While French President Emmanuel Macron has talked of the need for “an incredible awakening” and German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz described Europe as being “five minutes to midnight,” the worry from those close to the discussion is that events are happening more quickly than they can cope with.
“The nightmare scenario is that the U.S. announces a deal soon that accepts most of Russia’s demands and then tells Ukraine and Europe to take it or leave it,” said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
And they’re not only scared of the United States. They’re also wary of some of their own. While Thursday’s hastily arranged summit, just days after less formal gatherings in Paris and London, signals an intention to come up with solutions, diplomats are already bracing for a pro-Russia group of leaders led by Hungary’s Victor Orbán derailing the whole thing.
And it was Zelensky who was apparently “Gambling with World War III”… Tough times ahead methinks.
Fuckin Cheeto
Once again for those at the back: every accusation is an admission
Considering that the Doomsday Clock is set at 89 seconds to midnight, I’d say 5 whole minutes is a lot of time, comparatively.
Yeah, the Doomsday clock is kind of fucked at this point. They need to reboot it with the same scale as during the (first?) Cold War.
Maybe they could help clue the Democratic party into the seriousness of the situation.
What can they do? They’re wiped out, democratically at least until the mid terms. Considering the speed of events, the mid term is too late.
The Republicans never seem so pathetic when they are out of power. Besides, they have been (intentionally) pathetic for decades, not six weeks. Do you remember Trump disappearing when he lost to Biden?
At least the midterms is right. This midterm should be an easy sweep for the Democrats, but they are already blowing it. Democratic strategists are already openly declaring their intention to double down yet again on strategies that always fail. No matter how many elections you bungle as a Democratic strategist, they will always take you back.
It’s almost as though Democrats are beholden to the same corporate sponsors/donors as the Republicans or something.
They are definitely the controlled opposition. In some cases it’s the same sponsors and in other cases it’s not. It’s a slightly more benevolent but also more elitist bunch of oligarchs funding the Democrats. There is more overlap in corporate interests though.
That’s the weird part. Democrats are beholden to corporations, yes, but republicans are now beholden to the Russian mafia. What a choice we have between them!
Yes they do have more problems than losing the last election. Let’s start with the fact that their plan for the future is to become more like republicans because they think that’s obviously what people want now.
I checked it out, this is what the democrats did while in power from 2021-2023
Here’s what Biden and Democrats have gotten done over the last 2 years https://www.npr.org/2023/01/01/1143149435/despite-infighting-its-been-a-surprisingly-productive-2-years-for-democrats
I’m quite familiar with Biden’s accomplishments. How much of that won’t be undone by Trump? It’s no good to make what are really minimalist gains if you are going to throw the next election to a fascist. Biden certainly was an improvement over what we had with Obama and Clinton. So what?
The sad fact is that the Democratic party oligarchs just figured out the populist mood the country is in and gave Biden permission to loosen the reigns a bit. So he partially turned back just a few of the things we lost over the last 50 years. Income inequality continued getting worse though. That cannot continue if this country is going to survive, and neoliberals are incapable of doing anything that doesn’t make it worse somehow.
Well I guess my thought process is that this country keeps voting in Republicans in Congress, for judge seats, for presidents, so legally how much can they accomplish when they are in control for just 2 years? Personally I think they should target smaller communities and do more grass roots stuff but that doesn’t help when such important laws like human rights or environmental protections are being immediately stripped.
But, why were they only in control for 2 years? What is it about Democrats that makes them so pathetic that they can’t beat fascists? They have theory, but it’s the same theory that has failed again,band again, and again, and again. If they just lean a little further right they will capture the precious “center” and start winning. It doesn’t work, and they are doing it again.
In an age of record inequality and the mass enshitification of everything by wealthy elites, the unstoppable force isn’t bigotry, it’s populism. A populist shift is inevitable. Right wing populism is fascism, and Republicans have embraced it with gusto. Democrats would rather lose elections to fascists than become a left populist party again. It’s that simple.
The Democrats blame a worldwide rightward shift for their latest loss, and it’s fair enough to see. However, the biggest exception to the trend is just over our southern border. They rejected neoliberalism for Democratic socialism, and their aging male president just successfully handed over power to a younger woman who will continue his work. This is in a country that’s culturally and religiously even more conservative than the US.
Democrats aren’t victims of our eroding culture, they are the ones responsible for the erosion.
They could stand up now. They could offer some resistance.
Resist. Be noisy. Throw sand in the gears. There are only so many hours in the day, so even just slowing down the Trump administration’s agenda means they break fewer things / grift fewer grifts between now and the midterms.
There’s also the “little” issue of if future elections will even be real.
Hakeem Jeffries, is that you?
This is something they should have done years ago, the US has been grumbling about other NATO members not spending enough on defence long before Trump got into power. And they spend roughly twice as much per capita as many European countries, so they kinda have a point.
As true as it is, I don’t think it is reasonable to just throw everything away and side with fucking russia because of it.
But finally europe seems to wake up, which is good.
Nothing about Trump’s actions are reasonable, but his complaint is.
Don’t legitimize a traitor, because his complaint while possibly valid is not genuine at all. He doesn’t give a fuck what they spend, he is just operating under orders from his dommy mommy Putin to destroy the west’s cohesiveness.
I fully agree.
Granted, many members were below the agreed upon spending of 2%
And he somewhat correctly complained about that…
Though some were above 2% already and Trump had nothing but silence for it…
But now that members drastically increased spending (not just because of him but also due to the Putin factor) Trump suddenly demands 5% across the board … already Poland is over that (because of Putin, not Trump) and Germany approaching it …
Trump knows/is told most members can not raise to 5% …and will use their non compliance to his orders as an excuse to torpedo NATO.
But I am sure when a few others do pass 5% he’ll go to 8% just to spite things and make sure Putin is appeased with his instilled chaos.
From a geopolitics perspective, there are many ways to address “freeriding” in a defense alliance that don’t involve literally betraying the entire defense alliance.
Oh, absolutely.
Just don’t say you didn’t see this coming, because NATO were explicitly told it was coming for years.
The us spends that much more than anyone, including its enemies.
The us just spends way too much. Matching us defence spending is kind of a lot. Combined the EU current defence spending is second only to the us
Seeing how the European members are one financial bloc it would be appropriate to count them as one and average their spending, then it would probably go past the 2% easily (I don’t have nor know how to use the relevant data, so correct me if I am wrong).
But this is not useful for Trump’s reasoning to want to leave NATO so he will not do that and count everyone separately, be it EU or other members.
He needs the excuse, and seeing how the EU is thwarting his and Putins plans for Ukraine, I can see Trump will come with an ultimatum this or next year to actually leave/dismantle NATO.
I am convinced that the only thing keeping Trump from leaving NATO right now is the income the Military Industry is receiving from this.
Not sure if that’s true. China+Russia military spending is about on par with NATO when adjusted for PPP. If Europe and the US want to both be able to defend their respective backyards against imperialism, they need to expand their militaries.
If Europe and the US want to both be able to defend their respective backyards against imperialism
Why are you still talking like the US and EU are allies? The EU needs to defend against US imperialism.
I’m talking about the situation in NATO up until now.
The fact that the US is refusing to support the rest of NATO definitely changes things. Europe likely does not have the capacity right now to assist in the Asia-Pacific. If we are talking strictly NATO ex US vs Russia, it is still uncomfortably close. Europe needs to increase defense spending.
The Trump regime currently has their sights on Canada and Greenland, so any defense against Trumpist imperialism will happen there as part of NATO, not the EU.
PPP is difficult with defence spending, especially when nations are running a war economy and recruiting prisoners for free
I fear it’s not enough. Not by half.
And given the EU is on the same continent as Russia, that should really be the other way around.
It’s not that - NATO membership includes an agreement to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense.
The reason the US wants that 2% spending today is because they know we’re going to hand that money to US weapons manufacturers and trainers.
So? It’s an amount everybody agreed to in 2014.
In 2014, NATO members pledged to aim for defense spending of at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. This agreement, formalized during the Wales Summit, was a response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and broader global instability. However, this target is not legally binding; it is a political commitment designed to address underfunding and encourage burden-sharing among allies[1][2][4].
Countries are not obligated to meet the target because NATO lacks enforcement mechanisms. The pledge allows flexibility, requiring nations to “aim” for the goal rather than mandating it. Members can prioritize other defense contributions, such as troop deployments or equipment investments, which are not directly tied to GDP percentages[1][5][7]. Additionally, critics argue the 2% metric oversimplifies defense contributions and does not account for qualitative factors like military capability or willingness to engage in operations[5][8].
Citations: [1] [PDF] THE POLITICS OF 2 PERCENT https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/CP_252_Techau_NATO_Final.pdf [2] Defence expenditures and NATO’s 2% guideline https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm [3] The two NATO targets: Which countries are hitting the mark? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/ [4] Topic: Funding NATO - NATO https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm [5] What Spending Two Per Cent of GDP on National Defence Means … https://www.cgai.ca/what_spending_two_per_cent_of_gdp_on_national_defence_means_for_canada [6] Update of Canada’s Military Expenditure and the NATO 2 … https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/additional-analyses--analyses-complementaires/BLOG-2425-005-S--update-canada-military-expenditure-nato-2-spending-target--mise-jour-depenses-militaires-canada-objectif-depenses-2-otan [7] The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2015/09/the-politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-the-security-vacuum-in-europe?center=europe&lang=en [8] We don’t really know which NATO allies are pulling their weight … https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/natos-next-burden-sharing-agreement/ [9] How much do Nato members spend on defence? - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074
Neat.
“Nightmare scenario?” This is what’s already happened.
