Summary

A European Parliament member claimed that the U.S. gave Europe three weeks to agree on Ukraine's "surrender" terms or risk an American withdrawal from Europe.

Mika Aaltola made the claim on X, but provided no evidence. NBC News reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested a U.S. troop reduction in Europe.

Trump reportedly plans to cut 20,000 troops and demand greater NATO contributions. He has pushed for higher NATO defense spending.

Trump may meet with Putin soon, believing Russia holds the upper hand in negotiations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He's gonna withdraw anyways...he works for you Putin. They are ramping for WW3 with the world vs USA/Russia/China..fucked up to put us with Russia but here we are.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah he'll withdraw troops and NATO support no matter how things go in Europe ...

    He'll need more armyboots at home defending his regime ... also needs to recoup costs due to losing out on tax income and tariff lies. Then there is this thing where he wants to give Putin this favor of dismantling NATO.

    So, his demand was 2% in 2017 ... and countries are exceeding that, Poland is already spending more than even the US, and Germany is climbing, so he upped it to 5% to get the excuse of the US backing out.

    Even if they meet 5%, in a few years he'll up it further.

    Ofcourse for now he'll assume the NATO members still feel bound to keep supplying intelligence information and buy American weaponry, even if NATO falls apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Has China given an indication they're allied with the US? This is an earnest question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think it's more trump / Putin and Putin/ Winnie the Pooh so they are just all friends

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They are ramping for WW3 with the world vs USA/Russia/China…

    Holy fuck I feel so sorry for the world.

    Less than half of the US support Trump though, so the US would either be on the side of the World or fighting its own civil war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    About 2/3 of the voting age no?

    1/3 actively voted for him, and 1/3 was "fine with either option"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Nah. Lumping the people who didn't vote in as supporting trump is stupid.

    (I fully expect most of you to do it, though.)

    Edit for the downvoters: Are you really delusional enough to believe that people who didn't vote for trump are automatically going to die for him in a war? Lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lumping the people who didn't vote in as supporting trump is stupid.

    In the context of electoral outcomes, it's objectively true. Other than that, I think most of us would agree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In the context of electoral outcomes, it’s objectively true.

    Not really, but I expect you to be delusional enough to believe it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It is true. By not opposing fascism, you're tacitly supporting it.

    They literally published a playbook of what they'd do if they won. The contents of it were known. The man straight up said he would be a dictator.

    Knowing all of that, if you didn't oppose him, you were complicit in him gaining power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    🥱

    The delusion on these forums is palpable.

    "If you don't vote in an election, you automatically support one candidate over the other!"

    Glad most of it is contained online, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    More like

    "If you don't vote in an election, you don't prefer one candidate over the other / oppose one candidate!"

    Now tell me Harris would've been equally bad...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Harris would've been better than trump, but that's not the boon you may think it is.

    The problem with biden and harris is they convince the left that a slow loss is winning. It's not. The disparity in wealth continued to grow under biden, just not as fast as it would have under trump.

    Until the left can grow some cajones and rescind its rampant consumerism, either politician that wins is a loss for the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You should look up the definition of tacitly.

    All that's required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. If you did nothing to prevent Trump, then you are fully on board with what he promised to do when he's in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Both are evil, though.

    Also, why does not voting show support for one side over the other?

    Why do you always say "If you didn't vote, you support TRUMP!"?

    Why not "If you didn't vote, you support Kamala!"?

    What's the determining factor, or are non-voters just people you can blame for whatever you want?

    then you are fully on board with what he promised to do when he’s in power.

    This kind of delusion is sad among this generation, but I seriously don't expect more from you people at this point. I'd be foolish to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Congressional approval is required for acts of war. I know the Republicans have Congress, but are they willing to go that far??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think they've actually approved a war since Korea. They ceded that power to the president. Congress never declared war on Vietnam, Iraq x2, or Afghanistan. And that's just the big ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You are incorrect on each of those. Vietnam was approved by Congress with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964). Iraq was approved with the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (2002). Afghanistan was approved by the Congress Joint Resolution (2001).

  • source
  • parent