The Trump National Security Strategy has offered Moscow and the Kremlin a golden opportunity.
For Vladimir Putin it has opened a strategic window – and he’s walking right through it.
His dreams are short lived as Putin won’t live or function properly forvanother decade.
What would a Russian Agent do?
Trump’s power is limited. He can’t force Ukraine to become a Russian puppet state. He can’t force post-communist European countries to leave NATO, and he can’t force the EU to become dependent on Russian energy again (although some in the EU would like that). And despite his efforts, Trump won’t destroy the US-European alliance, but eight years of someone like JD Vance might.
I feel Russia has had the Epstein files for the longest time.
Complete garbage. Trump doesn’t have the power to exit Ukraine, simply because the neocons that are protecting him from federal investigations and corruption charges don’t want the war to end.
It’s why he’s even putting on this pathetic fascade of a negotiated peace; if he had real political power to do so, he could’ve simply turned off StarLink and the funding and watched Ukraine collapse in real time.
Putin will win simply because the Europeans are devoid of any real leverage, and the US is being pressured from multiple fronts and being stretched to the brink: Venezuela, Israel/Gaza/Iran, China, Ukraine/Russia, etc.
Bollocks.
> It has done this by commanding a solid military alliance with Europeans, the UK, Canada and Turkey. Proportionally it has spent more on defences than most Europeans, true. But the US has been a beneficiary in several ways – not least in the sheer volume of military kit it has sold to the partners at huge profit to its defence industries. Often much of the kit has been overpriced or of indifferent to poor quality.
I hear/read this over and over and it is utter bollocks. For European purchases of US defense items to matter requires European countries *to actually spend money on defense*. Yes, in the past few years, Europe has *begun* to ramp up defense spending, but Europe has been a very minor market for US defense contractors for decades. Before about 2020, Europe fluctuated from between 5% to 7% of US weapons sales, and exports were generally less than half of the weapons sales for US defense contractors – so Europe was roughly 2-4% of US MIC sales. That’s a rounding error. The reason European purchases of US weapons spiked since the invasion of Ukraine is due to the *very* long lead time to develop and produce new weapons – and Europe had basically stopped doing any of that with any degree of seriousness, so they had no choice. Most of what European countries are buying from the US are the items that require extreme development investments in time and money, like the F-35 – so there is no European equivalent. In dollar terms, it is mostly F-35 and Patriot. What’s ironic about that is that the US, up until a few years ago (I don’t know if it is still true) spent more with European defense contractors than any single European country. Hell, half of BAE’s military sales are to the US military.
> The European nations are depicted in the NSS document as ageing, feckless, indifferent to the perils of multi-faith multiculturalism, and overrun by migration. It reaches for an improved relationship with Russia in the interests of global stability, joint enterprise, and no doubt, joint ventures to exploit natural resources across the continent, including Ukraine and the Arctic.
It doesn’t really seek “an improved relationship with Russia”, it seeks to not be in a proxy war with Russia. And the complaints about how Europe is portrayed in the NSS, well, the truth sometimes hurts. What part of “ageing, feckless, indifferent to the perils of multi-faith multiculturalism, and overrun by migration” is incorrect?
7 comments
In all the heat and light and arguments across the Atlantic about Trump’s [National Security Strategy](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/us-potent-threat-europe-no-one-alive-this-4102012?ico=in-line_link) and talks about talks for ending the war in Ukraine, there is one clear winner so far: Vladimir Putin.
The Trump National Security Strategy has offered Moscow and the Kremlin a golden opportunity.
For Vladimir Putin it has opened a strategic window – and he’s walking right through it.
His dreams are short lived as Putin won’t live or function properly forvanother decade.
What would a Russian Agent do?
Trump’s power is limited. He can’t force Ukraine to become a Russian puppet state. He can’t force post-communist European countries to leave NATO, and he can’t force the EU to become dependent on Russian energy again (although some in the EU would like that). And despite his efforts, Trump won’t destroy the US-European alliance, but eight years of someone like JD Vance might.
I feel Russia has had the Epstein files for the longest time.
Complete garbage. Trump doesn’t have the power to exit Ukraine, simply because the neocons that are protecting him from federal investigations and corruption charges don’t want the war to end.
It’s why he’s even putting on this pathetic fascade of a negotiated peace; if he had real political power to do so, he could’ve simply turned off StarLink and the funding and watched Ukraine collapse in real time.
Putin will win simply because the Europeans are devoid of any real leverage, and the US is being pressured from multiple fronts and being stretched to the brink: Venezuela, Israel/Gaza/Iran, China, Ukraine/Russia, etc.
Bollocks.
> It has done this by commanding a solid military alliance with Europeans, the UK, Canada and Turkey. Proportionally it has spent more on defences than most Europeans, true. But the US has been a beneficiary in several ways – not least in the sheer volume of military kit it has sold to the partners at huge profit to its defence industries. Often much of the kit has been overpriced or of indifferent to poor quality.
I hear/read this over and over and it is utter bollocks. For European purchases of US defense items to matter requires European countries *to actually spend money on defense*. Yes, in the past few years, Europe has *begun* to ramp up defense spending, but Europe has been a very minor market for US defense contractors for decades. Before about 2020, Europe fluctuated from between 5% to 7% of US weapons sales, and exports were generally less than half of the weapons sales for US defense contractors – so Europe was roughly 2-4% of US MIC sales. That’s a rounding error. The reason European purchases of US weapons spiked since the invasion of Ukraine is due to the *very* long lead time to develop and produce new weapons – and Europe had basically stopped doing any of that with any degree of seriousness, so they had no choice. Most of what European countries are buying from the US are the items that require extreme development investments in time and money, like the F-35 – so there is no European equivalent. In dollar terms, it is mostly F-35 and Patriot. What’s ironic about that is that the US, up until a few years ago (I don’t know if it is still true) spent more with European defense contractors than any single European country. Hell, half of BAE’s military sales are to the US military.
> The European nations are depicted in the NSS document as ageing, feckless, indifferent to the perils of multi-faith multiculturalism, and overrun by migration. It reaches for an improved relationship with Russia in the interests of global stability, joint enterprise, and no doubt, joint ventures to exploit natural resources across the continent, including Ukraine and the Arctic.
It doesn’t really seek “an improved relationship with Russia”, it seeks to not be in a proxy war with Russia. And the complaints about how Europe is portrayed in the NSS, well, the truth sometimes hurts. What part of “ageing, feckless, indifferent to the perils of multi-faith multiculturalism, and overrun by migration” is incorrect?
Trump was pushing back against Russian strategic influence long before most of Europe was – [to be laughed at and ridiculed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg).
Comments are closed.