Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Rektsanwalt said:
Many people advocating against a european super army seem to fear the US could be losing its military hegemony in the western world, right?
Click to expand...

What would a European super army look like though? I was never as averse to the idea as most British people but I'd be genuinely interested in how people see it?

-As a replacement for the national armies? Are we talking about a genuine USA style military, where the army acts as the attack and defence force for the whole EU? If so, how do the countries reconcile the fact that the individual member states have such varied foreign policy objectives, in a way that the different sections of the USA/Russia/China do? France has a totally different foreign policy than Poland for instance and is far more willing to project its power.

-As an ultimate replacement for NATO? I could see that as being more realistic but are the European countries willing to lose the American safety umbrella they operate under any time soon?
 
Rektsanwalt said:
Rightfully so! The current EU construct would never be able to control such power. In order for a european super army, a grandeuropean souvereign state is needed, abolishing (mostly) national states. It's an utopia - I know this will not happen in the forseeable future. But that is what I'd hope for to happen. Europe needs to adapt to reality and reality is: the US isn't a reliable partner anymore and the eastern super powers aren't either. Emancipation from the US is the only way forward imo, in order for Europe to become relevant again. We're too dependant. Just one Trump election away from getting fecked over by Putin.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. France has the nuclear capability to destroy Russia.
 
JPRouve said:
So you wouldn't even be in favor of the french proposition which if I remember correctly was an actual army but only made of a handful of the countries initially willing to have an actual army. Because NATO is a non-starter, I don't even understand how you or anyone can mention it when a NATO member has already attacked a European countries without any answer outside of France. I know that people don't like the idea but NATO is absolutely untrustworthy as an organization for Europe, it has it's own agenda.
Click to expand...
NATO isn't there to mediate intra-European conflict. It's there to protect NATO members in Europe from outside attack, primarily from Russia.

If one European nation attacks another, then yeah, trans-continental organisations and alliances are going to be complicated, whether that's the EU or NATO. A member can always go rogue or be in dispute with another member.
 
harms said:
No, sorry, it’s something so obvious for me that I forgot to clarify — for going to an anti-war protest in Moscow. Thankfully I’m using VPN and I doubt that they’d check something like caf in order to find those with a different opinion.
Click to expand...

Absolute legend! :smirk: Are you Russian?
 
That'sHernandez said:
It seems obvious given the numbers in defence vs the numbers attacking.

Looking at the replies in this thread; it seems I am alone in hoping for a swift Russian victory to end the conflict with as few lives lost as possible.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that's a horrible and cowardly mentality. And a complete lack of understanding of the realities of war as well. The mass expulsion of people who don't belong there anymore because it is no longer "their" land. The slaughter of innocent civilians in the process. Putin wants a lot more than just Ukraine, and wishing for a quick end here is naive and it won't just end here. That swift end you want anyway is Ukraine to no longer exist, a country with almost 50 million people. 50 million people who will then be viewed as 2nd rate citizens. People who will be oppressed. Kicked out of their homes.

There isn't any option other than fighting back until Putin either retreats, or is defeated in some way here unfortunately.
 
Zehner said:
Glad to see your irrational and stupid isn't limited to football. Even more evidence to jist don't give two shits on your opinion, regardless of the topic.

On a more serious note, I think today few people have the nerve to deal with what you call your opinion so please do us all afavor and just shut the feck up.
Click to expand...
Awesome a key board warrior limited to insults with an opposing opinion. People who know feck all tend to resort to that. You don’t know shit about football yet you have quite the balls to make a statement like that.

Sure keep supporting a puppet who can barely speak as a “president”.

Cute insults through your computer You showed your true colors their.
 
sport2793 said:
Not sure what the conversation is about but from an American perspective, no one is scared about losing military hegemony other than to China in the near future. If anything, the US would want to see stronger militaries and increased spending in the EU. Even Trump of all people was crying for this.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that especially americans are arguing against a european super army - but in favor of stronger national armies, which would strengthen NATO, but not Europe's own autonomy and situation as much as it would by creating a european army. A united european army could become one of the strongest militaries in the world.

africanspur said:
What would a European super army look like though? I was never as averse to the idea as most British people but I'd be genuinely interested in how people see it?

-As a replacement for the national armies? Are we talking about a genuine USA style military, where the army acts as the attack and defence force for the whole EU? If so, how do the countries reconcile the fact that the individual member states have such varied foreign policy objectives, in a way that the different sections of the USA/Russia/China do? France has a totally different foreign policy than Poland for instance and is far more willing to project its power.

-As an ultimate replacement for NATO? I could see that as being more realistic but are the European countries willing to lose the American safety umbrella they operate under any time soon?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd see it as a complete replacement for national armies. I, personally, feel that european unity is the only way forward to preserve our way of life and maybe even have impact on a global scale for the better. In terms of individual member states, as I stated before, it's currently utopia, I'd prefer a (near) complete abolishment of national states, resulting in a european super state. I know it's not an easy task and the current EU system shows no signs of actually being able to unify so many different interests, but I think that ultimatively, we will end up in a situation where we need to accept, that in order to stay relevant, there's no other possibility but to unify as a continent. And not just in an economic way, but as a legitimate european super state. Again: it's utopia, but that'd be my vision. There's much, much more that unifies us, than we might think at first. Cooperation is the logical way forward, "state-evolutionarywise", as we all started as families, then built tribes, kingdoms etc....you get the idea.

Classical Mechanic said:
I doubt it. France has the nuclear capability to destroy Russia.
Click to expand...

Yea, soon the most fearful charles de gaulle aircraft carrier will be deployed towards russian waters and will strike fear into Russia's heart.
It's not just about possibility, it's about credibility, just as Putin know shows. Everybody believes him, when he says, if another country intervenes, there'll be consequences never seen before (meaning nukes).
 
Sarni said:
US should be far ahead in terms of military by now though, shouldn’t they?
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter if it go down to nukes. Everybody loses really.

Besides even if the USA army is more advanced, Russia is second and that shouldn't be underestimated considering the damage that can be done.
 
bosnian_red said:
I'm sorry but that's a horrible and cowardly mentality. And a complete lack of understanding of the realities of war as well. The mass expulsion of people who don't belong there anymore because it is no longer "their" land. The slaughter of innocent civilians in the process. Putin wants a lot more than just Ukraine, and wishing for a quick end here is naive and it won't just end here. That swift end you want anyway is Ukraine to no longer exist, a country with almost 50 million people. 50 million people who will then be viewed as 2nd rate citizens. People who will be oppressed. Kicked out of their homes.

There isn't any option other than fighting back until Putin either retreats, or is defeated in some way here unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what people stand for nowadays. Our country wouldn't exist if people thought like that in 1992. Hell, even Hitler would have quite comfortably taken whole Europe. Speaking of That'sHernandez's opinion of course.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Doesn't really matter if it go down to nukes. Everybody loses really.

Besides even if the USA army is more advanced, Russia is second and that shouldn't be underestimated considering the damage that can be done.
Click to expand...
No, of course I understand damage would be immense. I just reckon Russia going into open war with US and NATO would basically be suicidal for them. It’s a war they couldn’t win.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
No, a distinct danger wouldn't necessarily degrade NATO, but it would mean european independence. It would maybe - relatively speaking in that regard - weaken the US and the UK's role in NATO business. Germany obviously has not contributed enough to international security, absolutely true, it should have done long time ago and it really shows. You have no idea in what pathetic state our troops are - it's unbelievable.
I want a european super army especially mentioned for the reason above: being less dependant on the US. I don't want the other side of the atlantic to pull the strings for our continent, I want a certain degree of autonomy, which we currently don't have. Other than that, I'd say that a european super army is another necessary step towards a grandeuropean state, which should be the ultimate goal in the next 20-30 years. The world powers are not reliable partners, as Trump has shown, as Putin now shows and as China keeps on showing. Our best and most reliable allies lie within this continent. We've got enough economic power to make it happen and we really should take matters in our own hands. NATO can only profit from this! And should not be touched, this pact needs to stay intact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its a really good idea to send Europeans in Mali to do France's dirty work.

The world needs less armies - not more. And who exactly are the reliable partners? Germany who pulled the strings in the Yugoslavian war? Or Germany and France who decided to save their banks in favor of other European countries.

If a European Army is created, will be only due to France, Belgium and Germany deciding that other European countries should not buy US weapons - only their weapons, not because they want a secure and autonomous Europe.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
I was under the impression that especially americans are arguing against a european super army - but in favor of stronger national armies, which would strengthen NATO, but not Europe's own autonomy and situation as much as it would by creating a european army. A united european army could become one of the strongest militaries in the world.
Click to expand...

I don't think Americans, let alone actual experts, think that a European "super army" is ever going to happen. Too many competing interests in the bloc, too utopian of an idea. Stronger national armies under an EU bloc though would be the closest that one could get in the near to medium term and that would be very welcomed by the US, it would allow them to remove troops from Europe and redeploy assets to East Asia, the more strategically important region for the Western world as a whole in the long term.
 
I think the people of Russia have a major part to play in diffusing this.

Keep up the protests! Tell the world you’re against this craziness.
 
Beans said:
I have no idea how a modern war in Europe between Russia and the US would go.
Click to expand...
None of us would ever know. Maybe a few people on the international space station might be the ones to survive.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
What is punishment if you are arrested? Money? Jail?
Btw, damn, you have balls
Click to expand...
First time it’s usually a fine and maybe a few days (up to 15 days, I think) in jail. If you get arrested for attending a protest for the second time it can lead to some serious time, like a few years in prison. That’s if you haven’t done anything wrong, if they pin any kind of a violent charge on you (like throwing a snow ball or a plastic cup, both are real cases by the way, in the direction of policeman), you’re fecked. But the most absurd case was against a guy that got detained during a protest — as usual, 5 or 6 policemen grabbed him and one of them fell when they were bringing him to their bus… that policeman had misplaced his shoulder and sued the guy that they were carrying, successfully.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
Yes, I'd see it as a complete replacement for national armies. I, personally, feel that european unity is the only way forward to preserve our way of life and maybe even have impact on a global scale for the better. In terms of individual member states, as I stated before, it's currently utopia, I'd prefer a (near) complete abolishment of national states, resulting in a european super state. I know it's not an easy task and the current EU system shows no signs of actually being able to unify so many different interests, but I think that ultimatively, we will end up in a situation where we need to accept, that in order to stay relevant, there's no other possibility but to unify as a continent. And not just in an economic way, but as a legitimate european super state. Again: it's utopia, but that'd be my vision. There's much, much more that unifies us, than we might think at first. Cooperation is the logical way forward, "state-evolutionarywise", as we all started as families, then built tribes, kingdoms etc....you get the idea.
Click to expand...
Guys, I think the Germans are getting ideas again...
 
led_scholes said:
Yeah, its a really good idea to send Europeans in Mali to do France's dirty work.

The world needs less armies - not more. And who exactly are the reliable partners? Germany who pulled the strings in the Yugoslavian war? Or Germany and France who decided to save their banks in favor of other European countries.

If a European Army is created, will be only due to France, Belgium and Germany deciding that other European countries should not buy US weapons - only their weapons, not because they want a secure and autonomous Europe.
Click to expand...

fighting over oil and weapons of mass destruction was so much better, I guess

Yes, I think our european neighbours are much, much more reliable than the US. All of them, bar maybe hungary.
 
A United European army makes extremely little sense from just about every perspective there is.

The only solution here is that every member of NATO keeps increasing spending on their military.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
What is the alternative? His armies are massive and his weapons are plentiful. Nobody wants to enter a war with the Russians. Not even the yanks. It would be a total and utter humanitarian disaster.

The best we can hope for now is that industry leaders force him out. Airlines are already being banned from countries. The Russian economy is about to collapse and all because of their leader.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's a lose lose situation. There's not much that can be done. On one hand you have a world war and millions (maybe even billions) dead and on the other you have an energy crisis in Europe like never before.

I do understand cutting off the gas is the lesser of 2 evils but there's not an easy decision here.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Doesn't really matter if it go down to nukes. Everybody loses really.

Besides even if the USA army is more advanced, Russia is second and that shouldn't be underestimated considering the damage that can be done.
Click to expand...

Russia second ahead of China?
 
Sarni said:
No, of course I understand damage would be immense. I just reckon Russia going into open war with US and NATO would basically be suicidal for them. It’s a war they couldn’t win.
Click to expand...
Russia won't go into open war with US and NATO alone for sure. If that happens there would be a WW 3 and in case like that who knows what happens? If China join them things can get really ugly. It's a plethora of possibilities and permutations, so yes it will be suicidal to go alone, but if they have ideas like that floating they most probably will have allies..
 
Proud to be Lithuanian, fans are chanting “Putin Xhuylo” = Putin’s a dick. This should be sang in all of stadiums in all of sports from now on.
 
Bosnian_fan said:
Makes you wonder what people stand for nowadays. Our country wouldn't exist if people thought like that in 1992. Hell, even Hitler would have quite comfortably taken whole Europe. Speaking of That'sHernandez's opinion of course.
Click to expand...
Yup. Its a horribly misguided and naive opinion. "Just let them take it and it'll be over"... Come on, really? Like you say. We wouldn't have a country to call home if people took that mentality.
 
IWat said:
Russia second ahead of China?
Click to expand...

Allegedly they are. They have more tanks, more aircrafts but a dozen less subs. It could quickly change but China are considered as very powerful mainly in the context of fighting in or around China.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
Yes, I think our european neighbours are much, much more reliable than the US. All of them, bar maybe hungary.
Click to expand...
What would you do with Ireland, determinedly neutral? Just ignore them and let them have the benefits without paying the price? I'd suggest agreeing Ireland still pays 2% but could spend it all on medical support for the armed forces. Although it could be argued that was releasing money for others to spend on fighting. It seemed to work with conscientious objectors in the wars though, many of them served as stretcher bearers and medics, just a thought.
 
bosnian_red said:
Yup. Its a horribly misguided and naive opinion. "Just let them take it and it'll be over"... Come on, really? Like you say. We wouldn't have a country to call home if people took that mentality.
Click to expand...
Unfortunate truth is that people in western Europe are too comfortable to give up their lifestyles etc., for something that’s even so close to them. I hate it, this mentality is perfect for dictators like Putin to exploit.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
fighting over oil and weapons of mass destruction was so much better, I guess

Yes, I think our european neighbours are much, much more reliable than the US. All of them, bar maybe hungary.
Click to expand...

Yeah because Europeans didn't participate in Syria and Libya over oil..
In Europe we can't find a solution over simple things. A new army will just create more mess, more expenses that could go somewhere else and more warmongering.
 
JPRouve said:
Allegedly they are. They have more tanks, more aircrafts but a a dozen less subs. It could quickly change but China are considered as very powerful mainly in the context of fighting in or around China.
Click to expand...
They are also more combat experienced, so i wouldn't be surprised
 
You must log in or register to reply here.