Trump will get a “deal” with Putin that neither Ukraine nor the EU can accept, which will lead to who knows what?
The Trump Presidency - Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
Mad tariff rampage
50% tariff on iphones. Good riddance.
He can strike a deal with Putin, but if Ukraine is not in on it, it won't lead to peace. Ukraine's agency in this is ignored again and again, and Europe also still has an interest in supporting them.
He will ultimately just use it as an excuse to not provide further aid to Ukraine and possibly leave NATO. Then he can whine to his base about how he made a beautiful deal, but the EU and Zelenskyj wanted to keep the war going, or something.
Well, he's lambasted just about every ally APART from Japan and South Korea. He's complained and threatened military withdrawals in Europe but not done any of the same in the Pacific.
Of course the first amendment allows for the state department to not be a paid customer of Reuters.
It's also totally senseless because the US doesn't spend on Europe defense, that's a total fallacy. They spend to inflate the revenues of US defense contractors and they spend on facilities that allow them to do their solo missions in the middle east easier. Their military spendings are for their own economic benefits and it won't stop or be reduced any time soon.
Yeah, think people are mistaking this for them forcing their employees to not have a private subscription.
He’d do the same to those countries the second he thinks there is anything to gain from it.
I read somewhere that the combined total of EU(UK) support for Ukraine has been £132 billion so far and the US contribution has been £114 billion so Trump’s claim that it’s all been on the US isn’t right either.
Another lie?
To ban Reuters and the Associate Press is kind of wild, as far as I know these are few of the unbiased sources.
What do you mean the US doesn't spend on European defense?
-Practically the entire strategic airlift of Europe is provided by the 3rd Air Force
-UK doesn't have enough fighter jets coverage for itself so there are 4 permanent US Fighter Wings in the UK - requested by the UK government.
-Italy and Germany have another 7 permanent US fighter wings and 4 on rotation dependent on the time - US wanted to pull them out in 2018 but Germany and Italy protested.
-Europe Rapid Response Brigades are almost always American brigades because nobody else has the capacity to meet this NATO requirement
-Half of European Missile Shield Umbrella are American Anti Air battalions
-To cut on European defense budget spending, the Americans pay for the infrastructure of all the key European air bases such as Ramstein and Lask.
-Practically most of the NATO general staff are paid for by American money
-There are ammo/supply depots stretched across Western and Central Europe in case a war ever gets hot and they're all funded out of American budgets
The EU Support is "pledged" which means it hasn't actually reached this number yet.
I mean heck, I don't understand how anyone can argue that the Americans are only there to support Middle eastern conflicts and to subsidize their own military industrial manfacturers when the strongest fighting force in Europe is V Corps.
The strongest land force in Europe is the weakest American Corps level formation should tell you everything you need to know about the state of European defence. I've said this before but its worth repeating, France and UK combined cannot even scrape together an armoured division between them. That's absolutely screwed up beyond belief.
The strongest land force in Europe is the weakest American Corps level formation should tell you everything you need to know about the state of European defence. I've said this before but its worth repeating, France and UK combined cannot even scrape together an armoured division between them. That's absolutely screwed up beyond belief.
They can't?
It's not really about how Trump works himself, the last time he was surrounded by idiots that he just iterated through at a rate of knots. This time, there are competent people that have realised they just need to induce ideas in him and let him run once they take. He is just the delivery mechanism this time, and as long as the people behind him don't rock his boat, they'll get most of what they want. Which is hopefully where it will fall apart, as the success is based on huge egos subjecting themselves to a nut bag for the sake of their bank balances/ideals, which is a fragile setup at best.
Not in any meaningful sense of the term.
The UK 1st Division is technically an armoured division but its basically brigade strength. France's 1st Armoured Division only has two MBT regiments which is sub brigade strength.
Theoretically, if you cannibalized all existing UK and French brigades, took out all the equipment in storage, and cobbled it all together into a single divisional level unit, you would have enough strength for a meaningful armoured division.
The fact that we are even having to resort to this kinda proves my point.
Well some say that in 2025 the wars are not necessarily decided by who has more armored divisions, but even if that was the case, IIRC there are other NATO members, like Poland, who have decent armored division capabilities. I'm all for specialization and division of responsibilities between European allies rather than "everyone needs 10k tanks".
What is the meaning of meaningful?
It's more than just him and here to stay.
i'm gripping myself, what now? Instructions unclear.
Instructions in username.
Perhaps consider supporting a different club if you are comparing the actions of the one you allegedly support to a facist.
I don't have any problem with supporting either of them so no need for that. Saying that I actually support both, Man United an Trump with the same passion, I have close to 0 interest in either. But I fail to see why political views would have any meaning on which club you should support.
You compared the actions of a facist cnut to that of a football club. Pretty sure clubs if they had the choice would disown facist fans but you do what you like.
There aren’t enough people that would vote for left policies for it to be worth it
What do you mean? Trump said to Taiwan that should pay more for its defencr and that they were not fair with the semi conductor industry. Sounds pretty familiar with the same rhetoric with US neighbours and europe.
But hey if you think trump has any other goal that inflate his pockets and his ego and that has ij his mind the well being of US besides being a biproduct of his well being, i wont stop you believing it.
IMO, there might be people on his team that might think more strategically, but not trump
Armoured formation strength hasn't really changed in numerical value since the concept began in the 1930's.
We can compare to a modern US armoured Division, or a 90's NATO standard Armoured Division as a comparison point.
This is an example of a US Armoured Division
Note 6 Armoured Regiments, 6 Mobile Infantry/Cavalry (IFV) Regiments.
Nobody is asking for 10k tanks.
I'm just saying the three richest countries in Europe combined should have more than 400.
Armoured formation strength hasn't really changed in numerical value since the concept began in the 1930's.
We can compare to a modern US armoured Division, or a 90's NATO standard Armoured Division as a comparison point.
This is an example of a US Armoured Division
Note 6 Armoured Regiments, 6 Mobile Infantry/Cavalry (IFV) Regiments.
It doesn't answer the question. The US army isn't and shouldn't be a point of reference for what is deemed meaningful. Unless the US army is what Europe is supposed to be defended from.
Armoured formation strength hasn't really changed in numerical value since the concept began in the 1930's.
We can compare to a modern US armoured Division, or a 90's NATO standard Armoured Division as a comparison point.
This is an example of a US Armoured Division
Note 6 Armoured Regiments, 6 Mobile Infantry/Cavalry (IFV) Regiments.
Thank you for that
Is there an estimation on how many armoured divisions Rusia and China has?
Does Ukraine has any currently?
Why? It's the only major NATO country who actually managed to maintain their military properly post 00's. Although even then that comes with caveats. The above armoured division was the standard in 1990s.
How about a before - after?
UK 1st Armoured Division pre cuts:
Post Cuts:
1 MBT regiment. 2 IFV regiments. In a "Armoured Division"
Pre restructure it was 2 dedicated MBT regiments, 6 regiments with MBT's. 6 Regiments with IFVs.
Why? It's the only major NATO country who actually managed to maintain their military properly post 00's. Although even then that comes with caveats. The above armoured division was the standard in 1990s.
How about a before - after?
UK 1st Armoured Division pre cuts:
Post Cuts:
1 MBT regiment. 2 IFV regiments. In a "Armoured Division"
Pre restructure it was 2 dedicated MBT regiments, 6 regiments with MBT's. 6 Regiments with IFVs.
Again it doesn't answer the question. What is deemed meaningful? And particularly in the context of defending a particular territory?
Ukraine Force structure is mostly at the brigade level, but they have plenty of brigade strength armoured units - enough to form possibly 3-5 Armoured divisions.
Russia still has enough graveyard stock to fully kit out 10+ Armoured Divisions.
China has 10+ too.
Thanks
Unless they are going back in time to defend Kursk in 1943 what use could those have against current nato hardware with the nato c&c and other assets (not what Ukraine currently has to deal with) , even without US assistance? These tincans will be useless against previous generations of manpats?
Well I think you don't quite understand what sports clubs are, which is marketing agency, if you think that. Bigger fan base, bigger income is all that matters, so I think they would definitely not alienate any group of people.
And ok I will bite in the fascist argument even if I don't want to. How, if he is fascist, did he compared to last elections gained most votes from male population of black and mexican people. I would think those guys wouldn't vote for a fascist.
As I said, I have close 0 interest in Trump or in politics for that matter. I liked Trump more than the alternative in last elections because I thought he will be better for US and the world but I couldn't care less if he would lose.
And that neutral point of view gives me that right perspective because you can more easily accept arguments for and against something if you don't care about which side wins the argument. It is the same with supporting United. Not being emotionally invested as much as I was in supporting United gives me real perspective how catastrophical things are at the club, the view that me from 10 years ago would never accept. Me 10 years ago would probably argue people to death that a club which is 15th in the league is one of the best in the world with elite players in the squad. Opinion which is based on results clearly wrong.
I see you have very strong opinion on politics and Trump and maybe you should ask yourself if that strong opinion is clouding your mind a little.
In what conditions are those armored divisions tho?
Obviously anything armored vs none beats it - but it seems highly likely a lot of the more modern and well maintained equipment of almost every other country will outperform what they put on the field.
Honestly none of these point make much sense, EU members as a whole allegedly have around 5000 MBTs, Russia allegedly currently has around 6000.
So what are we even talking about? Unless the US are the ones we are supposed to defend, EU members have meaningful means of defense.
So what are we even talking about? Unless the US are the ones we are supposed to defend, EU members have meaningful means of defense.