President Trump and the Future of Europe

[Daburuetchi]

America isnt going to let all of Europe undertake Gaullist initiatives no matter who wins anyhow.

No, what we need is to say goodbye to NATO and make some kind a collective security treaty together with Russia. USA is pushing us into its imperialist wars against Russia and sending us muslims refugees. Enough is enough.

Lol. Russia isnt interested in playing nice with Europe. They're quite clearly irredenist and still have the "third rome" mentality.

[Novus America]

America isnt going to let all of Europe undertake Gaullist initiatives no matter who wins anyhow.

No, what we need is to say goodbye to NATO and make some kind a collective security treaty together with Russia. USA is pushing us into its imperialist wars against Russia and sending us muslims refugees. Enough is enough.

Russia is only interested in Russia.
But the US is not "sending" you refugees. Assad and Russia are.

[Jute]

Foreign policy for the most part is one of the areas in which Trump isn’t truly terrible in, in fact I am surprised why there isn’t more support on part of Europeans since Europe usually gets the brunt of American military adventurism. But I think I know why: other countries have been selfishly taking advantage of American military dominance by basically having their military subsidized, meanwhile appreciating fuck-all for what it is worth. Only five of 28 countries in NATO meet the defense spending goal. Yet Europeans are unappreciative of this and instead prefer to sling insults at Americans while mooching off what basically amounts of a subsidized defense, perhaps so they can build their barely sustainable welfare states. Although I am voting for Gary Johnson, I would at least appreciate it if Trump took us down the path of “isolationism” and abandoned the crumbling infrastructure known as the “West.” I don’t care what Russia does, he’s your neighbor not ours (Alaska disregarding). All I want is an end to the warmongering that Bush, Obama, and perhaps Clinton will continue while destroying possibilities for markets and radicalizing Islamic terrorism everywhere. Both Europe and America would benefit, I think, in the long run.

Well, not all are unappreciative of that. The five that meet the spending goal don't tend to criticize America that much and are now worried about their national security if the Republican candidate wins. Isolationism is no concept for the 21st century, it doesn't help the US, and it doesn't help other nations they should feel obliged to protect. And many nations known to have a large welfare budget like Sweden aren't even part of the NATO.

[Jute]

America isnt going to let all of Europe undertake Gaullist initiatives no matter who wins anyhow.

No, what we need is to say goodbye to NATO and make some kind a collective security treaty together with Russia. USA is pushing us into its imperialist wars against Russia and sending us muslims refugees. Enough is enough.

So that Russia can do what they want alongside their borders, as they already do in the Ukraine, Georgia etc.?

[Liriena]

I imagine that a Trump presidency could deeply hurt Europe on at least three fronts:

- His rabid protectionism could extend to trade policies that would negatively affect the United States' European trade partners.
- His victory would signal a major victory for the far right, which would probably increase the militancy of the European far right and even give them the necessary momentum to gain greater power.
- His likely neglect of NATO and pandering to Russia.

Foreign policy for the most part is one of the areas in which Trump isn’t truly terrible in, in fact I am surprised why there isn’t more support on part of Europeans since Europe usually gets the brunt of American military adventurism. But I think I know why: other countries have been selfishly taking advantage of American military dominance by basically having their military subsidized, meanwhile appreciating fuck-all for what it is worth. Only five of 28 countries in NATO meet the defense spending goal. Yet Europeans are unappreciative of this and instead prefer to sling insults at Americans while mooching off what basically amounts of a subsidized defense, perhaps so they can build their barely sustainable welfare states. Although I am voting for Gary Johnson, I would at least appreciate it if Trump took us down the path of “isolationism” and abandoned the crumbling infrastructure known as the “West.” I don’t care what Russia does, he’s your neighbor not ours (Alaska disregarding). All I want is an end to the warmongering that Bush, Obama, and perhaps Clinton will continue while destroying possibilities for markets and radicalizing Islamic terrorism everywhere. Both Europe and America would benefit, I think, in the long run.

*produces doll* Please, show me where the bad Europeans hurt your feelings.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Poor, poor Poland. Left to the Russians by Donald Trump.

So much wrong with that comment...

1)Russia does not border Poland apart from an exclave called Kalingrad which is TINY, but is a major military hub. But, the hub lacks any strategic depth and any Polish counterattack would not give the Russians any ground to fall back on apart from tiny Kalingrad and whatever ground they captured

2)Kalingrad is a hub, but the 11th Guards Army, one of the USSR's best formations, no longer exists in the area, and they are down to a few brigades, which total at most 10,500 troops, not quite enough to invade a country the size of Poland.

3)The Polish military is not a pushover by any metric. Poland has a long martial and independence oriented tradition and would actively and aggressively resist Russian aggression. For instance, the Polish military has more than one thousand MBTs active, while Russia has slightly less than 3000. Obviously Russia cannot deploy a third of its tank force to Kalingrad, that goes for IFVs and other armored vehicles, Poland will have an edge in number of tanks, but the Russians will have better quality, in the end it breaks even if Russia decides to go all in on Poland, but otherwise Poles will have the advantage. However, the Polish infantry would highly outnumber any Russian invasion force's infantry troops, making any invasion infeasible. The Baltic fleet will likely not play a large role, and Russia will likely not have air superiority due to other EU member countries' air forces.

4) Reinforcements would be almost impossible to send once war breaks out. A Russian invasion of Poland would mean that they would not have any land route to send troops, along with the entry the majority of the EU to war. That means troops can be sent one of two ways. Via Baltic Sea, which would be infested with EU subs, or via air when the airspace will be contested by the EU Air Forces. There will be likely air parity on both sides, and that means landing by air is a no go.

5)Corruption is rampant in the Russian military, the Polish military less so.

[Jute]

"Then again, who cares, it's Ukraine." Is this seriously how selfish and absurd modern politics has begun? This is it? We seriously don't care about people in other countries fighting for their freedom? I mean, Jesus Christ. This is sick. Really, really sick.

Whenever we "Help" freedom fighters we always make it worse.

Not always, actually. The support of Poland's resistance movement in the 80s was significant in ensuring it stays powerful and was able to get rid of the political system.

[Greed and Death]

Under Trump the EU shall be an unincorporated Territory of the US.

I assume this would be take place after the proper ascension of President Trump into Emperorhood and the transformation of the US into a proper Empire?

By Foreign policy we have been imperial for quite some time, it is time we cast aside the old relics of the republic and become the First Earth Empire.

[Westacara]

I don't like Trump. I'm not Republican nor Democratic, but Donald Trump is vastly the better option of Hilary Clinton, with thousands of reasons of why.
1: Hilary Clinton wishes to institute a "no fly-zone" over Syria, which will inevitably antagonize the Russian Federation. Trump, on the other hand, has way better relations with Vladimir Putin then Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton combined. Putin is not necessarily a tyrant, but he is ambitious, but we need to avoid war.
2: How is Hilary running? She has broken simple laws that will cause most people to go to jail. The only reason she isn't in jail is because she's friends with Barack and the Democrats are accusing the FBI of being biased if they even think of arresting Hilary. At least Donald was able to do his shady business legally.
3: Hilary is socialist. Socialism will only destroy the economy, pushing it over the ledge in which it holding on by a thread. Trump may have ran his companies into debt, but he came back anyways, and he can't cause something to be in debt when it is already in debt. Trump is way less damaging nationally and internationally then Hilary Clinton.
4: Hilary, like her own marriage, is only running it for a heavier pocket.
5: Protect woman? How more hypocritical can she get? She has turned a blind eye to her own husband assaulting woman! Trump is not racist nor sexist. He has a loose mouth and is insensitive. I have heard nothing of him raping women, and he hires legal immigrants of all color daily. He wants to build a wall to protect his nation. Should we get mad at China for keeping the Mongols out with their wall? Or Israel for keeping terrorists out? Trump is doing the same, protecting his misguided people.
The list can go on. Trump may not be good, but at least he is open and legal.

[Jute]

3: Hilary is socialist.

Hillary is not socialist, she's the very embodiment of the typical liberal.

[Daburuetchi]

That is not true. It is America that organised the Arab Spring that destroyed Gadaffi and to which thanks millions of Africans are coming to Europe via mediterain.

Of course those A-rabs could never rise up against a kleptocratic regime by themselves

Russia is actually playing fair and square. It was NATO that pushed to the russian borders and builts anti-balistic missles towarded to Russia. It was not irredentist before the US organised a coup in Ukraine with help of George Soros and Hussein Obama.

This meme again. Countries have things called hidden agendas. US imperialism is just a casus beli. You're kidding yourself if you think Russia dosent have imperialist ambitions

[Jute]

Poor, poor Poland. Left to the Russians by Donald Trump.

Poland can actually defend itself, and has other allies. Russia simply is not that scary anymore, its military not that big, and it is a relatively poor country. Freaking Italy has a bigger GDP. If Russia is a threat to Europe, Europe has only itself to blame. Not the US.

Not that Trump is winning anyway, but American patience with European freeloading is running thin. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for Europe.

Hey, not all countries are "freeloading" - some are meeting the NATO defense spending goal and even go beyond that... And one of them is a direct neighbor of Russia, too.

[Novus America]

Russia is only interested in Russia.
But the US is not "sending" you refugees. Assad and Russia are.

That is not true. It is America that organised the Arab Spring that destroyed Gadaffi and to which thanks millions of Africans are coming to Europe via mediterain.

Lol. Russia isnt interested in playing nice with Europe. They're quite clearly irredenist and still have the "third rome" mentality.

Russia is actually playing fair and square. It was NATO that pushed to the russian borders and builts anti-balistic missles towarded to Russia. It was not irredentist before the US organised a coup in Ukraine with help of George Soros and Hussein Obama.

Umm Arabs are real people. They do want they want. The US did not organize the Arab Spring, we were caught by surprise by it, and supported several governments against it. It hurt us in many places like Egypt. We did not create the Arab spring. Arabs did.

And the Syrians are fleeing from the Russians and Assad.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

NATO is a voluntary organization. Eastern European countries have ever right to join any alliance they want. Anti ballistic missiles are purely DEFENSIVE.

Also Ukrainians are real people too. They make their own decisions. The US can support one side, does not mean that side wins. The US does not have the ability to magically engineer coups. Ukraine was much more complicated than that, and it was not the US who caused it.

[Novus America]

Poland can actually defend itself, and has other allies. Russia simply is not that scary anymore, its military not that big, and it is a relatively poor country. Freaking Italy has a bigger GDP. If Russia is a threat to Europe, Europe has only itself to blame. Not the US.

Not that Trump is winning anyway, but American patience with European freeloading is running thin. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for Europe.

Hey, not all countries are "freeloading" - some are meeting the NATO defense spending goal and even go beyond that... And one of them is a direct neighbor of Russia, too.

Not all are, true. But most are.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

To be frank, the only major problem I see for Europe with a Trump election is NATO. He probably would push the 2% GDP thing, which to be frank, wouldn't be all that bad. Germany in particular would finally have to start actually maintaining a military that isn't the laughing stock of the EU.

The Putin bromance would inevitably be a thing, but I wouldn't be all too concerned about it. It's not like Russia would take advantage of the opportunity to invade half of Europe. Hell, it's not like it even has the capability to do that anymore. This isn't back in the old glory days of the USSR, after all.

Ukraine, however, would probably be bullied around quite a bit more. Then again, who cares, it's Ukraine.

I don't agree with you there, but...

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Trump is dangerous and reactionary and too protectionist for my taste.

[Liriena]

2: How is Hilary running? She has broken simple laws that will cause most people to go to jail. The only reason she isn't in jail is because she's friends with Barack and the Democrats are accusing the FBI of being biased if they even think of arresting Hilary. At least Donald was able to do his shady business legally.

*sniff*

Wrong!

Clinton isn't in jail because she broke no law. Her use of a private e-mail server would have been worthy of administrative sanctions, which could not be applied to her at the time because she was no longer working at the State Department. Comey, who clearly despises Clinton, admitted that, although she was careless, there was no evidence that would have allowed for criminal charges. If she had been charged with a crime over her private e-mail server, the case would not have gone very far before it was dismissed, or she was acquitted.

Also, no, Trump has not been able to do his shady business legally, if the Trump U lawsuit is anything to go by.

3: Hilary is socialist. Socialism will only destroy the economy, pushing it over the ledge in which it holding on by a thread. Trump may have ran his companies into debt, but he came back anyways, and he can't cause something to be in debt when it is already in debt. Trump is way less damaging nationally and internationally then Hilary Clinton.

*sniff*

Wrong!

First of all, Clinton is not a socialist. At most, she's a progressive, and many progressives would object to calling her even that. She's been consistently liberal on many issues, but overall she has never strayed far from the center.
Second of all, the consensus among economists seems to be that Clinton's economic plan might actually help the American economy, whereas Trump's would deeply hurt it.

4: Hilary, like her own marriage, is only running it for a heavier pocket.

[citation needed]

Clinton is not the one who's profited from her own presidential campaign.

5: Protect woman? How more hypocritical can she get? She has turned a blind eye to her own husband assaulting woman!

[citation needed]

Trump is not racist nor sexist. He has a loose mouth and is insensitive.

So... he's an unfiltered and uncaring racist and sexist pig.

He has an undeniable and very long history of racist and sexist comments, and supports racist and sexist policies.

I have heard nothing of him raping women,

That sounds quite unlikely.

Several women have publicly accused him of sexual harrassment and assault, and until a few days ago one woman was suing him for repeatedly raping her when she was thirteen years old.

and he hires legal immigrants of all color daily.

A lot of those are undocumented.

He wants to build a wall to protect his nation.

Yes, because he is a childish, profoundly stupid man who is apparently unaware of the fact that a large percentage of the United States' undocumented immigrants don't come through the Mexican-American border. Also, his proposed wall is widely seen as extremely expensive, difficult and wasteful.

Should we get mad at China for keeping the Mongols out with their wall?

You do know that the Great Wall of China was defeated with a single bribe?

Trump is doing the same, protecting his misguided people.

Well, I can agree on the misguided part.

The list can go on. Trump may not be good, but at least he is open and legal.

No, he's not. He's a known liar who has refused to show his tax returns, and lied about his reason not to, despite every other presidential candidate in recent history showing them.

[Novus America]

That is not true. It is America that organised the Arab Spring that destroyed Gadaffi and to which thanks millions of Africans are coming to Europe via mediterain.

Of course those A-rabs could never rise up against a kleptocratic regime by themselves

Russia is actually playing fair and square. It was NATO that pushed to the russian borders and builts anti-balistic missles towarded to Russia. It was not irredentist before the US organised a coup in Ukraine with help of George Soros and Hussein Obama.

This meme again. Countries have things called hidden agendas. US imperialism is just a casus beli. You're kidding yourself if you think Russia dosent have imperialist ambitions

Yes apparently the US has magical powers that allows it to mind control people. And make them do whatever we want. Arabs and Ukrainians and others are mindless pawns controlled by our evil mind control. Put on your tinfoil hat or we will get you too.

Seriously the US of course cannot do any of this shit. We can support one side, give them a little bit of a benefit, but that is not decisive or determinative.

If we could magically overthrow whoever we want, how come we cannot magically overthrow Putin too? Cause Russia Magic strongk power overcomes our magic mind control?

And of course Russia (Putin) does what Russia (Putin) wants for Russia (Putin).

[Ebliania]

NATO is a voluntary organization. Eastern European countries have ever right to join any alliance they want. Anti ballistic missiles are purely DEFENSIVE.

I will not reply to other parts as everything is prooved in the Podesta mails, and everybody can see it. And no, when EE countries joined their leaders were bribed to join as their economies were in bad state.

Such as the part where its a satanic terrorist state?

[Liriena]

NATO is a voluntary organization. Eastern European countries have ever right to join any alliance they want. Anti ballistic missiles are purely DEFENSIVE.

I will not reply to other parts as everything is prooved in the Podesta mails, and everybody can see it. And no, when EE countries joined their leaders were bribed to join as their economies were in bad state.

Source?

[Ebliania]

I will not reply to other parts as everything is prooved in the Podesta mails, and everybody can see it. And no, when EE countries joined their leaders were bribed to join as their economies were in bad state.

Source?

It's in there somewhere.

[Daburuetchi]

The people who rose up were Islamists, and even Hillary admitted in the Podesta mails that they are funded by Qatar, Syria and USA. USA is a satanic-terrorist state. Russia is here the good guy.

So the US was also behind the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain etc? Also you're denying the fact Gaddafi ordered the army to massacre civilians.

Russia does not have. The only time Russia recently acted is when was provoked. In Georgia there was an US puppet Sakashvili that attacked Russian troops. In Ukraine there was a legitimate president was ousted.

Chechnya would like to have a word with you. Also idk how the ouster of a president give you the green light to invade.

[Novus America]

NATO is a voluntary organization. Eastern European countries have ever right to join any alliance they want. Anti ballistic missiles are purely DEFENSIVE.

I will not reply to other parts as everything is prooved in the Podesta mails, and everybody can see it. And no, when EE countries joined their leaders were bribed to join as their economies were in bad state.

Show me the emails that "prove" this. The ACTUAL emails. The ACTUAL primary source, not someone "interpreting" them.

The US has supported certain sides, once things have already gotten out of control. When a country plunges into confusion, the US will support sides we think benefits us best.
Money alone does not cause these things. You cannot just make a regime collapse by giving a few million to one side. It does not work that way.

Eastern European countries can leave NATO if they wish. Sure it brings certain benefits. An organization offering benefits is not bribery. People join organizations because it benefits them. That is how organizations work.

Plus has Russia not offered benefits to CSTO members? Of course it has.

[Liriena]

Source?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region.

And what does this have to do with anything?

To bring pressure on the Qatari and Saudi governments, so as to disccourage further support for radical Sunni groups, doesn't sound particularly atrocious.

[Daburuetchi]

The Islamists revolt started in Tunisis and spread in other countries. So they spread also in Libya, and Gadaffi had all right to restore order and peace from Islamists.

So you don't support people's right to self-determination if they chose wrong? Something tells me you support the Iranian Revolution for similar "anti-imperialist" reasons but only in this case you're against Islamist.

Chechnya would like to have a word with you. Also idk how the ouster of a president give you the green light to invade.

Lol. WE MUST HOLD THE EMPIRE TOGETHER