American perspective, the more Europe builds its own capacity the better because everything will be needed to fight China.
We are past that opportunity but the EU and Russia could have formed an economic union and could have become that challenger.
Instead China is about to become that challenger. The US cannot isolate China if Russia is delivering all necessary resources. So the US is using the Ukraine war to weaken Russia to change that somehow.
Buying the weapons is not a problem. Buying government bonds was the way of the EU to finance the US government weapons programs. With tariffs that has shifted to direct purchases.
So to the EU it looks like we just defend Ukraine. But the big winner is the US because they achieve their long-term goal, which turns the with into a for.
I hope that one day you’ll realise that quoting a part of a sentence from a book you only know from Wikipedia and treating that as the undisputed truth, while ignoring all other parts left and right from it that collide with your set-in-stone world view proves nothing more than you don’t believe what you see but rather see what you believe.
US diverting 20,000 missiles promised for Ukraine to the Middle East
So despite these missiles were already bought and paid for even at a 10% surcharge, Trump and Pentagon decided to not honor the deal.
There may still be deliveries, but USA has once again shown they are not a trustworthy ally, and they are not even a trustworthy supplier.
That’s one weapon system. It doesn’t change that the US is still a, or even the major weapon supplyer.
The rockets were more urgently needed in the middle east. The US can be blamed for many things but that decision is understandable.
USA has once again shown they are not a trustworthy ally,
No doubt about that.
There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on…shame on you.’ Fool me—you can’t get fooled again."
To know the history of the US and to expect to be treated differently than the Philippines is a risky move.
Furthermore, the EU won’t be stable for long. If Russa and China are eliminated, what will the EU be for the US strategically but a challenger?
EU and China are the most stable regions in the world. There is absolutely no chance China will be “eliminated”.
The Russian federation may collapse, but I can’t see how that would impact EU negatively? Russia has been trying to destabilize Europe for decades, not having that problem anymore, would definitely be an advantage for EU.
EU has strong cooperation with some of the former Soviet states, the same will probably happen if the Russian federation collapses. Making life a little bit easier for EU, and EU most likely making new friends.
The Russian federation may collapse, but I can’t see how that would impact EU negatively?
About 2001 Putin offered to create a joined economic zone between EU and Russia but the EU declined. Now the best case scenario would be Russia crumbling, and joining the EU. What’s the difference? Was Russia so corrupt that we couldn’t make it happen, even not with a plan that layed out steps to end the corruption?
The US doesn’t accept a challenger in Asia. The US is a naval power that controls the world by controlling the shipping lanes. If the EU would span over Asia no shipping would be needed. The US would lose their power. To prevent that the EU will be destroyed should it have the possibility to achieve that. It could already be happening.
The reaction must have been the same in 2001. That arrogance will cost us dearly because now it’s China that is getting Russia’s resources.
We will try to prevent it, that’s why we have Readiness 2030. Russia doesn’t need more land, but the US cannot let China and Russia join forces or they will lose their hegemonial position.
So no, the US still delivers, they just made the EU pay for it.
They made their ‘allies’ pay a 10% surcharge… and then spent the ammunition on a fruitless war with Iran instead. So, no, they are not sending weapons or ammunition any more.
It just highlights the dependency on the US. To frame it as if the EU is fighting without the US gives the opposite impression.
Supporting Ukraine is peanuts compared to Rearm Europe, and none of that goes to the US.
The US must own major shares in EU weapon manufacturers. They knew the war was coming at the latest when Biden warned about it, but more likely when Russia sent the green men or even earlier. They will get their share.
The big picture is that China is taking over all markets and the EU is compensating by creating demand. It also creates the opportunity to go to war with China.
From an American perspective, the more Europe builds its own capacity the better because everything will be needed to fight China.
How would you call it? Fighting with or alongside the US? Or is it neither?
Trick question because I think we are fighting for the US.
The usual link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
We are past that opportunity but the EU and Russia could have formed an economic union and could have become that challenger.
Instead China is about to become that challenger. The US cannot isolate China if Russia is delivering all necessary resources. So the US is using the Ukraine war to weaken Russia to change that somehow.
Buying the weapons is not a problem. Buying government bonds was the way of the EU to finance the US
governmentweapons programs. With tariffs that has shifted to direct purchases.So to the EU it looks like we just defend Ukraine. But the big winner is the US because they achieve their long-term goal, which turns the with into a for.
The usual truncated quote. -.-
I hope that one day you will realize that there is no vision but only the goal to shape a corporate global community.
I hope that one day you’ll realise that quoting a part of a sentence from a book you only know from Wikipedia and treating that as the undisputed truth, while ignoring all other parts left and right from it that collide with your set-in-stone world view proves nothing more than you don’t believe what you see but rather see what you believe.
Just a couple of lines below:
So no, even when profiteering extra from it, USA is unreliable.
Why are you always like this? Always with something stupid that is clearly false?!?!
Do you have a source for that? They have haltet rockets for the Patriot system because there is a shortage. But there is no general stop like in 2025.
Recent news are about increased delivery.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/21/nato-ministers-meet-as-us-plans-to-pull-away-from-european-security
https://thedefensepost.com/2026/05/06/us-jdam-er-ukraine/
I think I could demonstrate that it is correct. There are still deliveries. If that makes me look stupid I have to live with it.
https://abcnews.com/Politics/zelenskyy-us-moved-20000-missiles-fight-drones-ukraine/story?id=122662585
So despite these missiles were already bought and paid for even at a 10% surcharge, Trump and Pentagon decided to not honor the deal.
There may still be deliveries, but USA has once again shown they are not a trustworthy ally, and they are not even a trustworthy supplier.
That’s one weapon system. It doesn’t change that the US is still a, or even the major weapon supplyer.
The rockets were more urgently needed in the middle east. The US can be blamed for many things but that decision is understandable.
No doubt about that.
To know the history of the US and to expect to be treated differently than the Philippines is a risky move.
Furthermore, the EU won’t be stable for long. If Russa and China are eliminated, what will the EU be for the US strategically but a challenger?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
EU and China are the most stable regions in the world. There is absolutely no chance China will be “eliminated”.
The Russian federation may collapse, but I can’t see how that would impact EU negatively? Russia has been trying to destabilize Europe for decades, not having that problem anymore, would definitely be an advantage for EU.
EU has strong cooperation with some of the former Soviet states, the same will probably happen if the Russian federation collapses. Making life a little bit easier for EU, and EU most likely making new friends.
Without Russia, the US can shut down China with a naval blockade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain
About 2001 Putin offered to create a joined economic zone between EU and Russia but the EU declined. Now the best case scenario would be Russia crumbling, and joining the EU. What’s the difference? Was Russia so corrupt that we couldn’t make it happen, even not with a plan that layed out steps to end the corruption?
The US doesn’t accept a challenger in Asia. The US is a naval power that controls the world by controlling the shipping lanes. If the EU would span over Asia no shipping would be needed. The US would lose their power. To prevent that the EU will be destroyed should it have the possibility to achieve that. It could already be happening.
https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-hungary-from-eu/a-75134777
Putin Offered. 🤣🤣🤣
For fucks sake, as if it is up to Russia to “offer” EU to be part of their economic zone. 🤡🤡🤡
Goddam you are far gone.
The reaction must have been the same in 2001. That arrogance will cost us dearly because now it’s China that is getting Russia’s resources.
We will try to prevent it, that’s why we have Readiness 2030. Russia doesn’t need more land, but the US cannot let China and Russia join forces or they will lose their hegemonial position.
There are no longer delivered support between allies, they only now deliver sold products to their customers.
Before they were paid in mining rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–United_States_Mineral_Resources_Agreement and Germany buying US government bonds.
After the tariffs, they don’t want a trade deficit, so the money is spent directly.
The war is still coordinated from their base in Wiesbaden. (German) https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/nach-trump-ankuendigung-wiesbaden-vorerst-nicht-von-us-truppenabzug-betroffen-v1,kein-truppenabzug-in-wiesbaden-100.html