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.
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.