2019-2020 US Election Megathread III: Biden VS Biden

[The East Marches II]

Now its Oligarchs instead of Russia! I'll note you didn't even bother to address my post or my points, which speaks volumes as to your inability to counter them. Your blithe proclamation is meaningless, at least put some effort behind things when you imperiously declare anybody who doesn't agree with you to be denying reality.

It’s a fact that Russia has given good deals to Trump when it comes to real estate.....And Trump has shown he has the mind of a mob boss. He “helps” those that have PERSONALLY “helped” him, even if it is at the nation’s expense.

He probably highly connected to organized crime, probably had a guy killed and has helped baddies launder money. This however is a far cry from the original claim, the idea that he is a Russian asset. It is an even further one from Valrifell's baseless assertion and refusal to engage with the facts.

[Turbofolkia]

What do you mean? Ukraine's biggest donor in terms of foreign aid is the EU. In 2016/17, the EU contributed 383,62€ million to Ukraine, which was more than double the US contribution of 184,42€ million. Interestingly, Germany contributed 171,24€ million, which was on top of what was already contributed by the EU. The EU has also given more in military aid than the US.

Sources:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contr ... raine-2014
https://public.tableau.com/views/OECDDA ... VizHome=no

Last month the EU also extended sanctions on Russia due to their behaviour in Ukraine.

Yes, there are many figures in European politics who are close to Russia, but they are not the ones setting the agenda towards Russia and Ukraine.

I don't care enough about America or Trump to comment on whether he is a Russian asset, but the suggestion that Europe has been weak on Russia or has abandoned Ukraine is simply not borne out on the facts.

Foreign aid to Ukraine is not the same as lethal aid. One is reminded of the bitter Ukranian response to receiving blankets and old trucks instead of ATGMs to stop Russian tanks. Some help that was. It was the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Romanians who got together to give Ukraine at least spare parts for their tanks. For which of course they were duely condemned in the press. They sold out the Baltic states when they had every right legally to purchase arms blocking an arms deal for tanks to "defuse things". They turn a blind eye to Serbia remilitarization while simultaneously making Croatia purchase of F-16s more difficult. They promise Poland aid yet it is Poland alone which must hold the line for the cowards in France and Germany, paying huge sums for modernization while they make a pipeline deal which will give Russia a huge source of hard currency. Germany itself had only 9 working tanks and 4 working planes plus a grounded helicopter fleet not some time ago, I imagine things haven't radically changed. France's military exists on paper. The facts are the European Union will not put up to protect it's border states and sells them out at every turn. They are so gutless that they pay the Sultan a bribe as so not to have to patrol their own borders. They proclaim they love refugees while paying another to keep them in camps. Their moral sensibilities only get triggered when it is their ships doing the patrolling, not when it's a Turkish one ramming a refugee ship. The European Union has abjectly failed in this regard, the facts don't bear out your assertion.

I see what you are doing. You first made the assertion that the EU is too in bed with Russia to support Ukraine, which, if you bothered to read the sources I provided, you would know that is not true at all. Now you are trying to shift the goalposts by moving the conversation towards weapons alone. Although the US has provided more in weapons to Ukraine, Europe, again, has provided more overall military aid to Ukraine, in terms of money. In any event, financial assistance is just as important for Ukraine in order for Ukraine to become self sufficient, less economically dependent on Russia and more integrated in the EU market. Again, if you bothered to read, you would have noted that two-thirds of all aid to Ukraine comes European countries.

You would have also noted that last month the EU extended sanctions on Ukraine. I didn't realise that an institution that is supposedly in bed with Russia would vote to extend sanctions on Russia. Some 4-D chess, huh?

So unless you can establish that providing more than double what the US provides and supporting Ukraine financially by getting them to be less dependent on Russia is somehow useless to Ukraine, the facts still don't bear out your assertion.

[The East Marches II]

Foreign aid to Ukraine is not the same as lethal aid. One is reminded of the bitter Ukranian response to receiving blankets and old trucks instead of ATGMs to stop Russian tanks. Some help that was. It was the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Romanians who got together to give Ukraine at least spare parts for their tanks. For which of course they were duely condemned in the press. They sold out the Baltic states when they had every right legally to purchase arms blocking an arms deal for tanks to "defuse things". They turn a blind eye to Serbia remilitarization while simultaneously making Croatia purchase of F-16s more difficult. They promise Poland aid yet it is Poland alone which must hold the line for the cowards in France and Germany, paying huge sums for modernization while they make a pipeline deal which will give Russia a huge source of hard currency. Germany itself had only 9 working tanks and 4 working planes plus a grounded helicopter fleet not some time ago, I imagine things haven't radically changed. France's military exists on paper. The facts are the European Union will not put up to protect it's border states and sells them out at every turn. They are so gutless that they pay the Sultan a bribe as so not to have to patrol their own borders. They proclaim they love refugees while paying another to keep them in camps. Their moral sensibilities only get triggered when it is their ships doing the patrolling, not when it's a Turkish one ramming a refugee ship. The European Union has abjectly failed in this regard, the facts don't bear out your assertion.

I see what you are doing. You first made the assertion that the EU is too in bed with Russia to support Ukraine, which, if you bothered to read the sources I provided, you would know that is not true at all. Now you are trying to shift the goalposts by moving the conversation towards weapons alone. Although the US has provided more in weapons to Ukraine, Europe, again, has provided more overall military aid to Ukraine, in terms of money. In any event, financial assistance is just as important for Ukraine in order for Ukraine to become self sufficient, less economically dependent on Russia and more integrated in the EU market. Again, if you bothered to read, you would have noted that two-thirds of all aid to Ukraine comes European countries.

You would have also noted that last month the EU extended sanctions on Ukraine. I didn't realise that an institution that is supposedly in bed with Russia would vote to extend sanctions on Russia. Some 4-D chess, huh?

So unless you can establish that providing more than double what the US provides and supporting Ukraine financially by getting them to be less dependent on Russia is somehow useless to Ukraine, the facts still don't bear out your assertion.

M8, blankets and old trucks cost the Ukrainians the east of their country. I have crucified the Obama administration for giving things of literally no substance as well. This did not help them. Body armor is great but you need guns with which to fight. Old Saracens aren't actual help.

The financial assistance to Ukraine will not be relevant is there is not a Ukranie left. That's the point.

Anyway, about the European Union, then explain to me why they would remove all of Ukraine's relevance by having the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pipeline built?

Yes, European countries. This is seperate from the European Union structure itself. I mentioned before the efforts of Eastern Europe to at least keep Ukraine in the fight. They are not one and the same.

It's certainly 4D chess to refuse to build a credible deterrent, stab your allies in the back and then build a pipeline that gives Russia a huge economic benefit while claiming to be a serious opposition to them.

I listed that litany of failures as evidence that the European Union's principle members are either too corrupt or too gutless to oppose Russia in any meaningful way. When push comes to shove, they always cave. Sanctions are not some great achievement. It's window dressing while they proceed to open a hard currency pipeline direct to Moscow. Explain that one!

[Totally Not OEP]

There's something to be said about the defense of Sanders, given he's basically fraud at worst or an uneducated buffoon at best; he sells himself as a Socialist when it's actually basic Social Democracy. Either way, he needs to be kept from power, so props to HRC for realizing this.

So, the fact that he calls himself a "socialist" when he's really a social democrat is the reason he shouldn't be elected? This is literally one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.

I don't exactly trust someone with nuclear launch codes if they are so uninformed as to not even know what socialism is while professing to be one. If he's just a charlatan, that's a different story but raises its own moral qualms.

[South Odreria 2]

So, the fact that he calls himself a "socialist" when he's really a social democrat is the reason he shouldn't be elected? This is literally one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.

I don't exactly trust someone with nuclear launch codes if they are so uninformed as to not even know what socialism is while professing to be one. If he's just a charlatan, that's a different story but raises its own moral qualms.

I see a lot of bizarre and nonsensical arguments on this board and this is one of them.

[Telconi]

I don't exactly trust someone with nuclear launch codes if they are so uninformed as to not even know what socialism is while professing to be one. If he's just a charlatan, that's a different story but raises its own moral qualms.

I see a lot of bizarre and nonsensical arguments on this board and this is one of them.

The idea that ignorant or dishonest people shouldn't be president is bizarre?

[Turbofolkia]

M8, blankets and old trucks cost the Ukrainians the east of their country. I have crucified the Obama administration for giving things of literally no substance as well. This did not help them. Body armor is great but you need guns with which to fight. Old Saracens aren't actual help.

Source on the primary method of European aid to Ukraine being blankets and other such things? Because, again, if you bothered to read the sources I provided you, you would have noted that most of the money goes into economic and social investment. Namely working towards modernising the economy, diversifying it, rooting out corruption etc.

Military aid will not be relevant if Ukraine cannot afford to do anything with itself and remains poorer than many African countries. If the EU was not there to provide that aid, countries like China or perhaps even Russia would be more than happy to step in and "help" Ukraine economically, provided they played by their rules.

The financial assistance to Ukraine will not be relevant is there is not a Ukranie left. That's the point.

There will be a Ukraine left and it's the height of conspiracy mongering to suggest Russia is about to swallow all or most of Ukraine.

They got what they wanted in Crimea. The goal now is to de-Sovietise Ukraine's economy and make it less dependent on Russia and more European-like. Which is where the financial assistance comes in.

Obviously I am not denying that Ukraine needs weapons, and the US is clearly in a better position to provide that to Ukraine, but again, Ukraine needs a healthy economy to prosper, and that is where the EU has gone above and beyond in their contributions.

Anyway, about the European Union, then explain to me why they would remove all of Ukraine's relevance by having the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pipeline built?

Nord Stream 2 is a matter for internal German energy policy, and has little to do EU policy. The then president of the EC even came out against it.

As far back as the 1960s, West Germany was purchasing gas from the USSR, well before the EU was ever a thing.

What Nord Stream 2 means is that Germany will buy LNG from Russia instead of the USA, getting it delivered by pipeline instead of ships, saving Germany a significant amount of money. That's what the brouhaha is all about. Washington is upset that the money will be flowing somewhere else.

But again, Nord Stream 2 is a decision made by the German government in Berlin, not the EU in Brussels. Indeed, many EU bureaucrats are opposed to it and argue the pipeline violates EU law, so this is a criticism you should level at Germany, not the EU.

Yes, European countries. This is seperate from the European Union structure itself. I mentioned before the efforts of Eastern Europe to at least keep Ukraine in the fight. They are not one and the same.

When I gave the 383,62€ million figure, those monies primarily came from countries like Germany, France, the UK, who are the biggest net contributors to the EU Countries like Poland contribute very little to the EU at all, and take far more than what they give.

It's window dressing while they proceed to open a hard currency pipeline direct to Moscow. Explain that one]

See a few quotes above.

[The East Marches II]

Source on the primary method of European aid to Ukraine being blankets and other such things? Because, again, if you bothered to read the sources I provided you, you would have noted that most of the money goes into economic and social investment. Namely working towards modernising the economy, diversifying it, rooting out corruption etc.

Military aid will not be relevant if Ukraine cannot afford to do anything with itself and remains poorer than many African countries. If the EU was not there to provide that aid, countries like China or perhaps even Russia would be more than happy to step in and "help" Ukraine economically, provided they played by their rules.

From your own source

C2 systems; situational awareness systems; secure communications; military mobility; night vision; military medical treatment; maritime and border security operations; and defensive weapons systems

The EU's aid hasn't cured corruption, they infact just had to have an election with a total rando to attempt to get a handle on it. Ukranian GDP has only just recently gone above half of its pre-war situation. Frankly, they would probably be better off with Chinese protection at this rate, given how totally incompetent the EU is when it comes to handling these things. The Chinese can at least show power that will actually threaten the Russians. The Europeans cancel arms sales to "defuse tensions".

There will be a Ukraine left and it's the height of conspiracy mongering to suggest Russia is about to swallow all or most of Ukraine.

They got what they wanted in Crimea. The goal now is to de-Sovietise Ukraine's economy and make it less dependent on Russia and more European-like. Which is where the financial assistance comes in.

Obviously I am not denying that Ukraine needs weapons, and the US is clearly in a better position to provide that to Ukraine, but again, Ukraine needs a healthy economy to prosper, and that is where the EU has gone above and beyond in their contributions.

What do you think the rebellion in Eastern Ukraine was about? This didn't stop with Crimea, the Ivans instigated a full scale war and sent regular troops into Ukraine. It was our weak response that encouraged them to go further. They do not want us in that country, it is a prime strategic objective for them that we get out. An "uprising" was the easiest way to go about this. We were too cowardly to say they were actual Russians and obfuscated for fear of a larger conflict. We are lucky that they managed to halt them. The war isn't over.

De-Sovietizing and market reforms are no doubt what the fine gentlemen in the European Commission are concerned about. They should be more concerned about whether the country will continue to have basic functions executed. Ideological and idealistic nonsense while the world burns.

Nord Stream 2 is a matter for internal German energy policy, and has little to do EU policy. The then president of the EC even came out against it.

As far back as the 1960s, West Germany was purchasing gas from the USSR, well before the EU was ever a thing.

What Nord Stream 2 means is that Germany will buy LNG from Russia instead of the USA, getting it delivered by pipeline instead of ships, saving Germany a significant amount of money. That's what the brouhaha is all about. Washington is upset that the money will be flowing somewhere else.

But again, Nord Stream 2 is a decision made by the German government in Berlin, not the EU in Brussels. Indeed, many EU bureaucrats are opposed to it and argue the pipeline violates EU law, so this is a criticism you should level at Germany, not the EU.

Yes, Washington is rightfully upset that a revanchist power that uses its hard currency to buy more weapons is being enabled by our so called "allies". They will then use those weapons to threaten our "allies", who will then beg Uncle Sam to save them from the big mean Russians. It is an understandable position for the US to be extremely displeased by. It isn't Germany, Italy or France who will be doing the heavy lifting if things kick off, it is us.

As for the internal German energy policy, it is now EU policy. The President of the EC only came out against it after Uncle Sam complained and no surprise, he was a Pole so he is wise to how this will play out. Those band of idiots appointed the biggest incompetent and 2nd greatest appeaser in the German government to head up the European Commission. They made my point for me regarding their stance.

When I gave the 383,62€ million figure, those monies primarily came from countries like Germany, France, the UK, who are the biggest net contributors to the EU Countries like Poland contribute very little to the EU at all, and take far more than what they give.

Yes, I don't doubt that France and Germany gave money towards do nothing projects. You are forgetting the excellent conditional loans they gave :^) They are accruing mainly debt from the European "programs". One is reminded of the $3-4 billion dollars in loans they now are on the hook for to Brussels. The EU should be paying Poland quite a bit more money. Afterall, they are the only thing standing between them and the Russians imposing their will.

See a few quotes above.

Yes, you didn't explain it at all, you just accused the US of being greedy. Never mind you are literally funding a foe's rearmament!

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Oh TEM really, this hysterical Russophobia just doesn't suit you. Russia entered Crimea to protect its interests after the chaos of the 2014 coup, no different to America entering other countries to protect its own interests. Donbass was just a nice side dish to keep the Galicians on their toes, albeit one Russia should probably dispense with.

The presentation of Russia as the big bad revanchist power is just neoconservative kool-aid. The only thing Russia is guilty of is the delusion of being a superpower.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'd gladly give up Ukraine and Belarus for Russian aid in defeating China.

[The East Marches II]

Oh TEM really, this hysterical Russophobia just doesn't suit you. Russia entered Crimea to protect its interests after the chaos of the 2014 coup, no different to America entering other countries to protect its own interests. Donbass was just a nice side dish to keep the Galicians on their toes, albeit one Russia should probably dispense with.

The presentation of Russia as the big bad revanchist power is just neoconservative kool-aid. The only thing Russia is guilty of is the delusion of being a superpower.

Yes, that is correct. They were protecting their interests. We have our own interests in the region or should I say the continent. I would be content to let the Europeans get bullied by a country with the GDP of Spain as a fitting punishment for their own disgusting weakness and craven way of dealing with things. However, we are on the hook for their misjudgments, so we must play to win.

I'd gladly give up Ukraine and Belarus for Russian aid in defeating China.

This would require our foreign policy cadre to not be insane idiots. Alas poor us.

[Totally Not OEP]

This would require our foreign policy cadre to not be insane idiots. Alas poor us.

The world would've been such a better place if the State Department had been abolished circa 1941 or earlier. We've been screwing the pooch since WWII with our dealings with Uncle Joe and really fucking up ever since.

[The East Marches II]

This would require our foreign policy cadre to not be insane idiots. Alas poor us.

The world would've been such a better place if the State Department had been abolished circa 1941 or earlier. We've been screwing the pooch since WWII with our dealings with Uncle Joe and really fucking up ever since.

Unironically yes. One of the few positives I've been enjoying of all this is the suffering of the State Department and its slow dismemberment.

[Turbofolkia]

C2 systems; situational awareness systems; secure communications; military mobility; night vision; military medical treatment; maritime and border security operations; and defensive weapons systems

Not seeing any problem with this. The EU doesn't have an army to provide weapons to Ukraine, as I'm sure you are aware.

The EU's aid hasn't cured corruption,

These things take years, if not decades. The goal is to get Ukraine to reform its economy and society enough so that it can one day hope to join the EU.

The Europeans cancel arms sales to "defuse tensions".

Source on the EU cancelling any arms sale to Ukraine?

What do you think the rebellion in Eastern Ukraine was about? This didn't stop with Crimea, the Ivans instigated a full scale war and sent regular troops into Ukraine. It was our weak response that encouraged them to go further. They do not want us in that country, it is a prime strategic objective for them that we get out. An "uprising" was the easiest way to go about this. We were too cowardly to say they were actual Russians and obfuscated for fear of a larger conflict. We are lucky that they managed to halt them. The war isn't over.

De-Sovietizing and market reforms are no doubt what the fine gentlemen in the European Commission are concerned about. They should be more concerned about whether the country will continue to have basic functions executed. Ideological and idealistic nonsense while the world burns.

I'm not sure what more could have been done in 2014. I sympathise with Ukraine, but ultimately there is no appetite, neither in Europe nor I'm sure in America, for a conflict with Russia.

[Yes, Washington is rightfully upset that a revanchist power that uses its hard currency to buy more weapons is being enabled by our so called "allies". They will then use those weapons to threaten our "allies", who will then beg Uncle Sam to save them from the big mean Russians. It is an understandable position for the US to be extremely displeased by. It isn't Germany, Italy or France who will be doing the heavy lifting if things kick off, it is us.

Again, as I've pointed out to you, this is not determined at the EU level. You can have your concerns about the pipeline but this is a decision made by Germany at the national level. My comment about Washington was that if they were not also in the gas market, I doubt they would have raised any concerns over Germany's actions.

As for the internal German energy policy, it is now EU policy. The President of the EC only came out against it after Uncle Sam complained and no surprise,

If you bothered to read the article, it was from 2015, well before Trump was around to complain about it.

he was a Pole so he is wise to how this will play out

His nationality is irrelevant since he was speaking for Europe and European interests as a whole, not Poland. Italy, which is actually quite friendly with Russia, has also questioned the pipeline.

You are forgetting the excellent conditional loans they gave :^) They are accruing mainly debt from the European "programs"

The EU is not a charity. The EU has interests in Ukraine, which is why they are giving them support, just like the US has interests in Ukraine.

Yes, you didn't explain it at all, you just accused the US of being greedy. Never mind you are literally funding a foe's rearmament!

Sigh, you asserted, that the EU is removing "all of Ukraine's relevance by having the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pipeline built". As I've pointed out to you, the EU has no control over where Germany, as a country, chooses to source its energy from. Do I need to draw it out in crayons for you to understand?

Also, I'm not German. I'm not funding anybody lol. Russia isn't really my country's foe.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not sure what more could have been done in 2014. I sympathise with Ukraine, but ultimately there is no appetite, neither in Europe nor I'm sure in America, for a conflict with Russia.

We should have used Putins rhetoric against him. Since the little green men were very much not Russian troops wink wink we should have made Ukraine a major non-NATO ally and sent lads over to help put down the "insurrection".

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Yes, that is correct. They were protecting their interests. We have our own interests in the region or should I say the continent. I would be content to let the Europeans get bullied by a country with the GDP of Spain as a fitting punishment for their own disgusting weakness and craven way of dealing with things. However, we are on the hook for their misjudgments, so we must play to win.

To win what? Really, I'm intrigued what Ukraine brings to the US sphere of influence. At least in the Middle East America is there to keep it "stable" for Saudi oil and their Greatest Ally.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

We should have used Putins rhetoric against him. Since the little green men were very much not Russian troops wink wink we should have made Ukraine a major non-NATO ally and sent lads over to help put down the "insurrection".

Can you explain your reasoning why US troops should die for a Eastern European shithole that's meddled in US politics. ngl, this is really surprising coming from you. The American Empire is essentially a machine driven for profit and a vague ideals of "democracy" and "human rights".

[USS Monitor]

This is a legit conversation, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the election thread.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We should have used Putins rhetoric against him. Since the little green men were very much not Russian troops wink wink we should have made Ukraine a major non-NATO ally and sent lads over to help put down the "insurrection".

Can you explain your reasoning why US troops should die for a Eastern European shithole that's meddled in US politics. ngl, this is really surprising coming from you. The American Empire is essentially a machine driven for profit and vague "democracy" ideals.

Everyone meddles in our politics, if we wanted to stop that we'd have to flatten half the globe. Such is the nature of a democracy in the internet age. I have no real interest in Ukraine geopolitically, it's more just a desire to continually kick Russia in the head. Gotta remain on top and all that.

[Totally Not OEP]

This is a legit conversation, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the election thread.

Retired, you say?

[The East Marches II]

Yes, that is correct. They were protecting their interests. We have our own interests in the region or should I say the continent. I would be content to let the Europeans get bullied by a country with the GDP of Spain as a fitting punishment for their own disgusting weakness and craven way of dealing with things. However, we are on the hook for their misjudgments, so we must play to win.

To win what? Really, I'm intrigued what Ukraine brings to the US sphere of influence. At least in the Middle East America is there to keep it "stable" for Saudi oil and their Greatest Ally.

To put a dagger aiming at Volgograd. That is the peak COPE which I tell myself to disguise the geniuses in Europe and retards at the State Department deciding it was a good idea to encourage a color revolution, without having any plan for how to deal with the aftermath, any systematic idea of how we were going to rebuild Ukraine, or what our objectives even were besides a religious desire to spread Democracy. We encouraged the poor fucks towards radical change and then left them holding the bag when Ivan came knocking, very angry at this disturbance. We broke it, we bought it.

[Idzequitch]

After claiming no Ameircans were hurt in Iran's retaliation for the death of Soleimani Trump clarifies that the concussions and other brain injuries suffered by at least 11 American troops aren't serious injuries. He dismisses them as headaches and the proceeds to tell us what he considers a serious injury is, such as a missing limb.

He lied about no injuries, then just flat pretended that the injuries didn't matter. Remind me why all the military folks are supposed to be voting for this guy?

[The East Marches II]

Not seeing any problem with this. The EU doesn't have an army to provide weapons to Ukraine, as I'm sure you are aware.

The EU may not have an army but it has many member states with well developed defense infrastructure. A simple authorization of purchasing would have been help enough. They could not even do that (nor could we until a change in administration!)

These things take years, if not decades. The goal is to get Ukraine to reform its economy and society enough so that it can one day hope to join the EU.

It worked so well with Turkey didn't it? It is throwing good money after bad.

Source on the EU cancelling any arms sale to Ukraine?

It wasn't to Ukraine, it was to the Baltic states while this was ongoing. The Germans delayed sales of the Boxer IFV and have been slow walking the deliveries. Lithuania was offered Bradleys, the Germans authorized delivery after they saw they were going to get armored fighting vehicles anyway, so it might as well be theirs. It was really disgraceful and a display of the worst sort of appeasement.

I'm not sure what more could have been done in 2014. I sympathise with Ukraine, but ultimately there is no appetite, neither in Europe nor I'm sure in America, for a conflict with Russia.

Then one wonders why we bankrupted Ukraine and tore it apart if there was no appetite to actually confront the Russians. What should have done in 2014 was honored our treaty to make sure they stayed territorially intact. We should have been flying in an airlift of arms and other sorts of aid. We did not because we are very stupid.

Again, as I've pointed out to you, this is not determined at the EU level. You can have your concerns about the pipeline but this is a decision made by Germany at the national level. My comment about Washington was that if they were not also in the gas market, I doubt they would have raised any concerns over Germany's actions.

No, you just appointed the people behind it to the levers of power in the EU as I pointed out. Washington would have raised concerns anyway because if our goal is to choke the Russians out financially, it stands to reason that we shouldn't be giving them a pipeline with which they can suck in hard currencies. That defeats the whole purpose of sanctions.

If you bothered to read the article, it was from 2015, well before Trump was around to complain about it.

I don't know why your default assumption would be that only Trump would complain about such a thing. The Obama administration was absolutely furious as well.

His nationality is irrelevant since he was speaking for Europe and European interests as a whole, not Poland. Italy, which is actually quite friendly with Russia, has also questioned the pipeline.

One's nationality and upbringing shapes one's worldview. I agree that it is in European interests to avoid such a deal but if you asked a German, they'd give a much different answer and they have while in charge in the various European institutions. Thats evidence if I've ever seen it that one's background is entirely relevant. Which Italian government? What minister? The Italians can't keep a government intact for the past decade or so.

The EU is not a charity. The EU has interests in Ukraine, which is why they are giving them support, just like the US has interests in Ukraine.

Then don't pretend the paltry aid is some big achievement when you are milking them the other direction. Thats rather disingenuous.

Sigh, you asserted, that the EU is removing "all of Ukraine's relevance by having the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pipeline built". As I've pointed out to you, the EU has no control over where Germany, as a country, chooses to source its energy from. Do I need to draw it out in crayons for you to understand?

Also, I'm not German. I'm not funding anybody lol. Russia isn't really my country's foe.

The gas pipeline through Ukraine is its insurance that Europe has an interest in actually defending it. The EU may have no control over Germany, but they are certainly willing to bend over backwards to protect them by creating a parallel financial infrastructure network to dodge US sanctions on those doing business with Ivan. I thought you were a Croat?

[The East Marches II]

At any rate, since I doubt moderation is too please, we can continue this in the RWDT lads.

[Turbofolkia]

At any rate, since I doubt moderation is too please, we can continue this in the RWDT lads.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479869&p=36656155#p36656155