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 Monday at 07:07 AM3 days 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.

Overall spending is a bit of a blunt metric anyway, for much the same reason as gdp nominal- it doesn't actually measure what the money buys, just how much is spent. Russia produces ~7 tanks for the cost of a single Leo2, and practically they're both likely to be destroyed by a thousand dollar drone made in China. The problem rump NATO has is that so much is outsourced to the US, and reliance on fancy overpriced gear that sounds great in lieu of stuff that just works.

Not being able to spin up shell production properly, in the EU*, after 4 years and allegedly still being outproduced by North Korea alone kind of epitomises it; it's really really basic stuff that has been around for 150 years because it works, it should be cheap and easy, and there isn't really anything that can go wrong with it.

*you do occasionally hear about how production has increased, but that increase largely comes from buying off non EU sources.

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

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.

They do at least have France with an independent nuclear deterrent, and while no longer EU Britain could make theirs non dependent on the US with a bit of time.

It would certainly be... interesting to see how the Rules Based Order deals with (practically, justifies; not like they'd actually sanction Poland or Germany) one of its own members breaking the NPT though.

46 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Overall spending is a bit of a blunt metric anyway, for much the same reason as gdp nominal- it doesn't actually measure what the money buys, just how much is spent. Russia produces ~7 tanks for the cost of a single Leo2, and practically they're both likely to be destroyed by a thousand dollar drone made in China. The problem rump NATO has is that so much is outsourced to the US, and reliance on fancy overpriced gear that sounds great in lieu of stuff that just works.

Not being able to spin up shell production properly, in the EU*, after 4 years and allegedly still being outproduced by North Korea alone kind of epitomises it; it's really really basic stuff that has been around for 150 years because it works, it should be cheap and easy, and there isn't really anything that can go wrong with it.

*you do occasionally hear about how production has increased, but that increase largely comes from buying off non EU sources.

They do at least have France with an independent nuclear deterrent, and while no longer EU Britain could make theirs non dependent on the US with a bit of time.

It would certainly be... interesting to see how the Rules Based Order deals with (practically, justifies; not like they'd actually sanction Poland or Germany) one of its own members breaking the NPT though.

france always like to pretend it is still be one of the great power

colony on 3 continent

one of the big 5 at the un

always refuse to fully submit to nato command

in reality it is all theatre and delusion

and it didn't lead them to breaking with usa yet

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Overall spending is a bit of a blunt metric anyway

Yes, but it is only thing that is talked when speaking of how countries contribute to Nato. Finland has army of 800k with budget of 8 billion dollars, but that does not count in the talks as we need to over double our spending or we don't contribute enough.

Yep, it doesn't really take anything into account except the money spent.

All it does is encourage wasteful spending, system gaming and accountancy tricks- like pretty much every other Key Performance Indicator.

12 hours ago, Elerond said:

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.

Yes adequately means does the EU have a military union that could be deployed to deter any Russian invasion or participate in any EU military campaign

That obviously exists with NATO but if the US left NATO, which is not going to happen, how effective would NATO be?

This is about making the right decision for whats best for the EU\UK

What do you think the EU\UK should do? Stay in NATO and commit to 5% or create its own defense union which might be more expensive and complicated?

Unfortunately you cant ignore the threat a country like Russia poses especially towards former Soviet states that are part of the EU

Im breaking my normal 20 minute long video rule and posting this 30 minute video because its so interesting

Its all about Canada's strategic tariffs on the US because of Trumps tariffs and the thinking behind them by Carney, you can see he has a deep understanding of financial markets and what tariffs should be used by Canada

@Malcador and @rjshae we were just talking about this

Only minor complaint is he repeats certain words and points like scalpel

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by BruceVC

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Yes adequately means does the EU have a military union that could be deployed to deter any Russian invasion or participate in any EU military campaign

That obviously exists with NATO but if the US left NATO, which is not going to happen, how effective would NATO be?

This is about making the right decision for whats best for the EU\UK

What do you think the EU\UK should do? Stay in NATO and commit to 5% or create its own defense union which might be more expensive and complicated?

Unfortunately you cant ignore the threat a country like Russia poses especially towards former Soviet states that are part of the EU

Nato is not only military organization for EU's and Europe's defense, but it is largest and it has best ability to work all over Europe. There are EU's RDC force, Eurocorps, Joint Expeditionary Force, European Rapid Operational Force and there are national rapid deployment forces and then there are of course national armies, but single command structure during crisis is quite important which is why NATO is the main defensive alliance currently.

I don't think there is possibility that any other solution could cost more than 5% commitment, as we are speaking over 1000 billion dollars per year cost increase compared to current state.

Question is what kind threat Russian poses? If USA leaves NATO, it would still be world largest military, although in military spending it would be second. Biggest issue in USA leaving NATO would be that most of the NATO's command lines currently go trough USA and restructuring and building those back would mean about same as creating new alliance although without needing approvals from the member state governments.

Main issue of USA leaving NATO would be that most NATO members heavily lean on US made weapon systems which they would need to replace in case USA isn't ally anymore. And EU would need to build its own nuclear umbrella, as nuclear weapons that France has aren't enough.

17 hours ago, Elerond said:

Nato is not only military organization for EU's and Europe's defense, but it is largest and it has best ability to work all over Europe. There are EU's RDC force, Eurocorps, Joint Expeditionary Force, European Rapid Operational Force and there are national rapid deployment forces and then there are of course national armies, but single command structure during crisis is quite important which is why NATO is the main defensive alliance currently.

I don't think there is possibility that any other solution could cost more than 5% commitment, as we are speaking over 1000 billion dollars per year cost increase compared to current state.

Question is what kind threat Russian poses? If USA leaves NATO, it would still be world largest military, although in military spending it would be second. Biggest issue in USA leaving NATO would be that most of the NATO's command lines currently go trough USA and restructuring and building those back would mean about same as creating new alliance although without needing approvals from the member state governments.

Main issue of USA leaving NATO would be that most NATO members heavily lean on US made weapon systems which they would need to replace in case USA isn't ally anymore. And EU would need to build its own nuclear umbrella, as nuclear weapons that France has aren't enough.

Sure but what do you think the EU\UK should do going forward around its defense?

Stay in NATO or create something new specific to its common defense or if the US leaves NATO keep NATO going without the US?

I appreciate your analysis of the current reality but Im looking for what you think is best for the EU\UK in the future

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Sure but what do you think the EU\UK should do going forward around its defense?

Stay in NATO or create something new specific to its common defense or if the US leaves NATO keep NATO going without the US?

I appreciate your analysis of the current reality but Im looking for what you think is best for the EU\UK in the future

EU needs stable alliance to ensure that it has efficient ability to respond anywhere in EU. But it is then question of should EU take additional steps to become federation and form its own military or should member states form EU wide defense alliance that works separately from EU. This isn't new question but something that has been talked even before EU was founded. NATO has kept this question as hypothetical for now, but now it looks that EU needs to make its mind on this issue. Although currently separate alliance is option that can be done because EU currently isn't able to change its constitution.

Currently NATO can't function without USA, as majority of its command and intelligence structure is in hands of US. So if USA leaves NATO there is anyway need to reform the alliance and how it is structured in such extend that it will be almost new alliance even if it is still called NATO.