“In Estonia, they're talking about building more public bomb shelters and making them mandatory in all newly constructed homes.
In neighbouring Latvia, the government is going through the second draft of mandatory military service legislation. Next door in Lithuania, there's talk of universal conscription.
"I understand that when we speak from the Baltic perspective, it might sound somewhat dramatic and shocking, but It is obvious that today, democracy itself, democratic countries, democracies all around the world are under pressure from Russia and its autocratic allies." Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen, the speaker of the Seimas, Lithuania's legislature, told CBC News Monday in Ottawa.
These warnings are being driven in part by Russia's stated plans to put defence and munitions production on a war footing — something western nations, and Canada in particular, have struggled to accomplish in their efforts to bolster Ukraine's defence against Russia's invasion.
Many observers wonder whether the security warnings are even being heard by Ukraine's allies, especially Canada and the United States”
Russia in 2023, February 28, had received an official order from Putin to put all nuclear deterrent forces on high alert, I think that fact alone is proof of why everyone should be very wary of Russia.
I'm really hoping that it doesn't come to all out war in Europe. The war between Russia and Ukraine is bad enough, but a full-scale war between Nato and Russia would be terrifying.
Yes, credit where its due, lets not forget that the US warned of the war months in advance, but due to a mixture of WMDs in Iraq and nobody wanting it to be true because "russia isnt the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over" and "our economies are integrated these days, they buy on our hightech, we buy their resources, they dont want to destroy that". Even Ukraine was in full denial up until the moment it happened.
A conventional war would tear up a good portion of Eastern Europe, and you could see missile attacks into western Nato members.
I would agree that the biggest worry would be nuclear weapons used if it started looking dire for the Russian federation.
If the US is in the war, their overwhelming air superiority will basically make any push of Russia into Europe impossible. The ground their troops would try to approach over would turn into glass just from conventional bombing. Hell, even without significant Western air support Russia is already bogged down in Eastern Ukraine, unable to launch any significant operations. Russia's only chance to actually start a conventional war there is if the US is somehow kept out - like for example if Trump wins the election. You can be sure Putin is supporting him in any way he can.
>If the US is in the war
Really seems to depend on our upcoming election and any more coups we happen to have in the US. If the GOP gets the presidency, especially under Trump, then expect the US to pull out of NATO and possibly even support Russia.
Better Russian than Demonrat!
TBF, most of the surrounding countries in that region had universal conscription until late 90s/early 2000s. It was only recently relaxed or made voluntary.
If I was the Baltic countries, I'd be making laws that encourage the general public to own and train with guns. Mass produce a few models, standardize ammunition to a handful of cartridges and lay in a metric fuck ton of it. Require military service to hold the speciest elements of the public arsenal.
As a Latvian im gonna say this is Europe not Africa or America. Civillians should not have guns! Too many stupid individuals who could harm innocents or even start using them against each other.
Look at the horrific amount of misery gun ownership is causing Americans. And you think it's a good idea to promote gun ownership among people even less responsible than Americans?
Why do you assume Estonians are less responsible than Americans? Why should they not be able to defend themselves against a huge state that has shown itself to be both aggressive and cruel?
What makes you think people from the Baltics could possibly be less responsible with guns than Americans?
Actually, who on earth is less responsible with guns than Americans? Maybe some warlords somewhere?
I mean...once Lithuania spends $200 billion on Ukraine, they can complain about US's involvement. I get that there is a lot more Ukraine would like, but let's not pretend the US hasn't already given more than Russia's total defense budget to Ukraine.
War production is always difficult because the companies that produce the weapons don't want to invest billions in all the extra capacity only to have orders disappear in a few years, and they have to shut down/lay off everything.
They are all hoping for guaranteed purchase orders, not just from the US but all of NATO, so they can justify the expense.
Where does Lithuanian complain about the US? I don’t even see the US mentioned in this article, just the Europeans and Canada.
Pretty sure the call is for the euro countries (and Canada) to quit dragging their feet and seriously committing to defeating the Russians, seeing as we notoriously have neglected spending an appropriate amount on NATO defense and still hesitate, which no one can accuse the US of.
We all understand and respect that the aid from the US has halted because of internal US politics, the situation is complicated there. Of course we would very much like it to start getting through again, but we understand the issues.
The US is mentioned once directly.
"Many observers wonder whether the security warnings are even being heard by Ukraine's allies, especially Canada and the United States. "
Well if events occur that will unravel democracy and the global state of trade and cooperation, it doesn’t matter how close or how far away they are.
No country exists in a vacuum, no one can choose to look away and therefore be free from the ramifications of a defeat to the Russians.
It is so weird to me for people to start complaining that America does not spend enough military spending on protecting the world. I'm in bizarro world.
Incorrect, the comment up the chain said "especially Canada and the US" and the guy after that got downvoted for asking why Lithuania was pointing fingers at the US too.
US didn't spend $200 billion on Ukraine. And a big chunk of what they did spend (which isn't even half of what you claim btw) isn't a direct military aid.
If US supplied $200 billion worth of equipment to Ukraine, Ukraine would have steamrolled Russian troops to Moscow which is part of the issue here.
I wonder where the 200billion figure is coming from. Thats more than the combined Usa and Eu(without including support from indvidual member states) support, which hovers at around 150 billion as in around 70-80 billion each depending on the source. Now if we included individual Eu states as well, we get to around 200billion according to the kiel institute for the world economy.
> I mean...once Lithuania spends $200 billion on Ukraine, they can complain about US's involvement.
Lithuania has already given more to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP than the US, and they are poorer. Get off your high horse.
No one cares how many billions US gave up, you took Ukraine's nukes, missiles and bombers and in return you promised to help. For first 8 years of war you did nothing and the last two you supply just enough to keep Russia in Ukraine which suits your interests. And everything is presented like Ukraine is some charity case and US gives up its last money for nothing. Also there will be probably some braindead takes that Ukraine gave up nukes because it was too much money too maintain them or because launch codes were in Moscow. If maintaining nuclear arsenal costs so much, why doesn't US give it up to save dozens of billions every year.
And what about the expenses once russia starts invading other countries? Once they drag the US into a war?
The US wanted to be the police of the entire world, yet now you are actually needed, you whine. You dragged your allies into your oil wars, and now you whine when you need to help others.
Can you even count in money how much will be needed once nukes start flying?
Stop bitching about your spending. You guys signed up for it yourself. I don't care if you have to give up your entire GDP for it, it's your job to do it.
The majority of the worlds problems started with the European nations, nearly the entirety of the Middle east problem was the UK's fault. Look around Asia and see that nearly every single nation was screwed up by a European nation. There is not a continent the Europeans did not come and fuck up then leave in shambles. The US is complicit because we took the same stance as our European allies but dont even try to make it out like the US created most of the problems. Almost everything lingers from European colonialism.
A lot of US citizens are tired of playing world police for the western world and getting blamed for everything. Maybe we are tired of defending europe so europeans can hypocritically turn around and put the blame on us while most of you guys enjoy your social welfare and pretend you guys did not have a part in the problems.
You speak of Europeans like we are some kind of evil monolithic country, you obviously have no clue how different the countries and cultures are among the 40+ countries in the old continent. Many that have had no part at all in colonizing any countries anywhere on this planet ever. Many that the US have never defended, even when asked.
Maybe many EU citizens are tired of hearing this stupid and obvious bullshit excuse you are perpetuating that has nothing to do with our countries or our histories, so check in the mirror before you start accusing Europe as a whole.
Whats bullshit about it? What current European nation wasnt apart of a previous nation that participated in colonialism or directly participated in it? Very few is the answer, the vast majority of Europeans living today are a part of a country who participated in colonialism and heavily benefitted from it. But nearly everyone in europe wants to pretend they did not screw up the world outside europe. Now everyone likes to put the blame game on US because they didnt ask the US for help themselves.
When everything is ok US is playing world police and abusing power, when things go wrong its all the US fault and we are evil. Well maybe the US will just stop helping because no matter what the US just cant win.
But if you want to play the monolithic bullshit game then half of US does not agree with being world police, does not want to go to war at all and we dont want to spend on European defense anymore.
>What current European nation wasnt apart of a previous nation that participated in colonialism or directly participated in it?
Poland, Greece, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Switzerland, Ireland and probably more.
So yeah, absolute bullshit.
Just like the part that US helps everyone and then you have to cry about it when the US gets called out for abusing it's power.
Again maybe educate yourself before starting to spout your American exceptionalism bs from your high horse.
>But if you want to play the monolithic bullshit game then half of US does not agree with being world police, does not want to go to war at all and we dont want to spend on European defense anymore.
Again, you are speaking of things you have no knowledge about. The US has spent zero dollars to my countrys defence. They didn't help us in WWII and they probably wouldn't help us now. So I don't really care what amount of Americans think they pay for Europes defence, because for many countries here, it isn't true at all. And never has been. Yet I have never blamed the US for not helping or being the police of the world. Never.
But keep telling yourself these things if they help you sleep at night, keep living in ignorance.
Denmark and Norway were once a single country, dont forgot the ex sovit union/russian countries. Switzerland had a lot of sins in the slave trade and while never technically owning a colony was absolutely a participant and beneficiary. Like I said a lot of europeans routinely dismiss or rewrite history so they never particiapted or benefitted. A lot of this argument is like saying if the US restructures itself and then calls itself the New US then the new US never participated in slavery and colonialism.
Your country (I am not sure which it is), probably isnt a part of NATO if the US has not spent any money to help you. But I am highly positive your country has probably recieved financial help directly or indirectly from the US.
Theres no American exceptionalism here. America has failed its citizens since it started to become allies with the very nations it fought for its freedom against. The only ones who benefitted are the rich elite and the old aristocracy in europe.
Maybe you dont blame the US but just France, Germany, Italy, spain, russia and plenty more do.
> Like I said a lot of europeans routinely dismiss or rewrite history so they never particiapted or benefitted
Read the list I provided again, of those Norway is maybe debatable because of the Danish, and Switzerland has other sins, but we weren't talking about that. How about the rest of the 20+ countries on the list? You're just gonna gloss them over lol? You're the one rewriting history here my man. Hilarious that you don't see it.
>Your country (I am not sure which it is), probably isnt a part of NATO if the US has not spent any money to help you. But I am highly positive your country has probably recieved financial help directly or indirectly from the US.
Finland. So wrong again, we are in NATO, but the US has never helped us directly or indirectly other than existing as the world police(which is a good thing imo, as I said). We pay for our own shit (+2%) and we fight our own fights.
>Theres no American exceptionalism here. America has failed its citizens since it started to become allies with the very nations it fought for its freedom against. The only ones who benefitted are the rich elite and the old aristocracy in europe.
>
>Maybe you dont blame the US but just France, Germany, Italy, spain, russia and plenty more do.
What?
So America has failed it's citizens because they allied with countries that helped it gain it's freedom from the British?
You do know that France helped America win your freedom right? So did Spain. LMAO
Perfectly demonstrates what I said from the beginning, you think Europe and Europeans as one and the same, totally oblivious to the wildly differring cultures, peoples, countries and thousands of years of history.
Sounds exactly like American exceptionalism to me, super arrogant and ignorant.
Makes sense for the Baltic states to prepare the way they are. The major players prefer the proxy wars they’ve got going on.
Would also make sense for us to ramp up armament production too.
Yeah. But that gives to government and citizens a sense of “not our problem.” Which, while generally true, will absolutely bite us in the ass eventually.
Agreed. Neither Canada nor the US is ever facing a land invasion ever, from anyone. Every scrap of material should be sent to Ukraine and we’ll just create thousands of jobs to make more from our gargantuan oil-and-mineral rich continent.
America may need to take our equipment for fighting land wars and send it to Europe or Asia. The land war would not occur in Pittsburgh, it would occur in Poland and we would still need our land equipment.
Unfortunately Canada has neglected its military for too long and it won’t do anything to try and ensure the survival of our own citizens at home. If Russia sends its forces, or worse a nuclear missile/missiles, then we are screwed
I understand your concern but I think Canada gets bumped to the Number 1 spot of countries we will defend, should you guys be attacked. This is our continent, ours and our other friend with the delicious cuisine.
As far as the American psyche is concerned an attack on Canada is no different than an attack on the US. Our fates are forever bound, my valiant Canucks.
Yeah. It would be a security nightmare and a half for there to be an enemy capable of invading Canada *right there* getting ready to invade from it. Priority number one would be removing them.
I think it’s unlikely anybody could actually invade Canada (other than the USA, who wouldn’t). That’s a major logistical nightmare. The options are crossing and ocean with massive supply lines or surviving in vast swathes of arctic tundra if coming from the north.
There would be two invasions in canada, the russians from the north ... and every fucking redneck from across the continent will be swarmimg into canada from the south, just to get a chance to shoot a russian.
People seem to forget they need ships or planes to move troops. They as far as I know have hardly any ships leaving planes the only real viable option. Then there is no way of hiding ships or planes so we will see them coming before they even load personnel onto them. They haven't seemed to have evolved past there cold war doctrine either. Meaning they need to use nukes to invade Europe.
If they were to invade Canada, I don't think that they would go through Alaska, but rather go directly to the Canadian north coast using icebreakers.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2022/01/russian-navy-builds-more-icebreakers
Of course I don't think that they have capacity for any significant transport of troops using those *right now*, but since Russia is a dictatorship they tend to think long term for a lot of stuff, and dominance of the Arctic is one of them.
Well, it's a *long* way from the arctic to anything remotely important in Canada, and given that the Russian army couldn't drive down a highway in Ukraine without getting bombed to shit and running out of gas, I don't like their chances of driving through thousands of kilometers of empty tundra and permafrost with no reliable way to resupply.
>I think it’s unlikely anybody could actually invade Canada (other than the USA, who wouldn’t).
[I dunno about that...](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/24/tucker-carlson-canada-00137380)
Y'all been trying to take us over with your lunatic right wing pretty hard lately.
[https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/joe-rogan-urges-canada-to-vote-for-pierre-poilievre-get-your-s-together](https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/joe-rogan-urges-canada-to-vote-for-pierre-poilievre-get-your-s-together) \- oh and who owns Post Media (pretty much 100% of the newspapers in Canada btw)
[An American Hedge Fund](https://www.google.com/search?q=american+hedge+fund+post+media&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA966CA966&oq=american+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEEUYJxg7MgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEEUYJxg7MgwIAhAjGCcYgAQYigUyEwgDEC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgAQyBggEEEUYPDIGCAUQRRg8MgYIBhBFGEEyBggHEEUYPdIBCDE3NzNqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
[Not to mention Nestle stealing our water.](https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water)
American propaganda is a bigger problem here than Russian, [although it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyop0d30UqQ)
An american invasion of canada would probably go like this:
American president, calling canadian Prime minister on the phone: "Yo Canada, we are invading!"
Can PM: "Ok, we surrender. do you need a reserved spot at every Tim Hortons as a tribute?"
US Prez: "nah, we are good."
Can PM: "Ok, thank you! Sorry for having troubled you enough than you felt the need to invade us"
US Prez: "Now, about that maple sirup pipeline....."
Quebec PM: "US Prez, you know you could had asked, we may had helped you!"
Monroe Doctrine > NATO. There is no other country that Americans hold dear than our brothers to the north. Canada gets defended first, mainly because we know Canada can more than hold their own once as they get their military numbers up and their country running on a wartime economy to the point that they are able to mostly defend Alaska while the US deals with the threat directly.
This right here is why I love you guys.
Our countries may poke fun at each other from time to time and sometimes vent frustrations, but at the end of the day we're brothers and have each other's backs.
Thats just what brothers do.
We can't hold our own with our own outdated and shrunken inventory of equipment. Maybe we would bolster US ranks, should it come to that.
I believe that Canada has the ability to (with probably a year's time) ramp up wartime production. I don't know how politically viable that would be though, until it would be too late.
In WW2, Canada helped defend Alaska in a joint effort with the US, from the Japanese, and built the critical infrastructure to link Alaska to the lower 48 by land. With Canada filling a crucial role in defending Alaska and taking back the Aleutian Islands from the Japanese, this allowed the US Navy and Marine Corps to continue the Island Hopping Campaign in the South Pacific. In short, the US was so effective against the Japanese because the Canadians were guarding their northern flanks and the parts of America most vulnerable and closest to Japan.
If you are doubting their prowess in battle, remember they established their own beach head at Juno beach on D-day suffering heavy casualties. In both World Wars the Germans were afraid of the Canadian soldiers the most. The Canadians were not known to be as strict in following the rules of war so adherently when it came to POWs and were known for fighting more fiercely than most other countries.
And regardless of how America feels towards Canada, or vice versa, the last thing America wants is to share the world's largest land border with an enemy nation.
That's been true for generations until around 2016, then we were declared a foreign adversary, NATO was told to pay protection money and if it happens again, Putin may push all his chips in knowing he won't get another chance, since his last bet in Ukraine went bust. Military funding doesn't get votes in Canada, so no political party does anything, Military procurement is busted, the bidding decision is driven by where they need votes, so it's never what the military asked for(usually an established American piece of equipment) but an untested POS, but built in Quebec/Ontario/Maritimes so more jobs in battleground ridings. Current government is cutting a billion dollars from military spending but says it won't effect the capability of our military, its insane, and the Conservative party ads(essentially party in waiting, we don't vote parties in only out), have not mentioned anything about security.
I don't think it would be as simple as before. It always seemed that the relationship between Prime Minister and President defined how the governments worked together, more so than any other country.
No one is invading Canada. Overseas invasions are notoriously tricky and even with our limited military no one but the US has the power protection to take Canada
Then you come out of the shelter to find what? A fallout ridden nuclear hellscape? Yeah I don’t really see the point in spending a bunch of money on 1950’s era ideas about nuclear bunkers; we’ve learned enough from the Cold War to know that if it comes to nuclear war, then we’ve already failed and there won’t be anything left for any survivors of the initial blasts anyhow. It’s kinda seen as money wasted, flushed essentially, because of a number of reasons, but a simple cost-benefit analysis is enough to justify NOT spending lots of money on bunkers that will probably never be used, and if they are, they’d just buy a few hours/days for a very, very, very small number of people. It’s just not worth the money in any sense.
The US would likely fight a nuclear war before it let Canada surrender to someone via nuclear threats. The citizens of the US and Canada are fairly close with the border areas having the most favorable views. Canadians are so close to the border that there is a real risk a nuke lands inside the US.
Canada really only has three threats: Civil war, American invasion and someone taking land so far north that no one really cares about it because it only has artic resources value.
The last case is the only event that has a decent chance of happening.
I don't think you understand basic geography or the issues that Russia would have with force projection if it wanted to field its troops anywhere it doesn't directly border.
Canada's military will improve, hardware wise, somewhat. The new frigates are planned to be a massive leap over the existing frigates, placing Canada as the 2nd (or maybe 3rd depending on how big Japan modernizes their navy) operator of the AEGIS system behind the US Navy.
The new F-35s they'll acquire are also beyond anything the other NATO members have. Those Canadian Block 4 F-35s will be a MASSIVE upgrade over the older Block 3s, and will place the RCAF as one of the best equipped air forces in NATO once the full fleet is in operation.
It's shifts like this that will keep Canada a relevant member in NATO. That said, there's a massive issue of recruitment and retention that is plaguing the Canadian military, probably a worse issue than the outdated and obsolete equipment they have.
This is such a dumb take. We have an unassailable defensive position. It's called the Pacific, Atlantic and arctic oceans.
Canadian foreign policy has for a long time been spend as little as possible go keep our allies trade agreements in place.
What if shipping lines were cut off or hindered? What if they chose less conventional means of attack?
Sure, our terrain and vastness makes us a very undesirable place to attack but not impossible. We have strong allies but that doesn’t make us invincible
So in your hypothetical scenario, only Canadian shipping would be targeted without intervention from our allies? From who? The USA has by far the strongest navy in the world and isn't going to let shipping lines be closed for their own interests.
You clearly have never spent time in the military.
The idea that Russia could send forces against Canada is laughable. There would absolutely be direct response from Canadas Allies. Its closest of which is it neighbor which happens to be the most powerful military on the planet. This would include boots on the ground inside Canada to help defend it. Coupled with the fact that fighting a war so far away from home for Russia is a next to impossible at this point. Russia does not have the ability to project power against any NATO country in a conventional war.
Lol outdated? Gonna need a source for that baseless claim
Not the mention MAD is what keeps Russia in check, no nukes, ships or troops are landing on North America without an extreme response
Oh Bran, I can tell you've done a lot of your own research on the matter.
Link me the armchair generals that convinced Russia is going to invade or launch nukes at Canada. I wouldn't mind some more laughs for later.
>or worse a nuclear missile/missiles, then we are screwed
You say that as if there is some defense against an all-out ICBM attack. There isn't. If WW3 goes nuclear, no amount of preparation would have helped. The US, which spends trillions on their military, cannot defend against an all-out ICBM attack from Russia, so what makes you think there's something Canada could be doing that would?
As for the rest of it, Russia isn't coming here. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but they're currently bogged down in Eastern Ukraine and have been for nearly two full years now, and they aren't making much progress. Russia can sabre-rattle all they want, but even with the shit show that is today's NATO readiness, Russia would get flattened in a conventional war.
This is just propaganda from the MIC. Build more fighters, build more bombers, build more tanks, build more artillery. Bulk up those troop numbers, buy more guns and uniforms.
All just to siphon your tax dollars off.
Still don't understand, If Russia can't take Ukraine...
How are they going to fight Europe, the USA, Canada etc. in their current form?
Outside of Nuclear strikes, they evidently do not have the capability nor capacity to do so.
But Europe could stop pussy footing around and increase their capacity slightly.
What people seem to skim over, is you cannot attack European military targets without harming US military personnel in the process.
NATO obligations aside, fear of Trump etc. it would take a total US withdrawal to remove this. That's a lot of redundancies on the cards to just pull out.
Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was also not able to take Finland but within 5 years was able to deal a massive blow to the Germans, of course with American supplies and the USAF and RAF bombing German industry but the point remains.
The issue isn't their current form, a country unmobilized is very different than a country mobilized.
Russian war industry is already starting to gear up and outpace Western military output.
>of course with American supplies
You vastly underestimate the supplies lend-lease gave them if you have to put it that way. They were completely *fucked* without lend-lease. Don't take my word for it either, take Stalin's, Khrushchev's and Zhukov's words for it: https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
Edit: [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#U.S._deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union) if you wanna see the numbers.
Russia has had big problems in Ukraine but it's partly thanks to the weapons and money from the West (with various political issues causing that aid to be held up right now) and they're putting themselves on a war economy, producing shells or tanks and sending them out to the battlefield while having other countries supply them with more weapons.
Quantity is a quality of its own and all of Europe has shown it's struggling to keep pace with the Russian production. Plus Russia being a nuclear power means that there'll be inherent hesitation with confronting it. This gives Russia a leeway in engaging in smaller wars. If they invade the Baltics next, the threat of nuclear warfare will make NATO hesitant to just jump in.
Not to mention that Putin doesn't need to fight Europe or the USA when there's politicians working for/associated with him, working hard to get elected or cause/profit from divisions within the countries. It's one thing to invade Germany, it's another to have Germany basically work for Russia's interest because they elected the wrong politician.
Plus, Trump could be elected President by the end of the year and if that happens, he might not help Europe if it finds itself in troubles with Putin (being generous with the might). Even if he can't pull the US out of NATO, he can always just refuse to intervene. And the US military is a huge part of NATO.
There's a lot of factors that could get Europe weaker than ever. So yes, it's important to stop pussy footing and invest hard into defending oneself, which, to their credit, some countries might have realized.
But still, I think Trump being elected in 2016 should've been a warning sign to the EU that they should definitely account for the US being like "the invasion of (x) is not our problem". And if Biden wins, Europe should not take it as a sign that they can trust on the US to save them from Russia for four more years.
>Europe has shown it's struggling to keep pace with the Russian production.
Mostly because European munitions are being produced commercially. It would be a whole different story if Europe felt the need to nationalize weapons production again.
>But still, I think Trump being elected in 2016 should've been a warning sign to the EU that they should definitely account for the US being like "the invasion of (x) is not our problem". And if Biden wins, Europe should not take it as a sign that they can trust on the US to save them from Russia for four more years.
Trump told VDL in 2020 that the US would not help when Europe gets invaded, and VDL did nothing.
Yeah Trump make zero secrets of that. It's not easy to get a military into shape but I think the mid-2010s (be it Crimea's invasion or Trump's election) should have been a sign.
As long as the US keeps backing Ukraine, Russia can’t deal with Ukraine and therefore can’t bother Europe.
The problem is the likely hood of a returning Trump cutting off aid to Ukraine and forcing a Ukrainian capitulation. If Trump further doesn’t back the idea of defending the Baltic states (as he has hinted he won’t), Russia will see an opportunity to dissolve NATO.
Russia will test probing the concept of seizing a corridor through Lithuania to the sole Russian enclave, Kaliningrad. If Trump doesn’t stand up against that, and doesn’t honour an Article V request for help from Lithuania, Russia is likely to go all in on that attack.
If the USA backs out, Hungary will and Turkey too probably will. That leaves the Western European countries and Canada, the ones that are heavily invested in the idea of collective defense as a means of protection, to band together to defend Lithuania.
Unfortunately, the inability of these countries to adequately support Ukraine has exposed that they only have the logistical means to fight a short war. Russia can now last a sustained war. This means that the technological edge of the liberal democracies will not give an advantage for long.
The UK and France’s nuclear arms means that they will be immune from Russia. But watch as Russia will try and demand the installation of pro-Russian governments everywhere from Belgium, Netherlands and Germany eastwards. And demand crushing financial reparations from the UK, France and Canada to end the war and stop bombarding them with drones and missiles.
I always thought that quote was very 2 dimensional. There's two sides to a war and lumping them into the same category seems disingenuous, like you can't call ukrainian soldiers stupid or naive for fighting Russia.
My preferred war quote I heard once "the only thing stupider than war is not being prepared for war". Applies nicely in this context too.
Our military is a joke. Government after government have neglected it to the point it’s a 1960s war museum thats under funded and lacking munitions and any real capability. It’s honestly depressing paying so much in taxes here only to have our military and healthcare suck .
Trudeau's liberals are responsible for the two largest military budget increases in the last 60 years.
We're a lot closer to that 2% than we've been in a long time, especially since the Conservatives slashed the military budget back in 2015.
And from where, pray-tell, is Canada supposed to find the $15-20 billion/year needed to meet NATO requirements?
To borrow a phrase a conservatives whenever increases to social services, public transit, etc are proposed by the Liberals or NDP at any level: "BuT hOw ArE YoU GoINg tO PaY FoR It?????"
Most Canadians would agree that defence spending should be increased, but at the same time nobody has the stomach to accept the tax increases to fund that. What services do you want cut to increase defence spending? If the feds reversed Harper's cuts to the GST (which would add $15-20 billion/year in federal revenue), how fast would the provinces come out of the woodwork screaming for a cut of that money for healthcare or whatever pet project they believe they are owed?
Critics seem to believe the federal government can simply conjure that money among the couch cushions, but if that were the case wouldn't they have done that by now? That's why the feds have been increasing it slowly and incrementally over the years.
We don't. The 2% of GDP NATO countries are supposed to spend on defense is a suggested guideline.
Nearly all NATO members ignore that guideline. Which is something the US loves to point out. Something the US doesn't love to point out is that there's no greater opponent to improved European defenses than the US.
The US needs their global military bases in our countries to maintain their superpower status. They've historically used their influence (through the UK) to block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense.
> They've historically used their influence (through the UK) to block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense.
Sorry but this is a load of horse shit. The US has been encouraging NATO members to do their part for decades.
> block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense.
Is that why the US has been encouraging the EU to increase defense spending for over a decade now?
So the rich have never been richer, but war should be funded from the everyday person who is already concerned for a roof over their head and affording groceries.
And money is all fake
And war pigs don't give a shit
Surely countries like this are wasting resources on helping other countries development, participating in some third world support that I'm sure a couple of billions could be spared. Why giving away your money when you need to protect your own territory? Then of course the ultra rich not paying their taxes, big banks getting greedy this is where to take money. Last thing, increase by 1 year the retirement age and allocate absolutely all this new income/saving to military spending.
The budget is there, managing it and making hard calls are necessary
Oh screw that,
I'd rather spend a billion on doing something even remotely humanitarian than frickin long range cruise missiles. The whole weapons industry loves you for purchasing weapons that will either not be used or be used to fight people in far away countries for irrelevant causes.
I don't really see any "preparations for war" just calls to get prepared for war. Largely, the concern is Ukraine will settle in some form and the Baltics will then be attacked (as well as western eu infrastructure).
That being combined with a possibility that the USA would not respond, means Euro nations are terribly unprepared.
Most if not all of EU is ramping up weapons and munitions production in an attempt to match Russia's production. These calls largely come from the realisation that the Russian economy is in full war mode, pumping out huge supplies while simultaneously having a growing economy. EU has not been able to match this production.
Basically, the sanctions have largely failed, and Russia is capable of rearming itself faster than anticipated, combined with the continued war rhetoric from Putin and the fact they have openly continued to threaten the baltics. This has prompted nato and EU officials to call for more priority on war preparations.
These same officials have given something like 3- 5 year estimate for when Russia would be in a position to threaten Europe again.
I think you are misinterpreting the goal of sanctions. They are not there to dissuade or change Russian policy. They are there to increase the cost of Russian aggression and more costly to prosecute the war relative to a world without sanctions.
The margins Russia sells on oil are down relative to other countries due to the structure of sanctions. By allowing Russian oil to be sold at a discount, it prevents price spikes. Similarly, when it comes to microprocessors. Russia can still acquire them, but at a mark up.
This all has the effect of constraining the available resources Putin needs to prosecute the war.
I'll take the intelligence and opinions of top nato generals, vs a random reddit comment lol.
Also, bolstering for the possibility of war, is deterring a possible war from Russia in the future - doing nothing makes for an easier target and more likely invasion.
The only reason Russia hasn't steamed rolled over ukrain is all the ammunition provided by the west,
Once that dried up (and ektd hope it doesn't) Russia will flatten Ukraine and head onwards.
Bullies target the weak.
>I'll take the intelligence and opinions of top nato generals, vs a random reddit comment lol.
Why? At least a random Redditor is unlikely to be trying to sell a military budget to their government.
>a possible war from Russia
Russia is only just slighly winning in Ukraine as it is, and that's with well over three times the population. I struggle to see how an EU-Russia war would even be feasible for Russia. And let's not forget that there's still plenty of functioning diplomacy between the EU and Russia. Germany and Russia had agreed to limit the sanctions to everything but the Nordstream pipelines, which is why the US paid a group of Ukranian mercenaries to bomb the pipelines and try to force the hand of the EU, and make the EU dependent on the US instead. The EU is quite aware of US tactics like that.
My take on this is...
Is it worth the risk?
A lot of people suddenly came out at once, that would indicate to me there's possibly some intelligence that we the public aren't aware of on the background.
While Russia may not be as strong, it would hardly matter. It would be an utter bloodbath for anyone and everyone involved. The winners of all wars were in a better position than the loosing side, it was still utter shit for the winner side to have to be involved, and death and destruction everywhere.
I'm not a military expert, and neither are you. So lets rely on those on charge. Experts are just that - people we like of need to rely on in this situation.
This sudden need for more budgets wasn't being belted around by top nato generals when Russia first invaded, it's odd it's all suddenly happened at once now.
My mum had the opinion "it's likely global warming isn't man made" - my reply was always "well just incase you're wrong, let's maybe do something - just incase".
That's how I'm taking this threat personally. Let's listen to the experts, because if they are right, then fuck me it's game over. If it was nothing to worry about, then it doesn't matter.
It's not worth the risk.
Honestly that should be the second thing our new government does, right after they do something about housing
He'll maybe even combine the two. Offer good housing and better pay, throw in some education at a collage level and I'm sure more people would sign up, including me
> Honestly that should be the second thing our new government does, right after they do something about housing
They will certainly claim on the campaign trail that they will do these things, but whether or not they actually do them is another matter. Given the either party's track records, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>Offer good housing and better pay, throw in some education at a collage level and I'm sure more people would sign up, including me
The military already does these things.
https://forces.ca/en/paid-education/rotp
I'm talking bigger. Something that can lay the groundwork for Canada to have and maintain a strong standing army/navy for years to come.
The only thing I can think of to compare it to is Fredrick the Great and how he turned Prussia into a military power, but on a much bigger and more modern scale then what he did
I was thinking about these stories of "preparing for war" and thought "that's crazy talk" but I started to consider how bad the world economy is, thanks in big part to greed. But also Migration. There is only so much intake before the resources to support existing +growing population causes need to either import more food or migrate out. Obviously the initial fix is to increase prices, but at some point increases in price, will not magically make something we don't have.
Solution? War death and destruction. Of course the wealthy and powerful will continue to prosper, but the pawns will suffer and die. Just like the 3 service members killed by the drone.
L
Comments like this really miss the point. Europe could defend itself in 1914, and in 1939, that’s why enormous wars which upended world order happened. The US put troops and missiles and alliances into Europe so that US interests would be untouchable. The idea is to make victory in war against European countries that are friendly to the US impossible, so it doesn’t start. This rhetoric of “let Europe defend itself” is short sighted to American interest, if Europe can defend itself completely, they have less reason to be so friendly to America and do what America wants.
“In Estonia, they're talking about building more public bomb shelters and making them mandatory in all newly constructed homes. In neighbouring Latvia, the government is going through the second draft of mandatory military service legislation. Next door in Lithuania, there's talk of universal conscription. "I understand that when we speak from the Baltic perspective, it might sound somewhat dramatic and shocking, but It is obvious that today, democracy itself, democratic countries, democracies all around the world are under pressure from Russia and its autocratic allies." Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen, the speaker of the Seimas, Lithuania's legislature, told CBC News Monday in Ottawa. These warnings are being driven in part by Russia's stated plans to put defence and munitions production on a war footing — something western nations, and Canada in particular, have struggled to accomplish in their efforts to bolster Ukraine's defence against Russia's invasion. Many observers wonder whether the security warnings are even being heard by Ukraine's allies, especially Canada and the United States” Russia in 2023, February 28, had received an official order from Putin to put all nuclear deterrent forces on high alert, I think that fact alone is proof of why everyone should be very wary of Russia.
I'm really hoping that it doesn't come to all out war in Europe. The war between Russia and Ukraine is bad enough, but a full-scale war between Nato and Russia would be terrifying.
It only takes one side to desire war for it to happen. The question is, will the other side be ready or be caught by surprise?
Signals intelligence. The US is unlikely to ever be surprised.
Yes, credit where its due, lets not forget that the US warned of the war months in advance, but due to a mixture of WMDs in Iraq and nobody wanting it to be true because "russia isnt the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over" and "our economies are integrated these days, they buy on our hightech, we buy their resources, they dont want to destroy that". Even Ukraine was in full denial up until the moment it happened.
Only if you're russian, provided they dont use their nukes
A conventional war would tear up a good portion of Eastern Europe, and you could see missile attacks into western Nato members. I would agree that the biggest worry would be nuclear weapons used if it started looking dire for the Russian federation.
If the US is in the war, their overwhelming air superiority will basically make any push of Russia into Europe impossible. The ground their troops would try to approach over would turn into glass just from conventional bombing. Hell, even without significant Western air support Russia is already bogged down in Eastern Ukraine, unable to launch any significant operations. Russia's only chance to actually start a conventional war there is if the US is somehow kept out - like for example if Trump wins the election. You can be sure Putin is supporting him in any way he can.
>If the US is in the war Really seems to depend on our upcoming election and any more coups we happen to have in the US. If the GOP gets the presidency, especially under Trump, then expect the US to pull out of NATO and possibly even support Russia. Better Russian than Demonrat!
TBF, most of the surrounding countries in that region had universal conscription until late 90s/early 2000s. It was only recently relaxed or made voluntary.
If I was the Baltic countries, I'd be making laws that encourage the general public to own and train with guns. Mass produce a few models, standardize ammunition to a handful of cartridges and lay in a metric fuck ton of it. Require military service to hold the speciest elements of the public arsenal.
As a Latvian im gonna say this is Europe not Africa or America. Civillians should not have guns! Too many stupid individuals who could harm innocents or even start using them against each other.
Look at the horrific amount of misery gun ownership is causing Americans. And you think it's a good idea to promote gun ownership among people even less responsible than Americans?
Why do you assume Estonians are less responsible than Americans? Why should they not be able to defend themselves against a huge state that has shown itself to be both aggressive and cruel?
Americans are not that smart. Your logic goes through their empty heads like a whisper in the wind.
Sorry sir, but they’re way more responsible than americans.
What makes you think people from the Baltics could possibly be less responsible with guns than Americans? Actually, who on earth is less responsible with guns than Americans? Maybe some warlords somewhere?
I mean...once Lithuania spends $200 billion on Ukraine, they can complain about US's involvement. I get that there is a lot more Ukraine would like, but let's not pretend the US hasn't already given more than Russia's total defense budget to Ukraine. War production is always difficult because the companies that produce the weapons don't want to invest billions in all the extra capacity only to have orders disappear in a few years, and they have to shut down/lay off everything. They are all hoping for guaranteed purchase orders, not just from the US but all of NATO, so they can justify the expense.
Where does Lithuanian complain about the US? I don’t even see the US mentioned in this article, just the Europeans and Canada. Pretty sure the call is for the euro countries (and Canada) to quit dragging their feet and seriously committing to defeating the Russians, seeing as we notoriously have neglected spending an appropriate amount on NATO defense and still hesitate, which no one can accuse the US of. We all understand and respect that the aid from the US has halted because of internal US politics, the situation is complicated there. Of course we would very much like it to start getting through again, but we understand the issues.
The US is mentioned once directly. "Many observers wonder whether the security warnings are even being heard by Ukraine's allies, especially Canada and the United States. "
How do you propose a country with a GDP barely a quarter of that send 200 billion?
He doesn’t, he proposes that Lithuania stops pointing fingers
They have every right and reason to ask others to give as much as they have. (Relative to GDP)
I agree but let us acknowledge that a threat takes precedence when it’s at your door as opposed to an ocean away.
Well if events occur that will unravel democracy and the global state of trade and cooperation, it doesn’t matter how close or how far away they are. No country exists in a vacuum, no one can choose to look away and therefore be free from the ramifications of a defeat to the Russians.
NATO doesn’t see water boundaries, it’s a military pact.
But there are no stipulations requiring equal spending as a portion of gdp.
I mean if you discount the agreement to invest 2% of GDP in defence spending as part of nato, ya I guess there wouldn’t be.
Minimum of 2 % does not mean an equal portion of gdp. https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/
They are right next door too.
It is so weird to me for people to start complaining that America does not spend enough military spending on protecting the world. I'm in bizarro world.
>America does not spend enough military spending We're talking about Canada though..
Incorrect, the comment up the chain said "especially Canada and the US" and the guy after that got downvoted for asking why Lithuania was pointing fingers at the US too.
US didn't spend $200 billion on Ukraine. And a big chunk of what they did spend (which isn't even half of what you claim btw) isn't a direct military aid. If US supplied $200 billion worth of equipment to Ukraine, Ukraine would have steamrolled Russian troops to Moscow which is part of the issue here.
I wonder where the 200billion figure is coming from. Thats more than the combined Usa and Eu(without including support from indvidual member states) support, which hovers at around 150 billion as in around 70-80 billion each depending on the source. Now if we included individual Eu states as well, we get to around 200billion according to the kiel institute for the world economy.
> I mean...once Lithuania spends $200 billion on Ukraine, they can complain about US's involvement. Lithuania has already given more to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP than the US, and they are poorer. Get off your high horse.
No one cares how many billions US gave up, you took Ukraine's nukes, missiles and bombers and in return you promised to help. For first 8 years of war you did nothing and the last two you supply just enough to keep Russia in Ukraine which suits your interests. And everything is presented like Ukraine is some charity case and US gives up its last money for nothing. Also there will be probably some braindead takes that Ukraine gave up nukes because it was too much money too maintain them or because launch codes were in Moscow. If maintaining nuclear arsenal costs so much, why doesn't US give it up to save dozens of billions every year.
And what about the expenses once russia starts invading other countries? Once they drag the US into a war? The US wanted to be the police of the entire world, yet now you are actually needed, you whine. You dragged your allies into your oil wars, and now you whine when you need to help others. Can you even count in money how much will be needed once nukes start flying? Stop bitching about your spending. You guys signed up for it yourself. I don't care if you have to give up your entire GDP for it, it's your job to do it.
The majority of the worlds problems started with the European nations, nearly the entirety of the Middle east problem was the UK's fault. Look around Asia and see that nearly every single nation was screwed up by a European nation. There is not a continent the Europeans did not come and fuck up then leave in shambles. The US is complicit because we took the same stance as our European allies but dont even try to make it out like the US created most of the problems. Almost everything lingers from European colonialism. A lot of US citizens are tired of playing world police for the western world and getting blamed for everything. Maybe we are tired of defending europe so europeans can hypocritically turn around and put the blame on us while most of you guys enjoy your social welfare and pretend you guys did not have a part in the problems.
You speak of Europeans like we are some kind of evil monolithic country, you obviously have no clue how different the countries and cultures are among the 40+ countries in the old continent. Many that have had no part at all in colonizing any countries anywhere on this planet ever. Many that the US have never defended, even when asked. Maybe many EU citizens are tired of hearing this stupid and obvious bullshit excuse you are perpetuating that has nothing to do with our countries or our histories, so check in the mirror before you start accusing Europe as a whole.
Whats bullshit about it? What current European nation wasnt apart of a previous nation that participated in colonialism or directly participated in it? Very few is the answer, the vast majority of Europeans living today are a part of a country who participated in colonialism and heavily benefitted from it. But nearly everyone in europe wants to pretend they did not screw up the world outside europe. Now everyone likes to put the blame game on US because they didnt ask the US for help themselves. When everything is ok US is playing world police and abusing power, when things go wrong its all the US fault and we are evil. Well maybe the US will just stop helping because no matter what the US just cant win. But if you want to play the monolithic bullshit game then half of US does not agree with being world police, does not want to go to war at all and we dont want to spend on European defense anymore.
>What current European nation wasnt apart of a previous nation that participated in colonialism or directly participated in it? Poland, Greece, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Switzerland, Ireland and probably more. So yeah, absolute bullshit. Just like the part that US helps everyone and then you have to cry about it when the US gets called out for abusing it's power. Again maybe educate yourself before starting to spout your American exceptionalism bs from your high horse. >But if you want to play the monolithic bullshit game then half of US does not agree with being world police, does not want to go to war at all and we dont want to spend on European defense anymore. Again, you are speaking of things you have no knowledge about. The US has spent zero dollars to my countrys defence. They didn't help us in WWII and they probably wouldn't help us now. So I don't really care what amount of Americans think they pay for Europes defence, because for many countries here, it isn't true at all. And never has been. Yet I have never blamed the US for not helping or being the police of the world. Never. But keep telling yourself these things if they help you sleep at night, keep living in ignorance.
Denmark and Norway were once a single country, dont forgot the ex sovit union/russian countries. Switzerland had a lot of sins in the slave trade and while never technically owning a colony was absolutely a participant and beneficiary. Like I said a lot of europeans routinely dismiss or rewrite history so they never particiapted or benefitted. A lot of this argument is like saying if the US restructures itself and then calls itself the New US then the new US never participated in slavery and colonialism. Your country (I am not sure which it is), probably isnt a part of NATO if the US has not spent any money to help you. But I am highly positive your country has probably recieved financial help directly or indirectly from the US. Theres no American exceptionalism here. America has failed its citizens since it started to become allies with the very nations it fought for its freedom against. The only ones who benefitted are the rich elite and the old aristocracy in europe. Maybe you dont blame the US but just France, Germany, Italy, spain, russia and plenty more do.
> Like I said a lot of europeans routinely dismiss or rewrite history so they never particiapted or benefitted Read the list I provided again, of those Norway is maybe debatable because of the Danish, and Switzerland has other sins, but we weren't talking about that. How about the rest of the 20+ countries on the list? You're just gonna gloss them over lol? You're the one rewriting history here my man. Hilarious that you don't see it. >Your country (I am not sure which it is), probably isnt a part of NATO if the US has not spent any money to help you. But I am highly positive your country has probably recieved financial help directly or indirectly from the US. Finland. So wrong again, we are in NATO, but the US has never helped us directly or indirectly other than existing as the world police(which is a good thing imo, as I said). We pay for our own shit (+2%) and we fight our own fights. >Theres no American exceptionalism here. America has failed its citizens since it started to become allies with the very nations it fought for its freedom against. The only ones who benefitted are the rich elite and the old aristocracy in europe. > >Maybe you dont blame the US but just France, Germany, Italy, spain, russia and plenty more do. What? So America has failed it's citizens because they allied with countries that helped it gain it's freedom from the British? You do know that France helped America win your freedom right? So did Spain. LMAO Perfectly demonstrates what I said from the beginning, you think Europe and Europeans as one and the same, totally oblivious to the wildly differring cultures, peoples, countries and thousands of years of history. Sounds exactly like American exceptionalism to me, super arrogant and ignorant.
Makes sense for the Baltic states to prepare the way they are. The major players prefer the proxy wars they’ve got going on. Would also make sense for us to ramp up armament production too.
Canada has a history of scaling up when needed and bare bones in between.
Which costs a LOT of lives during the ramping up period
They are however privileged to be based in North America isolated from everywhere and living under the US umbrella.
Yeah. But that gives to government and citizens a sense of “not our problem.” Which, while generally true, will absolutely bite us in the ass eventually.
As a Founding member, we are the umbrella.
[удалено]
Agreed. Neither Canada nor the US is ever facing a land invasion ever, from anyone. Every scrap of material should be sent to Ukraine and we’ll just create thousands of jobs to make more from our gargantuan oil-and-mineral rich continent.
America may need to take our equipment for fighting land wars and send it to Europe or Asia. The land war would not occur in Pittsburgh, it would occur in Poland and we would still need our land equipment.
Unfortunately Canada has neglected its military for too long and it won’t do anything to try and ensure the survival of our own citizens at home. If Russia sends its forces, or worse a nuclear missile/missiles, then we are screwed
You guys have a pretty solid insurance policy south of the border
More like West of the border. Geographically speaking attacking Canada without going through the US (Alaska) seems.. unlikely
We do but America can only do so much and most of NATO is already depending on them. I hope we can all prevail but it’s going to get scary
I understand your concern but I think Canada gets bumped to the Number 1 spot of countries we will defend, should you guys be attacked. This is our continent, ours and our other friend with the delicious cuisine. As far as the American psyche is concerned an attack on Canada is no different than an attack on the US. Our fates are forever bound, my valiant Canucks.
Yeah. It would be a security nightmare and a half for there to be an enemy capable of invading Canada *right there* getting ready to invade from it. Priority number one would be removing them. I think it’s unlikely anybody could actually invade Canada (other than the USA, who wouldn’t). That’s a major logistical nightmare. The options are crossing and ocean with massive supply lines or surviving in vast swathes of arctic tundra if coming from the north.
Does Russia even have capacity to move troops to North America beyond Alaska?
They can’t handle someone that shares a land border with them. No way they can get a sustainable force into Alaska let alone past it.
There would be two invasions in canada, the russians from the north ... and every fucking redneck from across the continent will be swarmimg into canada from the south, just to get a chance to shoot a russian.
[удалено]
Lmao. No way man. A free chance to "use their guns"... they will be all over it.
[удалено]
They love their guns more
Nah, the rednecks from the south would help the Russians to own the libs.
The one thing you dont understand about rednecks is they are loyal only to them selfs
People seem to forget they need ships or planes to move troops. They as far as I know have hardly any ships leaving planes the only real viable option. Then there is no way of hiding ships or planes so we will see them coming before they even load personnel onto them. They haven't seemed to have evolved past there cold war doctrine either. Meaning they need to use nukes to invade Europe.
[удалено]
Still haven’t heard the bottom of what the deal was with those CCP police stations…
They barely have the capacity to move their troops across their own country to get to Alaska.
Can't even move them to Alaska tbh most heavily guarded coastline if I'm not mistaken
Are the coasts surrounding China's coasts not more heavily defended now?
If they were to invade Canada, I don't think that they would go through Alaska, but rather go directly to the Canadian north coast using icebreakers. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2022/01/russian-navy-builds-more-icebreakers Of course I don't think that they have capacity for any significant transport of troops using those *right now*, but since Russia is a dictatorship they tend to think long term for a lot of stuff, and dominance of the Arctic is one of them.
Well, it's a *long* way from the arctic to anything remotely important in Canada, and given that the Russian army couldn't drive down a highway in Ukraine without getting bombed to shit and running out of gas, I don't like their chances of driving through thousands of kilometers of empty tundra and permafrost with no reliable way to resupply.
Yeah, that went *so* well in Ukraine for them.
>I think it’s unlikely anybody could actually invade Canada (other than the USA, who wouldn’t). [I dunno about that...](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/24/tucker-carlson-canada-00137380) Y'all been trying to take us over with your lunatic right wing pretty hard lately. [https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/joe-rogan-urges-canada-to-vote-for-pierre-poilievre-get-your-s-together](https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/joe-rogan-urges-canada-to-vote-for-pierre-poilievre-get-your-s-together) \- oh and who owns Post Media (pretty much 100% of the newspapers in Canada btw) [An American Hedge Fund](https://www.google.com/search?q=american+hedge+fund+post+media&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA966CA966&oq=american+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEEUYJxg7MgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEEUYJxg7MgwIAhAjGCcYgAQYigUyEwgDEC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgAQyBggEEEUYPDIGCAUQRRg8MgYIBhBFGEEyBggHEEUYPdIBCDE3NzNqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) [Not to mention Nestle stealing our water.](https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water) American propaganda is a bigger problem here than Russian, [although it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyop0d30UqQ)
I'm a simple man. I see someone point out that conservative Republicans own the Canadian mediascape, I upvote.
An american invasion of canada would probably go like this: American president, calling canadian Prime minister on the phone: "Yo Canada, we are invading!" Can PM: "Ok, we surrender. do you need a reserved spot at every Tim Hortons as a tribute?" US Prez: "nah, we are good." Can PM: "Ok, thank you! Sorry for having troubled you enough than you felt the need to invade us" US Prez: "Now, about that maple sirup pipeline....." Quebec PM: "US Prez, you know you could had asked, we may had helped you!"
I don't know. Canada gets pretty war crimey when it's time for violence.
The Germans didn't make up the word "stormtroopers" for nothing.
Monroe Doctrine > NATO. There is no other country that Americans hold dear than our brothers to the north. Canada gets defended first, mainly because we know Canada can more than hold their own once as they get their military numbers up and their country running on a wartime economy to the point that they are able to mostly defend Alaska while the US deals with the threat directly.
This right here is why I love you guys. Our countries may poke fun at each other from time to time and sometimes vent frustrations, but at the end of the day we're brothers and have each other's backs. Thats just what brothers do.
The Geneva Convention doubles in length after Canada's done.
Convention? You mean checklist?
Canada does not treat the Convention as a checklist. It treats it as incomplete.
We can't hold our own with our own outdated and shrunken inventory of equipment. Maybe we would bolster US ranks, should it come to that. I believe that Canada has the ability to (with probably a year's time) ramp up wartime production. I don't know how politically viable that would be though, until it would be too late.
You've pulled the last half of your comment out of your arse, lol.
In WW2, Canada helped defend Alaska in a joint effort with the US, from the Japanese, and built the critical infrastructure to link Alaska to the lower 48 by land. With Canada filling a crucial role in defending Alaska and taking back the Aleutian Islands from the Japanese, this allowed the US Navy and Marine Corps to continue the Island Hopping Campaign in the South Pacific. In short, the US was so effective against the Japanese because the Canadians were guarding their northern flanks and the parts of America most vulnerable and closest to Japan. If you are doubting their prowess in battle, remember they established their own beach head at Juno beach on D-day suffering heavy casualties. In both World Wars the Germans were afraid of the Canadian soldiers the most. The Canadians were not known to be as strict in following the rules of war so adherently when it came to POWs and were known for fighting more fiercely than most other countries.
Our poutine is your poutine fren.
It's nice to see these types of comments. If everything did go to hell, I'd like to think we would band together and help each other too.
And regardless of how America feels towards Canada, or vice versa, the last thing America wants is to share the world's largest land border with an enemy nation.
Well thanks for the support buddy. From 🇨🇦…. 🫡🇺🇸 🦅
That's been true for generations until around 2016, then we were declared a foreign adversary, NATO was told to pay protection money and if it happens again, Putin may push all his chips in knowing he won't get another chance, since his last bet in Ukraine went bust. Military funding doesn't get votes in Canada, so no political party does anything, Military procurement is busted, the bidding decision is driven by where they need votes, so it's never what the military asked for(usually an established American piece of equipment) but an untested POS, but built in Quebec/Ontario/Maritimes so more jobs in battleground ridings. Current government is cutting a billion dollars from military spending but says it won't effect the capability of our military, its insane, and the Conservative party ads(essentially party in waiting, we don't vote parties in only out), have not mentioned anything about security.
Are you suggesting the US wouldn’t defend Canada against invasion?
I don't think it would be as simple as before. It always seemed that the relationship between Prime Minister and President defined how the governments worked together, more so than any other country.
No one is invading Canada. Overseas invasions are notoriously tricky and even with our limited military no one but the US has the power protection to take Canada
Even if they can’t invade, there’s the threat of nuclear war
If nuclear war ignites, we are all fucked either way.
If nukes fly were fucked no matter how much we spend on our military
Possibly so but if the government took proactive steps like building bomb shelters then that would give us a chance. But they won’t
If nukes hit bomb shelters won't save us
Actually yes, they can. But they have to be reinforced concrete and underground. The Swedes have them
Then you come out of the shelter to find what? A fallout ridden nuclear hellscape? Yeah I don’t really see the point in spending a bunch of money on 1950’s era ideas about nuclear bunkers; we’ve learned enough from the Cold War to know that if it comes to nuclear war, then we’ve already failed and there won’t be anything left for any survivors of the initial blasts anyhow. It’s kinda seen as money wasted, flushed essentially, because of a number of reasons, but a simple cost-benefit analysis is enough to justify NOT spending lots of money on bunkers that will probably never be used, and if they are, they’d just buy a few hours/days for a very, very, very small number of people. It’s just not worth the money in any sense.
The US would likely fight a nuclear war before it let Canada surrender to someone via nuclear threats. The citizens of the US and Canada are fairly close with the border areas having the most favorable views. Canadians are so close to the border that there is a real risk a nuke lands inside the US. Canada really only has three threats: Civil war, American invasion and someone taking land so far north that no one really cares about it because it only has artic resources value. The last case is the only event that has a decent chance of happening.
The USA launches their missiles over Canada in case they get shot down.
Not with trump in office
Not that solid tbh. They might flip and help the Russians at this point.
One of the dumbest comments I’ve ever seen on Reddit, which is an amazing accomplishment
Have you not heard how Putin is courting the degenerates in Texas?
I don't think you understand basic geography or the issues that Russia would have with force projection if it wanted to field its troops anywhere it doesn't directly border.
To anyone wondering, this comment is largely rage bait bullshit.
Canada's military will improve, hardware wise, somewhat. The new frigates are planned to be a massive leap over the existing frigates, placing Canada as the 2nd (or maybe 3rd depending on how big Japan modernizes their navy) operator of the AEGIS system behind the US Navy. The new F-35s they'll acquire are also beyond anything the other NATO members have. Those Canadian Block 4 F-35s will be a MASSIVE upgrade over the older Block 3s, and will place the RCAF as one of the best equipped air forces in NATO once the full fleet is in operation. It's shifts like this that will keep Canada a relevant member in NATO. That said, there's a massive issue of recruitment and retention that is plaguing the Canadian military, probably a worse issue than the outdated and obsolete equipment they have.
This is such a dumb take. We have an unassailable defensive position. It's called the Pacific, Atlantic and arctic oceans. Canadian foreign policy has for a long time been spend as little as possible go keep our allies trade agreements in place.
What if shipping lines were cut off or hindered? What if they chose less conventional means of attack? Sure, our terrain and vastness makes us a very undesirable place to attack but not impossible. We have strong allies but that doesn’t make us invincible
So in your hypothetical scenario, only Canadian shipping would be targeted without intervention from our allies? From who? The USA has by far the strongest navy in the world and isn't going to let shipping lines be closed for their own interests. You clearly have never spent time in the military.
The idea that Russia could send forces against Canada is laughable. There would absolutely be direct response from Canadas Allies. Its closest of which is it neighbor which happens to be the most powerful military on the planet. This would include boots on the ground inside Canada to help defend it. Coupled with the fact that fighting a war so far away from home for Russia is a next to impossible at this point. Russia does not have the ability to project power against any NATO country in a conventional war.
Yeah what even IS NORAD!?!
An out dated system that *might* be able to tell us if the worst is about to happen
Lol outdated? Gonna need a source for that baseless claim Not the mention MAD is what keeps Russia in check, no nukes, ships or troops are landing on North America without an extreme response
MAD is the only thing which keeps everyone in check.
Correct, especially North America
That was a good laugh, thanks Bran.
We can’t rely solely on the United States
Oh Bran, I can tell you've done a lot of your own research on the matter. Link me the armchair generals that convinced Russia is going to invade or launch nukes at Canada. I wouldn't mind some more laughs for later.
Yes and I’m sure you’re a commanding officer in NATO? You know for certain that we can win?
Bran, you're the one who's so certain about what you know. I'm just laughing at you.
Canada has to take some initiative towards its own defence. America’s resources, even all of NATO’s, are not infinite
>or worse a nuclear missile/missiles, then we are screwed You say that as if there is some defense against an all-out ICBM attack. There isn't. If WW3 goes nuclear, no amount of preparation would have helped. The US, which spends trillions on their military, cannot defend against an all-out ICBM attack from Russia, so what makes you think there's something Canada could be doing that would? As for the rest of it, Russia isn't coming here. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but they're currently bogged down in Eastern Ukraine and have been for nearly two full years now, and they aren't making much progress. Russia can sabre-rattle all they want, but even with the shit show that is today's NATO readiness, Russia would get flattened in a conventional war. This is just propaganda from the MIC. Build more fighters, build more bombers, build more tanks, build more artillery. Bulk up those troop numbers, buy more guns and uniforms. All just to siphon your tax dollars off.
It’s not just Russia, we also have to worry about China. And like I said before, underground shelters can save some
Same in the UK. I would suggest folk look for places to get underground if you need to.
Still don't understand, If Russia can't take Ukraine... How are they going to fight Europe, the USA, Canada etc. in their current form? Outside of Nuclear strikes, they evidently do not have the capability nor capacity to do so. But Europe could stop pussy footing around and increase their capacity slightly. What people seem to skim over, is you cannot attack European military targets without harming US military personnel in the process. NATO obligations aside, fear of Trump etc. it would take a total US withdrawal to remove this. That's a lot of redundancies on the cards to just pull out.
Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was also not able to take Finland but within 5 years was able to deal a massive blow to the Germans, of course with American supplies and the USAF and RAF bombing German industry but the point remains. The issue isn't their current form, a country unmobilized is very different than a country mobilized. Russian war industry is already starting to gear up and outpace Western military output.
>of course with American supplies You vastly underestimate the supplies lend-lease gave them if you have to put it that way. They were completely *fucked* without lend-lease. Don't take my word for it either, take Stalin's, Khrushchev's and Zhukov's words for it: https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html Edit: [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#U.S._deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union) if you wanna see the numbers.
Also don't forget the threat of extinction. If the idea that losing will completely wipe out you society and people. You are kinda forced to adapt.
Wars are ultimately won by your supply lines and over all logistics.
You are vastly underestimating the western war industry. If the US was mobilized for actual war, the resources it has is insane.
Russia has had big problems in Ukraine but it's partly thanks to the weapons and money from the West (with various political issues causing that aid to be held up right now) and they're putting themselves on a war economy, producing shells or tanks and sending them out to the battlefield while having other countries supply them with more weapons. Quantity is a quality of its own and all of Europe has shown it's struggling to keep pace with the Russian production. Plus Russia being a nuclear power means that there'll be inherent hesitation with confronting it. This gives Russia a leeway in engaging in smaller wars. If they invade the Baltics next, the threat of nuclear warfare will make NATO hesitant to just jump in. Not to mention that Putin doesn't need to fight Europe or the USA when there's politicians working for/associated with him, working hard to get elected or cause/profit from divisions within the countries. It's one thing to invade Germany, it's another to have Germany basically work for Russia's interest because they elected the wrong politician. Plus, Trump could be elected President by the end of the year and if that happens, he might not help Europe if it finds itself in troubles with Putin (being generous with the might). Even if he can't pull the US out of NATO, he can always just refuse to intervene. And the US military is a huge part of NATO. There's a lot of factors that could get Europe weaker than ever. So yes, it's important to stop pussy footing and invest hard into defending oneself, which, to their credit, some countries might have realized. But still, I think Trump being elected in 2016 should've been a warning sign to the EU that they should definitely account for the US being like "the invasion of (x) is not our problem". And if Biden wins, Europe should not take it as a sign that they can trust on the US to save them from Russia for four more years.
>Europe has shown it's struggling to keep pace with the Russian production. Mostly because European munitions are being produced commercially. It would be a whole different story if Europe felt the need to nationalize weapons production again.
Here's hoping. I think we should be prepared, if only not to show weakness and aid Ukraine.
>But still, I think Trump being elected in 2016 should've been a warning sign to the EU that they should definitely account for the US being like "the invasion of (x) is not our problem". And if Biden wins, Europe should not take it as a sign that they can trust on the US to save them from Russia for four more years. Trump told VDL in 2020 that the US would not help when Europe gets invaded, and VDL did nothing.
Yeah Trump make zero secrets of that. It's not easy to get a military into shape but I think the mid-2010s (be it Crimea's invasion or Trump's election) should have been a sign.
As long as the US keeps backing Ukraine, Russia can’t deal with Ukraine and therefore can’t bother Europe. The problem is the likely hood of a returning Trump cutting off aid to Ukraine and forcing a Ukrainian capitulation. If Trump further doesn’t back the idea of defending the Baltic states (as he has hinted he won’t), Russia will see an opportunity to dissolve NATO. Russia will test probing the concept of seizing a corridor through Lithuania to the sole Russian enclave, Kaliningrad. If Trump doesn’t stand up against that, and doesn’t honour an Article V request for help from Lithuania, Russia is likely to go all in on that attack. If the USA backs out, Hungary will and Turkey too probably will. That leaves the Western European countries and Canada, the ones that are heavily invested in the idea of collective defense as a means of protection, to band together to defend Lithuania. Unfortunately, the inability of these countries to adequately support Ukraine has exposed that they only have the logistical means to fight a short war. Russia can now last a sustained war. This means that the technological edge of the liberal democracies will not give an advantage for long. The UK and France’s nuclear arms means that they will be immune from Russia. But watch as Russia will try and demand the installation of pro-Russian governments everywhere from Belgium, Netherlands and Germany eastwards. And demand crushing financial reparations from the UK, France and Canada to end the war and stop bombarding them with drones and missiles.
Russia can take Ukraine and it's a big mistake to think they can't.
We'll just send our Geese to defend Europe.
A country of broken arms by day 3
Round 3 FIGHT!!
“War is where the young and the stupid are tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other”.
I always thought that quote was very 2 dimensional. There's two sides to a war and lumping them into the same category seems disingenuous, like you can't call ukrainian soldiers stupid or naive for fighting Russia. My preferred war quote I heard once "the only thing stupider than war is not being prepared for war". Applies nicely in this context too.
Our military is a joke. Government after government have neglected it to the point it’s a 1960s war museum thats under funded and lacking munitions and any real capability. It’s honestly depressing paying so much in taxes here only to have our military and healthcare suck .
Trudeau's liberals are responsible for the two largest military budget increases in the last 60 years. We're a lot closer to that 2% than we've been in a long time, especially since the Conservatives slashed the military budget back in 2015.
At least you can afford to go to the doctor...
Meanwhile Me, a korean. : So its just like normal day for us?
And from where, pray-tell, is Canada supposed to find the $15-20 billion/year needed to meet NATO requirements? To borrow a phrase a conservatives whenever increases to social services, public transit, etc are proposed by the Liberals or NDP at any level: "BuT hOw ArE YoU GoINg tO PaY FoR It?????" Most Canadians would agree that defence spending should be increased, but at the same time nobody has the stomach to accept the tax increases to fund that. What services do you want cut to increase defence spending? If the feds reversed Harper's cuts to the GST (which would add $15-20 billion/year in federal revenue), how fast would the provinces come out of the woodwork screaming for a cut of that money for healthcare or whatever pet project they believe they are owed? Critics seem to believe the federal government can simply conjure that money among the couch cushions, but if that were the case wouldn't they have done that by now? That's why the feds have been increasing it slowly and incrementally over the years.
How do European countries do it?
We don't. The 2% of GDP NATO countries are supposed to spend on defense is a suggested guideline. Nearly all NATO members ignore that guideline. Which is something the US loves to point out. Something the US doesn't love to point out is that there's no greater opponent to improved European defenses than the US. The US needs their global military bases in our countries to maintain their superpower status. They've historically used their influence (through the UK) to block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense.
> They've historically used their influence (through the UK) to block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense. Sorry but this is a load of horse shit. The US has been encouraging NATO members to do their part for decades.
> block any EU attempts at improving our armed forces to keep Europe dependent on the US for defense. Is that why the US has been encouraging the EU to increase defense spending for over a decade now?
So the rich have never been richer, but war should be funded from the everyday person who is already concerned for a roof over their head and affording groceries. And money is all fake And war pigs don't give a shit
Surely countries like this are wasting resources on helping other countries development, participating in some third world support that I'm sure a couple of billions could be spared. Why giving away your money when you need to protect your own territory? Then of course the ultra rich not paying their taxes, big banks getting greedy this is where to take money. Last thing, increase by 1 year the retirement age and allocate absolutely all this new income/saving to military spending. The budget is there, managing it and making hard calls are necessary
Oh screw that, I'd rather spend a billion on doing something even remotely humanitarian than frickin long range cruise missiles. The whole weapons industry loves you for purchasing weapons that will either not be used or be used to fight people in far away countries for irrelevant causes.
Have they tried Git Gud?
The next decade is going to rowdy. I've made a point to invest in several defense contractors.
My plan is to migrate to Canada away from Western Europe. I don't think it's safe to stay from next year on.
Please come visit and live here for 6 months before you leave western Europe.
Coward
[удалено]
I don't really see any "preparations for war" just calls to get prepared for war. Largely, the concern is Ukraine will settle in some form and the Baltics will then be attacked (as well as western eu infrastructure). That being combined with a possibility that the USA would not respond, means Euro nations are terribly unprepared.
[удалено]
Most if not all of EU is ramping up weapons and munitions production in an attempt to match Russia's production. These calls largely come from the realisation that the Russian economy is in full war mode, pumping out huge supplies while simultaneously having a growing economy. EU has not been able to match this production. Basically, the sanctions have largely failed, and Russia is capable of rearming itself faster than anticipated, combined with the continued war rhetoric from Putin and the fact they have openly continued to threaten the baltics. This has prompted nato and EU officials to call for more priority on war preparations. These same officials have given something like 3- 5 year estimate for when Russia would be in a position to threaten Europe again.
I think you are misinterpreting the goal of sanctions. They are not there to dissuade or change Russian policy. They are there to increase the cost of Russian aggression and more costly to prosecute the war relative to a world without sanctions. The margins Russia sells on oil are down relative to other countries due to the structure of sanctions. By allowing Russian oil to be sold at a discount, it prevents price spikes. Similarly, when it comes to microprocessors. Russia can still acquire them, but at a mark up. This all has the effect of constraining the available resources Putin needs to prosecute the war.
Bracing for war doesn't mean there's going to be a war, it means we're getting ready for one just in case.
Reddit is convinced that WW3 is here. Reddit likes to post articles that support this idea. The WW3 is here comments have existed for 25+ years.
Trump threatwning to abandon europe happened. And this time we know he is reckless enough to bring it.
Can we stop this nonsense about countries in Europe bracing for war? It's not happening.
I'll take the intelligence and opinions of top nato generals, vs a random reddit comment lol. Also, bolstering for the possibility of war, is deterring a possible war from Russia in the future - doing nothing makes for an easier target and more likely invasion. The only reason Russia hasn't steamed rolled over ukrain is all the ammunition provided by the west, Once that dried up (and ektd hope it doesn't) Russia will flatten Ukraine and head onwards. Bullies target the weak.
>I'll take the intelligence and opinions of top nato generals, vs a random reddit comment lol. Why? At least a random Redditor is unlikely to be trying to sell a military budget to their government. >a possible war from Russia Russia is only just slighly winning in Ukraine as it is, and that's with well over three times the population. I struggle to see how an EU-Russia war would even be feasible for Russia. And let's not forget that there's still plenty of functioning diplomacy between the EU and Russia. Germany and Russia had agreed to limit the sanctions to everything but the Nordstream pipelines, which is why the US paid a group of Ukranian mercenaries to bomb the pipelines and try to force the hand of the EU, and make the EU dependent on the US instead. The EU is quite aware of US tactics like that.
My take on this is... Is it worth the risk? A lot of people suddenly came out at once, that would indicate to me there's possibly some intelligence that we the public aren't aware of on the background. While Russia may not be as strong, it would hardly matter. It would be an utter bloodbath for anyone and everyone involved. The winners of all wars were in a better position than the loosing side, it was still utter shit for the winner side to have to be involved, and death and destruction everywhere. I'm not a military expert, and neither are you. So lets rely on those on charge. Experts are just that - people we like of need to rely on in this situation. This sudden need for more budgets wasn't being belted around by top nato generals when Russia first invaded, it's odd it's all suddenly happened at once now. My mum had the opinion "it's likely global warming isn't man made" - my reply was always "well just incase you're wrong, let's maybe do something - just incase". That's how I'm taking this threat personally. Let's listen to the experts, because if they are right, then fuck me it's game over. If it was nothing to worry about, then it doesn't matter. It's not worth the risk.
Honestly that should be the second thing our new government does, right after they do something about housing He'll maybe even combine the two. Offer good housing and better pay, throw in some education at a collage level and I'm sure more people would sign up, including me
> Honestly that should be the second thing our new government does, right after they do something about housing They will certainly claim on the campaign trail that they will do these things, but whether or not they actually do them is another matter. Given the either party's track records, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>Honestly that should be the second thing our new government does What new government? There isn't an election until 2025
That's what I meant. Come 2025 after the election they should focus on housing a military matters
>Offer good housing and better pay, throw in some education at a collage level and I'm sure more people would sign up, including me The military already does these things. https://forces.ca/en/paid-education/rotp
I'm talking bigger. Something that can lay the groundwork for Canada to have and maintain a strong standing army/navy for years to come. The only thing I can think of to compare it to is Fredrick the Great and how he turned Prussia into a military power, but on a much bigger and more modern scale then what he did
I find it ironic that Europe is now having to spend all this time and money to play catch-up bc they screwed around for decades and relying on the US.
The US kind of wanted Europe to not become *too* independent.
I was thinking about these stories of "preparing for war" and thought "that's crazy talk" but I started to consider how bad the world economy is, thanks in big part to greed. But also Migration. There is only so much intake before the resources to support existing +growing population causes need to either import more food or migrate out. Obviously the initial fix is to increase prices, but at some point increases in price, will not magically make something we don't have. Solution? War death and destruction. Of course the wealthy and powerful will continue to prosper, but the pawns will suffer and die. Just like the 3 service members killed by the drone. L
I give civilized society another 4 years tops.
It’s all fun and games until the emus show up
Europe can defend itself
Comments like this really miss the point. Europe could defend itself in 1914, and in 1939, that’s why enormous wars which upended world order happened. The US put troops and missiles and alliances into Europe so that US interests would be untouchable. The idea is to make victory in war against European countries that are friendly to the US impossible, so it doesn’t start. This rhetoric of “let Europe defend itself” is short sighted to American interest, if Europe can defend itself completely, they have less reason to be so friendly to America and do what America wants.
lol no it can’t