well, i mean anything is POSSIBLE.
we landed a man on the moon, cutting a chanel into a landmass is POSSIBLE…
but whether its a reasonable idea…well…yeah…
1 Like
But it would take significantly more than a dozen to dig an oil tanker canal, lol. This idea jusr cracked me up ! 
Just so low-IQ.
2 Likes
Reminds me of a game I use to play
3 Likes
Wise words…
12 Likes
They are republican deplorables. Low IQ is built in.
3 Likes
The Substack article Newt has used here is satirical. It originally ended with this statement shown below that had to be amended once the writer realized Newt took it seriously
3 Likes
Malaysia has cancelled their trade deal with the US
5 Likes
Plenty more to come,you would think.
2 Likes
Funny when morons play engineering.
2 Likes
Have you previously had confidence that NATO was an alliance that would meaningfully protect Europe? That has been in fundamental question since 2016, and clearly not the case since November 2024. At this point, Trump can indeed choose to have US firms stop selling munitions to Europe, and that would have negative consequences, but this is a for-profit relationship.
It is perhaps time that the pretence otherwise simply came to an end. All it does is encourage fuzzy thinking in Europe.
4 Likes
If it accelerates an independent European deterrence, so much the better.
4 Likes
That’s actually not the my main short term worry, even though it is a worry. But yes, I agree. After all, for many years, I have warned that western Europe, as well as central Europe, has wasted it’s preparation time in terms of industrial rearmament and upscaling of armed forces in preparation for the likely rift with the United States.
Where I disagree with you, is the timing. Because we are not ready, look at Britain as an example. Totally useless, they are not even at 3 percent GDP even at this time so late into the war. UK and many others have had years to build capabilities and expand own forces. Germany has started, but late. France is best in class when it comes to inspiring speeches of European sovreignty and also probably ideas, but holding back on expansion and industry.
So yes, sure, not surprising to me, but since European governments have been irresponsible, I am worried about the timing and large window of opportunity it will give Russia if rift with US happens now and is permanent.
Then we have what I mentioned in the “Misadventure thread”
"Ukraine relies on European states buying weapons from the United States, such as air defence in particular (patriot interceptors, AMRAM, every European weapon with America components too).
While it is hardly in the interests of the US, Trump has shown that he often goes against logic, so could deny (and has threatened with) sales of weapons to European states, if these are resold or donated to Ukraine. See the issue here ?"
But no, I have no confidence that US will answer to an Article 5 if it’s against Russia, no,
Against those concerns, I would set two basic points:
i) US arms exporters are going to put real pressure on Washington to sustain their Euro-fed gravy train. US diplomats are already running a full court press to ensure that European rearmament spending includes US suppliers.
ii) Russia is not going to be in any shape to engage with Europe for years. The economy is a mess, the military has been bled white, and demographically Russia has created a gap that will require two generations to make good. Ukraine has been Europe’s Leonidas, buying years for Europe to restore capacity. Had Trump won re-election in 2020, the situation might otherwise have been disastrous.
6 Likes
I agree with your first point, do not have the same confidence in point ii), as Russia is continuing to scale up both production and expansion of forces and their War Economy is of a nature where scaling down will create a crack. Your point is in my opinion a positive forecast, which is quite possible, but I think it is foolish to not prepare for the worse cases that are also very probable, and imo more so. With Russian victory (ceasefire favourable to Russia) they will continue to seek to dismantle NATO (irrespective if the US is there) and break the EU and and etc. They would also continue territorial expansion with far easier targets than Ukraine. The aim is to break NATO after all and gather the lands of the Rus.
It’s just that there are many factors. I don’t see the West flooding Ukraine with aid exactly, and Russian intentions is to grind on for a couple more years. I think Svalbard is a likely place to invade as an example. Very strategic, not very defended, has special rules. Is not part of Norway proper. Would our allies fight for us if Russia attacked with a hybrid effort, de facto invasion but maybe short of full war ? We are not so sure.
This is just an example there are many others areas where an opportunistic Russia with a massive army on War Economy will find it hard to not seek to grab. Baltic states are very worried that they will be invaded and that Russians will be so deep in, on Day 2, that when Article 5 is debated, they are fully occupied and without the might of the US, Europe will abandon them.
These are real fears.
As for the demographic issues in Russia are known. It is also one of the reasons why they seek to incorporate Ukraine.
Anyway, I just think the timing is very complicated regarding rift with US. Europe does not have the intelligence gathering that the US has, inferior satelite coverage, relies on GPS etc. So many problems.
1 Like
Without question, any window of opportunity for Europe to rearm is just that, a window.
The situation of the Baltic states is very high on the agenda in Ottawa - there are over 2000 Canadian forces in Latvia, and it is very likely that the next federal budget (end of month) will include funding to construct one or more permanent bases in Latvia to support an increased deployment.
3 Likes
Bundeswehr is increasing its forces in Lithuania, I think they’re planning on 5k by the end of next year. I get it, mainly somewhat symbolic, but any presence might make it potentially harder to just shrug and say your problem.
4 Likes