Post New

This admin officially takes a dump on a proud post WWII American history. From HCR:

Walking away from the U.S.-led international systems that reinforce the principles of national self-determination and have kept the world relatively safe since World War II, the Trump administration is embracing the old idea of spheres of influence in which less powerful countries are controlled by great powers, a system in place before World War II and favored now by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, among others.

National security specialist Anne Applebaum wrote: “The new National Security Strategy is a propaganda document, designed to be widely read. It is also a performative suicide. Hard to think of another great power ever abdicating its influence so quickly and so publicly.”

European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Ulrike Franke commented: “The transatlantic relationship as we know it is over. Yes, we kinda knew this. But this is now official US White House policy. Not a speech, not a statement. The West as it used to be no longer exists.”

Today, Gram Slattery and Humeyra Pamuk of Reuters reported that Pentagon officials this week told European diplomats in Washington, D.C., that the U.S. wants Europe to take over most of NATO’s defense capabilities by 2027.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/decemb...

Read it and weep:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025...

12/5/2025 a date that will live in infamy - Trump surrendered to Hitler and Stalin.

Really?

Hitler and Stalin weren't alive on 12/5/2025.

Truly, truly delusional.

Really?

Hitler and Stalin weren't alive on 12/5/2025.

Truly, truly delusional.

But their ghosts have certainly been resurrected.

As usual, folks miss the point.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/12/washington-ultim...

Europe has to decide to be Europe.

The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy dropped last week, and if you are in Brussels or Berlin, you might want to pour yourself a stiff drink before reading it. This is not the usual diplomatic pablum about “shared values” and “transatlantic partnership.” This is an ultimatum dressed up as strategy, but will Europe listen?

The diagnosis is brutal but accurate: Continental Europe’s share of global GDP has collapsed from 25 per cent in 1990 to 14 per cent today. Cratering birthrates, migration-driven social fragmentation, and what the document calls “the real and more stark prospect of civilisational erasure” threaten to make the continent “unrecognisable in 20 years or less.” Washington’s message is simple: America will help defend a Europe that believes in itself, but not a civilisational hospice.

Spot on.
Dumb immigration policies coupled with ruinous “net zero” nonsense have done Europe in.

Let’s start with the aspect European elites most want to avoid: The cultural crisis. The strategy doesn’t mince words about “migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife” or the “loss of national identities and self-confidence.” This language (which is unprecedented in an American security document) will trigger howls of protest from Brussels. But as I’ve written before, we’ve reached the point where Taylor Swift concerts and Christmas markets require counterterrorism operations. The multicultural fantasy has collapsed into a tribal reality where an overbearing state manages conflicts between incompatible communities.

You cannot build strategic autonomy on top of civilisational self-loathing. The strategy makes this explicit: Washington wants to “restore Europe’s civilisational self-confidence and Western identity.” For decades, European leaders promised that diversity would be our strength while presiding over societies where Dutch taxpayers spend €17 billion annually subsidizing immigration, and nearly 50 per cent of welfare recipients in Austria and Germany have a migrant background. Meanwhile, the same governments that cannot secure their borders demand ever more surveillance powers. Powers that will inevitably be turned against populist parties asking uncomfortable questions.

As far as that last bit - they’re already there. Question the government in either the UK or Germany and see what they do to you.

And more:

The energy dimension makes the contradiction even starker. As I documented previously, the European Union consumes 38 exajoules of fossil fuel energy annually but produces only five domestically. Europe is a vassal dependent on foreign energy suppliers while simultaneously lecturing those suppliers about sustainability standards. When Qatar threatened to halt LNG deliveries unless Brussels watered down its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the EU caved immediately. If you are a global energy vassal, you have no cards to play.

This becomes critical when discussing European rearmament. The strategy demands NATO members spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, put in writing in the so-called Hague Commitment agreed in June. European leaders claim this target is impossible. Yet if EU states had simply met the 2 per cent standard from 2006 to 2020, they would have generated approximately €1.1 trillion in additional defence spending. Instead, decades of free-riding created the European Commission’s estimated €1.8 trillion defense capability gap.

This whole article ought to be required reading. And a warning.

And the conclusion:

The question facing Europe is whether it possesses the political courage to change course: to restore energy security through nuclear power and domestic fossil fuel production, to acknowledge that mass migration from premodern cultures creates inevitable conflicts unless newcomers fully assimilate, to rebuild the industrial base necessary for military production, and to rediscover the civilizational self-confidence that once made Europe a global force.

Washington’s strategy offers Europeans a mirror. The reflection is unflattering but accurate. The only question is whether European leaders will keep averting their gaze or finally confront the crisis they have created.

Spot on.
Dumb immigration policies coupled with ruinous “net zero” nonsense have done Europe in.


Overall, we rate Brussels Signal as right-center biased due to its skeptical stance toward EU institutions and favorable portrayal of nationalist leaders. We rate its reporting as Mostly factual accuracy: original commentary is one‑sided and lightly sourced, while wire‑service pickups are reliable.

While many of us look askance at the immigration and want better energy policy for the US too, this is a right wing opinion piece, not a factual article.

Overall, we rate Brussels Signa

Don’t care. Facts are facts. And applying consistent logical fallacies (poison the well or appeal to authority, you pick) doesn’t help.

While many of us look askance at the immigration and want better energy policy for the US too, this is a right wing opinion piece, not a factual article.

1. liberals wanted Net Zero and the piece outlined the reality of it. Fact

2. liberals do not look askance at open borders. Liberals resist any and all application of stricter borders or immigration enforcement.

3. The article cites several facts, all of which this rebuttal chooses to ignore.

Don’t care. Facts are facts.

MBFC: original commentary is one‑sided and lightly sourced, while wire‑service pickups are reliable.

It's an opinion piece Dope! If you agree with an opinion it doesn't make it a fact. Opinion pieces aresubjective; they present an author's beliefs and interpretations . There is no sourcing of information because opinion pieces are subjective.

1. liberals wanted Net Zero and the piece outlined the reality of it. Fact

Me: NO. The piece outlined his opinion, which is subjective and can be disputed. Most of us are aware of and criticized the shut down of the nuclear plants, but that they didn't build the infrastructure to use their renewables well can be seen as overlooked in the opinion.


2. liberals do not look askance at open borders. Liberals resist any and all application of stricter borders or immigration enforcement.

HORSESHIT OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE! You've been following me. What are my positions?


3. The article cites several facts, all of which this rebuttal chooses to ignore.

In point one, you stated that this right wingers opinion about Net Zero is a fact, which means you have difficulty understanding what a fact is. In my opinion these Net Zero were never realistic targets or goals, the pledges unenforceable, and none of them included China, which was pumping coal emissions into the air at very large rates, etc. I've stated many times that we are going to conduct the great experiment and find out what man made climate change is like. Just my opinion - not a fact.

It's an opinion piece

That cites facts. That makes arguments. You evidently think that labeling something X or Y automatically negates everything in it.

No. Doesn’t work that way. You need to learn to address the fact cited and the arguments made by other posters. Until you do, you’re just going to frustrate yourself.

It’s laughably absurd that you’re claiming that liberals are rock ribbed border hawks. That’s hilarious.

It's bad enough having rape gangs roving the streets and attacking your sister, mom, or daughter.

But on top of it you have to freeze your ass off due to energy shortages or because it costs too damn much to hear your home, while you wait for the police to come arrest you for complaining in social media that your government is enabling it all, and making you subsidize it all.

That's Europe.

Yeah Dope1 it's the progressive gaslighting themselves and trying to gaslight everyone else thats the problem.

That's why these discussions go round in circles with them. Because they never are willing to accept the bad consequences of their policies.

It's absolutely absurd for a progressive to argue that their side is in favor of nuke power or a sane immigration policy.

It's the whole "my intentions are good and noble, therefore if I support policies which make me personally feel smug and self righteous, they're good policies even if they have bad consequences, especially if those bad consequences don't directly affect me or perhaps I personally profit from them" mentality.

It's just the whole "white man's burden" thing--racist to the core.

"We must allow millions of savage degenerate religious fanatics who hate our way of life to share the benefits of our Western civilization. And subsidize their destruction of our way of life in the process. Not to do so would be racist because after all it's our fault that left to their own devices in their own sh$thole countries, they would just murder each other ton extinction. Everyone KNOWS they are inferior human beings and can't figure things out back at their home countries because colonialism. It's only fair that we let them colonize rape and pillage our countries like the conquistadors did to theirs. As long as it doesn't affect me personally I'm good with it because I am morally superior to all those who don't want to martyr their way of life to Marxist ideology."

It's bad enough having rape gangs roving the streets and attacking your sister, mom, or daughter. ~marco100

Poor old marco up at 4AM regurgitating his typical hate-filled, hackneyed rant full of disinformation.
The same brainwashed nonsense day after day...

“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.” ~Marcus Aurelius

Banksy,

Why don't you tell us what country you are posting from and your national origin.

You obviously aren't from the U.S.

I was born and raised in the NYC metro area and currently reside there.

I have lived in this area all my life. I live in a "bedroom community" in a town on a commuter rail line into NYC.

So, I actually CARE about what happens to my city, my state, and my country.

Even though I rarely hop the train into NYC anymore, I CARE if people like Mamdani and the even more insane NYC Counsel turn it into a 3rd world ishthole.

I CARE if the streets in NYC are safe or unsafe. It personally affects me and many people I know and love who work and live in NYC.

In fact my wife and daughter are going into Manhattan to spend the day sightseeing (museums etc.) as a mother/daughter daytrip.

I CARE if some mentally ill nutjob, or some violent criminal who is out on the streets but shouldn't be, due to liberal judges, harasses them or attacks them or even makes them feel safe just for being there.

I care about what happens in the rest of MY COUNTRY.

You do not. Obviously.

This is how the thread started:

This admin officially takes a dump on a proud post WWII American history. From HCR:

Walking away from the U.S.-led international systems that reinforce the principles of national self-determination and have kept the world relatively safe since World War II, the Trump administration is embracing the old idea of spheres of influence in which less powerful countries are controlled by great powers, a system in place before World War II and favored now by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, among others.

Your piece does nothing to address the problem stated above - that we are trashing an alliance that has kept our known world safe, and that we are going back to spheres of influence, etc. It simply blames Europe for its problems, an opinion piece, but you are avoiding any commentary on the above.

So exactly what are your ideas on trashing the alliance? And no, I don't want to hear about how it's all Europe's fault. I want to hear a foreign policy explanation on what we gain, what we lose, how you determine that, and how it is to our advantage to abandon the alliance instead of reforging it. Now is your time to shine as the great explainer of Trump's master foreign policy that will keep us on top for another hundred years. Show us the master plan and explain how we benefit hugely from walking away, but no digression into its all Europe's fault, etc.

You have the floor.

Your piece does nothing to address the problem stated above - that we are trashing an alliance that has kept our known world safe, and that we are going back to spheres of influence, etc. It simply blames Europe for its problems, an opinion piece, but you are avoiding any commentary on the above.

You're doing what all liberals here do: you're taking liberal opinion as fact.
The piece I posted explains in part why the stance was taken in the 2025 doc.

Your piece does nothing to address the problem stated above - that we are trashing an alliance that has kept our known world safe,

It's clear you didn't read it.

So exactly what are your ideas on trashing the alliance? And no, I don't want to hear about how it's all Europe's fault. I want to hear a foreign policy explanation on what we gain, what we lose, how you determine that, and how it is to our advantage to abandon the alliance instead of reforging it.

I don't really care what you want to hear or what you don't want to hear. That's irrelevant.

It's very simple: If Europe wants to a decent partner and play lumberjack, they have to step up and handle their end of the log.

What is NATO for? It's a mutual defense alliance. An alliance that has only a handful of nations that actually have some kind of capability. Note that "capability" has multiple meanings.

So what good is NATO if its most important members in Europe can barely field any equipment. This has been going for years:

https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-at-odds-ove...
State of Bundeswehr's arsenal

The parliamentary debate came amid a heated national discussion over the state of the German army's own equipment. At the end of September, von der Leyen, who belongs to the Christian Democrat Party (CDU) admitted major shortfalls in the Bundeswehr's equipment.

She also said Germany would at present be unable to meet NATO requirements.

"With our airborne systems, we are currently below the target figures announced one year ago defining what we would want to be able to make available to NATO within 180 days, in the case of an emergency," Defense Minister von der Leyen told the "Bild am Sonntag" newspaper on September 27. "Delays for replacement parts for our planes and the missing helicopters are the reason for this."

The Bundeswehr was forced last month to admit that large parts of its equipment, including tanks, helicopters and fighter jets, were in such a state of disrepair that they could not currently be used. The bulk of the German air force is currently grounded, with 42 of its 109 Eurofighters and only 38 of 89 Tornado fighters ready for deployment. The list of grounded equipment goes on.

It hasn't gotten any better since 2014.
https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/germ...

After decades of military downsizing, German military spending is woefully inadequate to meet the new strategic challenge posed by Russia—as both a new report by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the new Kiel Military Procurement Tracker show. In combination with a cumbersome national procurement system and depending on weapon systems it would take Germany as much as a century to bring its military inventory up to the level of 20 years ago. In contrast, Russia is radically increasing its capacity to produce armaments, including advanced systems, and is now in a position to produce as many weapons in six months as all of Germany’s armed forces currently field.

Ooops.

The 2025 NSS calls for the Europeans to step up and do something for themselves. Trump isn't interested in defending Europe right down to the last American and Pole.

Heather Cox Robinson parroting Putin's disinformation and propaganda is no surprise.

That's her job.

Apparently, it's your job also.

Eurotrash troll gonna be trollin'.

Dope1,

If the Euro NATO nations actually pulled their weight in terms of military defense and paying for it, perhaps they would be less inclined to invite invading Muslim and African hordes within their borders to destroy Western culture, as they would have less money to subsidize the invading hordes.

That would be a good thing.

That's actually part of the document too.

You're doing what all liberals here do: you're taking liberal opinion as fact.

Not at all. I never said anything like that.

The piece I posted explains in part why the stance was taken in the 2025 doc.

OK. But we are walking away from an alliance that's been around for 75 years. How do we benefit? Doesn't seem like we do, could you explain? We know about weapons and ammo, tell us how it benefits our companies, economy, people, democracy, foreign relations, other strategic alliances, to walk away from the alliance. Tell us how that benefits our relationship with China and the ROW. Doesn't seem to, seems to play into the hands of Russia, China, and possibly Persia. How can we be trusted if we abruptly walk away from alliances just when we are needed?

Listing European woes doesn't explain how walking away is a strategic benefit for us. That's what all of us want to know. You list an opinion piece critical of Europe and we know all of that, there's no need to repeat it. TELL US HOW WE BENEFIT IN FOREIGN POLICY VIEWS AND TERMS. Does it open up European trade? Does it open up any trade anywhere? And how much do we lose vs benefit? What are the trade offs?

Because I don't see how we benefit at all. It seems we may not have to support a few billion dollars, but we lose more in trade. It looks like overall we lose. We had a nascent alliance against China and we are showing them we are an unreliable.

We know about weapons and ammo, tell us how it benefits our companies, economy, people, democracy, foreign relations, other strategic alliances, to walk away from the alliance. Tell us how that benefits our relationship with China and the ROW. Doesn't seem to, seems to play into the hands of Russia, China, and possibly Persia. How can we be trusted if we abruptly walk away from alliances just when we are needed?

You're missing the point.
It's not an "alliance" if only one lumberjack is trying to saw the log. If the guy on the other end isn't doing anything, then nothing is getting done.

Listing European woes doesn't explain how walking away is a strategic benefit for us.

"Listing European woes"? Providing for their own defense and their own industrial base is a core function of any government. And it's not too much to ask for the world's #3 (Germany), #6 (UK), #7 (France), #8 (Italy), #9 (Canada) and #12 (Spain) to be able to at least contribute a couple of Jeeps for the effort.

But according to the left, the Europeans have no responsibilities at all for their own defense.

That's ridiculous.

Funny you mention China. Exactly one poster on this board has mentioned that the Chinese are the real threat. Do we remember who that is?

Oh, and maybe the libs should actually read what the NSS says instead of posting random things about it.

If y'all did (<--- see what I did there?) then y'all know things like this:

Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity. European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.

American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.

Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.

There.

Dope1, the leftist you are arguing with falsely claims the u.s. is "walking away from the alliance."

False disinformation from Putin, Heather Cox Richardson, and the leftists who Post here.

Telling our allies they need to do much more to pull their own weight financially, and stop inviting savage invaders into their borders, is an attempt to strengthen NATO.

Dope1, the leftist you are arguing with falsely claims the u.s. is "walking away from the alliance."

False disinformation from Putin, Heather Cox Richardson, and the leftists who Post here.

Telling our allies they need to do much more to pull their own weight financially, and stop inviting savage invaders into their borders, is an attempt to strengthen NATO.


So much of what they post (likely >95%) is what they've either been told to say or is what their stereotypes of right wingers are. You see it everywhere - how they assume raaaacism when somebody says, "let's have a secure border" or yurrr abandoning europe when somebody says, "they should be able to contribute more than a pithy slogan and a package of Oreos to their own defense".

It's really simple WHY they do it - as a liberal, you're never ever allowed to criticize the left. Because if you do you're not only committing the Cardinal Sin of potentially agreeing with a right winger you're also indicting progressivism in general.

Progressivism in the mind of progressives can't be wrong. Because if it was "allowed" to be wrong, it would be questioned. And that...the left can't have as it might cost them some political power.

So our board buddies here post opinions as fact, make unsubstantiated claims about others, and never concede the other side has a point until only after there is no more political points to gain on a subject (which is why the NYT can grudgingly claim that Biden screwed up the border now that he's safely out of public office for the rest of his life).

Yeah but even while the NY times grudgingly concedes bidens border malfeasance they still blame Republicans for not agreeing to a phony trojan horse "compromise" bill.

They also fail to concede that Dem policy is still. to have open borders. Still is despite any lipservice to the contrary. Why demonize and obstruct immigration enforcement?

To Dems open borders is a feature not a bug.

And since Joe Bidens ousting they have just doubled and triple down on that objective. If you have a different view to the open borders crowd you're a Nazi fascist SS trooper.

Yeah but even while the NY times grudgingly concedes bidens border malfeasance they still blame Republicans for not agreeing to a phony trojan horse "compromise" bill.

They also fail to concede that Dem policy is still. to have open borders. Still is despite any lipservice to the contrary. Why demonize and obstruct immigration enforcement?

To Dems open borders is a feature not a bug.

And since Joe Bidens ousting they have just doubled and triple down on that objective. If you have a different view to the open borders crowd you're a Nazi fascist SS trooper.


People still treat the NYT as "the paper of record" even though it's little more than a propaganda rag. The piece they released was basically their attempt to spin the Biden era in a way that throws him under the bus while still preserving their real goal, which is to game the Electoral College.

With illegals ensconced in blue sanctuary cities - and being counted in the census - blue states and blue cities get more reps in Congress than they should have, more EVs in deciding the Presidency than they should have, and more federal dollars they should have.

Oh, and maybe the libs should actually read what the NSS says instead of posting random things about it.

Nice copy paste of NSS language, but it doesn't answer the questions. I asked for a strategic foreign policy assessment of how this will affect the US in trade, economically, etc., and with other alliances. Does this answer how we benefit and remain on top for the next 100 years? No.

Nice copy paste of NSS language, but it doesn't answer the questions. I asked for a strategic foreign policy assessment of how this will affect the US in trade, economically, etc., and with other alliances. Does this answer how we benefit and remain on top for the next 100 years? No.

LOL!
You're in rock-fetching mode now, where you ask some nebulous question and think I'm required to go and fetch an answer for you. The way this particular game is played is that you'll ask for more and more rocks.

According to your premise, unless we keep paying for Europe's defense and we accept their increasing weakness...they won't trade with us. Or something. Is that what you think?

The NSS paste was to show you that the opinion piece that kicked off this thread clearly didn't understand the NSS. And neither has any lib who's bothered to post on the subject.

Trump just gave Western Europe a good old fashioned butt-kicking and they don't like it one bit.

I mean he had to, Macron's wife punched him out publicly on the airplane, NATO is a wimp and needs to get a backbone.

If NATO can't stand up to a friggin position paper from Trump that does nothing more and nothing less than tell it like it is and hurts their widdle fee-fees, how the heck are they going to stand up to Putin?

Everything in the position paper or NSS is absolutely logical and well justified.

We live in a society where if you call an obese person "fat" then you're a Nazi. They're "plus sized" or "body positive."

You tell them to dry their tears and stop stuffing their face and get on the treadmill, OMG you're a double decker Nazi.

Yeah, so stop letting in savages and letting them freeload off of a Western society that they hate and want to destroy, and use those funds for military stuff to fight the Russkies.

Oh that means you have to cut back on the cradle to grave socialism for your populace? Gee well guess what if the alternative is U.S. pays for it, hell to the no. Money is fungible, it means we end up paying for the savages to invade Western Europe. No no no no. no.

I mean leftists are just insane.

LOL!
You're in rock-fetching mode now, where you ask some nebulous question and think I'm required to go and fetch an answer for you.

No. I just want you to think, not copy paste. One effect we've already seen is that they're buying military equipment from each other. What's the speculation on that? I have my view - it isn't a snub to us, as much as reliance I think.

They've already made good energy agreements with Canada. It looks much like our efforts to make our supply lines less vulnerable.

As for the Mississippi GDP higher than Europe, yes, but riddle me this - why then is the European standard of living higher? Why are many European countries higher on the happiness index? Answer these to get a better perspective. :)

No. I just want you to think, not copy past

This funny. The only person who’s ever analyzed the US/NATO relationship on this board is yours truly.

As for the Mississippi GDP higher than Europe, yes, but riddle me this - why then is the European standard of living higher?

You’re mixing threads up now.

It's bad enough having rape gangs roving the streets and attacking your sister, mom, or daughter. ~moron100

From the Economic Policy Institute-
1979 to 2023:
Wages for the top 0.1% grew by 354%.
Wages for the top 1% grew by 182%.
Wages for the bottom 90% grew by 44%.

Up next on FOX: "Why Americas biggest problem is roving rape gangs & trans people!"

And let’s illustrate while we’re highlighting just how messed up some parts of Europe are.

What kind of upholding democracy is going on in Europe?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/german-police-...


Police in Germany are investigating a sudden swell of public insults, defamation and slander directed at the country's politicians, according to latest statistics.

Last year, 4,439 such violations of the Criminal Code were recorded, a spokeswoman for the Federal Criminal Police Office told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in comments published Saturday.

In 2023, there were significantly fewer violations at 2,598, compared with 1,404 in 2022.

90% of what this board’s liberals post about Trump? Would land you people in jail in Germany.

Banksy,

Sorry to inject a little math into the discussion--I know you guys don't really like that stuff--but if you hadn't noticed, earnings seem to follow some kind of power law.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that some C.E.O. makes a billion dollars.

Just like it doesn't bother me that I can't get paid a penny for playing basketball yet somehow LeBron James and similar NBA superstars makes tens or hundreds of millions a year in wages and endorsements.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.