munich conference are painful to watch

those in power at usa and eu simply refuse to learn or improve anything

still pathetically cling on to delusion of proprietary

Not sure what Rubio was getting at with some remarks

"We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves"

"For example, the United Nations still has tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world.  But we cannot ignore that today, on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role.  It could not solve the war in Gaza.  Instead, it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce.  It had not solved the war in Ukraine.  It took American leadership and partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still-elusive peace. "

This one is a bit funny, once again the US is conveniently apart from the UN.

"This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame.  We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it. "

Culture war BS, heh.

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

Not sure what Rubio was getting at with some remarks

"We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves"

"For example, the United Nations still has tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world.  But we cannot ignore that today, on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role.  It could not solve the war in Gaza.  Instead, it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce.  It had not solved the war in Ukraine.  It took American leadership and partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still-elusive peace. "

This one is a bit funny, once again the US is conveniently apart from the UN.

"This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame.  We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it. "

Culture war BS, heh.

Well the first part of what Rubio said is partly true, he is talking about the effectiveness of the UNSC and the EU relying on NATO for defense

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone on this forum because I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people lament the " failure or inconsistency of the rules based order " and its almost entirely because of the veto at the UNSC

But I support the veto despite the frustration of its use at times because the veto actually prevents conflict between the worlds superpowers and makes the UNSC seem less ineffective because without the veto " the UNSC must intervene in certain conflicts " because the UNSC has passed a resolution but who specifically must send troops or commit resources? UN military resolutions cant force any country to send its troops so this becomes difficult to manage

So sometimes resolutions to conflicts can only be found outside of the UNSC and thats fine as well. Thats what happened in Gaza and the DRC vs Rwanda conflict where the US did play a fundamental role

But this doesnt mean the UN and the UNSC is pointless or irrelevant. It still has a critical role in overall stability of the world and Rubio knows this. The US doesn't have the resources and influence to leave the UN and have the same impact in every conflict which is why Trump was insistent that the UN agrees to the Gaza peace plan. Iraq was an example of the failure of the US when it assumed it could do something without any UN support

And the second paragraph is just unconvincing subjective and selective ideological rhetoric aimed at the EU and I don't agree with it

But the EU should be more independent and less reliant on the US for its military defense

And this takes time and requires budget changes from the EU members so its a long-term objective but a prudent one because this is in the best interests of the EU and I include the UK in this

I can't take anything serious anymore that an american politician is saying. I just can't. For me none of this means anything, they just talk to be loud and that's it.

Edited yesterday at 07:07 AM1 day by Lexx

EU relying on NATO for defense

As defensive alliance NATO is something that its members should be able to rely for defense. Because otherwise it is useless alliance.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Well the first part of what Rubio said is partly true, he is talking about the effectiveness of the UNSC

Yes. But then what. He seems to be dancing around the idea of a UN with teeth, which no one is going to accept. Like the idea autocracy is great because democracy requires too much work.

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

As defensive alliance NATO is something that its members should be able to rely for defense. Because otherwise it is useless alliance.

True, good point

But the military contribution towards NATO from member states makes the difference

So in the highly unlikely scenario that the US leaves NATO how effective will NATO be?

So I should have said " the EU needs to ensure NATO is adequately supported so it is effective "

Because NATO is also about the defense of the EU, you don't need another military union

If there's one thing Trump has proven it's that Europe does need another military union/ alliance.

NATO minus the US would mostly lose the ability to wander around invading random countries- ie 'force projection'- which may be a big loss if you want to have the North AtlanticTO fighting China in the Pacific, but isn't much of a loss for a defensive alliance in the geographic North Atlantic.

Europe does love convincing themselves that everything is going to work out if they just stick their fingers in their ears and sing loud enough for long enough though.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-indo-pacific-blocs-eye-major-new-trade-pact/

Sort of a weird US-centric framing of it as "anti-Trump"

49 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-indo-pacific-blocs-eye-major-new-trade-pact/

Sort of a weird US-centric framing of it as "anti-Trump"

And these types of new trade deals are to be expected because it must be very frustrating for historical allies of the US like Canada and the EU to be constantly threatened with tariffs from Trump because of exaggerated economic imbalances like " its unfair to the USA that there exists this trade deficit with country x" or using tariffs because of geopolitical objectives like Greenland

So you do what the Chinese did when they learnt last time when Trump was president and you insulate yourself by having other export markets

You can also wait out Trumps presidency but thats still a few years off and having these types of deals established makes sense

It wont change the reality of the US still being the worlds strongest consumer driven economy and an incredibly advantageous market to get access to but you should have other options

Its not anti-Trump, its pro-Canada

20 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

If there's one thing Trump has proven it's that Europe does need another military union/ alliance.

NATO minus the US would mostly lose the ability to wander around invading random countries- ie 'force projection'- which may be a big loss if you want to have the North AtlanticTO fighting China in the Pacific, but isn't much of a loss for a defensive alliance in the geographic North Atlantic.

Europe does love convincing themselves that everything is going to work out if they just stick their fingers in their ears and sing loud enough for long enough though.

The negative is that it (seemingly) encourages more European powers to develop nuclear weapons. I could see Germany going nuclear if they are abandoned by the US, and possibly others: Poland would have a strong motivation given their history.

On 2/16/2026 at 8:00 PM, BruceVC said:

True, good point

But the military contribution towards NATO from member states makes the difference

So in the highly unlikely scenario that the US leaves NATO how effective will NATO be?

So I should have said " the EU needs to ensure NATO is adequately supported so it is effective "

Because NATO is also about the defense of the EU, you don't need another military union

What is adequately?

EU members used 450 billion dollars in for their militaries last year, which is about same as China and Russia together. 5% GDP target that USA demands would rise EU's defense spending to ~1200 billion dollars. Even 3.5% will rise it to 800 billion dollars

EU members already has spend on defense so much that only USA rivals them. Their weakness is that there is no central command for military forces in EU, which is they need alliances like NATO to be able to have organized defense. But when NATO becomes a liability where you cannot trust that it will organize and lead defense if there is need then there is need for another military union that will take that role.