Jump to content

America's Foreign Policy & Other Shit Going On Around the World thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
Yes, and no. We have another poster who knows Central Europe way better than me. [mention=5728]956 Worldwide[/mention]  Please come to the white phone.
Most of my german contacts are nervous. With almost 20% they are a power. They can stop anything. I am also curious about where they won. Looks like mainly in the East.

Oh yeah, their stronghold is the East. The culture that lived under the Russian yoke for 50 years, and longs for their authoritarian daddy.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


So, I’m not familiar enough with German parliamentary math. Can’t the CDU and the Greens and SPD build a coalition that doesn’t need AfD?

We have friends there who are already texting a lot with us today, very nervous.

German elections are notoriously complex— a first round of direct first past the post geographic districts and then a proportional second round.  The numbers to watch are 3 (direct seats) and 5 (percent)— the threshold to actual be seated in parliament. 
 

Parties that don’t get the threshold means that seats in parliament are reassigned proportionally to parties that make it in, so CDU for instance will get more seats than the percentage vote they get. 
 

Too early to see how things shake out and it’s important to say that The Left and BSW are also very pro-Kremlin, populist, anti-Europe.  They are constitutionally more like AfD than SPD. 
 

A grand deal between CDU, SPD, and Greens could happen and maybe FDP gets across the line.  But these grand coalitions are inherently fragile as it’s a marriage of political enemies with deep policy differences.  No one is happy and all parties jockey for more power.  The dysfunction feeds discontent and populism.

It is a dangerous time for basic liberal values.  And the warning signs had been blinking in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia for easily a decade but the collective West chose to drive with the check engine light on. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
Posted (edited)

If you have a way to read The Atlanticthis is a pretty good read on the AfD and Germany. As in the US, a lot of it is self-inflicted.

Edited by naija
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


So, I’m not familiar enough with German parliamentary math. Can’t the CDU and the Greens and SPD build a coalition that doesn’t need AfD?

We have friends there who are already texting a lot with us today, very nervous.

Until recently, none of the other parties would have anything to do with AfD.  CDU accepting AfD help on a recent immigration bill was somewhat scandalous.

Often you'd see the #1 and #2 party work something out.  But I doubt that happens here.  The Greens would team up with CDU before the Greens would let AfD in the door I think.  If they had any sense at all, the SPD, Greens and FDP should just accept some small slice of power and freeze out the Nazis.  We don't need another von Papen thinking they'll let AfD in just a little bit and then control them.  That didn't work out so well the last time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Merz has for all his career been a dyed-in-the-wool Transatlanticist and this speech is pure Gaullist.   These are incredible things to hear from a CDU figure.  I don’t think people understand that we are actively destroying a world where the single largest and wealthiest common market is friendly and aligned with us.  In one month. 
 

image.thumb.png.e2cb0bb05f77b43b4161fcd2f18b9c09.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Merz has for all his career been a dyed-in-the-wool Transatlanticist and this speech is pure Gaullist.   These are incredible things to hear from a CDU figure.  I don’t think people understand that we are actively destroying a world where the single largest and wealthiest common market is friendly and aligned with us.  In one month. 
 

image.thumb.png.e2cb0bb05f77b43b4161fcd2f18b9c09.png

 

It turns out that De Gaulle was right about the inherent dangers of being overly reliant on the US. He was a dick about it, but ultimately, correct.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

As of now, the CDU and SPD will be netting 33% and 19% of total seats in the Bundestag, which is > 50% if my math is correct. So those two alone can form a governing coalition. 

It's all up to the CDU, but the dreaded 3-party grand coalition can be avoided. Hopefully, Germany has some solid anti-corruption laws to prevent Elmo's influence as the new government forms.

  • Like 4
Posted
8 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Most of my german contacts are nervous. With almost 20% they are a power. They can stop anything. I am also curious about where they won. Looks like mainly in the East.

Putin’s old stomping grounds. 

Posted
5 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

As of now, the CDU and SPD will be netting 33% and 19% of total seats in the Bundestag, which is > 50% if my math is correct. So those two alone can form a governing coalition. 

It's all up to the CDU, but the dreaded 3-party grand coalition can be avoided. Hopefully, Germany has some solid anti-corruption laws to prevent Elmo's influence as the new government forms.

Correct.  The Kremlin BSW project barely missed the cutoff so CDU and SPD can make a red-black coalition. Much easier than trying to cobble together one with the Greens, too. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Gangster mentality— everything is leverage, nothing can be mutually beneficial, terms can always change.  Even talking about this is deeply irresponsible.  It is true that the U.S. is the major supplier of intel for sharing but FVEY divides responsibilities along thematic and geographic zones and losing its capabilities would seriously disrupt U.S. awareness.  Also— it’s hard to see the rest of the Anglosphere accepting Canada getting the boot.

image.thumb.png.a78aefb90812f71241b7933c165cf43d.pngimage.thumb.png.a78aefb90812f71241b7933c165cf43d.png

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Rage+1 5
Posted

Macron Raises Prospect of New European Nuclear Weapons

French President Emmanuel Macron has said he is ready to start discussions for nuclear deterrence for Europe in response to the threat posed by Moscow.

Macron told the newspaper Le Monde he was ready for talks about nuclear weapons for the continent following a request from the likely German chancellor, Friedrich Merz.

The French president's comments on Friday follow reports earlier in the week that France was ready to use its nuclear deterrent to help protect Europe.

Michael Witt from King's Business School, King's College London, told Newsweek that France's offer to extend its nuclear umbrella was in response to President Donald Trump signaling a retreat from NATO which meant Europe could not rely on U.S. protection.

Why It Matters
France is one of the two European countries with a nuclear deterrent, along with the U.K. Trump has cast doubt on the U.S. role in NATO and so a Europe-wide nuclear weapons capability signals the continent accepts it can no longer rely on Washington for protection.

What To Know
On Friday, Macron told Portuguese television that if Europe wanted "greater autonomy" in matters of defense, then its leaders should start a strategic and "open" discussion about a nuclear deterrent.

Macron referred to the threats posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in comments which follow a statement by Germany's election winner Merz about "nuclear sharing" with France and Britain, and Europe exerting its nuclear independence.

The U.S. has an arsenal of around 100 nuclear missiles, many of them stationed in a U.S. military base in Germany but this security guarantee for Europe is under threat with Trump's rhetoric.

Michael Witt, professor of international business and strategy at KCL, said France's offer to extend its nuclear umbrella to Germany and Europe could solve the issue of a U.S. retreat from security support of Europe. But Germany must overcome its reluctance and take a leading role in funding the effort.

Witt also said that Europe must tackle its energy vulnerabilities, as reliance on external sources risks blackmail and weakens defense without U.S. support and that boosting domestic production, including nuclear, is key to this.

Boris Johnson, the former British prime minister, told The Telegraph there was a "moral case" for Ukraine to have its own nuclear weapon due to the danger posed by Russia which has issued numerous nuclear threats since the start of the war.

What People Are Saying
French President Emmanuel Macron: "If colleagues want to move towards greater autonomy and deterrence capabilities, then we will have to open this very deeply strategic discussion. It has very sensitive and very confidential components but I am available for this discussion to be opened."

Michael Witt, King's College London: "With Donald Trump signaling a retreat from NATO commitments and prioritizing American interests over alliances, Europe can no longer rely on U.S. protection. France's offer to extend its nuclear umbrella to Germany and the rest of Europe presents the most viable solution."

What Happens Next
Citing German diplomatic sources, The Telegraph reported talks on a European deterrent for Germany had not started amid discussions on forming a coalition government following last weekend's election.

Macron has been pushing Europe to hold a debate on the role that French nuclear weapons can play in the continent's defense, which could pressure the U.K. to follow suit.

Posted
21 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

image.png.f0117b7617462928a923b0c28d0b9367.png

They evoked Article V to help us in Afghanistan Lindsey.  The only time it's ever been done.  Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

They evoked Article V to help us in Afghanistan Lindsey.  The only time it's ever been done.  Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit.

invoked, not evoked, obviously!  😄

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/25/2025 at 10:14 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

Gangster mentality— everything is leverage, nothing can be mutually beneficial, terms can always change.  Even talking about this is deeply irresponsible.  It is true that the U.S. is the major supplier of intel for sharing but FVEY divides responsibilities along thematic and geographic zones and losing its capabilities would seriously disrupt U.S. awareness.  Also— it’s hard to see the rest of the Anglosphere accepting Canada getting the boot.

image.thumb.png.a78aefb90812f71241b7933c165cf43d.pngimage.thumb.png.a78aefb90812f71241b7933c165cf43d.png

Peter Navarro is a boob and nincompoop.  If you didn't know before, that whole spectacle he put on in connection with his contempt of Congress trial and conviction should have convinced you.

An utterly silly twat.

  • Like 1
Posted

A former supreme allied commander of NATO weighs in on some of the implications of a possible US withdrawal from NATO.

Europe Is Getting Ready for the End of NATO
If Trump pulled the US out of the alliance, the European allies would no longer follow Washington’s lead on foreign policy.
March 4, 2025 at 11:00 PM CST
By James Stavridis

This is a column I never dreamed I’d be writing, as a former supreme allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But sadly, given all the skeptical and increasingly divisive rhetoric about the venerable alliance emanating from Washington and Europe in the early days of the second Donald Trump administration, it is time to think about what the world would look like geopolitically if the US pulled out.

Are we indeed in the last days of NATO? What would replace it, if anything? Or, if it survived, what would NATO look like without the US?

Pulling America out of NATO would be a mistake of epic proportions — but there are influential politicians in the Republican Party who are seriously advocating doing so, or at least musing about the possibility. As Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said recently: “NATO has not always been playing in our best interest. And when it’s not America’s best interest anymore, we should relook at things.” Last June, 46 House Republicans voted for an amendment defunding NATO.

Vice President JD Vance was scornful about the alliance in his scathing speech at the Munich Security Conference last month. And of course, last week’s surreal public shouting match in the Oval Office between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, catalyzed by Vance, doesn’t inspire much confidence in future NATO cooperation.

The decision by the US to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, joining with Russia and North Korea, was a shocking demonstration of the transatlantic alliance’s failing cohesion.

Spoiler

On the European side, doubt about the US commitment is increasing. French President Emmanuel Macron has been talking about the need for independent European defense forces — “strategic autonomy” — for years. He and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency meeting of European leaders over the weekend to discuss a separate initiative to end the war in Ukraine.

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Frederick Merz, has been equally blunt. “We must prepare for the possibility that Donald Trump will no longer uphold NATO’s mutual defense commitment unconditionally," Merz told a German broadcaster. “It is crucial that Europeans make the greatest possible efforts to ensure that we are at least capable of defending the European continent on our own.”

And there was Zelenskiy’s understandable call for a “united European military,” code for “we can’t count on the US anymore,” something he was pushing even before the tongue-lashing he received from Trump last week.

Yet despite all the rhetoric, the value proposition of NATO to the US remains high. Overall defense spending by Europe, spurred by the threat of Russia’s aggression and Trump’s pressure, is finally hitting the alliance goal of 2% of GDP. NATO is seriously discussing increasing that to at least 3.5%, the level of spending by the US.

Collectively, Europe has the second largest defense budget in the world, bigger than either China or Russia. Large, capable defense companies in Europe — Airbus SE, BAE Systems PLC, Saab AB, Thales SA, Naval Group SA, Rolls-Royce PLC, Rheinmetall AG, Fincantieri SpA and others — produce immense amounts of high-quality equipment. They are going to be ramping up and receiving huge contracts — largely at the expense of US defense firms and workers.

And for all our frustration with the Europeans, the US will ultimately want them to help us face the ever-increasing Chinese threat in the Pacific. Their contributions in cybersecurity, intelligence and space operations are key; and they are crucial for Arctic operations, where six of the nations facing Russia across the North Pole are NATO members.

Above all, of course, the European allies share our fundamental values of democracy, liberty and human rights. They fought and died alongside us in Afghanistan, and deployed under my command to Libya, the Balkans, Iraq, and on counterpiracy operations off East Africa.

But if we follow the instincts of some on the US political right and formally withdraw from the alliance, pulling our nearly 100,000 troops out of Europe (which will be costly, because much of their garrison costs are born by the allies), or “defund NATO,” the organization will collapse. US warships based in Europe, a huge operational geographic advantage for the Navy, would return to US ports. Squadrons of fighters, transports and surveillance planes would also withdraw.

image.png.638aa32bcef0d3b9d982f82dbd05014e.png

What might rise in its place? Possibly a European Treaty Organization, or ETO. It could be based on the current NATO treaty, but excluding the US. Canada might choose to remain in an ETO; Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to London for the emergency meeting over the weekend, and his nation needs European security partners in the Arctic.

Alternatively, a new security arrangement could be created under the auspices of the European Union (including non-EU member Britain). The EU already has reasonably well-developed command structures, a supreme commander — called the chair of the EU Military Committee, who was my counterpart a decade ago — and experience conducting operations independently of the US or NATO, for example in Balkan peacekeeping.

This would be terra incognita: No nation has ever fully withdrawn from NATO. But if the US simply decided to step away from NATO, I predict the Europeans would do three things.

First, they would continue to ramp up their defense spending, particularly by increasing their nuclear capability (the UK and France are already among the world’s nuclear powers). They would increase their aerospace forces, both for offense and defense. Spending on intelligence, cyberwarfare and space operations would rise, and compete with US operations. And given the threat of Russia, they might even consider broader conscription (a few of the European countries, including new NATO members Sweden and Finland, currently require forms of military service).

Second, the Europeans’ foreign and defense policies would rapidly split from those of the US. Instead of confronting China alongside Washington, they might seek greater economic and perhaps even military cooperation with Beijing, as a hedge against growing US alignment with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. More European nations will likely join Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Europe may be far less inclined to join with the US in pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, and instead seek economic advantages there. And they would poach American trading partners, especially if a NATO withdrawal comes in tandem with big new tariffs directed toward Europe. [SEE MAP BELOW FROM SEPARATE SOURCE]

Finally, Europe would strongly support Ukraine, recognizing that it would be a disaster to capitulate to Putin’s conquest of the agrarian and mineral-rich nation: If superimposed on the map of Western Europe, it would reach from the Mediterranean to Britain. Europe simply cannot cede it to a hostile Russia.

There is an old saying about why NATO was created: “To keep the Germans down, the Americans in, and the Russians out.” If the US decides to go its own way in the world — as it disastrously did in the 1920s and 1930s — that equation would be obsolete. The new expression could be: “With the Americans out, and the Russians trying to get in, the Europeans won’t be held down.” I’m hoping the transatlantic bridge isn’t going to buckle entirely, but I can certainly hear it creaking loudly. If it collapses, it won’t end well on either side of the Atlantic.

r/europe - Global Trade Dominance, EU vs US

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

A former supreme allied commander of NATO weighs in on some of the implications of a possible US withdrawal from NATO.

Europe Is Getting Ready for the End of NATO
If Trump pulled the US out of the alliance, the European allies would no longer follow Washington’s lead on foreign policy.
March 4, 2025 at 11:00 PM CST
By James Stavridis

This is a column I never dreamed I’d be writing, as a former supreme allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But sadly, given all the skeptical and increasingly divisive rhetoric about the venerable alliance emanating from Washington and Europe in the early days of the second Donald Trump administration, it is time to think about what the world would look like geopolitically if the US pulled out.

Are we indeed in the last days of NATO? What would replace it, if anything? Or, if it survived, what would NATO look like without the US?

Pulling America out of NATO would be a mistake of epic proportions — but there are influential politicians in the Republican Party who are seriously advocating doing so, or at least musing about the possibility. As Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said recently: “NATO has not always been playing in our best interest. And when it’s not America’s best interest anymore, we should relook at things.” Last June, 46 House Republicans voted for an amendment defunding NATO.

Vice President JD Vance was scornful about the alliance in his scathing speech at the Munich Security Conference last month. And of course, last week’s surreal public shouting match in the Oval Office between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, catalyzed by Vance, doesn’t inspire much confidence in future NATO cooperation.

The decision by the US to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, joining with Russia and North Korea, was a shocking demonstration of the transatlantic alliance’s failing cohesion.

  Reveal hidden contents

On the European side, doubt about the US commitment is increasing. French President Emmanuel Macron has been talking about the need for independent European defense forces — “strategic autonomy” — for years. He and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency meeting of European leaders over the weekend to discuss a separate initiative to end the war in Ukraine.

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Frederick Merz, has been equally blunt. “We must prepare for the possibility that Donald Trump will no longer uphold NATO’s mutual defense commitment unconditionally," Merz told a German broadcaster. “It is crucial that Europeans make the greatest possible efforts to ensure that we are at least capable of defending the European continent on our own.”

And there was Zelenskiy’s understandable call for a “united European military,” code for “we can’t count on the US anymore,” something he was pushing even before the tongue-lashing he received from Trump last week.

Yet despite all the rhetoric, the value proposition of NATO to the US remains high. Overall defense spending by Europe, spurred by the threat of Russia’s aggression and Trump’s pressure, is finally hitting the alliance goal of 2% of GDP. NATO is seriously discussing increasing that to at least 3.5%, the level of spending by the US.

Collectively, Europe has the second largest defense budget in the world, bigger than either China or Russia. Large, capable defense companies in Europe — Airbus SE, BAE Systems PLC, Saab AB, Thales SA, Naval Group SA, Rolls-Royce PLC, Rheinmetall AG, Fincantieri SpA and others — produce immense amounts of high-quality equipment. They are going to be ramping up and receiving huge contracts — largely at the expense of US defense firms and workers.

And for all our frustration with the Europeans, the US will ultimately want them to help us face the ever-increasing Chinese threat in the Pacific. Their contributions in cybersecurity, intelligence and space operations are key; and they are crucial for Arctic operations, where six of the nations facing Russia across the North Pole are NATO members.

Above all, of course, the European allies share our fundamental values of democracy, liberty and human rights. They fought and died alongside us in Afghanistan, and deployed under my command to Libya, the Balkans, Iraq, and on counterpiracy operations off East Africa.

But if we follow the instincts of some on the US political right and formally withdraw from the alliance, pulling our nearly 100,000 troops out of Europe (which will be costly, because much of their garrison costs are born by the allies), or “defund NATO,” the organization will collapse. US warships based in Europe, a huge operational geographic advantage for the Navy, would return to US ports. Squadrons of fighters, transports and surveillance planes would also withdraw.

image.png.638aa32bcef0d3b9d982f82dbd05014e.png

What might rise in its place? Possibly a European Treaty Organization, or ETO. It could be based on the current NATO treaty, but excluding the US. Canada might choose to remain in an ETO; Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to London for the emergency meeting over the weekend, and his nation needs European security partners in the Arctic.

Alternatively, a new security arrangement could be created under the auspices of the European Union (including non-EU member Britain). The EU already has reasonably well-developed command structures, a supreme commander — called the chair of the EU Military Committee, who was my counterpart a decade ago — and experience conducting operations independently of the US or NATO, for example in Balkan peacekeeping.

This would be terra incognita: No nation has ever fully withdrawn from NATO. But if the US simply decided to step away from NATO, I predict the Europeans would do three things.

First, they would continue to ramp up their defense spending, particularly by increasing their nuclear capability (the UK and France are already among the world’s nuclear powers). They would increase their aerospace forces, both for offense and defense. Spending on intelligence, cyberwarfare and space operations would rise, and compete with US operations. And given the threat of Russia, they might even consider broader conscription (a few of the European countries, including new NATO members Sweden and Finland, currently require forms of military service).

Second, the Europeans’ foreign and defense policies would rapidly split from those of the US. Instead of confronting China alongside Washington, they might seek greater economic and perhaps even military cooperation with Beijing, as a hedge against growing US alignment with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. More European nations will likely join Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Europe may be far less inclined to join with the US in pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, and instead seek economic advantages there. And they would poach American trading partners, especially if a NATO withdrawal comes in tandem with big new tariffs directed toward Europe. [SEE MAP BELOW FROM SEPARATE SOURCE]

Finally, Europe would strongly support Ukraine, recognizing that it would be a disaster to capitulate to Putin’s conquest of the agrarian and mineral-rich nation: If superimposed on the map of Western Europe, it would reach from the Mediterranean to Britain. Europe simply cannot cede it to a hostile Russia.

There is an old saying about why NATO was created: “To keep the Germans down, the Americans in, and the Russians out.” If the US decides to go its own way in the world — as it disastrously did in the 1920s and 1930s — that equation would be obsolete. The new expression could be: “With the Americans out, and the Russians trying to get in, the Europeans won’t be held down.” I’m hoping the transatlantic bridge isn’t going to buckle entirely, but I can certainly hear it creaking loudly. If it collapses, it won’t end well on either side of the Atlantic.

r/europe - Global Trade Dominance, EU vs US

 

No longer a member of NATO?  Dude, Europe needs to be preparing for MUCH more than that.  Europe needs to begin treating the US as a hostile enemy.  That includes ALL the things: they should amp up their spying on us, stop using our weapons systems (develop and manufacture the FUCK out of their own), and start reverse engineering our systems to work out how to counter them (yes, Europe needs to learn how to shoot down F-35s, and right soon).

The percentage chances of a shooting war between the US and Europe are over 10% at this point, and when you reach that point, you damned well better start planning for war. 

  • Like 1
Posted

as an aside, i enjoy reading that in French. ive tried to stay up on my French since my re-immersion this time last year (in preparation for first European trip). i've honestly surprised myself with how easily i can read and even hear it and understand now. i like to watch Timothee Chalamet and Jodie Foster interviews in French 😆

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Incredible stuff. We very nearly burned Japan to the ground, told them that they can’t have a military except for what we allow, we get to use their country as a garrison to forward deploy our own forces against Russia and China, and this man believes we somehow got scammed on this deal. 
 

image.thumb.png.3d370ee153b79e8e230e8e6edcea87b2.png

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Incredible stuff. We very nearly burned Japan to the ground, told them that they can’t have a military except for what we allow, we get to use their country as a garrison to forward deploy our own forces against Russia and China, and this man believes we somehow got scammed on this deal. 
 

image.thumb.png.3d370ee153b79e8e230e8e6edcea87b2.png

Fuck it. They got Ninjas and Samurai and Godzilla. Why they need us?

Forget the whole Indo-Pacom shift.

Posted
17 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Fuck it. They got Ninjas and Samurai and Godzilla. Why they need us?

Forget the whole Indo-Pacom shift.

I really like Pannonia, it’s a wonderful place but we have an entire legion there.  The Illyrians and Celts, they are great people but we’ve been treated very unfairly, very unfairly.  A whole legion we have there in Pannonia, and they don’t have any.  I don’t know who signs these deals but I’ll be looking into it very strongly. 
 

image.jpeg.bcde3e2d45143bd9bc7d606b0942c3ea.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I really like Pannonia, it’s a wonderful place but we have an entire legion there.  The Illyrians and Celts, they are great people but we’ve been treated very unfairly, very unfairly.  A whole legion we have there in Pannonia, and they don’t have any.  I don’t know who signs these deals but I’ll be looking into it very strongly. 
 

image.jpeg.bcde3e2d45143bd9bc7d606b0942c3ea.jpeg

Hahaha, I just ordered a book on that revolt.

  • Haha 1
Posted

@956 Worldwide

Watch this one.

Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik has vowed to ignore a summons from Bosnian state prosecutors who are investigating him for allegedly undermining the country’s constitutional order.

Bosnia’s central prosecutor said on Thursday that it was probing Dodik’s passing of separatist laws, which effectively bar national police and the judiciary from the Serb-dominated autonomous statelet of Republika Srpska in Bosnia.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/6/bosnian-serb-leader-dodik-defies-prosecutor-summons-over-separatist-laws

 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

@956 Worldwide

Watch this one.

Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik has vowed to ignore a summons from Bosnian state prosecutors who are investigating him for allegedly undermining the country’s constitutional order.

Bosnia’s central prosecutor said on Thursday that it was probing Dodik’s passing of separatist laws, which effectively bar national police and the judiciary from the Serb-dominated autonomous statelet of Republika Srpska in Bosnia.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/6/bosnian-serb-leader-dodik-defies-prosecutor-summons-over-separatist-laws

 

Man, I try to keep up with the Balkan stuff and I know the general contours of what is happening, but the intricacies escape me.  It seems that Dodik and Sarajevo are doing a dance battle but trying to avoid coming to blows le actually declaring secession. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Man, I try to keep up with the Balkan stuff and I know the general contours of what is happening, but the intricacies escape me.  It seems that Dodik and Sarajevo are doing a dance battle but trying to avoid coming to blows le actually declaring secession. 

Yeah, but that shit is always. Why now? Goes back to one of my earlier posts.

Rump Serbia (Republika Srbska) always was pulling this shit. What is interesting is going after the Federation Police, that they were part of.

This is an EU Thorn. We focus on Hungary being Russias baby. But Serbs can go full Orthodox and say fuck it. Kosovo Polje MoFo's. And with the existing subcultures it is not hard to kill any opposition.

Open a bottle of win and watch the BBC's Death of Yugoslavia. Just the first one. Here is the link.

And this fucks with Turkey. Handle it wrong, parts of Bulgaria get pissed. Do it real wrong and now the Macedonians and Greeks are pissed.

Faultlines are always the most dangerous.

Posted

image.png.1e2dd51f4e1a2b0e8b25118b7018181c.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-letter-khamenei.html?smid=url-share

President Trump said he had sent a letter to the Iranian government seeking to negotiate a deal to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

He said the letter was sent Wednesday and addressed to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. The White House did not immediately respond to a request to provide the letter or further describe its contents.

“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Mr. Trump told Maria Bartiromo in an interview aired Friday on Fox Business. “I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”

The move is a sharp pivot for Mr. Trump, who in 2018 withdrew the United States from a nuclear deal with Iran, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

Iran did not immediately provide a response.

In the interview, Mr. Trump described the letter as saying, “I hope you’re going to negotiate because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran.”

“If we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them,” he said, adding: “The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump talked more broadly about his desire to see the world’s countries eliminate their nuclear weapons. He said he hoped to negotiate denuclearization efforts with China and Russia as well.

“It would great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

  • Haha 2
Posted

Back to Canada now, here's a piece about the annexation crap. TFG reportedly wants to renegotiate the border, our Great Lakes treaty, kick them out of the Five Eyes, and reconsider cooperation on NORAD. Short article.

image.thumb.png.937031d2e0c7025fe39c8bfda61b549c.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/canada/trump-trudeau-canada-51st-state.html

Quote

 

After President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada on Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made an extraordinary statement that was largely lost in the fray of the moment.

“The excuse that he’s giving for these tariffs today of fentanyl is completely bogus, completely unjustified, completely false,” Mr. Trudeau told the news media in Ottawa.

“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us,” he added.

This is the story of how Mr. Trudeau went from thinking Mr. Trump was joking when he referred to him as “governor” and Canada as “the 51st state” in early December to publicly stating that Canada’s closest ally and neighbor was implementing a strategy of crushing the country in order to take it over.

The February Calls
Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau spoke twice on Feb. 3, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, as part of discussions to stave off tariffs on Canadian exports.

But those early February calls were not just about tariffs.

The details of the conversations between the two leaders, and subsequent discussions among top U.S. and Canadian officials, have not been previously fully reported, and were shared with The New York Times on condition of anonymity by four people with firsthand knowledge of their content. They did not want to be publicly identified discussing a sensitive topic.

On those calls, President Trump laid out a long list of grievances he had with the trade relationship between the two countries, including Canada’s protected dairy sector, the difficulty American banks face in doing business in Canada and Canadian consumption taxes that Mr. Trump deems unfair because they make American goods more expensive.

He also brought up something much more fundamental.

He told Mr. Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary. He offered no further explanation.

The border treaty Mr. Trump referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the United States.

Mr. Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties, a topic he’s expressed interest about in the past.

Canadian officials took Mr. Trump’s comments seriously, not least because he had already publicly said he wanted to bring Canada to its knees. In a news conference on Jan. 7, before being inaugurated, Mr. Trump, responding to a question by a New York Times reporter about whether he was planning to use military force to annex Canada, said he planned to use “economic force.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

During the second Feb. 3 call, Mr. Trudeau secured a one-month postponement of those tariffs.

This week, the U.S. tariffs came into effect without a fresh reprieve on Tuesday. Canada, in return, imposed its own tariffs on U.S. exports, plunging the two nations into a trade war. (On Thursday, Mr. Trump granted Canada a monthlong suspension on most of the tariffs.)

Glimpses of the rupture between Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau, and of Mr. Trump’s aggressive plans for Canada, have been becoming apparent over the past few months.

The Star, a Canadian newspaper, has reported that Mr. Trump mentioned the 1908 border treaty in the early February call and other details from the conversation. And the Financial Times has reported that there are discussions in the White House about removing Canada from a crucial intelligence alliance among five nations, attributing those to a senior Trump adviser.

Doubling Down
But it wasn’t just the president talking about the border and waters with Mr. Trudeau that disturbed the Canadian side.

The persistent social media references to Canada as the 51st state and Mr. Trudeau as its governor had begun to grate both inside the Canadian government and more broadly.

While Mr. Trump’s remarks could all be bluster or a negotiating tactic to pressure Canada into concessions on trade or border security, the Canadian side no longer believes that to be so.

And the realization that the Trump administration was taking a closer and more aggressive look at the relationship, one that tracked with those threats of annexation, sank in during subsequent calls between top Trump officials and Canadian counterparts.

One such call was between Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick — who at the time had not yet been confirmed by the Senate — and Canada’s finance minister, Dominic LeBlanc. The two men had been communicating regularly since they had met at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s home and club in Florida, during Mr. Trudeau’s visit there in early December.

Mr. Lutnick called Mr. LeBlanc after the leaders had spoken on Feb. 3, and issued a devastating message, according to several people familiar with the call: Mr. Trump, he said, had come to realize that the relationship between the United States and Canada was governed by a slew of agreements and treaties that were easy to abandon.

Mr. Trump was interested in doing just that, Mr. Lutnick said.

He wanted to eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

He wanted to tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario.

And he is also reviewing military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

A spokesperson for Mr. Lutnick did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Mr. LeBlanc declined to comment.

In subsequent communications between senior Canadian officials and Trump advisers, this list of topics has come up again and again, making it hard for the Canadian government to dismiss them.  

The only soothing of nerves has come from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the four people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Rubio has refrained from delivering threats, and recently dismissed the idea that the United States was looking at scrapping military cooperation.

But Canada’s politicians across the spectrum, and Canadian society at large, are frayed and deeply concerned. Officials do not see the Trump administration’s threats as empty; they see a new normal when it comes to the United States.

On Thursday, at a news conference, a reporter asked Mr. Trudeau: “Your foreign affairs minister yesterday characterized all this as a psychodrama. How would you characterize it?”

“Thursday,” Mr. Trudeau quipped ruefully.

 

 

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Back to Canada now, here's a piece about the annexation crap. TFG reportedly wants to renegotiate the border, our Great Lakes treaty, kick them out of the Five Eyes, and reconsider cooperation on NORAD. Short article.

image.thumb.png.937031d2e0c7025fe39c8bfda61b549c.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/canada/trump-trudeau-canada-51st-state.html

 

I said it before, and people think I'm hysterical (that's okay, I'm used to it -- I'm also used to being right about this fucking guy)....but Canada should absolutely be in full-on top-speed preparations for violent conflict with the US.  Preparing to blow bridges (both at the border and in the US interior -- get your sapper teams in here and have them biding their time), technological disruptions, blowing electric and petroleum supply lines (both at the border and internal), etc.  Use their existing intel and military sharing connections to pre-plan sabotage of American equipment, communications, and forces.

Canada can't win a war.  But they can be a porcupine that TFG can't swallow.

They would be fucking stupid NOT to be doing those things, and doing them right now.

Yeah.  We live in a world where the only rational move for Canada is to prepare for war with the United States.  Jesus fucking Christ this is the dumbest timeline imaginable, and there is no bottom to its stupidity.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Just got a stop-work notice from the Navy on a foreign military sales project they were working in Morocco due to Executive Order 14169.  Not a big financial deal for my company, but sucks that we sell a country air defense equipment and then immediately stop supporting it.   Fuck Trump and Elmo.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I said it before, and people think I'm hysterical (that's okay, I'm used to it -- I'm also used to being right about this fucking guy)....but Canada should absolutely be in full-on top-speed preparations for violent conflict with the US.  Preparing to blow bridges (both at the border and in the US interior -- get your sapper teams in here and have them biding their time), technological disruptions, blowing electric and petroleum supply lines (both at the border and internal), etc.  Use their existing intel and military sharing connections to pre-plan sabotage of American equipment, communications, and forces.

Canada can't win a war.  But they can be a porcupine that TFG can't swallow.

They would be fucking stupid NOT to be doing those things, and doing them right now.

Yeah.  We live in a world where the only rational move for Canada is to prepare for war with the United States.  Jesus fucking Christ this is the dumbest timeline imaginable, and there is no bottom to its stupidity.

Completely agreed. And, for the record, I've never -- not once -- thought you were hysterical in your warnings. Annoyingly repetitious at times? Sure, but your determination to make your point by beating that dead horse effectively got your point across. Congratulations on that, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I've pretty much been exactly where you are since the light came on for me in the early 1990s, recognizing that actual, real-life fascists were taking over the GOP and were a deadly threat to American democracy.

Man, it's been a really fucking frustrating 30+ years. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The transcript:

Quote
Full text: "Mr. Prime Minister, respected ministers, dear colleagues, Europe stands at a critical crossroads in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being left without support, Russia - strengthened. Washington has turned into Nero's court: an emperor-arsonist, submissive courtiers, and a jester intoxicated with ketamine, responsible for purges in the state apparatus. This is a tragedy for the free world, but above all - for the United States itself. Trump's message is unambiguous: being an ally of America is meaningless, because it will not protect you, will impose tariffs exceeding sanctions against its enemies, and will threaten to seize your territories, supporting dictators who attack you. The "king of deals" in practice demonstrates the art of capitulation. He thinks he will intimidate China by groveling before Putin, but Xi Jinping, observing this collapse, is surely accelerating preparations for an invasion of Taiwan.
 
Never in U.S. history has a president capitulated to an enemy. Never before has a White House chief supported an aggressor against an ally. Never before has a president violated the Constitution so boldly: illegal decrees, dismissal of judges who could oppose him, instant purge of military leadership, undermining all checks and balances, usurpation of control over social networks. This is not just an "illiberal inclination" - it is an attempt to usurp democracy. It's enough to remember: the destruction of the Weimar Republic took just one month, three weeks, and two days. I believe in the resilience of American democracy, and protests in the country have already begun. But in just one month, Trump has caused America more harm than in all four years of his previous presidency. We waged war against a dictator - now we are fighting a dictator who is aided by a traitor.
 
Eight days ago, when Trump was patting Macron on the back in the White House, the US voted in the UN together with Russia and North Korea - against Europe, demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops. Two days later in the Oval Office, the "draft-dodger" Trump lectured the moral and strategic war hero Zelensky, and then dismissed him like a negligent lackey, saying: "Obey or leave." Tonight, he went even further - stopping weapon deliveries that had already been promised. How to respond to this betrayal? The answer is simple: resist. First of all - don't make mistakes. Ukraine's defeat will be Europe's defeat. The Kremlin's list already includes the Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova. Putin's goal is a return to Yalta, where half of Europe was given to Stalin. And the countries of the global South are waiting for the outcome of this conflict to decide: whether to still respect Europe or whether it can already be trampled upon.
 
Putin seeks to destroy the order established 80 years ago by the US and its allies, the main principle of which is the prohibition of seizing territories by force. This principle underlies the UN, and today America votes for the aggressor and against the victim, because "Trumpism" coincides with Putin's worldview. A return to spheres of influence, where great powers decide the fate of small countries. "To me - Greenland, Panama, and Canada, to you - Ukraine, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe, to him - Taiwan and the South China Sea." In the circles of Mar-a-Lago oligarchs, this is called "diplomatic realism." And in reality, this means one thing: we are left alone. But the assertion that it is impossible to resist Putin is a lie. On the contrary, despite Kremlin propaganda, Russia is weakening. In three years, its "second army in the world" has managed to recapture only crumbs from a country three times inferior to it in population. Interest rates at 25%, depletion of foreign exchange and gold reserves, demographic collapse - Russia stands on the edge of an abyss. Putin's support from the US is the biggest strategic mistake in the history of wars.
 
However, this blow has sobered Europe. In one day in Munich, Europeans realized: Ukraine's fate and Europe's future are in their hands.
 
Now we have three priority tasks:
 
1. Accelerate weapons deliveries to Ukraine - compensate for America's betrayal, strengthen its defense and establish a European presence in any negotiations. This is expensive but necessary. It's time to break taboos and use frozen Russian assets, as well as create a coalition of determined countries, despite pro-Russian saboteurs within the EU.
 
2. Any agreement must provide for the return of abducted children, the release of prisoners and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know the value of "agreements" with Putin. This means Europe must have enough military power to prevent a new invasion.
 
3. Create European defense, abandoned after 1945 and undermined after the collapse of the USSR. This is a titanic task, but it is precisely by its success or failure that future generations will judge the current leaders of Europe. Friedrich Merz stated that Europe needs its own military coalition - this means that France was right all these decades, advocating strategic autonomy. Now it needs to be built. Massive investments, a European defense fund beyond Maastricht debt restrictions, unification of weapon systems, accelerated admission of Ukraine to the EU - the first army of Europe. A new nuclear strategy based on French and British forces. Development of missile defense and satellite systems. Ursula von der Leyen's plan is a good start, but more will be needed. Europe will become a military power again only if it regains its status as an industrial superpower. This means Mario Draghi's plan is needed - and this time it will have to be implemented. But the main factor in European rearmament is moral mobilization. We need to convince society, overcome fatigue, fear of war, and resistance from Putin's allies - the far-right and far-left.
 
Yesterday they again spoke in the National Assembly, Mr. Prime Minister, against European unity, against European defense. They say they want peace. But what they actually seek is capitulation. Their "peace" is defeat. It is the replacement of de Gaulle-Zelensky with a Ukrainian Pétain, obedient to Putin. This is the "peace" of collaborationists who have been sabotaging any help to Ukraine for three years. The end of the Atlantic alliance? The risk is great.
 
But in recent days, the humiliation of Zelensky and a series of insane decisions have caused outrage in the US itself. Trump's ratings are falling, Republicans in their districts are met by hostile crowds, even Fox News has begun to criticize the president. Trumpists still control the executive branch, Congress, the Supreme Court, and social networks, but in American history, those who fought for freedom have always won. And they are already raising their heads. Ukraine's fate is decided in the trenches. But it also depends on those who in the US are fighting for democracy, and on us - whether we can unite Europe, create its defense shield and restore its status as a great power.
 
Our ancestors defeated fascism and communism at the cost of the greatest sacrifices. Our task is to defeat the totalitarianism of the 21st century. Glory to free Ukraine! Long live democratic Europe!"

 

 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Completely agreed. And, for the record, I've never -- not once -- thought you were hysterical in your warnings. Annoyingly repetitious at times? Sure, but your determination to make your point by beating that dead horse effectively got your point across. Congratulations on that, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I've pretty much been exactly where you are since the light came on for me in the early 1990s, recognizing that actual, real-life fascists were taking over the GOP and were a deadly threat to American democracy.

Man, it's been a really fucking frustrating 30+ years. 

THIS ^^^

Posted
53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Completely agreed. And, for the record, I've never -- not once -- thought you were hysterical in your warnings. Annoyingly repetitious at times? Sure, but your determination to make your point by beating that dead horse effectively got your point across. Congratulations on that, and I'm not being sarcastic in the least. I've pretty much been exactly where you are since the light came on for me in the early 1990s, recognizing that actual, real-life fascists were taking over the GOP and were a deadly threat to American democracy.

Man, it's been a really fucking frustrating 30+ years. 

Well, to take the punches that I certainly deserve....I didn't really figure it out/click until 2008, when I realized that what I thought was fringe idiocy of people like Pat Buchanan actually became the dominant ethos of half of America.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was the most catastrophic event to strike this country since Pearl Harbor.  Not because of him, but because of what electing a black man president awakened and infuriated.  I naively thought our country wouldn't/couldn't go full retrograde.  I was so, so, so wrong.

And, having felt the sting and responsibility for being so, so, so wrong....I've lived with my eyes wide open ever since.  Once you see the horror unfolding, you can't see anything else, and you can't look away.  And you can't understand how other people can't see it.  It's a bit Fields of Dreams-ish - even Timothy Busfield, once he saw the reality in front of him in the cornfield, couldn't look away, and joined in the rest of the protagonists in not understanding how anyone could miss it.

So, mea culpa.  I was blind and stupid.  But the only thing worse than having been blind and stupid would be to stubbornly continue to be blind and stupid out of pointless pride.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Back to Canada now, here's a piece about the annexation crap. TFG reportedly wants to renegotiate the border, our Great Lakes treaty, kick them out of the Five Eyes, and reconsider cooperation on NORAD. Short article.

image.thumb.png.937031d2e0c7025fe39c8bfda61b549c.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/canada/trump-trudeau-canada-51st-state.html

 

He's just doing the empty suit move where a new CEO comes in and makes a bunch of changes to put his stamp on things. Good or bad move doesn't matter - he has to be doing things to feel important.

Just, most empty suits don't command the most powerful fighting force in human history

Posted
16 minutes ago, mchookem said:

all this Canada shit is bc Melania wants to fuck Trudeau isn't it

If we're going to war against every country that has a man in it who Melania would rather fuck instead of donnie boy.....

435664cd-b8d0-4f58-94bb-5f9a2da26426_tex

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...