Comment by ericmay
14 hours ago
> How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner at all, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".
At a minimum the US still provides intelligence to Ukraine and maintains (and has increased) sanctions on Russia. Actions against both Venezuela and Iran negatively affected Russian shadow fleet operations which were funneling money to Russia to continue its war. Iran provides military support by selling drones, at a minimum. The US also maintains a significant military in presence to defer Russia from opening new fronts. In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table. Your suggestion that the US isn’t a partner is your opinion but is not reflect in reality.
> That's not even a coherent argument.
Sure it is
> Legally, or de-facto?
Either. Don’t mistake my comments for supporting Donald Trump. I didn’t vote for him and think he belongs in jail over Jan 6 at a minimum. But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
> In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table.
Giving away intel is the exact opposite of supporting Ukraine.
Most of the other stuff you list was the USA's (or Trump's) own interests; Iran was more of an Israeli interest.
That said, keeping the Iran conflict warm is now also now a direct interest of everyone else that the USA has threatened, because it locks up your materiel, depletes your munitions, and lowers the morale of your personnel. As the Trump admin has already threatened military force against the USA's allies, that list is rather long.
> Sure it is
Mate, one of them wasn't even a coherent sentence.
Fundamentally, if you're an American isolationist government tearing down all the connections with the EU, we all know you're going to deal with the other big trading bloc that is China, or you will go bankrupt, because you are not an autarky.
But if you want to have good trade relations with the EU, and want the EU to not have good relations with China, you need to stop enabling the proven dishonest warmonger in the White House, who is giving us a choice between someone who has threatened military force against us (i.e. himself) or China, because we are also not an autarky.
It is not an argument to say "oh I guess we'll deal with China too". Yes, you will. This is not relevant. It is not an argument to say "but Germany's jobs". Yes, big issue due to car manufacturing, USA (big export market) tariffs, and Chinese competition (worldwide). This is also not relevant: *Your president threatened military action against one of us, and tariffs against anyone who helped defend the target*.
> But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
If you don't care, you don't care: I'm just giving you the consequences of not stopping him from sending the military into our territory to annex it. The consequences will include war on US soil, just like the consequences to Russia trying it with Ukraine were war on Russian soil. And Ukraine managed to hit the capital city of a nuclear power despite, similarly to our ally Canada, not having any nukes of their own.
You say Trump should be in jail? Great.
*Make that actually happen*.
And make sure the next apple isn't from the same rotten barrel:
Right now, if he resigned or was incapacitated *today* and didn't make it to the end of his term, it would still take an entire Presidential term from a decent president just for our trust in the USA to rise to about the same low level we have for China, who are "only" threatening the sovereignty of someone else we like to do business with but aren't that closely allied to (plus human rights abuses), and one or two decades of hard work on your part to get back to the level of trust we had in 2024.
Keep him around long enough to screw up the relationship more, that becomes three decades if the USA (him or successor) were to somehow force Ukraine to capitulate to Russian expansionism.
Ignore this, sit on it, brush it aside? Well, he came back after Jan 6. We can't trust you until you actually sort yourself out.
Your, personally your, suggestions to withdraw even harder are the opposite of sorting yourself out. That threat itself is a reason to distrust the USA.
Think of it this way: if you were a drunk, this would be an intervention.
Your (personal) responses have been like facing an intervention and saying "oh if I can't drink around you, I just won't invite any of you over for drinks! I'll have new drinks buddies! You've been listening to China too much! If you drink with China instead of me, I'll drink with China too!"
Meanwhile, the police keep giving you (the nation) DUI tickets and someone's wondering if they can hide your (national) keys before someone gets hurt.
> > Legally, or de-facto?
> Either.
https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/156691-how-sanctions-can-weap...
De-facto it's one sanction away.
So far as I can tell, this specific event is why the EU now has a big interest in "sovereign cloud" etc.