President Donald Trump plans to pull about 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe, according to a leading Italian news agency.
A European diplomatic source told ANSA that Trump, who entered office on Monday for a second term, wants to reduce the American contingent in Europe by about 20 percent and plans to ask for a “financial contribution” for the maintenance of the remaining troops.
As a European, I say fine and sure.
But then we also withdraw from the Plaza accords.
Ever since China has winded down their US debt holdings, we have picked up the tab and the EU countries are now the largest foreign holder of treasuries.
Time to start selling.
And also, we only buy from European defense firms, no more spending on American defense.
But then we also withdraw from the Plaza accords.
The Plaza Accord ended in 1987. It was replaced with the Louvre Accord.
You are right. But I still see most people refer to the Plaza accords. I guess those are just more well known.
what people don’t understand is that europe must say goodbye to america, things are turning.
we (europe) should start considering being more independent (from the USA) and maybe, just maybe, actually talking to our eastern neighbours.
our eastern neighbours
… you mean Ukraine, no?
No he means Putin and Lukashenko, the real vicitms of the war in Ukraine. Everyone knows that Zelensky is no angel.
Adding /s might have saved your comment from the downvotes.
Haha yeah I realized it. 🤷
removed by mod
The Vietnam war was 50 years ago. I think there was quite a bit of criticism of the Iraqi invasion which while already a bit dated is a more recent comparison, no?
removed by mod
yes i was referring to the vietnam one because otherwise people say “muh duh it’s because 9/11 and they had to defend themselves”.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Anyone who says that is trying to revise history. Bush lied about Saddam having a WMD program to send us to Iraq. It’s the perfect example.
Well Vietnam is harder for most people to compare because most of us weren’t alive back then. So I don’t have a point of reference for how the media treated that conflict.
There’s always some kind of flimsy justification for war but we all know that Iraq and 9/11 were in no way related outside of the propaganda. Did people really take those things seriously in your community?
I’m in the US but even here many people rejected this reasoning, although you are right that the media and our political leadership were complicit. This was one thing that led to Obama’s election because he was one of only a few people in congress who opposed the war.
removed by mod
True but it’s not direct military action so I was trying to find a more direct comparison.
The US didn’t start the Vietnam War, maybe that’s why. They certainly exacerbated it and prevented it from being resolved, but it was just a civil war (kind of, Vietnam had just been divided into two countries, so I don’t know if it technically counts as a civil war still) at the beginning.
Nice suggestion. Let’s abandon our strongest ally who are in an identity chrisis for literal terrorists. Thanks, Lemmy.
Your “strongest ally” just removed 20% of its troops and wants to extort you for the other 80% in its obligations to said alliance
Wow!
Now do russia!
removed by mod
If there are no buyers for treasuries it’ll tank the dollar value and go a long way to remove it’s status as a reserve currency. Trump insist on rocking the boat that has been working for the US.
Fair enough. The less US military presence in Europe the better. We shouldn’t be reliant on the US for our security needs. European and NATO nations need to make sure they’re pulling their weight.
European and NATO nations need to make sure they’re pulling their weight.
Which is something that every President starting with Bill Clinton has been saying but the EU has had its fingers stuck in its ears while going “La la la I can’t year you!”. They learned nothing from the Yugoslav Wars, didn’t wake up for Crimea and it took extreme clanging of the alarm bells to get them to respond to Russo-Ukrainian War.
The EU has more people than the United States with an economy well capable of providing for common defense. It’s time for them to quit faffing about and get to it. The US was never supposed to be the eternal linchpin of NATO.
Obligatory: Donald Trump is a cancer.
There is a reason Russia does not want Ukraine to join the EU. Even the pretty bad state of the EU militaries ends up with a fighting force which is larger then Russias and has some pretty good tech. The issue is mostly organizing it all.
That’s easier said than done. We have too few people in the military and our equipment is old and sparse.
Well gettchyo ass in gear and join the party for your own good
Sounds like military spending is gonna have to go up then!
Good and please clear out your airbases over here too. And take your shit cars with you.
MMW: He’ll soon need every single fighter at home.
Can’t wait to see our country join the bad guys in WW3. Exciting stuff
I see finally my stick stocks are gonna pay!
Maybe I should diversify into rocks as well.
removed by mod
Which country?
Well, it’s an article about trump pulling troops out of Europe, so pretty safe to conclude im from the U.S.
Well, Its an article about trump pulling troops out of Europe, so pretty safe to assume by “our country” you mean some country in Europe.
deleted by creator
Y’ know, OUR country.
removed by mod
As an American, I could get on board for lower military spending, fewer people deployed, and Europe building up their own defense to make up the difference.
But I don’t trust for one second that Trump is doing this for anything good. Maybe Putin thinks Europe will pay less attention to him if they have to make up for lost American defenses.
Well, right now Putin is the only one Europe needs to be defended from, so they will still devote full attention. More, probably, since Europe will be forced to hasten the military policy renewal
It’s time for Europe to defend itself.
It has been high time to get rid of all and any US reliance when that orange fascist Muppet got elected the the first time.
I say pull them all, that would cripple their power projection towards Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and move forward with the creation of a EU Army.
Maybe. I think this supports Putin’s goals more than anything.
Something to keep an eye on is the AEGIS Ashore platforms in Poland and Romania. These are ICBM tracking and interception facilities, part of the US MDA’s Missile Defense System, and their specific purpose in being where they are is to defend Europe from Russian missiles. You can bet Putin would love to see them gone. If you see any news about reduced US military or MDA presence in those countries, you should be worried.
Yes, but only if the EU doesn’t immediately replace the vacuum with their own forces.
(Do any of the EU nations have nukes that aren’t owned by the US? Sadly such a deterrent is probably a requirement.)
(Do any of the EU nations have nukes that aren’t owned by the US? Sadly such a deterrent is probably a requirement.<
European Nations have sufficient Nukes as a deterrent. Well I reckon one nuke plus their warheads would incapacitate most cities. There are like 500-600 officially between UK and France.
We’ve seen war between nuclear nations. It’s not necessarily a deterrent from war. Russia is not using nukes against Ukraine either. It’s merely a deterrent from escalation to that degree.
We’ve seen war between nuclear nation
Ofcourse, having nukes is not a guarantee, but highly increases deterrence. Also, most wars we’ve seen are cold wars and or proxy wars though.
Ukraine had a huge nuclear arsenal (third in the world), which it then ceded to Russia in the 1994 Budapest memorandum Kyiv post.
I’ve added some information to my previous comment. Europe might be able to replace the conventional forces, but my concern would be the ICBM defense capabilities. The US MDA has a lot of infrastructure in Europe, and that system has been fantastically expensive to develop and required decades of research and engineering build, and I doubt it can be replaced in less than 20 years.
Good to know. That’s worrying indeed.
Germany is buying Arrow3, which is anti ICBM.
So having an interceptor is good, definitely the sites in Poland and Romania don’t really provide enough coverage. But, the interceptor is only one part of the defense. Before you can use it, you need an early-warning sensor which can spot the flare of a missile launch on the ground (or at sea) - most effectively done with a network of observation satellites. Then that sensor needs to hand off its data to a tracking radar system - preferably one that can track the missile from its boost phase through the atmosphere all the way up into its sub-orbital path. You will probably need several different radar systems at different locations with different angles and ranges to do this effectively (all actively sharing data with each other).
Modern ICBMs are nasty things with multiple warheads and also multiple decoy warheads, and they’re constantly dropping off empty fuel tanks and cowlings and other bits of hardware to shed weight during flight, so you need a highly sensitive radar to discriminate among the various debris and identify the real warhead(s). Once you’ve got that, you can track it for a bit to determine its trajectory and then you can feed that data to an interceptor system to hit it.
Also, explosions aren’t worth much in space so your typical interceptor uses a “kinetic warhead” which is basically just a solid chunk of metal (it’s a guided, rocket-powered bullet). You have to hit the target directly. If you miss by half a meter, you missed.
All of this identification, tracking, discrimination, targetting and intercepting needs to happen within the very few minutes of the ICBM’s flight path, preferably before the warheads separate and spread out. The point being, it’s a very difficult thing to actually accomplish and requires a lot of precision, and many different technologies working together in real-time, which is why I say that the MDA’s current system couldn’t be replaced in less than 20 years.
Good riddance, we tried to get them out of Germany for decades. American soldiers off base are the worst. Drunk driving their oversized trucks, starting fights in village pubs, and generally being aggressive and obnoxious. And whenever something actually happens, they are picked up by on-base military police, get a slap on the wrist, and keep at it. Due to some bs agreement they are untouchable by German police, and only really end up in court if someone died.
This is why we don’t allow foreign bases in France. Also, alliances are frail and cannot be depended on
Due to some bs agreement they are untouchable by German police, and only really end up in court of someone died.
Anna Sacoolas killed a kid with their car leaving a US airbase in the UK - she fucked off back to the US claiming diplomatic immunity so she couldn’t face charges. So they don’t even always end up in court.
Yep, it’s the only instance where they might, but even then it’s no guarantee. Closing the bases would be awesome for anyone but landlords in the areas who are charging extortionate rates to base personal rather than offering affordable housing to locals.
rather than offering affordable housing to locals
Let’s be honest, this wouldnt happen. Ideally the base would close and basically have an entirely new village built on it, flooding the local market with available properties that helps reduce the cost of housing - an abundance of supply over demand.
That said, the locals might have mixed feelings as US airmen will likely contribute to the local economy in some way.
That’s exactly what will happen, since we have laws in Germany against leaving homes unoccupied (with severe fines), so if the landlord can’t find a tenant willing to pay the extortionate rate, they have to lower the rate closer to market or risk paying triple of what they might be missing out on otherwise.
and only really end up in court of someone died.
That this is a known thing that happens is really tragic.
wants to reduce the American contingent in Europe by about 20 percent and plans to ask for a “financial contribution” for the maintenance of the remaining troops.
Eat a dick, USA. Some partner. Maybe they’ll leave late like they showed up late for WWII after waffling about which side to join.
After the door hits them in the arse on their way out, be sure to repatriate all the land for those US bases. Make them pay 300% more for the land, after this term if they want to come back.
And use whatever money is saved to bolster one’s own national military. We can’t rely on the US any more for defence.
I wonder. Maybe Putin and Trump had a backroom deal that if US pulls out of Europe, then Putin will go on the negotiating table to end the war in Ukraine, and Trump is using the argument of “free riding Europeans” as convenient pretext. Trump is showing to Putin that the West is de-escalating by withdrawing American troops. After all, the Russian president is complaining of NATO encroachment. American troop withdrawal is indeed evidence for de-escalation.
Then at the same time, Trump wants to pivot against China. The US troops in Europe could be redeployed to Asia.
This is simply my speculation and there could be more to this than we would know publicly.
also a good reason to make such a fuss about greenland:
well if they won’t let us protect them, perhaps we should just leave NATO…
smoke mirrors and bullshit, it’s all they have
Trump is not as dumb as people make him out to be (he would not remain a billionaire if he’s that dumb), I reckon he’s got some sort of plan (or rather a concept of a plan). His wildcard, unpredictable foreign policy harkens back to Gaullism, when Charles De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO, because he is simply annoyed by the Anglos, and France is being France who loves being maverick pursuing its own independent interest. In the end, France pulling out of NATO was a nothingburger, because France has still been a nominal military ally of the West throughout and France eventually returned to NATO. That being said, Trump could be doing something similar and maybe he doesn’t even realise it. Trump’s current wildcard foreign policy is still driven by nationalist self-interests, which is follows oddly similar pattern to De Gaulle’s.
maybe he doesn’t even realise it.
sure buddy. 4d chess. from a man who suggested bright lights and bleach for covid.
doubt.
I don’t want to give too much credit to Trump, but there is realpolitik reason for him wanting to take Greenland and retaking the Panama Canal. For him, it is securing perceived gap in American national security, but he’s doing it in old school imperialist way as if there’s no international law (think of Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine because he thinks the latter is the soft underbelly from which to attack Russia, even though before the invasion everyone thought it would be stupid of Putin to invade a country that historically hated Kremlin).
Anyhow, as Sun Tzu said: never underestimate the opponent. There’s a reason Trump is a billionaire and the leader of the most powerful country in the world, while both of us are not any of those. People can be dumb, but not that dumb. People have also thought the same of Hitler, and he caused massive chaos before going down stupidly.
People have also thought the same of Hitler, and he caused massive chaos before going down stupidly.
Why the Hitler comparison? The idea that people thought Hitler was stupid in particular seems like something that would need backup.
Modern day Germans themselves say Hitler’s style is very comical. The Mein Kampf is basically incoherent ramblings. So it’s very likely that 1930-40s Germans also thought the same of Hitler. Nonetheless, he still managed to be influential and capture the imagination and attention of the world (I will get to that later).
It’s a misleading to think of intelligence as being broadly both knowledgeable and rational. Many psychologists are now rethinking what intelligence means. For many, intelligence means excelling more at specific cognitive ability. It’s well known that autistic folks are extremely skillful at certain things, even if they lack skills or knowledge in others. That being said, an AskHistorians post discussed about that many people did think Hitler was stupid. But if he is that dumb, he would not be able to rile up the emotion of masses and gain power now, would he not? Would a conventionally stupid person be able to pull that and attain power? Politicians and authoritarians are able to exploit gaps to take power for themselves. That still takes certain skills and cognitive ability that most of us don’t have. Ancient Greek philosophers have already observed how demagogues manages to convince the average people to vote certain way. Trump have done the same.
Cope all we want and call someone dumb all we want, but we’re not the ones in charge. We have said the same to other dictators like Gaddafi, Amin, Mussolini and Hitler. Even if they got themselves killed at the end and lacking foresight to realise never get too drunk in power, but they’re the ones who got grabbed the reins of power and lasted for as long as they could. That again take certain skills (even if they are lacking in other areas).
Maybe the we’re the ones who are dumb for not seeing it. The ones in the White House, in the fiftieth floor of GM or Facebook headquarters, or presidential palace; those with power are thinking those in prisons, receptionists working for bare minimum wage, kids working to mine lithium for Tesla’s electric battery for its vehicle, and a mother of two working two jobs to make ends meet are still the dumb ones electing and worshipping them rich. And those who think of themselves as “smart” are probably the ones who are actually dumb for underestimating a supposed dumb person who are in power.
Modern day Germans themselves say Hitler’s style is very comical.
As a modern-day German, I can confidently say that the thought of Hitler being comical per se has never crossed my mind. You can, however, take elements from his style and exaggerate them to make them become comedic, but that’s not Hitler, that’s Chaplin.
As a modern-day comparison and for someone who took a lot of cues from Hitler’s rhetoric and style: I wouldn’t say Trump that is comedic either, even though a lot of things about him are completely ridiculous.
The Mein Kampf is basically incoherent ramblings.
I haven’t read the book but yeah, it’s not supposed to be good or particularly entertaining. Repetitiveness, contradictiveness, and incoherence are not the hallmarks of comedy though.
but there is realpolitik reason for him wanting to take Greenland and retaking the Panama Canal.
and it makes sense if you’re a twelve year old, or, if you want to destroy NATO and our country’s other alliances.
He’s wrecking the fucking place, you dolt.
Cancelling NIH funding, leaving the WHO, jerking around our allies with bullshit… open your damned eyes.
Look, learn the basics of realpolitik, then come back. I’m not defending Trump, I’m explaining why he does what he does. A lot of people don’t understand what dry analysis is especially in realpolitik. I linked an article from an esteemed site explaining Trump’s motivation so that’s a start.
Is what Trump doing stupid? Sure. But for him it’s not with respect to his nativist, nationalistic agenda. He’s going back to old school imperialism and unilateralism of a more powerful imperialistic nation state. People said the same of Hitler as being stupid, but no one can’t doubt he had been influential. In spite of losing the attempted coup, Hitler had been able to use the political system to gain power after all, and enact his own vision of ultra nationalism and shape the world to his liking. Still sounds dumb, does it? It’s the same with Trump. And again, Trump is the one in charge, not you nor I, so he’s not dumb in his own right.
Keep underestimating the opponent, and you’re the one who will actually lose. A lot of people underestimated Hitler and his partner Mussolini and look what happened. You can imagine what Trump must be saying to us now that he’s back again in power.
Dude Realpolitik is not about ignoring effects getting rid of all your allies has, making yourself a pariah. That’s not dry analysis it is, as you correctly point out, stupidity.
If you had invoked geopolitical “realism” (as they call it) you would have a point: Because that stuff is inherently stupid. But it’s also not Realpolitik, which does not actually eschew ethics, it just has its own particular branch (Verantwortungsethik), prioritising ethical means over ethical ends.
I don’t think supposedly remaining a billionaire necessarily correlates with intelligence.
With enough money or influence, you get money. No need to be clever or sound.
There are plenty of rich people who lost their wealth-- mostly due to stupidity because they became decadent and resting on their laurels, believing their luck will last forever, like Charlie Sheen. Trump could have done the same and he has had plenty of lawsuits. And yet he’s still here. Edit: going on tangent, that being said, I would argue it’s far easier to lose money than to keep them.
As someone mentioned, Trump’s antics are all smoke and mirrors for distraction. But didn’t realise that someone totally dumb would not be doing that all. The greatest trick that the devil pulled is make everyone believe he is stupid and harmless.
And Trump lost a lot of money at times, if you think back 2 or so years, it was unclear whether the descriptor “billionaire” was still accurate
A multi-millionaire can lose their money, a billionaire gets more than they can spend just by having it
The US doesn’t have troops in Europe to benefit Europe though. They have troops in Europe to benefit the US.
Europe should be totally fine with them leaving. Get off their territory, give up all that power projection and hamstring yourself.
What a weird thing to threaten.
Trump is as dumb as a bucket of shit. That’s why he’s threatening to shoot himself in the foot.
He’d cut off his own hand if you could convince him that it voted for Biden.
That will depend on whether Trump knows Putin has something planned for Europe now that his lapdog is in the White House
What could Putin have that could threaten Europe when he has been unable to make inroads in Ukraine for years?
If NATO and the US are no longer as much if a factor? He can project westward with less fear.
It’s depressing, but the US is the largest supporter of the Ukraine war effort. Europe has been able to rely on a US-backed NATO for a long time, and boy oh boy is trump making it clear what a bad idea that was. If the US stops supporting Ukraine, even just materially (i.e. we keep supplying intelligence and similar), the war will turn depressingly quickly. Hopefully they’ve been able to inflict enough damage on the russian economy that they’ll agree to a cease fire, but no european nations are equipped to fight the war of attrition Ukraine has turned into. Even with the US + Europe together, we’re barely able keep up with the ammunition demanded by the war.
Well i argue that it’s more complicated than that … Europe really did profit tremendously from the relationship with the USA after WW2, but now … not so much anymore, i guess. If one looks at recent developments.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out you fucking loser
I would appreciate if we could maybe not spit in the face of our allies at every available opportunity.
Nazis do that, and they’ve hijacked America for the time being.
😂 we elected the wrong party for that.
Don’t threaten us with a good time
