Vlad's main channel th-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
I want to know your take on what is happening with luigi mangione and why I'm seeing some seriously worrying trends I'm not an expert and I live in iran but have a friend who is also a political philosopher with a Wikipedia page no less he is right wing but is dealing with some insurance issues and an stroke at the same time, ok some parts of the problem seems a bit more clear it seems to me that Brian Thompson has knowingly introduced a defective AI as an alternative to human beings and it has denied many legitimate insurance claims and over time has potentially led to death of thousands some because their care was interrupted, so we're are dealing with the killing of a potential mass murderer who has probably committed countless human rights violation all of which deserve a thorough investigation that has never been attempted which led me to believe there are others involved here political figures most likely the killing itself is being celebrated by at least half the nation according to polls and it's bipartisan, now let's deal with the worrying part which is about the crisis of legitimacy the democratic institutions in US are experiencing as I see it US government has made the worst decision amongst the bad decisions until yesterday the US mainstream media was business as usual but something has changed today, it seems to me like they've hired the manager of iranian state media! I was expecting such allergic reaction as vigilante justice sometimes shows up as an unsanctioned institution to compete with weak institutions sanctioned by the state with the same duties this is quite an extraordinary situation if the US Healthcare was owned and operated by the state we wouldn't have had this problem no matter how bad it was but there is a catch here and that is that Healthcare and health insurance in US are private and therefore beholden to the same laws as citizens this makes this specific situation terrifying for me as it means if government want to keep the integrity of US justice system at least relatively intact it shouldn't just investigate and prosecute luigi mangione at the same time it should conduct a comprehensive federal investigation into the underlying problem that has caused half of US citizens to openly say murder of Brian Thompson Is somewhat to completely acceptable, this investigation might lead to certain politicians, CEO's and others to end up with heftier sentences than whatever mangione is facing right now but it would at least increase the legitimacy of the US justice system in the eyes of the public, the information I've gathered were from lawyers, doctors, patients, those who worked in the health industry and many more, now they're charging mangione with terrorism without providing any evidence to support it, second degree murder is straightforward first degree murder and terrorism charges are not and now there is a fight between feds and the NYPD over the case, it's a circus and as mangione himself put it an insult to the intelligence of American people, the director of the documentary sicko which came out in 2006 was asked to come on TV and condemn the murder he refused and instead said he's going to pour gasoline over it, a similar sentiment to many doctors who have seen their patients die, now let's get to the crux of the matter this seems like a high profile political assassination to me, like the one that led to the second triumvirate, so I exercise utmost caution when dealing with it as things start to develop further but this is unprecedented in US, I don't know I'm having a bit of brain fog right now but I think last time something like this happened was around 5 centuries ago, should probably go back and check...
I suffer from serious chronic pain as well but I don't know if it's as bad as ME but I had and continue to have serious problems with treatment. It's a mental pain mostly, the physical part is fibromyalgia which fortunately my body is responding to it's treatment and constant tension headache, and it gets painful which is rare, I've also experienced the worst mental health has to offer according to some mental health professionals: catatonia I'm grateful for your content and you have both my love and my like, I hope someday we can do what we want and not to be restrained by our ailments like this ❤
I am sorry but with 'freeriding you got into a trap: in lack of real competency you are 'parroting' someone's else talking point. Europe is a significant market (even with miserable spendings) for US military complex - this is never not just about 'metal'. There is tech, intelligence, 'softer' military power, multiple enablers (in simplest way: access to bases and infrastructure) and so on. Europe (and other elements of multiple alliances and semi-alliances) is US dirt-cheap force and power multiplier (you know 5th Fleet cannot be in 3 places at once, besides its sustenance and moving from place to place costs a fortune). This is one of the most dangerous (for the US) talking points - without a NATO, US power projection ability would suffer dramatically. The very existence of NATO (or any other real alliance, not something 'fake' as CSTO) is a dramatic booster for capabilities diversification and development. (and there is more but enumerating that would be unfair). So all that 'freeriding' is just a plain BS repeated by ignorants (mostly) and malevolent ones. You have talked about 'strategic patriotism' (of sort, kinda making a some sort of a joke on the Spivak's cost) as a path to some kind of restoration - this is simplification ofc.), well - the problem is that said 'patriotism' is an obstacle. One of the biggest to have a strategy or act in coherent way. Hugs.
@AK-ns4kn I agree with you that the "freeriding" statement was a horrible (maybe intentional) oversimplification. Especially from UK point of view, which is also a nuclear power. The freeriding statement reduced the concept of allies to mercenaries.
@AK-ns4kn when states are as rational as they were before yes but now what we've got in reality is a whole load of irrationality, take into account the US border crisis and how both state and population are acting in regards to it, US has a wealth redistribution crisis a crisis that could've been resolved if it was the only one, but there is another crisis affecting all countries which is cultural in nature, this has seriously affected US institutions ability to respond to the wealth redistribution crisis and the wealth redistribution crisis has gone far enough to become extremely volatile, and now a murder is being celebrated while US government is faced with an extremely dangerous situation, if it goes on like this there are chances that US society implodes and then explodes the results will be many, many wars and serious instability across the globe(a true catastrophe), so we're dealing with a powder keg of wrath in US, circumstances around murder of UHC CEO is extremely complex and complicated, it coupled with state's poor handling of murder are leading the entire world down a dangerous path, people aren't just explaining away the murder it takes a lot to justify something like this, it dose seem that the justification is present, now to get to the point of forming alliances like NATO which is to be a way of deterring wars by which it means deterring violence I don't see why a society that is calling for violence and instability in it's own streets be interested in an alliance like that, and this is a truly terrifying prospect because this particular society has accumulated more power and wealth than any society in history of mankind.
Sure. And for that European economies should have a strategy of growth. How can European economies grow and prosper if the EU is imposing sanctions on its key markets in Russia and China and is being threatened by its key trading partner, the US, with tariffs?
@ The key to winning a long-term confrontation is economic dynamism and growth. The Cold War was won less by the actual force of arms and more through prosperity and growth with which the USSR could not keep up. Poor and angry people are not good soldiers.
So is Finland in a way. We're currently undergoing a navy refurbishment and in 2030 our spending would go under 2% but we must also do a land army refurbishment so it won't be too hard to upgrade. Also I will say that even if there's higher spending, it doesn't matter since it will offer marketing opportunitites to every country under the NATO umbrella as I know there's plenty of possibilities for NATO countries to market their defence industries. I know for a fact that several countries want to buy the Patria AMOS mortar system for example. The countries that will feel most upset by this are in western Europe.
That is a high percent. But living in Sweden we spent huge amount of GDP on the defense during the cold war. I am ok with that, it is adjusting to a reality.
It's not the same back then you had a house and a car, now you also have computers phones, internet, you live longer so you need more medical personel eat other stuff...
Europe wouldn't be in the position it currently is in too. I dont like trump but he isnt wrong. Even on the world stage critics of NATO say its just American imperialism because for a long time NATO looked like a mostly American organization with Europeans just tagging along
Yep, the pullout may have been a chaotic humiliation under Biden, though I suppose no one expected the Afghani Government and ANA to fall so quickly & comprehensively, but he was working to his predecessors timetable. No prizes for guessing which orange clown shafted the NATO allies & his own military by making a deal with the Taliban behind everybody else's back in 2019. Every single member of NATO supported USA's ISAF coalition and contributed forces in some capacity following Al-Qaeda attack on 9/11. Though small (
They sent in symbolic forces and symbolic resources which left the US feeling burnt and started the US distrust of NATO and the EU. Whether you agree or disagree with the wars that were started it’s true that when article 5 was evoked it was only given a lukewarm reaction by EU members of NATO rather than the unifying call to action and mutual defense it was designed to be.
As a European, I‘m fine with the 5%, but not if „we“ buy from the American defence industry. As long as these 5% are mostly spent within Europe, then OK. But I‘m sure this was not what Trump meant.
@@sparks1792 up to you. I dont like the idea of a killswitch in all the important system so a backstabbing Putin-lover can just fool us after we bought his stuff for billions.
1) The US is not being invaded. Europe is. 2) Trump will reportedly settle on 3.5% so he will start by demanding 5% 3) if Europe had not sniggered at Trump when he told them to spend 2% Ukraine may already have won
The USA is in the safest natural position with regards to defense requirements of any country in the world. Anything over about 2% is either subsidizing other countries for geopolitical reasons or funding hegemony for geopolitical reasons. It is illogical to assume that the USA should be spending as much on defense as Europe, or Russia, or China, other than for geopolitical reasons.
Trump likes deals, so he bids high and then wants to "meet in the middle". It's the same as what Russia does, except Russia rarely has any real chips to play with. Russia makes some outrageous claim beyond anything it could reasonably achieve or expect, and then "backs down" to a "compromise" which gives it something-and that something is more than what Russia started with. Which means a Russian win.
@@artmcteagleNATO only need to spend the amount needed to deter a failing Russian State. ~1% was not enough. 5% is probably more then needed. 3% with 1% going to fighting Russia is.
Speaking of percentage increases, I'm sorry about wishing you 2.5% compounding health improvement. Switching strategies to wishing 150% improvement by end of fiscal year 📈
That is the warmest, deepest and most thought-through comment I've read here, and I second that. My first thought went and go to Vlad's health ❤ long before Trump's rants.
It's difficult to disagree with Trump, as much as I dislike him. Europe should probably have begun increasing its defence spending in 2008, should have almost certainly started increasing it in 2014, and should definitively started increasing it in 2022. Otherwise the mood music coming from Europe is 'we're concerned about our security; what is America going to do about it?'.
It really sucks that the messenger here is an orange clown idiot. If we had a normal person as the president telling Europe this, it'd be easier to have a serious discussion with them about it.
Theres quite a natural inclination to agree with this, but I think theres some complexity to it too that people miss. If Europe had armed at any point Putin/Russia would have taken that as a military threat & it may have tiggered things earlier / larger. Putin miscalculated hugely, but it was a miscalculation in part based on Europe showing no sign of willingness to stand up to him. If Europe had mass armed then that wouldn't have happened and instead Russia would have mass armed as well and we'd now be in a position of 2 very large armies getting ready for a very large war, rather than what we have now, which is catastophic to Ukraine, but has had minimal impact on the West while causing considerable damage to Russia. I want Russia to be defeated and this path that Putin has chosen has considerably weakened him and allowed the West to trap him on the borders of Ukraine. If things had been different we might have given him/Russia 10-20 years to amass a much larger army and lead to a full war on the continent - something Russia isn't able to do anymore. Not if it can't even take a bit of eastern Ukraine while we're supporting them.
@@beny9360 Dont be ridiculous. What a silly excuse for weakness. "The other guy might get mad if we are strong!!" Simply getting up to 2% doesnt require putting a bunch of nuclear missiles in half the countries of NATO. The "considerable damage to Russia" was due not to European weakness but massive weapons support from the US.
Will trump doesn't get is that allowing Europe to spend less means they don't develop into another antagonist. When Europe starts putting 5% into their military, they will collectively develop into a superpower that is not going to necessarily be friendly to us interests. Trump's basically burning the seed corn.
First 2% now 3.5%. Dont you see what game Trump is playing? Even if each country were to get to 3.5%, Trump will then say 5%. And even if they met 5% he would say 7%. And so on and so on, while he will not increase US military spending. He will move the goal post each time, simply because he is not an honest man.
Trump is incoherrant. He says one thing and then the opposite next time on a subject. Assuming this is factually coming from Trump, next week he may have changed his mind.
So an arbitrary 5% is justified because of The US's high spending and adventures in the middle east??? While the Baltics now get to be criticized even though they are part of the few that meet over the 2%??? And after all the obstruction and disruption that the Republicans have done to the war effort??? No Tump is still wrong.
@@keithomelvena2354 that's what he does - say a bunch of random incoherent stuff and that way his supporters can cherry pick one of those statements as 'proof' that he was correct
There's an argument to be made that alot of countries have engaged in free-riding for so long that they're going to need alot of initial spending to get things back in order. If you've actively used army draw-downs as a budget balance mechanism to fund other stuff for decades, you might need a few years of higher spending just to catch up.
@@daste1263 That would've been an "argument" in 1992; now it's a blindingly obvious and completely irrefutable fact. There are NATO countries now that cannot field a single tank. Not one MBT. The United States' various military branches together field >550 aerial refueling tankers. All of Europe combined can cobble together about 40. The Euros could spend twice as much as the Americans for _decades_ and not catch up.
@@drmwpn At least we know where our money is used...USA has no clue where that trillion a year goes. Just because you call it military spending does not mean it isn`t wasted or simply put in someones pockets!
From someone who fundamentally disagrees with you about Trump, I was delighted by this analysis! Particularly the way you stripped back Europe’s lack of the ability to come up with a coherent response the whatever Trump actually does. Overall I wish, even speaking as an American, Europe the best. Given its history of nationalism causing great suffering it is entirely understandable why Europe has sought a post national solution in the EU. Unfortunately the EU has not found a clear supranational structure that works such that it can defend itself as that structure. I don’t pretend to know if there is an answer but you have helped me see the problem a little better. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts from your sickbed.
1) Europe should invest 5 percent 2) the 5 percent should be spent developing European military manufacturers. Currently, Europe doesn't have the ability to project military power on its own.
Well that's not going to help Ukraine out in the next year, the quickest way to rearm is to buy American weapons, and later on Europe can develop its own.
@@thomaskalbfus2005 If they really do spend 5% of GDP on defence then Europe could likely do both at the same time. But if they keep their military budgets at current levels I'm skeptical they could do either, even sequentially.
@@chrisrobert5252 You are probably thinking of France and to a lesser extent the UK. Both have carrier battle groups, but they simply cannot be compared in capability to their U.S. counterparts. If Article 5 is triggered by Chinese aggression against the U.S. for example, then I think France or the UK would be able to project very little power there.
Do you think the Europeans are capable of not leaning on Australia anymore to prop up NATO? Because we are fed up with our taxes being spent on defending Europe and making us the primary target of Russia and China.
@seanlander9321 What ? What kind of propaganda channels you listen in Australia also 🤣🤣?! Because in Europe are full 🤣. Or you're just a bot ,because it's not the first time when i hear that !
@@mariusdon3429 Could be a bot. Al the messages from this account in this chat area promotes mostly a narrative about sowing distrust between Europe and Australia.
@@seanlander9321Australia military industrial output of arms is 32nd in the world. France is 2nd Germany is 4th UK is 5th. Idea of Australia propping up anything is hilarious if know the numbers. I mean Australia does pretty well for its population size. But what on earth.
@@mariusdon3429 also France tried for years to get joint European projects off the ground for tanks fighter jets etc. they finally have some but Germany is dragging its feet as per usual.
Not just a military, but heavy industry capable of producing ammunition as well. The allies won World War II because they had a massive advantage in factory production and heavy industry. Deindustrialization is a national security issue, especially when foreign adversaries are industrializing for war.
In times when Europe had a strong military it started two biggest wars in the history. They even did not need an outside enemy (at least in the beginnings of both conflicts). So there are good reasons for Europe with not-so-strong military. But yes, situation changed.
😊 Germany At 5% GDP, sounds like a good time. Besides they're not going to be making cars for much longer they're letting a the Chinese eat their lunch. Workforce has to go somewhere.
This is the kind of spending that is needed to fight a war with Russia. Unfortunately it has to be done. Cold War expenditures in Germany were 6%. This would never have been necessary if expenditures hadn’t fallen below 2%
no? 5% is borderline war-time financing. If the EU spent 5% of all it's countries budget on it's military the countries would actively stagnate economically and eventually collapse.. the USSR spent around 6% but even that dropped to 4% prior to collapsing. Does no one learn history?
I can explain it, Trump didn't want to lose those isolationist Republican votes while he was still campaigning for President, now that he has them, and he's not running in 2028, he doesn't have to worry about that anymore, he's going to be president for the next 4 years, so the second thing it Trump doesn't like to lose, and if Putin wins that is going to look like America and thus President Trump losing, so therefore the policy is going to change. MAGA stands for Make America Great Again, there is no R in there for Russia!
The trick is to pick a single line of argument that Trump makes, prepare to win on that argument, wait for Trump to circle back around to it, and then step in at the right moment to milk it.
Is it 5% or 3%? Is continued US aid to Ukraine contingent on one or the other or neither. Is it instead dependent on Europe buying more US LNG or does that only relate to tariff imposition? Trump is mercurial and his administration is likely to be chaotic. We have only heard of Trump’s musings through his associates, but hearing it from the man himself doesn’t mean he won’t have changed his mind in four weeks. The only way Europe could have a coherent strategy is by abandoning any attempt at trying to coordinate that strategy with the upcoming Washington administration.
Agreed. Its frustrating to see how we (Europe) are always trembling each time a new US president is elected. Its time we become independent of the US. Meaning, its time we re-build our own sphere of influence. One that is not so welcoming to outsiders, not just Russia, but also USA. And it also means we may have to steal certain American IP to boost our economy to make that possible. And it may also mean we will impose transition fees if the US wants to send aid through the Middle-East to their strategic partners.
There's much more to solve in Eurooe. We also have the tendency to rightwings and oligarchs. Too many people blindly put hope in "strongmen" and don't want to realize this makes us all weak.
@@jonson856This kind of BS is why Trumpian policy is so pants on head stupid. These dumb cattle don’t understand how weak the US would be without its allies, nor how easy it is for the US to alienate the rest of the world. These braindead rednecks really think an accident of history reflects their exceptionalism.
It's called negotiation. Nothing is set in stone which allows us to talk about it instead being an ultimatum. Silliest criticism I'm hearing these days.
@deanosaur808 You'd be surprised at their ingenuity. Beside, they haven't had an Israeli rocket (or three) launched their production facilities on the past 20 years.
@deanosaur808 On top of previous comments, Ukraine was actually the main hub for nuclear research/development/manufacture during the Soviet Union. Don’t get me wrong, it would still take a while, but people seriously underestimate how quickly Ukraine could have a very rudimentary nuclear device up and running.
I have always been very critical of US imperialism, but the invasion of Ukraine woke me up to the reminder that US imperialism is not the ONLY imperialism in the world, and compared to Russian is fairly benign.
what kind of drugs do they give bots like you?? iraq invasion was benign?? afghanistan occupation was benign??? what's happening in gaza, for 75+ years is FAIRLY BENIGN?????
@@jonathanbowen3640 and that's what a guy trapped in a turd bubble looks like, ladies and gentleman. probably has a special spot designated as his cuck chair.
Do not forget the tens of billions the US has also given in military aid to Israel. That the GOP makes such a big deal about aid to Ukraine is so hypocritical.
I think the 5% increase is a negotiating ploy, an ambit claim. Europe could start by increasing the spending of all countries to >2% That would include the mighty Luxemburg but also they should try and convince Spain to increase to >2% imo when dealing with Trump you have to give him some boasting points.
DO it Europe Spent 5% of your GDP. Europe needs to build their own military complex and independance. BUTTTTT spend that money on military development within Europe.
So the EU will outspend then US by 50% on military. It's going to mean a lot of super carriers and nukes, more than the US has, to meaningfully spend money like that. Or maybe the EU should just invest in the next-gen tech and steal a march on US military capabilities?
Well Trump is simply adopting the same approach that Europe had for decades, a bunch of European states were isolationist, Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, the French at times was trading with the enemy, Germany was quite happy to be split into East and West, and calling American Hawkish, and militarist, and protesting the deployment of US missiles in Europe, I saw a lot of that growing up, and now the shoe is on the other foot.
This is the sort of post that, while I sympathise, denies the reality that the clown will call the shots. The question then becomes one of how to adapt to this reality.
@@item6931 He will, in fact, not call the shots. NATO members will not spend 5% on defence, and any punitive tariffs on EU members will be reciprocated by the EU. Non-EU NATO members, however, may have to leave NATO. What's the point of being threatened constantly by your supposed allies, anyway?
@@adrien5834 The EU is not in a position of power over the U.S. This is evident by European anxieties over U.S. isolationism. It will lose any game of retaliation or escalation with the U.S.
Trump probably thought he could simply talk to Putin like he said he would. When that fell through, due to there being no concievable settlement acceptable to both sides (Trump knows history will judge him extremely poorly if he just capitulates in Ukraine), Trump must have taken it personally.
in 2016-20, Trump: -bombed and killed 200 Russians in Syria --blocked Nordstream, which Biden re-approved --sent lethal arms to Ukraine, which Obama denied and Biden cancelled --increased Obama's weak sanctions against Russians --lectured Germany to get off Russian gas TDSers are so stupid.
I was one of those people twenty years ago, as I know Vlad was as well, now I’m not still saying the same. If the real number is 3.5% I’m all for it and agree with Trump (I never thought I’d say that) and if I were Starmer I’d just say with Trump’s proposal circumstances have changed so 2% wealth tax on Uk assets over x amount.
Let´s get something straight. According to Reuters the US contributes 16% of the annual NATO budget. No more - no less. The remaining 84% are the result of the contributions of the European nations. Time to form the United Kingdoms and Nations/ Republics/ States of Europa - full tier four - with an joint European army to speak and fend for itself and the European peoples. 16% / 32 ( including Ukraine in NATO) = 0.5%,- so if every European NATO member nation increases its current yearly spending by 0.5% we´d cover the contribution by the US,- and not have to deal with anybody trying to hardball us ever again. How the Russians would feel about that hardly matters by now. MEGA Make Europa Great Again
@@N330AA It depends on how you look. The US spent $816.7 billion on its defence in 2023, which is more than the nato members in total. But thats not spent on nato(9% of it is healthcare). Nato as an alliance has a budget of $4.8 billion as of 2024, US pays 15.8813% of that budget. This information comes from nato themselves, if youd bother to look it up.
@@knibazaz Except you're assuming that's it and overlooking everything else. You seriously think that $4.8 billion budget is enough to fend off Russia?
@ulfdanielsen6009 You're obviously omitting a whole lot of relevant information. The NATO budget makes up a very small part of NATO's overall strength.
Agree our defence is the most important thing our army deserves the best of everything these people put their lives on the line for us nothing but admiration for our heroes
The free-riding on US militarism we've done in Europe is by design. When the European states were running with active global policy it "didn't go too well" (meaning the last 400 or so years with wars and colonisation). Hopefully we can manage a common enough response from now without returning to the olden calamities.
This is great news- thank you Pooting for making NATO increase defense spending across the board. We need to fight Russia to the end!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥👏👏👏👏👏👏
Also, remember, kids: Trump thinks like a monkey with a business degree. When he says 5%, what he means is "let's negotiate and see how close to 5% i can bully you into going." If he finds he doesn't have the leverage to push that far, he'll forget he ever said it.
Trump senses Russia can be humbled, he can use Europe to buy more weapons from the USA. Europe can Defend itself, the United States can lower spending. Europe does not depend on the USA for defence that's silly talk when France and Britain have nukes.
Also there's probably something to be said about not spending so much on ultra high technology wonder weapons and have a handful when you can have more of an older or medium technology weapon for the same amount. Unfortunately the military industrial complex relies on extreme cutting edge weapons.
Does Trump understand that this means the USA almost doubling its own defense spending? Or is that the point? Was last person he spoke to an arms manufacturer?
😅 You never know what you're going to make and you never know how are you going to use it. Take GPS I mean it's a government system but it's also a civilian system too.
And this is why"peace" talks from Germany, Hungary etc will start to arise again even louder, because some in the West prefer to sacrifice others' life and liberty, like Ukraine giving up their nukes in 1994 and Crimeea 2014, instead of their own cozy comfort.
Ukraine gave up their nukes because they simply couldn't use them at the time. Facilities were staffed and maintained by Soviets the guidance mechanisms were controlled by Russia and they simply couldn't afford to re-establish the logistical and technical infrastructure to maintain them. Keeping nukes viable and being able to actually deploy them is hugely expensive if you research it a little.
@@theamazingbatboy That's not quite the whole story. They also gave them to Russia in return for territorial guarantees. That did not work out well. The moral of that story is don't give up any nukes, and strongly consider acquiring them if you don't have them. Given the ingenuity shown by Ukrainians during the war, I don't doubt that they could have eventually maintained some of the weapons on their territory and placed them under their command and control.
@@item6931 Ofc don't get me wrong, Ukraine has always had the engineering and technical know how to have a nuclear arsenal and I appreciate the diplomatic transaction. The point is those soviet weapons they had were dead weight at the time and the only way they could've benefitted from them would have been to dismantle them entirely to recover the fissile materials and start their own nuclear program. Something that would've not only sacrificed their relationship with Russia but started a whole new era of nuclear competition between the states. It was a decision certainly pressured by the US and EU bloc to maintain the hugely profitable for them status quo (and maintain Russia's only real relevance in the 'superpower' club)
What Europe NEEDS is someone like Charles De Gaulle as the leader of the European Union in Brussels. Someone that will push France to increase it's nuclear stockpile from 300 to at least 500 and someone that will force Germany to make at least 500 of it's own nukes, and force Italy to make at least 200 or it's own nukes, like UK got. And EU needs to make it's eastern flank PROTECTED by the nukes. As simple as that. Not to wait on the USA to do it. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary = protected by some of the French and German nukes, installed on their territory. According to the size of the countries. From 50 nukes installed in Poland to several nukes installed in Estonia. After that there would be ZERO need for any European to even care who will be the next USA president, or Russian president for that matter. But we need determination like Charles De Gaulle and lack of selfishness. Charles De Gaulle was someone that said NO to USA protection racket after the WW2. He made France LEAVE the NATO in the middle of the cold war in 1966, in order to make 300 nukes for France. The "friend" and "ally" USA was of course COMPLETELY against it! But Charles simply didn't care! And now there's ZERO USA soldiers and USA bases in France, and France got the ability to nuke the Vladivostok and Los Angeles with it's nukes that got 10 000 kms of range. EU today NEEDS that type of leader. Certainly NOT a bunch of WEAK spineless liberals that are not even able to say one single word to defend EU and EU's interests! Where's the leader that proudly defends the interests of the EU? It doesn't even exist!
“The world has changed.” That might be the most important thing that people don’t realize. We need to change with it. After WWII, US built military-industrial complex and alliances to fight Cold War and limit spread of nuclear threat. Now we need to face today’s threats.
Vlad, when I look at the world right now I can see that you are right with democratic decline, unfortunately. I have listened to you for years now, and intellectually I think I got it. But still, from a moral point of view, I can't understand why we don't help Ukraine to win. Maybe I am already too old (40+) to understand it. But I am interested in your view as a philosopher: Are we in a moral decline as well? How would you define a moral decline today? I hope you are well enough to read comments, but I don't really expect you to react on mine, so please don't worry about it if there are more important issues on your mind. I know your productive time is very limited. Anyway, thank you so much for your work, Vlad. 🌻
Hi I don't know if you'd care for my two cents, but at least I have an education in political philosophy too. Morals and politics are, in my view, not a perfectly overlapping venn diagram, if for no other reason that in democracies we need to be open to immoral opinions still being politically valid. Case in point, I find the right wing populist party of my country's view on immigration to be uncaring and immoral, but I recognize that this is an opinion a lot of people hold and it is not in conflict with fundamental democratic principles, and so it is a valid political opinion to have. Democracies are systems based on negotiations and compromise. Democratic decline, as Vlad talks about it, is marked by entrepeunurial populism and polarization. It is a less stable political environmet where playing spoiler can be a succesfull strategy to secure power. In this kind of environmet it is harder to find workable compromises, and so it is harder to get anything done. You could possibly argue that a lack of decisive action on important and urgent issues can be a moral failing in a political system, the question then is how interesting of an analytical category that would be. To me it seems we then just have two words to describe the same problem: political decline. As for a potential claim about a broader societal moral decline, I would be careful with making that judgment. We might feel like, and it might in fact be the case, that more and more people hold immoral views and express immoral attitudes, but we should be careful about judging that to mean our societies are in moral decline for two reasons: 1. We could be in the wrong, or we could lack context or understanding. Though that doesn't mean we should reserve judgment about people's actions, it does mean we shouldn't engage with them as morally poorer than us. 2. From a political point of view: Conflicts of interests are easier to resolve than conflicts of value. By judging our political space in increasingly moral terms (because we feel it move away from our moral world view) we risk either giving up in despair, or lock ourselves out of fruitful compromises. Politics is, after all, a pragmatic thing and all we can hope for in a democracy where many viewpoints are supposed to shape our policy, is better policy, not morally flawless policy.
You will never see 5% although we should. 3.5% is a more realistic and good level of defence spending and quite frankly the sector desperately needs it. Twenty years in the Royal Navy and having seen numerous governments chinning off defence tells me we are more likely to see 2.5% maximum and lots of that will probably go on equipment that would be great for fighting Russia…if you were Ukraine. But we’re not Ukraine. If NATO gets round to fighting Russia, it won’t be like Ukraine at all. And nor will it be fought with tactical level weapons systems like drones. It will be fought with precision guided long range munitions and artillery and it will escalate very quickly. We need metal and we need people and we need them today.
This is a problem because every company thinks the war will be over eventually one way or another, after another couple years one or both of the countries will necessarily implode, and then what do they do with the extra manufacturing capacity that was expensive to build? If instead you put like a bunch of countries into a 20 year + long commitment to keep buying more of the stuff, the problem resolves itself, long term utilisation is secured.
It's worse than that. I just learned recently that in case of conflict over Taiwan 🇹🇼, US would only have enough ammunition for 2 weeks (based on war game simulation). The reason for this is that most of US ammunition is made in ... China,because why not. Outsourcing is such a great idea.
5% of GDP was actually the kind of level spent during the height of the Cold War, so it is doable. If it is unrealistic then that really implies a lack of political will.
@@piotrpilinko639 Yes. The unwillingness to cut spending in other areas to make that sacrifice is exactly what I meant by lack of political will. It has been done before in a dangerous world: see the Cold War.
Fully agree. Europe should not be afraid of Trump, but of its own lack of leadership and coherence. As a Dutchman I am more concerned about our political parties and their electorate having too little sense of urgency, many perceiving the EU and international cooperation as a problem we should free ourselves from. And that is more dangerous than anything Trump can do to us. If Trump demands an increase to 3,5-5% defense spending that will help Europe. As it can help to take on free riders (like Luxemburg) or countries (like Hungary or the present government of the Netherlands) that are inclined to isolationism and objecting to strengthen the EU or include Ukraine in a European economic and defensive framework.
Makes me feel like I'm tripping balls to say it-but this sounds exactly like what the, slightly deluded, Western Europe needs right now. I've never agreed with Trump about basically _anything_ except this and weirdly, I'm beginning to think only a self aggrandising and insular President like him could actually pull it off. For all the damage he will undoubtedly do to his own country, I hope this kick in the pants for Europe bears fruit.
We’re propping up your “defense industry” as well your numerous global wars. It suits the US for Europe to buy their weapons. Be careful what you wish for.
There are many voices accusing European countries of relying on American defence, but ignoring the historical facts and events after WW2 where Germany i.e. was not allowed (by the allied forces) to have it‘s own military and manufacturing of military assets for decades. Why do these people think the US had and still has military bases there? And no, I am not talking about joint forces NATO bases, but pure American bases. All of this has to be taken into account when judging Europe for lacking military investments compared to the US. WW1 and WW2 had it‘s impact on Europe and the world.
If Europe spent 3.5% of GDP on defense, then Europe wouldn't need the US at all. While that might be what Trump wants, if you force Europe to be self-sufficient in defense, while also undermining international trade, what compels Europe to go along with the US on anything?
Couple of things, European defense spending won’t buy expeditionary abilities because Europe is not a unified buyer or military. So Europe would still need US naval and expeditionary forces for global trade etc and nuclear deterrence, otherwise it’s just France, not Europe with nukes.
@@davidradtke160 I'm not sure I buy the first point - The UK and France both have expeditionary abilities. As for nukes, France and Britain are more than enough. You don't need that many. (And for defense purposes, I would included the UK in Europe.)
@@davidradtke160 You dont need an expeditionary force in europe though. We aren't gonna fight in the pacific. As for the nukes,we don't have that cause US didn't want europe to have nukes.
@AmiGanguli I 100% agree. It is easier to have a constructive relationship with a friend who is self-sufficient, independent and making a contribution than one who is weak or listless.
I highly doubt that Trump would appreciate an increase in defense spending if that money was going towards buying French Rafale fighter and German Leopard tanks. I think his hope is that a lot of these countries will buy more weapons from America.
It is true and it is deeply embarrassing, that Europe and esp. the European Union (ie it's member states) have no strategic perspective. That not only affects Ukraine and Russia and Trump - in fact it covers all parts of politics, including the economy. The Commission is struggling to accomplish some sort of coherent policy, but with all the national governments focused on their own short-term interests, the whole project is bound to get stuck (or even crash).
Negotiation tactics, rule number 1: Always claim to want more than the result you would actually be satisfied with. I guess, he's putting a little bit of pressure in some reluctant European nations, especially Germany, to comply at least with the 2% target
It's not just about how much money you spend, but how you spend it. 30mill Euro tanks are useless if you don't have millions of shells to feed to your artillery. That was current situation in Ukraine has shown.
I dont like Trump and I am Pro Ukranian, however it is silly at how little EU cares about Ukraine, EU should see Ukraine as United States seeing their own state being invaded, it is ridiculous, I have so much contempt towards Europe, except for GB and Baltic countries, they truly helped us out!
Feel like he’d definitely be on the more hawkish side although it’s important to remember that he did once say that despite all their flaws the Soviet leaders were rational actors whereas Putin isn’t, so he may have taken a more dovish stance on them then he does Putin. Just a guess though.
"Protection racket" implies he's asking them for a direct payment to the US, he's not. He's asking them to spend more on THEIR OWN defense industries so the EU can pull its own weight in scenarios just such as this.
Its intelligence though is utterly dependent on Australia, and that’s the country the Europeans detest more than America. Somehow the Europeans need to be re-educated to understand how the world works and why alliances are essential.
@ What? It’s the Europeans who detest Australia, we have had a punitive trade embargo inflicted on us by them for generations, even to the point that they refuse our trade in favour of Russia, that’s one position away from being treated the same as Iran and a North Korea. Europe needs to stop leaning on Australia for its own sake as much as for ours, because what we give free is a thankless task for a thankless people. I mean, the Europeans are still furious with us for withdrawing our AWACS, just what is it that these people are on that they think they can tell us what to do?
@@seanlander9321 Yep, in the 70's the USA (CIA) helped oust Australia's Whitlam government to ensure continued access to Pine Gap's essential intelligence gathering capabilities. With the same act they shut down any possibility of Australia nationalizing it's (largely foreign controlled) mining sector!
America needs to demonstrate that its agreement to ensure the security of Ukraine can be delivered with Russia's defeat first! second full membership of NATO for Ukraine! Third growing globally into NAPTO! Fourth America working with the EU to grow cooperative defense manufacturing NOT sales!
If Trump wants 5% defence spending for NATO members, then his administration will need to get its skates on ... because America currently falls short of this target by approx. 1.6%
That’s his idea of how to “balance” trade deficits (which he doesn’t understand) and his way of extorting allies (mafia-esque extortion rackets) and pouring money into the “iron triangle” of the military industrial complex that actually comprises a huge chunk of the US economy and government - its corporate socialism - we get a more militarized world and like Eisenhower said; every ship, plane and tank is a school or a hospital that goes unbuilt. War is a racket, as General Smedley Butler wrote, and I’m sure Russian soldiers are figuring out, were it not for the 20 years of Tsar Putin’s nationalist brainwashing propaganda and disinformation everywhere - America could stop the conflict in one day (with boots on the ground and the US Air Force) US could do to the Russian military what they did to the Iraqi military in Gulf war I - no sweat. Putin’s not going to launch the nukes, he’s a fake and a fraud, like all dictators- and that’s what Trump is, too. Never forget that they are indeed working together - the links are well documented; Mueller report, Senate Intel Report #5, Tucker Carlson’s junkets to Moscow etc
There is a vast difference between 'Europe' being able to protect itself and it projecting power. People really are underestimating the military power of the EU+UK in relation to Russia: -Larger army -Larger navy -Larger airforce -Larger budget -Larger economy -Better access to resources -More manpower -More advanced technology -Better trained The problem is coordination.
Hot take: 1) Europe's inability to reign in Russia on its own is not based on lacking military budgets, but its underdeveloped political will. 2) To create this political will, Europe has to define independent interests and goals. 3) This requires an ideological and political decoupling from the USA, whose own agenda no longer aligns with Europe's. 4) While not dissolving the western alliance, this would substantial diminish the power of the USA in the geostrategic and ideological space.
Vlad's main channel
th-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
I want to know your take on what is happening with luigi mangione and why I'm seeing some seriously worrying trends I'm not an expert and I live in iran but have a friend who is also a political philosopher with a Wikipedia page no less he is right wing but is dealing with some insurance issues and an stroke at the same time, ok some parts of the problem seems a bit more clear it seems to me that Brian Thompson has knowingly introduced a defective AI as an alternative to human beings and it has denied many legitimate insurance claims and over time has potentially led to death of thousands some because their care was interrupted, so we're are dealing with the killing of a potential mass murderer who has probably committed countless human rights violation all of which deserve a thorough investigation that has never been attempted which led me to believe there are others involved here political figures most likely the killing itself is being celebrated by at least half the nation according to polls and it's bipartisan, now let's deal with the worrying part which is about the crisis of legitimacy the democratic institutions in US are experiencing as I see it US government has made the worst decision amongst the bad decisions until yesterday the US mainstream media was business as usual but something has changed today, it seems to me like they've hired the manager of iranian state media! I was expecting such allergic reaction as vigilante justice sometimes shows up as an unsanctioned institution to compete with weak institutions sanctioned by the state with the same duties this is quite an extraordinary situation if the US Healthcare was owned and operated by the state we wouldn't have had this problem no matter how bad it was but there is a catch here and that is that Healthcare and health insurance in US are private and therefore beholden to the same laws as citizens this makes this specific situation terrifying for me as it means if government want to keep the integrity of US justice system at least relatively intact it shouldn't just investigate and prosecute luigi mangione at the same time it should conduct a comprehensive federal investigation into the underlying problem that has caused half of US citizens to openly say murder of Brian Thompson Is somewhat to completely acceptable, this investigation might lead to certain politicians, CEO's and others to end up with heftier sentences than whatever mangione is facing right now but it would at least increase the legitimacy of the US justice system in the eyes of the public, the information I've gathered were from lawyers, doctors, patients, those who worked in the health industry and many more, now they're charging mangione with terrorism without providing any evidence to support it, second degree murder is straightforward first degree murder and terrorism charges are not and now there is a fight between feds and the NYPD over the case, it's a circus and as mangione himself put it an insult to the intelligence of American people, the director of the documentary sicko which came out in 2006 was asked to come on TV and condemn the murder he refused and instead said he's going to pour gasoline over it, a similar sentiment to many doctors who have seen their patients die, now let's get to the crux of the matter this seems like a high profile political assassination to me, like the one that led to the second triumvirate, so I exercise utmost caution when dealing with it as things start to develop further but this is unprecedented in US, I don't know I'm having a bit of brain fog right now but I think last time something like this happened was around 5 centuries ago, should probably go back and check...
I suffer from serious chronic pain as well but I don't know if it's as bad as ME but I had and continue to have serious problems with treatment. It's a mental pain mostly, the physical part is fibromyalgia which fortunately my body is responding to it's treatment and constant tension headache, and it gets painful which is rare, I've also experienced the worst mental health has to offer according to some mental health professionals: catatonia I'm grateful for your content and you have both my love and my like, I hope someday we can do what we want and not to be restrained by our ailments like this ❤
I am sorry but with 'freeriding you got into a trap: in lack of real competency you are 'parroting' someone's else talking point.
Europe is a significant market (even with miserable spendings) for US military complex - this is never not just about 'metal'. There is tech, intelligence, 'softer' military power, multiple enablers (in simplest way: access to bases and infrastructure) and so on.
Europe (and other elements of multiple alliances and semi-alliances) is US dirt-cheap force and power multiplier (you know 5th Fleet cannot be in 3 places at once, besides its sustenance and moving from place to place costs a fortune). This is one of the most dangerous (for the US) talking points - without a NATO, US power projection ability would suffer dramatically.
The very existence of NATO (or any other real alliance, not something 'fake' as CSTO) is a dramatic booster for capabilities diversification and development.
(and there is more but enumerating that would be unfair).
So all that 'freeriding' is just a plain BS repeated by ignorants (mostly) and malevolent ones.
You have talked about 'strategic patriotism' (of sort, kinda making a some sort of a joke on the Spivak's cost) as a path to some kind of restoration - this is simplification ofc.), well - the problem is that said 'patriotism' is an obstacle. One of the biggest to have a strategy or act in coherent way.
Hugs.
@AK-ns4kn I agree with you that the "freeriding" statement was a horrible (maybe intentional) oversimplification. Especially from UK point of view, which is also a nuclear power.
The freeriding statement reduced the concept of allies to mercenaries.
@AK-ns4kn when states are as rational as they were before yes but now what we've got in reality is a whole load of irrationality, take into account the US border crisis and how both state and population are acting in regards to it, US has a wealth redistribution crisis a crisis that could've been resolved if it was the only one, but there is another crisis affecting all countries which is cultural in nature, this has seriously affected US institutions ability to respond to the wealth redistribution crisis and the wealth redistribution crisis has gone far enough to become extremely volatile, and now a murder is being celebrated while US government is faced with an extremely dangerous situation, if it goes on like this there are chances that US society implodes and then explodes the results will be many, many wars and serious instability across the globe(a true catastrophe), so we're dealing with a powder keg of wrath in US, circumstances around murder of UHC CEO is extremely complex and complicated, it coupled with state's poor handling of murder are leading the entire world down a dangerous path, people aren't just explaining away the murder it takes a lot to justify something like this, it dose seem that the justification is present, now to get to the point of forming alliances like NATO which is to be a way of deterring wars by which it means deterring violence I don't see why a society that is calling for violence and instability in it's own streets be interested in an alliance like that, and this is a truly terrifying prospect because this particular society has accumulated more power and wealth than any society in history of mankind.
Trump or no Trump, Europe still needs to get stronger.
Sure. And for that European economies should have a strategy of growth. How can European economies grow and prosper if the EU is imposing sanctions on its key markets in Russia and China and is being threatened by its key trading partner, the US, with tariffs?
Europe has been increasing their defense spending since 2014 and increasing it faster the closer the are to Russia.
@@Yasen99they must impose sanctions and prepare for war. Any other plan is foolishness.
@ The key to winning a long-term confrontation is economic dynamism and growth. The Cold War was won less by the actual force of arms and more through prosperity and growth with which the USSR could not keep up. Poor and angry people are not good soldiers.
@@Yasen99 Russia is not a key market.
Poland must be feeling good about this.
So is Finland in a way. We're currently undergoing a navy refurbishment and in 2030 our spending would go under 2% but we must also do a land army refurbishment so it won't be too hard to upgrade. Also I will say that even if there's higher spending, it doesn't matter since it will offer marketing opportunitites to every country under the NATO umbrella as I know there's plenty of possibilities for NATO countries to market their defence industries. I know for a fact that several countries want to buy the Patria AMOS mortar system for example. The countries that will feel most upset by this are in western Europe.
I think Poland is at 4.7% and plan to increase it. I'm sure this isn't an issue for Poland. Now if Poland can do it so can the rest of NATO.
@SCH292 if Trump means what he says here (which is absolutely not guaranteed), Poland is set for preferential treatment while changing very little
Already there! Yeah.
@@SCH292
It's ok for now,but we can't just keep spending that much for a long time.
That is a high percent. But living in Sweden we spent huge amount of GDP on the defense during the cold war. I am ok with that, it is adjusting to a reality.
Yes and this time I hope we'll spend it better. Evig ära! 💪🇸🇪
spend less on immigrant benefits and you will feel no difference.
It's not the same back then you had a house and a car, now you also have computers phones, internet, you live longer so you need more medical personel eat other stuff...
@@jakekuznetsov8870exactly
@@jakekuznetsov8870 Sweden spends 0.7% of gdp on migration, that's not going to bring them from 2.2% to 5%
If Europe spent 5 percent, nobody would need America's support in the first place.
The primary question is about capabilities and not just numbers on paper
That’s the point lmao
Yep, and then the Europeans can stop begging Australia to prop them up too.
yeah thats the point, finally people get it
Europe wouldn't be in the position it currently is in too. I dont like trump but he isnt wrong. Even on the world stage critics of NATO say its just American imperialism because for a long time NATO looked like a mostly American organization with Europeans just tagging along
Let’s not forget, the only time NATO’s Article 5 was ever invoked was by the U.S., and its allies stepped up to help.
Yep, the pullout may have been a chaotic humiliation under Biden, though I suppose no one expected the Afghani Government and ANA to fall so quickly & comprehensively, but he was working to his predecessors timetable. No prizes for guessing which orange clown shafted the NATO allies & his own military by making a deal with the Taliban behind everybody else's back in 2019. Every single member of NATO supported USA's ISAF coalition and contributed forces in some capacity following Al-Qaeda attack on 9/11. Though small (
They sent in symbolic forces and symbolic resources which left the US feeling burnt and started the US distrust of NATO and the EU. Whether you agree or disagree with the wars that were started it’s true that when article 5 was evoked it was only given a lukewarm reaction by EU members of NATO rather than the unifying call to action and mutual defense it was designed to be.
@@Icyclean6969The U.S. was never under military threat by any country at the time. Bush administration used it for political face saving purposes.
@@Icyclean6969 its hard to do much else when you declare war on a vague concept like terrorism
They didn’t invoke A5 the U.K. did
As a European, I‘m fine with the 5%, but not if „we“ buy from the American defence industry. As long as these 5% are mostly spent within Europe, then OK.
But I‘m sure this was not what Trump meant.
So we should also cancel all of the orders we made from you guys?
Same here
Well said
@@sparks1792 up to you. I dont like the idea of a killswitch in all the important system so a backstabbing Putin-lover can just fool us after we bought his stuff for billions.
@@sparks1792 who are you?
The US isnt even spending 5% on GDP....
I think thats just an excuse for Trump to opt out of helping Europe.
1) The US is not being invaded. Europe is.
2) Trump will reportedly settle on 3.5% so he will start by demanding 5%
3) if Europe had not sniggered at Trump when he told them to spend 2% Ukraine may already have won
OK, guy with Xi Jinping pfp
The USA is in the safest natural position with regards to defense requirements of any country in the world. Anything over about 2% is either subsidizing other countries for geopolitical reasons or funding hegemony for geopolitical reasons. It is illogical to assume that the USA should be spending as much on defense as Europe, or Russia, or China, other than for geopolitical reasons.
Trump likes deals, so he bids high and then wants to "meet in the middle".
It's the same as what Russia does, except Russia rarely has any real chips to play with.
Russia makes some outrageous claim beyond anything it could reasonably achieve or expect, and then "backs down" to a "compromise" which gives it something-and that something is more than what Russia started with. Which means a Russian win.
To be honest, Europe really needs to get their shit together (Im from Europe)
Sounds to me like a War budget. I wonder how that call with Putin went?
😂
Someone got in his ear that China’s right around the corner after Ukraine.
Russia is at 6.3% of GDP. Whether we like it or not, Russia is a hostile power, it is time to ramp up defence spending after decades of neglect.
@@artmcteagleNATO only need to spend the amount needed to deter a failing Russian State. ~1% was not enough. 5% is probably more then needed. 3% with 1% going to fighting Russia is.
@@vilandar Yes, seems about right - 3%, and 1% from that to Ukraine.
Speaking of percentage increases, I'm sorry about wishing you 2.5% compounding health improvement. Switching strategies to wishing 150% improvement by end of fiscal year 📈
Thank you so so much.
That is the warmest, deepest and most thought-through comment I've read here, and I second that. My first thought went and go to Vlad's health ❤ long before Trump's rants.
It's difficult to disagree with Trump, as much as I dislike him. Europe should probably have begun increasing its defence spending in 2008, should have almost certainly started increasing it in 2014, and should definitively started increasing it in 2022. Otherwise the mood music coming from Europe is 'we're concerned about our security; what is America going to do about it?'.
It really sucks that the messenger here is an orange clown idiot. If we had a normal person as the president telling Europe this, it'd be easier to have a serious discussion with them about it.
Theres quite a natural inclination to agree with this, but I think theres some complexity to it too that people miss. If Europe had armed at any point Putin/Russia would have taken that as a military threat & it may have tiggered things earlier / larger. Putin miscalculated hugely, but it was a miscalculation in part based on Europe showing no sign of willingness to stand up to him. If Europe had mass armed then that wouldn't have happened and instead Russia would have mass armed as well and we'd now be in a position of 2 very large armies getting ready for a very large war, rather than what we have now, which is catastophic to Ukraine, but has had minimal impact on the West while causing considerable damage to Russia. I want Russia to be defeated and this path that Putin has chosen has considerably weakened him and allowed the West to trap him on the borders of Ukraine. If things had been different we might have given him/Russia 10-20 years to amass a much larger army and lead to a full war on the continent - something Russia isn't able to do anymore. Not if it can't even take a bit of eastern Ukraine while we're supporting them.
It's easy to disagree with Orange Turd. Yes Europe needs to spend more but the US is only spending 3.4% so asking for Europe to spend 5% is a joke.
@@beny9360
Dont be ridiculous. What a silly excuse for weakness. "The other guy might get mad if we are strong!!"
Simply getting up to 2% doesnt require putting a bunch of nuclear missiles in half the countries of NATO.
The "considerable damage to Russia" was due not to European weakness but massive weapons support from the US.
Will trump doesn't get is that allowing Europe to spend less means they don't develop into another antagonist.
When Europe starts putting 5% into their military, they will collectively develop into a superpower that is not going to necessarily be friendly to us interests.
Trump's basically burning the seed corn.
3.5% coupled with continued American support for Ukraine sounds like a plan.
First 2% now 3.5%.
Dont you see what game Trump is playing?
Even if each country were to get to 3.5%, Trump will then say 5%.
And even if they met 5% he would say 7%.
And so on and so on, while he will not increase US military spending.
He will move the goal post each time, simply because he is not an honest man.
And lots of love back to you Vlad. I pray for your health, and love your videos. 🇨🇦
Thank you, Vlad, for your commentary. All the best and lots of love to you and the Very Beautiful Community. 🤗
I can finally say “Trump is correct.” Wartime defense spending is needed. Now.
I know, right? It's a weird feeling.
Trump is incoherrant. He says one thing and then the opposite next time on a subject. Assuming this is factually coming from Trump, next week he may have changed his mind.
So an arbitrary 5% is justified because of The US's high spending and adventures in the middle east??? While the Baltics now get to be criticized even though they are part of the few that meet over the 2%??? And after all the obstruction and disruption that the Republicans have done to the war effort???
No Tump is still wrong.
@@keithomelvena2354 that's what he does - say a bunch of random incoherent stuff and that way his supporters can cherry pick one of those statements as 'proof' that he was correct
Hear hear
According to google USA spends 3.4%? He wants to hike defence spending?
There's an argument to be made that alot of countries have engaged in free-riding for so long that they're going to need alot of initial spending to get things back in order. If you've actively used army draw-downs as a budget balance mechanism to fund other stuff for decades, you might need a few years of higher spending just to catch up.
@@daste1263 That would've been an "argument" in 1992; now it's a blindingly obvious and completely irrefutable fact. There are NATO countries now that cannot field a single tank. Not one MBT. The United States' various military branches together field >550 aerial refueling tankers. All of Europe combined can cobble together about 40. The Euros could spend twice as much as the Americans for _decades_ and not catch up.
US doesnt border any enemies.
@@drmwpn At least we know where our money is used...USA has no clue where that trillion a year goes. Just because you call it military spending does not mean it isn`t wasted or simply put in someones pockets!
Yeah. We spend 3.4% but the cash in total is around 700 billion to 800 billion dollars per year.
From someone who fundamentally disagrees with you about Trump, I was delighted by this analysis! Particularly the way you stripped back Europe’s lack of the ability to come up with a coherent response the whatever Trump actually does. Overall I wish, even speaking as an American, Europe the best. Given its history of nationalism causing great suffering it is entirely understandable why Europe has sought a post national solution in the EU. Unfortunately the EU has not found a clear supranational structure that works such that it can defend itself as that structure. I don’t pretend to know if there is an answer but you have helped me see the problem a little better. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts from your sickbed.
1) Europe should invest 5 percent 2) the 5 percent should be spent developing European military manufacturers. Currently, Europe doesn't have the ability to project military power on its own.
Well that's not going to help Ukraine out in the next year, the quickest way to rearm is to buy American weapons, and later on Europe can develop its own.
@@thomaskalbfus2005 If they really do spend 5% of GDP on defence then Europe could likely do both at the same time. But if they keep their military budgets at current levels I'm skeptical they could do either, even sequentially.
wrong, some European countries have projection capabilities all over the world.
@@chrisrobert5252 You are probably thinking of France and to a lesser extent the UK. Both have carrier battle groups, but they simply cannot be compared in capability to their U.S. counterparts. If Article 5 is triggered by Chinese aggression against the U.S. for example, then I think France or the UK would be able to project very little power there.
@@item6931 So true. Especially as it will never happen, the Chinese are not idiots.
Looks like only Poland can do it (5% its own Polish target for 2025)
Ok European will spend 5% and buy European weapons....how sound that ?😂
Do you think the Europeans are capable of not leaning on Australia anymore to prop up NATO? Because we are fed up with our taxes being spent on defending Europe and making us the primary target of Russia and China.
@seanlander9321 What ? What kind of propaganda channels you listen in Australia also 🤣🤣?! Because in Europe are full 🤣. Or you're just a bot ,because it's not the first time when i hear that !
@@mariusdon3429 Could be a bot. Al the messages from this account in this chat area promotes mostly a narrative about sowing distrust between Europe and Australia.
@@seanlander9321Australia military industrial output of arms is 32nd in the world. France is 2nd Germany is 4th UK is 5th. Idea of Australia propping up anything is hilarious if know the numbers. I mean Australia does pretty well for its population size. But what on earth.
@@mariusdon3429 also France tried for years to get joint European projects off the ground for tanks fighter jets etc. they finally have some but Germany is dragging its feet as per usual.
The world needs a European Military.
Fantasyland. They cant even get everybody to join their currency, and even the current group will eventually split in half.
LOL.
Not just a military, but heavy industry capable of producing ammunition as well. The allies won World War II because they had a massive advantage in factory production and heavy industry. Deindustrialization is a national security issue, especially when foreign adversaries are industrializing for war.
In times when Europe had a strong military it started two biggest wars in the history. They even did not need an outside enemy (at least in the beginnings of both conflicts). So there are good reasons for Europe with not-so-strong military. But yes, situation changed.
The European people don't get to vote for any of the leaders of the EU... you think it's a good idea to give this kind of political structure an army?
Finally an American president who supports a militarily strong Germany!
@@Julia-Richter indeed
@Julia-Richter I really hate this time-line we're living in
🙃
😊 Germany At 5% GDP, sounds like a good time. Besides they're not going to be making cars for much longer they're letting a the Chinese eat their lunch. Workforce has to go somewhere.
Obama was telling Germany the same thing in 2014. It's been US policy to ween Europe off the US defense teat for 15+ years.
Europe must be able to not only hold the line long enough, but be able to push back and on top of that help Ukraine and other Democracies.
Thanks!
Well it isn't much of an ask! Start backing Ukraine properly!
America doesn't spend 5%.
@sattm8230 "if you shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land in the stars"
@@sattm8230 doesn't have to. Who's producing the weapons because the EU is incapable!
@@JQ-999 The EU is capable.
The US really should, yes. 60% of the support Ukraine has received has been from the EU.
I'm fine with a massive hike in mil spending. As a European I'm thrilled
This is the kind of spending that is needed to fight a war with Russia. Unfortunately it has to be done. Cold War expenditures in Germany were 6%. This would never have been necessary if expenditures hadn’t fallen below 2%
no? 5% is borderline war-time financing. If the EU spent 5% of all it's countries budget on it's military the countries would actively stagnate economically and eventually collapse.. the USSR spent around 6% but even that dropped to 4% prior to collapsing. Does no one learn history?
Good analysis, Vlad!
Vlad, you sound so much stronger. I’m happy.
And what about next week??? Trump changes his mind every few hours!
I can explain it, Trump didn't want to lose those isolationist Republican votes while he was still campaigning for President, now that he has them, and he's not running in 2028, he doesn't have to worry about that anymore, he's going to be president for the next 4 years, so the second thing it Trump doesn't like to lose, and if Putin wins that is going to look like America and thus President Trump losing, so therefore the policy is going to change. MAGA stands for Make America Great Again, there is no R in there for Russia!
The trick is to pick a single line of argument that Trump makes, prepare to win on that argument, wait for Trump to circle back around to it, and then step in at the right moment to milk it.
For example ?@@thearpox7873
Merry Christmas Vlad! Thank you for keeping us informed from Vancouver, Canada.
Is it 5% or 3%? Is continued US aid to Ukraine contingent on one or the other or neither. Is it instead dependent on Europe buying more US LNG or does that only relate to tariff imposition? Trump is mercurial and his administration is likely to be chaotic. We have only heard of Trump’s musings through his associates, but hearing it from the man himself doesn’t mean he won’t have changed his mind in four weeks. The only way Europe could have a coherent strategy is by abandoning any attempt at trying to coordinate that strategy with the upcoming Washington administration.
Agreed. Its frustrating to see how we (Europe) are always trembling each time a new US president is elected.
Its time we become independent of the US.
Meaning, its time we re-build our own sphere of influence. One that is not so welcoming to outsiders, not just Russia, but also USA.
And it also means we may have to steal certain American IP to boost our economy to make that possible.
And it may also mean we will impose transition fees if the US wants to send aid through the Middle-East to their strategic partners.
There's much more to solve in Eurooe. We also have the tendency to rightwings and oligarchs. Too many people blindly put hope in "strongmen" and don't want to realize this makes us all weak.
Trump was pushing for 4% during his first term. Trump is trying to strengthen NATO.
@@jonson856This kind of BS is why Trumpian policy is so pants on head stupid. These dumb cattle don’t understand how weak the US would be without its allies, nor how easy it is for the US to alienate the rest of the world. These braindead rednecks really think an accident of history reflects their exceptionalism.
It's called negotiation. Nothing is set in stone which allows us to talk about it instead being an ultimatum. Silliest criticism I'm hearing these days.
Right. Ukraine MUST develop their own nuclear deterrent.
If it was that easy Iran and others would have them by now 😅
Not just Ukraine...
@deanosaur808 You'd be surprised at their ingenuity. Beside, they haven't had an Israeli rocket (or three) launched their production facilities on the past 20 years.
@deanosaur808 On top of previous comments, Ukraine was actually the main hub for nuclear research/development/manufacture during the Soviet Union.
Don’t get me wrong, it would still take a while, but people seriously underestimate how quickly Ukraine could have a very rudimentary nuclear device up and running.
Redevelop. But do we really need every country in the world doing so?
Good to hear
I'm OK with that!
5% NATO defence spending? I am all for it, so: Hear, hear!
Cheers, from Copenhagen, obscured by clouds.
Europe don't want a military strong Germany.
@@GodwinGodfather Germany doesn't want a militarily strong Germany. I honestly doubt that they could accomplish that in the near future.
European Center Left here! We know world have changed. EU's S&D group supports Ukraine and supports more common EU and NATO -support for Ukraine.
I have always been very critical of US imperialism, but the invasion of Ukraine woke me up to the reminder that US imperialism is not the ONLY imperialism in the world, and compared to Russian is fairly benign.
i'm sorry what??
what kind of drugs do they give bots like you?? iraq invasion was benign?? afghanistan occupation was benign??? what's happening in gaza, for 75+ years is FAIRLY BENIGN?????
@@tauhidershadKUFNAFLORAN I know, right? Russia sets the bar REALLY FUCKING LOW.
@@tauhidershadKUFNAFLORAN the US left Iraq. They also left Afghanistan. The US never actually ruled either nation. Gaza is a dump.
@@jonathanbowen3640 and that's what a guy trapped in a turd bubble looks like, ladies and gentleman. probably has a special spot designated as his cuck chair.
Israel spent 5.3% in 2024. Just for context.
Do not forget the tens of billions the US has also given in military aid to Israel. That the GOP makes such a big deal about aid to Ukraine is so hypocritical.
❤
@begr_wiedererkennungswert ❤
totally different story. 5.3 is actually less than I expected.
Israel is expanding its borders
I think the 5% increase is a negotiating ploy, an ambit claim.
Europe could start by increasing the spending of all countries to >2%
That would include the mighty Luxemburg but also they should try and convince Spain to increase to >2%
imo when dealing with Trump you have to give him some boasting points.
DO it Europe
Spent 5% of your GDP.
Europe needs to build their own military complex and independance.
BUTTTTT spend that money on military development within Europe.
Hey Vlad 😊
Khi!
5% is a reasonable ambition. Not being able to defend your country will become more expensive.
So the EU will outspend then US by 50% on military. It's going to mean a lot of super carriers and nukes, more than the US has, to meaningfully spend money like that. Or maybe the EU should just invest in the next-gen tech and steal a march on US military capabilities?
About Trump
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king.
The palace turns into a circus.
Well Trump is simply adopting the same approach that Europe had for decades, a bunch of European states were isolationist, Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, the French at times was trading with the enemy, Germany was quite happy to be split into East and West, and calling American Hawkish, and militarist, and protesting the deployment of US missiles in Europe, I saw a lot of that growing up, and now the shoe is on the other foot.
This is the sort of post that, while I sympathise, denies the reality that the clown will call the shots. The question then becomes one of how to adapt to this reality.
@@item6931 He will, in fact, not call the shots. NATO members will not spend 5% on defence, and any punitive tariffs on EU members will be reciprocated by the EU. Non-EU NATO members, however, may have to leave NATO. What's the point of being threatened constantly by your supposed allies, anyway?
Typical stoopid comment signifying nothing. Clown.
@@adrien5834 The EU is not in a position of power over the U.S. This is evident by European anxieties over U.S. isolationism. It will lose any game of retaliation or escalation with the U.S.
Look, if Trump supports Ukraine, I will get a restaurant from your city to deliver to you any meal you want.
Trump probably thought he could simply talk to Putin like he said he would. When that fell through, due to there being no concievable settlement acceptable to both sides (Trump knows history will judge him extremely poorly if he just capitulates in Ukraine), Trump must have taken it personally.
Trump wants to sue new publications that covered collusion with Russia. He's caught on to the fact that everyone knows he's compromised by Putin.
in 2016-20, Trump:
-bombed and killed 200 Russians in Syria
--blocked Nordstream, which Biden re-approved
--sent lethal arms to Ukraine, which Obama denied and Biden cancelled
--increased Obama's weak sanctions against Russians
--lectured Germany to get off Russian gas
TDSers are so stupid.
You still cling to the Russiagate hoax I see
Trump campaigned on ending all aide to Ukraine. The American people voted for him for that reason. He better deliver or MAGA will turn on him.
I was one of those people twenty years ago, as I know Vlad was as well, now I’m not still saying the same. If the real number is 3.5% I’m all for it and agree with Trump (I never thought I’d say that) and if I were Starmer I’d just say with Trump’s proposal circumstances have changed so 2% wealth tax on Uk assets over x amount.
Sieze russian assets and fund your 3.5% with it.
Let´s get something straight.
According to Reuters the US contributes 16% of the annual NATO budget.
No more - no less.
The remaining 84% are the result of the contributions of the European nations.
Time to form the United Kingdoms and Nations/ Republics/ States of Europa - full tier four - with an joint European army to speak and fend for itself and the European peoples.
16% / 32 ( including Ukraine in NATO) = 0.5%,- so if every European NATO member nation increases its current yearly spending by 0.5% we´d cover the contribution by the US,- and not have to deal with anybody trying to hardball us ever again.
How the Russians would feel about that hardly matters by now.
MEGA
Make Europa Great Again
That doesn't sound accurate at all. US spending is well over 50% of NATO's
@@N330AA It depends on how you look. The US spent $816.7 billion on its defence in 2023, which is more than the nato members in total. But thats not spent on nato(9% of it is healthcare). Nato as an alliance has a budget of $4.8 billion as of 2024, US pays 15.8813% of that budget. This information comes from nato themselves, if youd bother to look it up.
@@knibazaz But that's just the administrative budget, no the military budget.
@@knibazaz Except you're assuming that's it and overlooking everything else. You seriously think that $4.8 billion budget is enough to fend off Russia?
@ulfdanielsen6009 You're obviously omitting a whole lot of relevant information. The NATO budget makes up a very small part of NATO's overall strength.
Agree our defence is the most important thing our army deserves the best of everything these people put their lives on the line for us nothing but admiration for our heroes
The free-riding on US militarism we've done in Europe is by design. When the European states were running with active global policy it "didn't go too well" (meaning the last 400 or so years with wars and colonisation). Hopefully we can manage a common enough response from now without returning to the olden calamities.
He will start out asking high, 5% or more, to ensure he gets 2.5 - 3.5.
This is great news- thank you Pooting for making NATO increase defense spending across the board. We need to fight Russia to the end!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥👏👏👏👏👏👏
Also, remember, kids: Trump thinks like a monkey with a business degree. When he says 5%, what he means is "let's negotiate and see how close to 5% i can bully you into going." If he finds he doesn't have the leverage to push that far, he'll forget he ever said it.
Not what Putin wants to hear
Trump senses Russia can be humbled, he can use Europe to buy more weapons from the USA. Europe can Defend itself, the United States can lower spending.
Europe does not depend on the USA for defence that's silly talk when France and Britain have nukes.
Also there's probably something to be said about not spending so much on ultra high technology wonder weapons and have a handful when you can have more of an older or medium technology weapon for the same amount. Unfortunately the military industrial complex relies on extreme cutting edge weapons.
Does Trump understand that this means the USA almost doubling its own defense spending? Or is that the point? Was last person he spoke to an arms manufacturer?
US is near 3.5% now which seems to be his bottom line.
@@FromRussiawithvideo Last year or so it dropped to 2.7%.,
@@eh1702 Because of economic growth ironically.
@@eh1702 That 2.7% is about 50% of Russian GDP. They aren't spending that much yet though headed there.
😅 You never know what you're going to make and you never know how are you going to use it. Take GPS I mean it's a government system but it's also a civilian system too.
This is hopeful news, now we wait and see.
Believe it when its signed and sent.
Thank you, Vlad.
And this is why"peace" talks from Germany, Hungary etc will start to arise again even louder, because some in the West prefer to sacrifice others' life and liberty, like Ukraine giving up their nukes in 1994 and Crimeea 2014, instead of their own cozy comfort.
Well does Germany want to give another piece of itself to Russia?
Germany have no sway today. Poland is more important.
Ukraine gave up their nukes because they simply couldn't use them at the time. Facilities were staffed and maintained by Soviets the guidance mechanisms were controlled by Russia and they simply couldn't afford to re-establish the logistical and technical infrastructure to maintain them. Keeping nukes viable and being able to actually deploy them is hugely expensive if you research it a little.
@@theamazingbatboy That's not quite the whole story. They also gave them to Russia in return for territorial guarantees. That did not work out well. The moral of that story is don't give up any nukes, and strongly consider acquiring them if you don't have them. Given the ingenuity shown by Ukrainians during the war, I don't doubt that they could have eventually maintained some of the weapons on their territory and placed them under their command and control.
@@item6931 Ofc don't get me wrong, Ukraine has always had the engineering and technical know how to have a nuclear arsenal and I appreciate the diplomatic transaction. The point is those soviet weapons they had were dead weight at the time and the only way they could've benefitted from them would have been to dismantle them entirely to recover the fissile materials and start their own nuclear program. Something that would've not only sacrificed their relationship with Russia but started a whole new era of nuclear competition between the states.
It was a decision certainly pressured by the US and EU bloc to maintain the hugely profitable for them status quo (and maintain Russia's only real relevance in the 'superpower' club)
Why doesn’t Trump and other countries not want Ukraine in NATO, I would rather see Ukraine in NATO than Turkey.
What Europe NEEDS is someone like Charles De Gaulle as the leader of the European Union in Brussels. Someone that will push France to increase it's nuclear stockpile from 300 to at least 500 and someone that will force Germany to make at least 500 of it's own nukes, and force Italy to make at least 200 or it's own nukes, like UK got. And EU needs to make it's eastern flank PROTECTED by the nukes. As simple as that. Not to wait on the USA to do it. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary = protected by some of the French and German nukes, installed on their territory. According to the size of the countries. From 50 nukes installed in Poland to several nukes installed in Estonia. After that there would be ZERO need for any European to even care who will be the next USA president, or Russian president for that matter. But we need determination like Charles De Gaulle and lack of selfishness.
Charles De Gaulle was someone that said NO to USA protection racket after the WW2. He made France LEAVE the NATO in the middle of the cold war in 1966, in order to make 300 nukes for France. The "friend" and "ally" USA was of course COMPLETELY against it! But Charles simply didn't care! And now there's ZERO USA soldiers and USA bases in France, and France got the ability to nuke the Vladivostok and Los Angeles with it's nukes that got 10 000 kms of range. EU today NEEDS that type of leader. Certainly NOT a bunch of WEAK spineless liberals that are not even able to say one single word to defend EU and EU's interests! Where's the leader that proudly defends the interests of the EU? It doesn't even exist!
25 years ago I could never have imagined a trump figure in American politics. Things have changed unimaginably. Interesting analysis.
He did consider running in the 2000 election
Net-net. Sounds bad for that thing in the Kremlin.
I'll take it.
Yes we should 💯
If he is friends with Putin, why the defense spending?
Trump doesn't have friends. If he thinks Putin is no longer useful to him, he will oppose him.
“I support Trump because I want to get rid of the neocon warmongers”
“I support the President that wants to more than double NATO defence spending”
They went from one narrative to the other in a second and they did not even notice it themselves.
@@rmdomainer9042 Frankly, if NATO spends more, then perhaps America will not be required to go to war.
@@icthyology If you do not see the mixed message, I doubt me explaining it to you will help
How Trump isn't treated as a traitor, is baffling.
The stain’s roulette de jour foreign policy.
Offer him a deal on a dilapidated hotel.
“The world has changed.” That might be the most important thing that people don’t realize. We need to change with it. After WWII, US built military-industrial complex and alliances to fight Cold War and limit spread of nuclear threat. Now we need to face today’s threats.
Vlad, when I look at the world right now I can see that you are right with democratic decline, unfortunately. I have listened to you for years now, and intellectually I think I got it. But still, from a moral point of view, I can't understand why we don't help Ukraine to win.
Maybe I am already too old (40+) to understand it.
But I am interested in your view as a philosopher: Are we in a moral decline as well? How would you define a moral decline today?
I hope you are well enough to read comments, but I don't really expect you to react on mine, so please don't worry about it if there are more important issues on your mind. I know your productive time is very limited.
Anyway, thank you so much for your work, Vlad. 🌻
Hi
I don't know if you'd care for my two cents, but at least I have an education in political philosophy too.
Morals and politics are, in my view, not a perfectly overlapping venn diagram, if for no other reason that in democracies we need to be open to immoral opinions still being politically valid. Case in point, I find the right wing populist party of my country's view on immigration to be uncaring and immoral, but I recognize that this is an opinion a lot of people hold and it is not in conflict with fundamental democratic principles, and so it is a valid political opinion to have.
Democracies are systems based on negotiations and compromise. Democratic decline, as Vlad talks about it, is marked by entrepeunurial populism and polarization. It is a less stable political environmet where playing spoiler can be a succesfull strategy to secure power. In this kind of environmet it is harder to find workable compromises, and so it is harder to get anything done.
You could possibly argue that a lack of decisive action on important and urgent issues can be a moral failing in a political system, the question then is how interesting of an analytical category that would be. To me it seems we then just have two words to describe the same problem: political decline.
As for a potential claim about a broader societal moral decline, I would be careful with making that judgment. We might feel like, and it might in fact be the case, that more and more people hold immoral views and express immoral attitudes, but we should be careful about judging that to mean our societies are in moral decline for two reasons:
1. We could be in the wrong, or we could lack context or understanding. Though that doesn't mean we should reserve judgment about people's actions, it does mean we shouldn't engage with them as morally poorer than us.
2. From a political point of view: Conflicts of interests are easier to resolve than conflicts of value. By judging our political space in increasingly moral terms (because we feel it move away from our moral world view) we risk either giving up in despair, or lock ourselves out of fruitful compromises. Politics is, after all, a pragmatic thing and all we can hope for in a democracy where many viewpoints are supposed to shape our policy, is better policy, not morally flawless policy.
@bragebh7122 I do care, thank you very much. Your answer gave me lots of things to think about, and I appreciate it! 🌻
You will never see 5% although we should. 3.5% is a more realistic and good level of defence spending and quite frankly the sector desperately needs it. Twenty years in the Royal Navy and having seen numerous governments chinning off defence tells me we are more likely to see 2.5% maximum and lots of that will probably go on equipment that would be great for fighting Russia…if you were Ukraine. But we’re not Ukraine. If NATO gets round to fighting Russia, it won’t be like Ukraine at all. And nor will it be fought with tactical level weapons systems like drones. It will be fought with precision guided long range munitions and artillery and it will escalate very quickly. We need metal and we need people and we need them today.
Who's going to supply these weapons? The U.S military industrial complex? They cannot even produce enough artillery shells for Ukraine atm.
This is a problem because every company thinks the war will be over eventually one way or another, after another couple years one or both of the countries will necessarily implode, and then what do they do with the extra manufacturing capacity that was expensive to build?
If instead you put like a bunch of countries into a 20 year + long commitment to keep buying more of the stuff, the problem resolves itself, long term utilisation is secured.
"Who's going to supply these weapons?"
Europe used to be able to make weapons themselves. Why can't they do it again?
Poland is getting steady deliveries from South-Korea...
It's worse than that. I just learned recently that in case of conflict over Taiwan 🇹🇼, US would only have enough ammunition for 2 weeks (based on war game simulation). The reason for this is that most of US ammunition is made in ... China,because why not. Outsourcing is such a great idea.
Whos fault is Europe cant produce its own stuff? Poland had to go to South Korea, because Germany military complex is just dead.
Britain spent 6% on defense 50 years ago.
Is today any safer?
5% is unrealistic, but if he can get Europe to spend more by blundering and bluster, I'm all for it.
5% of GDP was actually the kind of level spent during the height of the Cold War, so it is doable. If it is unrealistic then that really implies a lack of political will.
@@item6931 It is possible, but it means cuts in other areas (like health and education). 5% of GDP means about 20-25% od country budget.
@@piotrpilinko639 Yes. The unwillingness to cut spending in other areas to make that sacrifice is exactly what I meant by lack of political will. It has been done before in a dangerous world: see the Cold War.
@@item6931I don't see it happening for Germany. Their whole government is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Fully agree. Europe should not be afraid of Trump, but of its own lack of leadership and coherence. As a Dutchman I am more concerned about our political parties and their electorate having too little sense of urgency, many perceiving the EU and international cooperation as a problem we should free ourselves from. And that is more dangerous than anything Trump can do to us. If Trump demands an increase to 3,5-5% defense spending that will help Europe. As it can help to take on free riders (like Luxemburg) or countries (like Hungary or the present government of the Netherlands) that are inclined to isolationism and objecting to strengthen the EU or include Ukraine in a European economic and defensive framework.
I completely support 5%
Same here
same
Makes me feel like I'm tripping balls to say it-but this sounds exactly like what the, slightly deluded, Western Europe needs right now. I've never agreed with Trump about basically _anything_ except this and weirdly, I'm beginning to think only a self aggrandising and insular President like him could actually pull it off. For all the damage he will undoubtedly do to his own country, I hope this kick in the pants for Europe bears fruit.
"Trump pushing Europe into defense spending " 😂 you guys need to get your stuff together. The US shouldn't be your daddy.
We’re propping up your “defense industry” as well your numerous global wars. It suits the US for Europe to buy their weapons. Be careful what you wish for.
u should get ur stuff together and not live with ur parents until 30 y old
@ the parents in this case being the UK and France? Since they birthed the United States yes?
@crc-d7s wow, snappy comeback. I left home at 18. In my 40s now so...
@@Anthonythumb the parent who never grew up and always relied on their kid to get them home safe from whatever mischief they got it.
There are many voices accusing European countries of relying on American defence, but ignoring the historical facts and events after WW2 where Germany i.e. was not allowed (by the allied forces) to have it‘s own military and manufacturing of military assets for decades.
Why do these people think the US had and still has military bases there? And no, I am not talking about joint forces NATO bases, but pure American bases.
All of this has to be taken into account when judging Europe for lacking military investments compared to the US. WW1 and WW2 had it‘s impact on Europe and the world.
If Europe spent 3.5% of GDP on defense, then Europe wouldn't need the US at all. While that might be what Trump wants, if you force Europe to be self-sufficient in defense, while also undermining international trade, what compels Europe to go along with the US on anything?
Couple of things, European defense spending won’t buy expeditionary abilities because Europe is not a unified buyer or military. So Europe would still need US naval and expeditionary forces for global trade etc and nuclear deterrence, otherwise it’s just France, not Europe with nukes.
@@davidradtke160 I'm not sure I buy the first point - The UK and France both have expeditionary abilities. As for nukes, France and Britain are more than enough. You don't need that many. (And for defense purposes, I would included the UK in Europe.)
@@davidradtke160 You dont need an expeditionary force in europe though. We aren't gonna fight in the pacific. As for the nukes,we don't have that cause US didn't want europe to have nukes.
@AmiGanguli I 100% agree. It is easier to have a constructive relationship with a friend who is self-sufficient, independent and making a contribution than one who is weak or listless.
I highly doubt that Trump would appreciate an increase in defense spending if that money was going towards buying French Rafale fighter and German Leopard tanks. I think his hope is that a lot of these countries will buy more weapons from America.
It is true and it is deeply embarrassing, that Europe and esp. the European Union (ie it's member states) have no strategic perspective. That not only affects Ukraine and Russia and Trump - in fact it covers all parts of politics, including the economy. The Commission is struggling to accomplish some sort of coherent policy, but with all the national governments focused on their own short-term interests, the whole project is bound to get stuck (or even crash).
Just because you want something doesn’t make it true
@chrisbeerstecher9608 no, but it's still fun to watch the rabid isolationists lose their collective mind
Negotiation tactics, rule number 1: Always claim to want more than the result you would actually be satisfied with. I guess, he's putting a little bit of pressure in some reluctant European nations, especially Germany, to comply at least with the 2% target
It's not just about how much money you spend, but how you spend it.
30mill Euro tanks are useless if you don't have millions of shells to feed to your artillery. That was current situation in Ukraine has shown.
I dont like Trump and I am Pro Ukranian, however it is silly at how little EU cares about Ukraine, EU should see Ukraine as United States seeing their own state being invaded, it is ridiculous, I have so much contempt towards Europe, except for GB and Baltic countries, they truly helped us out!
Russian aggression warrants an increase in NATO support and hopefully countries such as Hungary can't afford the quota and leaves NATO.
I wonder, if Vlad was living in, say, 1950s or 1980s, would he be on the side of the hawks or doves in the Cold War framework?
He stikes me as a typical neo-con.
So hawk on most wars, except perhaps the ones in the middle-east.
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 I think you are right: his "beautiful community" is mostly rabid neocons and die-hard slayers of the Russian Bear.
Every person is the product of their times. If we lived then, we would be different people.
@@HexanitrobenzeneI’m just trying to understand his politics in historical perspective.
Feel like he’d definitely be on the more hawkish side although it’s important to remember that he did once say that despite all their flaws the Soviet leaders were rational actors whereas Putin isn’t, so he may have taken a more dovish stance on them then he does Putin. Just a guess though.
Spending targets are stupid what we really need are capability targets. So that everyone clearly knows what is expected of them.
Putin not the only World Leader who always comes back for a little bit more. He’s still thinking of NATO as just a protection racket 🤦🏻♀️
"Protection racket" implies he's asking them for a direct payment to the US, he's not. He's asking them to spend more on THEIR OWN defense industries so the EU can pull its own weight in scenarios just such as this.
Eu & uk need to step up on defense at a rate to counteract threats that we face right now !
The USA is the logistical and intelligence linchpin.
Its intelligence though is utterly dependent on Australia, and that’s the country the Europeans detest more than America. Somehow the Europeans need to be re-educated to understand how the world works and why alliances are essential.
@@seanlander9321 You really do hate Europe for some reason, don't you ?
@ What? It’s the Europeans who detest Australia, we have had a punitive trade embargo inflicted on us by them for generations, even to the point that they refuse our trade in favour of Russia, that’s one position away from being treated the same as Iran and a North Korea. Europe needs to stop leaning on Australia for its own sake as much as for ours, because what we give free is a thankless task for a thankless people. I mean, the Europeans are still furious with us for withdrawing our AWACS, just what is it that these people are on that they think they can tell us what to do?
@@JeyKalda I think they are struggling a bit and new to the culture of the 'beautiful community'
@@seanlander9321 Yep, in the 70's the USA (CIA) helped oust Australia's Whitlam government to ensure continued access to Pine Gap's essential intelligence gathering capabilities.
With the same act they shut down any possibility of Australia nationalizing it's (largely foreign controlled) mining sector!
America needs to demonstrate that its agreement to ensure the security of Ukraine can be delivered with Russia's defeat first! second full membership of NATO for Ukraine! Third growing globally into NAPTO! Fourth America working with the EU to grow cooperative defense manufacturing NOT sales!
If Trump wants 5% defence spending for NATO members, then his administration will need to get its skates on ... because America currently falls short of this target by approx. 1.6%
Well said Vlad. Wishing you good health. Be well.
Oh, you mean trump wants us to spend more money on us arms. Figures 😅
That’s his idea of how to “balance” trade deficits (which he doesn’t understand) and his way of extorting allies (mafia-esque extortion rackets) and pouring money into the “iron triangle” of the military industrial complex that actually comprises a huge chunk of the US economy and government - its corporate socialism - we get a more militarized world and like Eisenhower said; every ship, plane and tank is a school or a hospital that goes unbuilt. War is a racket, as General Smedley Butler wrote, and I’m sure Russian soldiers are figuring out, were it not for the 20 years of Tsar Putin’s nationalist brainwashing propaganda and disinformation everywhere - America could stop the conflict in one day (with boots on the ground and the US Air Force) US could do to the Russian military what they did to the Iraqi military in Gulf war I - no sweat. Putin’s not going to launch the nukes, he’s a fake and a fraud, like all dictators- and that’s what Trump is, too. Never forget that they are indeed working together - the links are well documented; Mueller report, Senate Intel Report #5, Tucker Carlson’s junkets to Moscow etc
There is a vast difference between 'Europe' being able to protect itself and it projecting power.
People really are underestimating the military power of the EU+UK in relation to Russia:
-Larger army
-Larger navy
-Larger airforce
-Larger budget
-Larger economy
-Better access to resources
-More manpower
-More advanced technology
-Better trained
The problem is coordination.
Interesting development. Going from 2 to 5 percent is a very serious increase. Let’s guess which EU countries will fight this (cough, Germany).
Can't wait to see Zutin reaction...😂
But Vlad, where is your Trump impression? Now we know you have it in you, you need to share it with your fans!!
Always leave the audience wanting more.
Hot take:
1) Europe's inability to reign in Russia on its own is not based on lacking military budgets, but its underdeveloped political will.
2) To create this political will, Europe has to define independent interests and goals.
3) This requires an ideological and political decoupling from the USA, whose own agenda no longer aligns with Europe's.
4) While not dissolving the western alliance, this would substantial diminish the power of the USA in the geostrategic and ideological space.