Political Posts

[SharperDingaan]

Transactional is not that bad a thing; you can do it yourselves however you'd like, or you can collectively pay in 5% of your GNP for the US to primarily do it for you, via cash or compatible weaponry/access in lieu. If you think you can do it better/cheaper ... go ahead.

 

Same as in all trade, you contribute what you have an advantage at, and buy the rest; NATO as it was originally envisaged back in the day. Collectively buy enough of your own production, and you also have diversification via a viable single-source alternative. Not really possible without a transactional approach.

 

SD 

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Transactional is not that bad a thing; you can do it yourselves however you'd like, or you can collectively pay in 5% of your GNP for the US to primarily do it for you, via cash or compatible weaponry/access in lieu. If you think you can do it better/cheaper ... go ahead.

100%. The "old way" resembled a government or school board bidding out contracts every 5 years....they do it "just cuz they have to", no one cares about efficiency in anything but covering their asses...and quality of service is never explored until the day its needed. 

 

Better to actively manage, as is the case with most things. 

[Spekulatius]

15 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Transactional is not that bad a thing; you can do it yourselves however you'd like, or you can collectively pay in 5% of your GNP for the US to primarily do it for you, via cash or compatible weaponry/access in lieu. If you think you can do it better/cheaper ... go ahead.

 

Same as in all trade, you contribute what you have an advantage at, and buy the rest; NATO as it was originally envisaged back in the day. Collectively buy enough of your own production, and you also have diversification via a viable single-source alternative. Not really possible without a transactional approach.

 

SD 

It’s not about cheaper , with the article 5 being dead, the NATO is just a corpse, regardless of what you pay in. The solution is NATO without the USA. For that , Europe has to duplicate capabilities that it does not current have- satellite reconnaissance, nuclear capability and an assortment of other weapon systems currently procured from the USA. I would

not bet on IS weapons to be working when needed (remember Tusk the president of Poland talking about having procured ACAM’s from the US and they didn’t get the launch codes)…

 

I am not sure it’s going to happen, but I think it was makes the most sense from a European perspective.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Marco Van Basten]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

It’s not about cheaper , with the article 5 being dead, the NATO is just a corpse, regardless of what you pay in. The solution is NATO without the USA. For that , Europe has to duplicate capabilities that it does not current have- satellite reconnaissance, nuclear capability and an assortment of other weapon systems currently procured from the USA. I would

not bet on IS weapons to be working when needed (remember Tusk the president of Poland talking about having procured ACAM’s from the US and they didn’t get the launch codes)…

 

I am not sure it’s going to happen, but I think it was makes the most sense from a European perspective.

You are right, but let's remember how we get there in the first place.  Europeans wanted this break-up.  Spain spending 1% of GDP on defense, and the rest between 1 and 2% of GDP, except for Poland and Baltics.  So the European allies did not have anything to contribute to mutual defense besides empty rhetoric.  Obama appealed to them in vain for eight years and they told him yeah, sure.  Trump demanded the same in 2017, and what did they do?  Told him to fuck off, after all welfare and all the Syrian and North African "refugees" were going to defend them.  Now he said ok, you told us for thirty years to fuck off, so now you are on your own.  You wanted this?  You got it.  No more free-riding for Europeans.  Besides, what's the difference between Russia and EU?  There is no freedom of speech in either.  In Russia you get jailed for criticism of Putin, in Western Europe for criticism of immigration or homosexuality.  (I am obviously saying this in jest, but there is a grain of truth in every joke.)

[scorpioncapital]

Carney in a podcast with Prof G before winning said Canada would be 2nd best because of lower costs and profits of doing business with less wealthy nations but that it was necessary..I found the claim highly defeatist and a symptom of what ails Canada. first of all, why is it necessary? why is partnering with the USA which is the world leader in prosperity and innovation and economic freedom a bad thing? In order to be sovereign, we accept being 2nd rate? also what does it mean to be sovereign? USA didn't in theory desire to make Canada a 51st state although it sounded that way but more integration or even using the US dollar as a currency doesn't mean you are part of the USA..The EU is unity but still country Independence. I would definitely choose a better Economy and integration. Nobody is stealing Canada's lunch but Canada is trying to dump its lunch in the trash ! Canada needs more money because I doubt a 50% to 70% effective tax rate on middle class incomes is going to fly..to prevent becoming more 3rd world it has to rectify all the money it disbursed in the past frivolously. You can't be generous if you're not wealthy. if you try you knee cap all future development and prosperity because people want free money today. So how will it get all the money and technology if it doesn't want help from its wealthier neighbor who didn't squander capital on bad ideas ?

[cubsfan]

3 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

You are right, but let's remember how we get there in the first place.  Europeans wanted this break-up.  Spain spending 1% of GDP on defense, and the rest between 1 and 2% of GDP, except for Poland and Baltics.  So the European allies did not have anything to contribute to mutual defense besides empty rhetoric.  Obama appealed to them in vain for eight years and they told him yeah, sure.  Trump demanded the same in 2017, and what did they do?  Told him to fuck off, after all welfare and all the Syrian and North African "refugees" were going to defend them.  Now he said ok, you told us for thirty years to fuck off, so now you are on your own.  You wanted this?  You got it.  No more free-riding for Europeans.  Besides, what's the difference between Russia and EU?  There is no freedom of speech in either.  In Russia you get jailed for criticism of Putin, in Western Europe for criticism of immigration or homosexuality.  (I am obviously saying this in jest, but there is a grain of truth in every joke.)

 

Yeah, pretty much right on. Not until Trump made the Europeans keep their word, did NATO actually become stronger. They tried to wait Trump out, which worked for a while, now it won't.

 

So they get forced into supporting NATO lest it collapse, but they'll never forgive Trump. Oh, well, 

somebody needs to be the bad guy. If they ever kick this weak generation of European leaders out Europe will be much stronger.

[Parsad]

I'm not sure Carney was being defeatist, but pragmatic.  Canada has relied too heavily on U.S. business and support.  The U.S. will always be the biggest partner, but Canada has to diversify its trade to avoid what happened when Trump got into power.  You cannot win when dealing with a bully that will torch any agreement because he simply wants to. 

 

The U.S. system is better than most because it respects property rights, enforces agreements, framed around law that enshrines due process and their court system.  When you have someone that undermines that, you are now dealing with a defunct system compared to the past.  A system that is no longer behaving like a capitalist system based on rule of law, but one were decisions are perfunctory and made at a whim. 

 

If contracts and agreements aren't enforced and guaranteed, how do you protect yourself in such an environment?  It's why I've never bought Chinese stocks.  Will a time come when I have such distrust of holding U.S. equities?

 

Cheers!

[Luke]

 

[Spekulatius]

18 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

You are right, but let's remember how we get there in the first place.  Europeans wanted this break-up.  Spain spending 1% of GDP on defense, and the rest between 1 and 2% of GDP, except for Poland and Baltics.  So the European allies did not have anything to contribute to mutual defense besides empty rhetoric.  Obama appealed to them in vain for eight years and they told him yeah, sure.  Trump demanded the same in 2017, and what did they do?  Told him to fuck off, after all welfare and all the Syrian and North African "refugees" were going to defend them.  Now he said ok, you told us for thirty years to fuck off, so now you are on your own.  You wanted this?  You got it.  No more free-riding for Europeans.  Besides, what's the difference between Russia and EU?  There is no freedom of speech in either.  In Russia you get jailed for criticism of Putin, in Western Europe for criticism of immigration or homosexuality.  (I am obviously saying this in jest, but there is a grain of truth in every joke.)

If you take that as a measure, then there is no freedom of speech here either. Media networks get threatened with pulling the license if Trump does not like the content. There were even lawsuits when Trump decides to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America in an Orwellian move and some did not change over the naming immediately.

 

I also don’t recall any country that takes your cellphone and monitors your media account when you visit on tourist Visa. Not even China does this. Orwell would turn in his grave if he saw what is happening. Freedom of Speech is under siege here in the US but only if it’s not MAGA compliant, of course.

 

As far as NATO is concerned, the bigger deal than the spending is that  the USa starts to side with Russia.Thats scary as hell for Europeans . I guess all right wingers have a weak spot for the Putin, the Predator. You have to wonder why.

Edited December 28, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

13 hours ago, Parsad said:

I'm not sure Carney was being defeatist, but pragmatic.  Canada has relied too heavily on U.S. business and support.  The U.S. will always be the biggest partner, but Canada has to diversify its trade to avoid what happened when Trump got into power.  You cannot win when dealing with a bully that will torch any agreement because he simply wants to. 

 

The U.S. system is better than most because it respects property rights, enforces agreements, framed around law that enshrines due process and their court system.  When you have someone that undermines that, you are now dealing with a defunct system compared to the past.  A system that is no longer behaving like a capitalist system based on rule of law, but one were decisions are perfunctory and made at a whim. 

 

If contracts and agreements aren't enforced and guaranteed, how do you protect yourself in such an environment?  It's why I've never bought Chinese stocks.  Will a time come when I have such distrust of holding U.S. equities?

 

Cheers!

How do you partner with a country that arguable has made it policy to screw all other countries as hard as possible? How do you make a deal with Trump without coming out as a sucker? Canada is too healthy tied to the USA economically as is and needs to diversify away over time. This does not mean to cut economic ties with the USA but it does mean to look at the overall picture and try to find more trading partners and deepened ties with existing ones as much as possible.

 

The alternative is to become the 51st and 52nd states but I don’t think this is what Canadians want.

[SharperDingaan]

12 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

How do you partner with a country that arguable has made it policy to screw all other countries as hard as possible? How do you make a deal with Trump without coming out as a sucker? Canada is too healthy tied to the USA economically as is and needs to diversify away over time. This does not mean to cut economic ties with the USA but it does mean to look at the overall picture and try to find more trading partners and deepened ties with existing ones as much as possible.

 

The reality is that most trade should flow from north to south, and that while Canada will always be the very junior partner subject to US whims, it is also a sovereign between Alaska and mainland USA. A defensive dome over the US also means a dome over Canada, the drones/missiles already falling in Canada vs the US, and having to put up with raised elbows from a younger brother!

 

Happy to sell to the US, but at world price less transport cost, and only what we have left over, after selling to everyone else. Western, northern, and eastern tidewater trade flows; removal of inter-provincial trade barriers, and transit on Canadian vs US rail wherever possible. US companies funding CAD petrodollar infrastructure investment as a hedge against USD devaluation; to get more southbound goods ... invest in Canada 

 

It is also 2025, not last century. To make NA trade really flow, requires coordinated industrial policy, not the laissez-faire < 2000 leadership of the auto-pact and CUSMA; each were good solutions for the times, but the times move on. Orange Boy acting both as a change agent, and an example of what can go wrong in the present scheme of things. While industrial policy is a longstanding 'normal' practice in the many nationed Europe, NA is economically still very 'young' ... and catching up; as most nations aren't good with change, periodic rupture should not be unexpected.

 

SD

 

 

 

  

Edited December 29, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

If you take that as a measure, then there is no freedom of speech here either. Media networks get threatened with pulling the license if Trump does not like the content. There were even lawsuits when Trump decides to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America in an Orwellian move and some did not change over the naming immediately.

 

I also don’t recall any country that takes your cellphone and monitors your media account when you visit on tourist Visa. Not even China does this. Orwell would turn in his grave if he saw what is happening. Freedom of Speech is under siege here in the US but only if it’s not MAGA compliant, of course.

 

As far as NATO is concerned, the bigger deal than the spending is that  the USa starts to side with Russia.Thats scary as hell for Europeans . I guess all right wingers have a weak spot for the Putin, the Predator. You have to wonder why.

Broadcasting licensing is not the same as private individuals being jailed for their speech.

 

Europe has been subsidised by US defence spending for years and it was wrong.

 

That said, I agree with you, Putin is the ‘baddy’ and some right wing are sympathetic to Putin and Russia.  It’s funny, because despite all Trump’s efforts with Ukraine and courting Putin, Putin was trying to pit Europeans against America last week: “If we were to join our efforts with European countries, Russia and European countries, our joint GDP would be higher than the United States. Of course, this is all theoretical, but it is quite obvious, the fact is quite obvious, that unifying and complementing our abilities, we will thrive instead of fighting each other like you are doing."

 

It’s pretty obvious he hates the US and wants to undermine their alliances and influence.

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Sweet

[Luke]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

If you take that as a measure, then there is no freedom of speech here either. Media networks get threatened with pulling the license if Trump does not like the content. There were even lawsuits when Trump decides to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America in an Orwellian move and some did not change over the naming immediately.

 

I also don’t recall any country that takes your cellphone and monitors your media account when you visit on tourist Visa. Not even China does this. Orwell would turn in his grave if he saw what is happening. Freedom of Speech is under siege here in the US but only if it’s not MAGA compliant, of course.

 

As far as NATO is concerned, the bigger deal than the spending is that  the USa starts to side with Russia.Thats scary as hell for Europeans . I guess all right wingers have a weak spot for the Putin, the Predator. You have to wonder why.

Yeah - remember 2023 where the US was still praised as this counterweight of freedom and free markets contrary to China? Scary how fast things can change in a few years...

[John Hjorth]

6 hours ago, Luke said:

 

Pretty scary stuff, actually, here from Patrick Boyle, documented.

 

But it's also dirt.

[changegonnacome]

On 12/27/2025 at 12:03 PM, Spekulatius said:

European  security alliance (NATO 2.0)

 

That's the bull case for sure....the bear case is the European's, without the US security umbrella, will do what they've done for centuries.....turn on each other.

 

Europe remains despite all the decades of EU 'integration' a continent of many distinct countries, cultures and languages (with a bloody history & generational grievances).

 

NATO immediately post-world war two was indeed a defensive alliance against the mighty USSR.....however for the last three decades (since the USSR's demise) NATO has been primarily a 'pacifier' to ensure rivalries of old on the continent have no reason to ignite as each European power (the ones that matter) defacto outsourced their 'defense' to the USA.

 

Defense spending being a misnomer IMO - defense spending is fundamentally simply re-armament......Trump seems to think that having individual European countries engaging in re-armament is a good idea for the Europeans and good idea for the USA long term......that is not what the history book says.

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by changegonnacome

[John Hjorth]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

... Europe has been subsidised by US defence spending for years and it was wrong. ...

 

@Sweet,

 

'Subsidised'? - Please define 'subsidised' for me.

[Sweet]

20 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@Sweet,

 

'Subsidised'? - Please define 'subsidised' for me.

Europe relying on the military might of big brother for defence whilst we spend our tax money elsewhere.  European defence capability diminished after several decades of neglect because America has our backs.  And all the while many Europeans look down their nose at the uncultured yanks.  I can understand why they are pissed at of.

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Sweet

[John Hjorth]

19 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Europe relying on the military might of big brother for defence whilst we spend our tax money elsewhere.  European defence capability diminished after several decades of neglect because America has our backs.  And all the while many Europeans look down their nose at the uncultured yanks.  I can understand why they are pissed at up.

 

@Sweet,

 

You are to me personally here caught in POTUS and US spin and *BS*. [As far as I've understood, your are a UK citizen]. 

 

Q : What has total country military spending measured against country GDP [in percent] to do with this?

A : Nothing! [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

 

Q : Who invented this measuire for 'NATO solidarity'?

A : POTUS [Likely NATO]

 

Q : Does this measure represent the 'solidarity NATO contribution' to NATO for any NATO member country?

A : No!,  [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

Edited December 28, 2025 by John Hjorth

[cubsfan]

32 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@Sweet,

 

You are to me personally here caught in POTUS and US spin and *BS*. [As far as I've understood, your are a UK citizen]. 

 

Q : What has total country military spending measured against country GDP [in percent] to do with this?

A : Nothing! [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

 

Q : Who invented this measuire for 'NATO solidarity'?

A : POTUS [Likely NATO]

 

Q : Does this measure represent the 'solidarity NATO contribution' to NATO for any NATO member country?

A : No!,  [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

 

@Sweet is just expressing why few European countries have a standing and viable military. Everyone knows why but you @John Hjorth

 

TDS runs deep in Europe.

[Spekulatius]

17 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Europe relying on the military might of big brother for defence whilst we spend our tax money elsewhere.  European defence capability diminished after several decades of neglect because America has our backs.  And all the while many Europeans look down their nose at the uncultured yanks.  I can understand why they are pissed at of.

 

I think European defense spending has diminished because their was no perception of threat. US defense spending has diminshed too for the same reason , especially regarding Europe by the way. Look at how much US troops were draw, down from Europe. US presence in Europe in 1990 (year one past Cold War) was 250,000 soldiers, and it’s now ~35,000 in 2025.

So the reduction in defense spending in Europe has not been happening in isolation and has only recently reversed.

[Spooky]

Agree. Canada has been working to integrate our economy more tightly with the US for decades. Now they want to rip up everything and dominate us. There is a new version of the Monroe doctrine with the US controlling the Western Hemisphere.

 

We are now in an existential fight for survival. We need to diversify our trading partners.

 

I hope the US finds its sanity again.

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I think European defense spending has diminished because their was no perception of threat. US defense spending has diminshed too for the same reason , especially regarding Europe by the way. Look at how much US troops were draw, down from Europe. US presence in Europe in 1990 (year one past Cold War) was 250,000 soldiers, and it’s now ~35,000 in 2025.

So the reduction in defense spending in Europe has not been happening in isolation and has only recently reversed.

 

It's called being "asleep at the wheel" and naive thinking. Russia has always been there and Putin has always been dangerous. That Europe got caught with their pants down is a tribute to inept leadership.

 

"If you want peace, prepare for war" - this saying is thousands of years old - and Europe learned nothing from it. 

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@Sweet,

 

You are to me personally here caught in POTUS and US spin and *BS*. [As far as I've understood, your are a UK citizen]. 

 

Q : What has total country military spending measured against country GDP [in percent] to do with this?

A : Nothing! [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

 

Q : Who invented this measuire for 'NATO solidarity'?

A : POTUS [Likely NATO]

 

Q : Does this measure represent the 'solidarity NATO contribution' to NATO for any NATO member country?

A : No!,  [-Do I need to elaborate here?]

The only way you can possibly think I’m somehow taken by the current admins ‘BS’ is if you are totally unfamiliar with my views.  I have expressed these views in this thread several years ago.  I’ve held them for much longer, coming on 20 years now, and I formed them from just looking at the data.

 

Europe has NOT been doing its fair share.  Collectively our military spending is / was way below the 2% mandatory threshold NATO spending for years - Denmark included.  The UK has nominally been spending 2% but when you back out non-military spending, and things like overseas aid, we British were also spending less than 2%.
 

On both a relative basis, and an absolute basis, Europe is way below the contribution of America when it comes to military contribution.  
 

And it DOES matter.  How can you even think it doesn’t with all that is going on in Ukraine.

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

12 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I think European defense spending has diminished because their was no perception of threat. US defense spending has diminshed too for the same reason , especially regarding Europe by the way. Look at how much US troops were draw, down from Europe. US presence in Europe in 1990 (year one past Cold War) was 250,000 soldiers, and it’s now ~35,000 in 2025.

So the reduction in defense spending in Europe has not been happening in isolation and has only recently reversed.

I get it, there are reasons, but we need to act with some humility too.  Our weakness was Putin’s opportunity.  We knew he was eyeing up Ukraine… what did we do about it?  We should never have been below 2%.

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by Sweet

[Marco Van Basten]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

Europe relying on the military might of big brother for defence whilst we spend our tax money elsewhere.  European defence capability diminished after several decades of neglect because America has our backs.  And all the while many Europeans look down their nose at the uncultured yanks.  I can understand why they are pissed at of.

 

It's not just defense.  US has been subsidizing the entire world when it comes to pharmaceuticals.  Why are Americans paying for Europeans and others medications by paying 2-5x the price elsewhere in the world?