Liste des Groupes | Revenir à se design |
On 2025-02-16, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:48:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:>
>On 16/02/2025 6:41 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:>On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:53:37 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 2/15/2025 3:07 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
So, if he was afraid of having a NATO Ukraine on his border, he
hasn't yet realized what a threat a re-ARMED Europe would pose in
that same geographical position. Trump's trash talking may result
in a EUTO (without the US) that feels empowered to push back on
future issues without "consent" from the US.
Getting Europe's military up to the job would take at least a decade.
But there's no money available. Germany - once the economic powerhouse
of the continent - is on its knees and France likewise. And even if it
could be afforded - which it can't - we now know Putin can call upon
China and N. Korea, so if push ever came to shove, continental Europe
would be toast.
The US Abrahams tank relies on a German gun and UK (Chobham) armour.
But the Americans won't have to fight if Trump has his way. He thinks
he can just keep Putin happy by feeding him European countries,
one-by-one.
It may be a practical reality that Ukraine has to give up a slice of
"Russian speaking" territory to end the killing on both sides.
They gave up their nukes in 1994, and peace was promised,
>
That didn't work.
>
They gave up Crimea in 2014, and peace was promised.
>
That didn't work.
>
I really don't think they want more of the same. no matter how many
stupid people propose it.
>
>
Russian promises seem to be only slightly more reliable than Russian
ultimatums.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.