The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
In my opinion, the morally correct answer is to have a mild relation with Russia, consisting of trade and not much more. Europe would get access to a huge pool of resources to boost its industry, and stopping to antagonize our neighboring countries would help to drive down military tensions in the continent.
NATO was conceived as an anti-Soviet military pact, and any excuse for its usefulness expired after 1991. Now it’s just a military playground for US interests, keeping European money flowing to the Wunderwaffen of the USA Military Industrial Complex, and maintaining Yankee military bases in the continent.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation, they weren’t just minding their own fucking business
History began in 2022?
how do you suppose a mild relation with russia could be achieved in this scenario?
The way it was from the late 90s to the early 2010s: by allowing them to have their Russian sphere of influence (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan…) the same way US ans Germany enjoy their own.
And if Ukraine doesn’t want to be a part of that, then fuck them I guess?
I wish you had the same level of concern for Mexicans, Venezuelans, Argentinians, Guatemalans, Cubans, Hondurans and Puertorricans. As a western citizen you should be primarily concerned with the consequences on the sphere of influence of your country.