Russia’s bribing this JACKASS seems to have finally paid off for the Soviets.
“Weak” meaning “not enough torchlight parades of jackbooted bulletheads” and “not enough pogroms.”
Trump’s getting desperate to deflect attention from the failure of his backstab… oh sorry, his “peace plan.”
Europe should be investigating every fascist party for serving as agents of hostile foreign influence. The leaders should be imprisoned and the parties themselves disbanded and proscribed and their assets seized. This is part of a propaganda war meant to undermine any place that’s less of a festering shithole than Russia.
“This is too hard. I quit!”
Fucking loser bitch.
TACO
Everything this idiot says tends to be the opposite. And frankly, I can see it.
The Europe I see (as a Canadian, with immigrant parents from Portugal) is the same Europe I’ve always seen; It has it’s share of problems, sure. But for the most part, they’re older, with a lot more history to draw from, and as a result are just more level headed than the idiot teenagers revving their engine and trying to pick bar fights that is America.
Europe as a continent has been through enough shit that they’ve kind of, as a culture, learned to say “woah…okay…let’s take a step back and look at this a bit before deciding to be an asshole.” Canada kind of inherited some of that by virtue of sticking in the commonwealth longer and having a peaceful transition to independence instead of kicking our feet and threatening to move out at 16 like some bratty teenage countries did.
(Apropos of nothing, I also think that this is sort of the problem with a lot of Eastern Bloc countries. With the fall of the Soviet Union, a lot of them (Russia Included) were kicked out on their own all of a sudden and are essentially entering the teenage years of their independence)
Does that mean Europe is perfect? No…of course not. Far from it.
But they’re a hell of a lot more put together and strong than the U.S. is at the moment.
Trump is projecting, as usual.
Trump is projecting, as usual.
It’s indisputable that Trump is weak and decaying. He can hardly summon the energy to shit himself anymore, and his speeches are even more ignorant free-associative blithering than they used to be.
I have to politely disagree with your opinion of Europe being more mature and level-headed. They seem that way now, but they’ve repeatedly fucked over one another throughout history. They aren’t magically immune to internal/external bullshit just because it’s been around longer.
They seem that way now, but they’ve repeatedly fucked over one another throughout history.
History is a nightmare from which we’re all trying to awake.
Go back a hundred years or more, and there was hardly any peace or justice anywere in the world.
The idea that Europe is weak is hilarious. Russia invading Ukraine has caused a general rearmament in Europe, this in itself wouldn’t make Europe strong but in general European militaries have been proactive about evolving their military technology and doctrine in mostly rational ways and as a result Europe is now a dense fabric of extremely advanced militaries informed by experience from the Ukraine war.
Since WW2 Europe has never been more militarily powerful compared to the US and Russia than it is now. See the rapid development and scaling up of Bohdana 155mm howitzers to 40+ systems a month as one intimidating example.
…which of course is exactly why Trump is insisting Europe is weak lol
Note, I am not arguing the US should cut aid to Ukraine.
The targeted 2% that the EU is spending on defense is about EU441 billion, which is roughly 1/7 the size or the total Russian economy.
And if the shit hits the fan, the EU has massive headroom to increase that spending. Russia is already nearly maxed out in productive capacity and spending, even without considering its ability to keep bringing in more young men as drone fodder.
That said, EU governments’ intelligence agencies should be working full-time to remove quislings like Orban and Fico. We’re rapidly reaching the point where fifth columnists should be correctly identified as enemy combatants and not part of normal political discourse.
He’s sore that the EU is not buying arms from the USA like he hoped when he pushed for increased defence budgets across NATO, and instead Europe is trying to become self-reliant and support its own defence sector.
Classic FAFO.
The main reason for this development is that he showed everyone that the US cannot be trusted anymore.
If only he asked them nicely. Instead of literally everything he’s done this year.
Trump saying Europe is weak means he thinks they’re not racist and xenophobic enough.
That was clear from the context. The “strength” he wants to see is fascists thugs in charge, doing whatever Putin wants.
European democracies must tighten their restrictions on political parties and media outlets that are mouthpieces for hostile foreign powers. Breaking up media monpolies is also essential. And Germany should grow a pair and actually enforce their anti-Nazi laws.
Trump saying Europe is weak means he thinks they’re not racist and xenophobic enough.
That was clear from the context. The “strength” he wants to see is fascists thugs in charge, doing whatever Putin wants.
Yes, I just find it endlessly ironic that fascists are weak and awful at war because they are narrowly obsessed with the violence and the aesthetics of strength and don’t actually care about learning anything about how to be strong or integrating newly learned information into sustained training. People assume fascists will be good at war because it is what they are obsessed with it but this is like assuming that somebody who is a massive fan of a sports team is automatically good at that sport, just because someone dresses up in the clothes professionals wear and spouts knowledge about the profession doesn’t make them into a professional in that realm (I am looking at you specifically Pete Hegseth when I spit on the ground).
Fascism is weakness, both morally and physically. Fascism will eat a military from the inside out and waste vast amounts of resources and human lives on utterly useless military strategies if those strategies fit the ideals of fascism, consequences and reality be damned fascists don’t care.
I’d like to learn more about the progress on the rearmament of Europe. Do you have any long form resources I could read?
I only hear bits and pieces about the slow progress. I remember hearing the goal that the EU would produce X amounts of ammunition per year. Did that happen? I also recently heard about Ukraine opening a factory in Denmark. That seems good, but still not the broad rearmament I’ve been wanting to see.
Are there good overviews, with some stats and maybe some nice looking graphics? I realize a lot is secret, but still.
Edit: I decided not to be a lazy bum and did my own googling. I found this testimony about the “Danish Model” by a member of CSIS. I learnt that Ukraine has capacity to produce $35B of military equipment per year, but only $6B to spend. Other countries are purchasing another $10B worth of military equipment per year from Ukrainian producers. This is the Danish model.
Unfortunately at least on the english speaking internet the overall quality of resources for this has plummeted. To be frank, I think a lot of this has to do with the necessary dumbing down that has been applied to the media over conversations about war ever since 9/11 sent authoritarianism in the US into overdrive and reduced justifications for military strikes into cartoonish cynical jokes, this process has reached an absolute peak in utterly denying the Palestinian Genocide and pretending it is a war and as a result discussion in english speaking media about ALL wars and conflicts right now has been reduced to baby like parroting of whatever the military and politicians say with no journalistic critique of the narrative being presented from a perspective of known established realities about war. “tanks are obsolete!” “helicopters are obsolete!!” “artillery is obsolete!” … it is honestly exhausting.
That coupled with enshittification makes this a very difficult time to find good information even as in many ways paradoxically there has never been better access to information.
That rant aside, this article is a good place to start
In general I would pay attention to defense news websites and also note the general structure of joint european military exercises, they typically display the cohesive intention behind what can feel like meaningless unrelated details of arms procurement.
In a way I think the best way to put a picture together for yourself is to think of an abstracted idea of an armored brigade combat team with supporting drone, air and naval assets.
Armored Battalion (×2) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company (×2) Mechanized Infantry Company Mechanized Infantry Battalion (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company Mechanized Infantry Company (×2) Cavalry Squadron (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Troop Tank Troop (×2) Cavalry Troop (x2) Field artillery (fires) battalion Headquarters and headquarters battery Target acquisition platoon M109 155 mm self propelled howitzer battery (×2) Brigade engineer battalion Headquarters and headquarters company Combat engineer company Engineer support company Signal company Military intelligence company Brigade Support Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company Distribution Company Field Maintenance Company Medical Company Headquarters Platoon Treatment Platoon Medical Evacuation Platoon Forward Support Company (Cavalry) Forward Support Company (Combined Arms) (×3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
Consider all the primary equipment needed for a wholistic “unit” of an equivalent fighting force along with drones, aircraft and navy if applicable. Don’t forget bridgelayers and logistics! In general, considering the largest militaries in Europe such as the German military then ask the basic question what is the state of that countries equipment for those major roles? What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
That is relatively easy to google and get good information on, it is easy to establish for example that the Lynx and Leopards are extremely advanced fighting vehicles that have undergone many series of modernizations. You can compare this to the UK whose Ajax IFV vehicles are so broken that they vibrate too violently for the soldiers inside to not be injured by it. From this perspective of evaluating the state of equipment programs things are much more accessible.
Poland and Germany are two easy to point to European nations that have massively increased the power of their military. Poland alone with its orders of K2 and Abrams tanks, piles and piles of AH-64 helicopters and plenty of ground based missile and tube artillery now represents an extremely intimidating military power. I suppose it might not all be deployable tomorrow, but the longterm trajectory is definitely not a slow, limping subdued reaction. Both HIMARS type rocket artillery and traditional cannon artillery are crucial types of equipment to consider as well and Europe has thoroughly rearmed itself with both and will continue to do so into the indefinite future I imagine.
Lastly consider fighter aircraft programs as they are a strategic asset, here is easiest you can find lots of news about the increase of fighter aircraft production and modernization in European militaries. The fact that Canada would even consider purchasing European fighter aircraft instead of US equivalents even as it is neighbors of the US, yes even given the political situation right now, says a lot in itself. I also think the ability of France to donate Mirage 2000-5F aircraft to Ukraine reveals a depth and breadth to Europe’s sophisticated fighter-bomber aircraft stock demonstrating a serious increase in strength. Military airlift is the other big aviation asset (especially considering the future dominant role of Rapid Dragon type systems) that people always overlook and there again Europe is in a stronger position than ever with the Airbus A400M.
That was good analysis. You put some thought into that. One thing I disagree with though:
What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
Experience in the past few years makes it seem that the viability of tank-based warfare has dramatically declined.
Thank you!
Experience in the past few years makes it seem that the viability of tank-based warfare has dramatically declined.
I do disagree here though, I think this is a serious miscalculation that arose from as a narrative primarily from two things. The first was Ukraine having to innovate with what they were actually given (not enough traditional AT) and had access to in order to stop Russian assaults (quadcopters) and the second is Russian armor has fatal flaws that haven’t been meaningfully been addressed despite decades of feedback and indicators of those fatal flaws.
Drones have radically changed land warfare, but in the end I think they will make armored vehicles more crucial as part of combined arms land operations.
Take the Bradley for example, it simply outclasses almost all Russian armor, Russia can’t compete even against much older cold war western military equipment like this. On armor thickness alone most Russian armor fails to meet battlefield realities, even smaller artillery calibers shred their armor to pieces. This forces Russia to focus on drone tactics and also to HEAVILY propagandize the idea that traditional armored vehicles are obsolete lest they look weak and stuck in the past on a dead end of obsolete armor design like they are.
Drones have transformed the role of armor not made it obsolete, Russia is just trying to desperately bullshit the rest of the world this isn’t the case with a firehose of propaganda about it.
Look at the most recent iteration of the Abrams, it incorporates a capacity for hull mounted PERCH systems for launching loitering muition/surveillance drones from within the vehicle, integrating the use of drones tightly in with the use of main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, further the CROWS system on Abrams tanks highly emphasizes the capability to observe and target fast moving targets with advanced optics and apply kinetic force to them. The Bullfrog turret program meant for Bradleys and other armored vehicles fulfills a similar role. This is the way forward rather than considering tanks obsolete unless you build a massive unwieldy metal cage on top of them and pretend artillery and other direct fire weapons don’t exist as decisive counters.
Drone cages/cope cages are likely here to stay, I am talking about the Russian turtle “tanks” that are basically barely moving deathtraps for the crews.
As a modular system, PERCH is designed to be simply bolted onto an armored vehicle; in the case of the Abrams, it is fixed in place using existing attachment points. In the MARS event, PERCH was operated via a tablet interface, although GDLS says that future iterations will be fully integrated with existing vehicle computer systems.
By utilizing the Switchblade, PERCH provides the vehicle with not only extended-range surveillance but also over-the-horizon lethality. In certain circumstances, this can even be extended to beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS), in which the loitering munition is used in an autonomous, preprogrammed mode to fly a route and/or hit a fixed target.
https://www.twz.com/land/m1-abrams-tank-armed-with-switchblade-drones-tested-by-army
The Bullfrog is equipped with a .50 caliber (12.7mm) weapon and a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. It is designed to defeat Group 1 through Group 3 UAVs and features both autonomous and semi-autonomous engagement modes. At just 165 pounds without ammunition and accurate to less than 1 MOA, the system is optimized for mobile operations and fixed-point defense.
Company specifications state the Bullfrog can engage aerial targets at ranges of up to 1,500 meters. In addition to battlefield deployment, the system can be used to protect critical infrastructure such as power substations.
https://defence-blog.com/bradley-abrams-get-drone-defense-upgrade/
Thank you for that long write-up! I’m glad to see more progress. I’ll keep an eye on defense news
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc. And most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help (if they can fight as efficiently as Ukraine which is not a given). That’s why unity and further ramp up is so important. Most of the really impressive production is happening inside Ukraine. But it’s also generally not up to Russian rates. It will be some time before Europe is really prepared to go it alone and that’s only if they really start producing now, which I wouldn’t say is really happening yet.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc.
One of the reasons they’re producing so many tanks is the high attrition rate of tanks in the face of Ukrainian resistance.
Similarly, counting artillery shells is a crude measure of how effective their use has been. Blowing holes in the ground where the enemy isn’t is just burning money.
most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help
With the qualitative advantages of European materiel over those of Russia, especially fighter planes, how likely is a protracted war? And what would happen to Russia’s productive capacity in those first few months? It’s likely that those factories are very near the top of target lists, right after command and control centers and mobile air defense installations.
A war will last as long as Russia is willing to throw bodies and materiel at it. Same as we see in Ukraine. If they can keep going until their adversary is out of men and/or materiel, they will eventually win. It’s unlikely to happen if the western alliance stays together, but considerably more likely on a country by country basis if they don’t.
Just note that you can not calculate like that. At war the whole economy switches over, instead of only a tiny fraction.
The question then is when Europe will realize it’s at war and start producing like it.
The EU is not at war.
There’s already a war going on against the EU. The fact that its leaders aren’t admitting it yet is a big mistake.
I disagree. We are being attacked on a regular basis.
A state, let alone a union of lots of states, are not at war because you feel like it. wiki: war
It is generally characterized by widespread violence, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.
So what makes you think the EU is at war and why are all the implications that would have missing?
Note that “being attacked” is something different than being at war, as per above, but I am not going to start a new discussion before we have not finished this one.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc.
Without a qualitative measure, those numbers are nearly meaningless. It’s also worthwhile knowing how much of that materiel actually gets to the front lines. Command economies are notorious about claiming to hit production targets, yet nothing actually changing downstream. Nobody wants to tell the boss they missed their production quota, since doing so can lead to defenestration.
They are certainly of lower quality, but in the words of Stalin, “Quantity has a quality of its own”.
I don’t think Stalin actually said that. I can’t find a good source anyway.
Weak? We’re on the brink of recolonising the sh*t out of you. This version clearly has failed.
凸(｀⌒´メ)凸
Churchill was on the right track with Operation Unthinkable. And as much as a think Patton was a vainglorious blowhard, he was right about the Russians.
Should have done something in 45.
Polarisation is this pukestain’s favourite word.
“I’ll end the war on day one”.
He’s not even winning the war on his own incontinence and dementia.
. . . by selling out Ukraine!
This is a long fucking day.
He can barely walk, period
What does “walking away from Ukraine” even mean?
USA is not supporting Ukraine in any manner.
If a weapon bought by some other country is going to be donated to Ukraine, USA adds a 10% punishment fee to the price of the weapon. I don’t think this will end if USA “walks away from Ukraine”.The only thing USA walking away would mean would be it no longer trying to pressure Ukraine into capitulating to the Russia.
So… Maybe we should help Trump see us as weak? Walk away, dude, just walk away. Good riddance.The last thing he can take away is his satellites and other surveillance, and air defense missiles for which there are not a ready replacement in Europe. So this would be painful for at least another 1-2 years if he did it.
But Europe can also make things painful for Trump by selling Tbills or tariffing US tech services which is a way bigger industry for the US than any goods trade happening between Europe and USA. I’d say Europe has at least as much and maybe more leverage but is just trying to stay better behaved until they really need to show Trump the finger.
And USA is still doing sanctions on russion oil.
Europe is keeping quiet. Talking back doesn’t work. Flattering doesn’t work. As long as support is still flowing they let him rant and work on alternatives for USA products and services.
In a year to a year-and-a-half he’s going to be begging for Europe’s attention. That’ll be when the post-tariff trade deals rerouting around the US kick in.
With luck, by then he’ll be long dead.
O come, blessed arterial plaque!
Just in time for MAGA to blame Democrats in Congress
Thats some major projection going on.
More projection from PEDOnald. He is scared he’s being viewed as weak and decaying, so just spouting those probably just learned words in anger at something better than he is.
Spoiler: he is weak and decaying.
Oh nos! EPSTEIN FILES, anyone?
