Tucker Interviews Putin

[Riven]

That's precisely the point. Without the US (and GB), NATO is significantly less of a deterrent to Russian aggression.

That's why Donald's constant undermining of NATO, now to the point of actually encouraging Russia to invade a NATO country and saying he'd just let them "do whatever the hell they want", is so concerning for our allies.

Donald is basically telling the world he doesn't support NATO or our allies, and instead he leans towards Putin. Ya think maybe NATO leaders see that as a problem?

Yes, I think they do see it as a problem. However, I think these European nations have relied on the U.S. too much for far too long. For example, the Netherlands has a grand total of 18 main battle tanks that or leases from Germany. This is down from 1,000 MBT's that the country had available during the Cold War era. The drastic reduction was due to budget cuts to defense.

I think there is no denying that many of these nations rely far too heavily on the U.S. for their defense. Since the end of the Cold War, defense spending has been on the decline. Only recently have these countries begun to take defense spending seriously due to recent events in Ukraine.

So while I don't support what Trump said, I do support these European countries allocating more of their GDP towards defense. Because if war does break out between the U.S. and Russia, and a potential invasion of Taiwan by Chinese naval forces, the U.S. is going to spreading itself pretty thin.

 

[Uncle J]

Yes, I think they do see it as a problem. However, I think these European nations have relied on the U.S. too much for far too long. For example, the Netherlands has a grand total of 18 main battle tanks that or leases from Germany. This is down from 1,000 MBT's that the country had available during the Cold War era. The drastic reduction was due to budget cuts to defense.

I think there is no denying that many of these nations rely far too heavily on the U.S. for their defense. Since the end of the Cold War, defense spending has been on the decline. Only recently have these countries begun to take defense spending seriously due to recent events in Ukraine.

So while I don't support what Trump said, I do support these European countries allocating more of their GDP towards defense. Because if war does break out between the U.S. and Russia, and a potential invasion of Taiwan by Chinese naval forces, the U.S. is going to spreading itself pretty thin.

Except for one thing.....the only NATO country that's invoked Article 5 is the United States. No other NATO country has ever requested or required the other countries to come to its defense. So it's a bit disingenuous to say that they "rely on the US for their defense".

The Netherlands is a tiny country that's smaller than West Virginia, so them also having a relatively small army is reasonable (also given their location, far from Russia). That means even if they were to increase their defense spending significantly, it's not like they would be able to take on Russia all by themselves.

That's why Donald encouraging Russia to invade a NATO country isn't just something westerners have to decide to support or not; it's unbelievably dangerous and IMO treasonous. As I noted earlier, under the US Constitution international treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land" in the US. NATO was formed specifically to serve as a deterrent to Russian aggression, and we're currently aiding Ukraine's effort to fend off a Russian invasion.....

...all of which means Russia is basically our enemy. Yet Donald is encouraging Russia to invade a NATO ally and saying not only would he not stop them, he would let them "do whatever the hell they want".

So no, that's not something one merely "doesn't support". He's (once again) undermining our status in the world, telling our allies that the US can't be trusted, telling our allies that they can't count on us at all, and signaling to Russia and China that the world is theirs to do with as they wish.

IMO, that's treason.

 

[Riven]

Except for one thing.....the only NATO country that's invoked Article 5 is the United States. No other NATO country has ever requested or required the other countries to come to its defense. So it's a bit disingenuous to say that they "rely on the US for their defense".

Are you saying they wouldn't rely on the U.S. if Russia were to invade a NATO country? I think you're overestimating the capabilities of these European armies. They're mostly hot garbage thanks to decades of budget cuts.

The Netherlands is a tiny country that's smaller than West Virginia, so them also having a relatively small army is reasonable (also given their location, far from Russia). That means even if they were to increase their defense spending significantly, it's not like they would be able to take on Russia all by themselves.

Yeah, I know. But I think these countries should be operating under the assumption that the U.S. won't be there to bail them out. At least that way Europe can finally defend itself properly. Most Americans don't want to have to send their sons and daughters to fight and die saving Europe again.

That's why Donald encouraging Russia to invade a NATO country isn't just something westerners have to decide to support or not; it's unbelievably dangerous and IMO treasonous. As I noted earlier, under the US Constitution international treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land" in the US. NATO was formed specifically to serve as a deterrent to Russian aggression, and we're currently aiding Ukraine's effort to fend off a Russian invasion.....

I don't think it's particularly dangerous given that Putin has no interest in western Europe. Even if he did, his armies aren't capable of waging offensive war all over Europe. He's having enough trouble with the Ukrainians. That being said, I do agree that Trump's rhetoric is reckless and makes NATO look indecisive.

IMO, that's treason.

It could be if he were president. For now, he's just political candidate expressing his opinions on NATO.

 

[jasonc]

Yes, I think they do see it as a problem. However, I think these European nations have relied on the U.S. too much for far too long. For example, the Netherlands has a grand total of 18 main battle tanks that or leases from Germany. This is down from 1,000 MBT's that the country had available during the Cold War era. The drastic reduction was due to budget cuts to defense.

I think there is no denying that many of these nations rely far too heavily on the U.S. for their defense. Since the end of the Cold War, defense spending has been on the decline. Only recently have these countries begun to take defense spending seriously due to recent events in Ukraine.

So while I don't support what Trump said, I do support these European countries allocating more of their GDP towards defense. Because if war does break out between the U.S. and Russia, and a potential invasion of Taiwan by Chinese naval forces, the U.S. is going to spreading itself pretty thin.

It will be hard .the af is asking for Retirees to come back.

Imagine not having the national guard in Florida because all of it is deployed and a riot ,storm .they would have to resort to the old WW1 ,WW2 use of the state guard .usually filled with people that can't deploy.

 

[Riven]

Loading…

www.courthousenews.com

Last December, 18 of Germany's ultra-modern Puma infantry fighting vehicles broke down due to electronic problems and other defects. Soldiers in one tank had to abandon it after its wiring caught fire, media reported. In recent years, much of its fleet of Eurofighter jets, transport planes and submarines were found unprepared for combat.

Spoiler

 

[jasonc]

Loading…

www.courthousenews.com

Last December, 18 of Germany's ultra-modern Puma infantry fighting vehicles broke down due to electronic problems and other defects. Soldiers in one tank had to abandon it after its wiring caught fire, media reported. In recent years, much of its fleet of Eurofighter jets, transport planes and submarines were found unprepared for combat.

Spoiler

I posted a long article on that .
I don't get the resistance to asking Europa since you are nato too to build up .should have started it back when Putin took Georgia . Be like Poland who saw that and said nope.nato we want to join and started building up.i have friends who rotate their for missions .

 

[Uncle J]

Are you saying they wouldn't rely on the U.S. if Russia were to invade a NATO country?

They would rely on all NATO countries to come to their aid, just as we did after 9/11.

I think you're overestimating the capabilities of these European armies. They're mostly hot garbage thanks to decades of budget cuts.

Loading…

www.nato.int

"Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg released NATO's latest defence spending figures on Wednesday (14 February 2024), which show an unprecedented increase across European Allies and Canada.

Previewing this week's meetings of Defence Ministers, Mr Stoltenberg announced that since the Defence Investment Pledge was made in 2014, European Allies and Canada have added more than $600 billion for defence. In 2023, we saw a real increase of 11% in defence spending across European Allies and Canada, which the Secretary General called an “unprecedented rise”. He added that he expects 18 Allies to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2024 – a six-fold increase since 2014, when only three Allies met the target."

Yeah, I know. But I think these countries should be operating under the assumption that the U.S. won't be there to bail them out. At least that way Europe can finally defend itself properly. Most Americans don't want to have to send their sons and daughters to fight and die saving Europe again.

Oh, I wasn't aware that your position is that NATO shouldn't exist.

I don't think it's particularly dangerous given that Putin has no interest in western Europe.

I guess you're not aware that NATO includes east European countries and the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

That being said, I do agree that Trump's rhetoric is reckless and makes NATO look indecisive.

It could be if he were president. For now, he's just political candidate expressing his opinions on NATO.

So Donald is running on a treasonous platform. I don't know about you, but for me that's a definite deal breaker.

 

[Riven]

Loading…

www.nato.int

"Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg released NATO's latest defence spending figures on Wednesday (14 February 2024), which show an unprecedented increase across European Allies and Canada.

Previewing this week's meetings of Defence Ministers, Mr Stoltenberg announced that since the Defence Investment Pledge was made in 2014, European Allies and Canada have added more than $600 billion for defence. In 2023, we saw a real increase of 11% in defence spending across European Allies and Canada, which the Secretary General called an “unprecedented rise”. He added that he expects 18 Allies to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2024 – a six-fold increase since 2014, when only three Allies met the target."

Only three allies met the target. This is what Trump was complaining about when he was in office. My issue is that these armies aren't combat ready and they should be.

Oh, I wasn't aware that your position is that NATO shouldn't exist.

I guess you're not aware that NATO includes east European countries and the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

I am aware. But an invasion of those countries is not what people are concerned with because Putin isn't interested. What people are concerned with is, if Ukraine falls, an invasion of Poland.

So Donald is running on a treasonous platform. I don't know about you, but for me that's a definite deal breaker.

You were never going to vote for him regardless.

 

[jasonc]

Only three allies met the target. This is what Trump was complaining about when he was in office. My issue is that these armies aren't combat ready and they should be.

I am aware. But an invasion of those countries is not what people are concerned with because Putin isn't interested. What people are concerned with is, if Ukraine falls, an invasion of Poland.


You were never going to vote for him regardless.

The army I joined was so large that it sent 600000 to desert shield and it didn't even call up the guard fully but that was very much a guard mission with active as well .we simply don't have the man power or equipment.

Eventually we will have a bluff called by Putin

 

[stovebolts]

my church has a missionary in Spain taking in refugees from that war that we raised money for .

Glad to hear that Jason! Detroit has a healthy Ukraine presence so there are many small businesses that are supporting family and friends back there. But it’s good to hear a small church in Florida is stepping up to the spillover!

 

[stovebolts]

Eventually we will have a bluff called by Putin

And China. We are at war with China too, it’s just no missles have been launched.

 

[stovebolts]

Donald is basically telling the world he doesn't support NATO or our allies, and instead he leans towards Putin. Ya think maybe NATO leaders see that as a problem?

I disagree.
The US supports its own interest and allies are only pawns with similar interests.
What I hear Trump saying is NATO needs to have more skin in the game or get out of the game. If Russia invaded a NATO territory, that would seem to force an increase in their financial obligation. I mean, 2% is all they are currently obligated to and they can’t seem to muster that.

Talk is cheap and sometimes ya gotta put your money where your mouth is.

But here is what I ponder. We didn’t have the global unrest we currently have under Trump. I think he’s a fair global negotiator and not a tyrant like Biden who has his interests at stake and not the American people’s stake. I think he and his cronies want war and civil unrest and I’ll bet if you followed the money, , it’s swinging back to him and his cronies.

 

[Uncle J]

Only three allies met the target.

Wrong. As of 2023, 11 countries have met the 2% target, with 9 more being mere decimal points under it. I gave you updated info on this in my post....that you're replying to!

This is what Trump was complaining about when he was in office.

Well then he was lying, but I don't think that matters to you.

My issue is that these armies aren't combat ready and they should be.

That didn't seem to be the case after 9/11, when they all came to our aid.

You said the rest of NATO "should be operating under the assumption that the U.S. won't be there". Given that the entire point of NATO is for all member countries to come to the aid of any other member country that's attacked, your statement makes no sense. Are you saying NATO should exist, just without the United States?

I am aware. But an invasion of those countries is not what people are concerned with because Putin isn't interested. What people are concerned with is, if Ukraine falls, an invasion of Poland.

Um, I guess you aren't aware that one of Putin's major goals is to reestablish the former Russian/Soviet empire, which puts the Baltic states squarely in his cross hairs. And yes, people are concerned about him attacking Poland as well, especially after the Carlson interview.

But you seem to either support Putin's aims, or are at least ambivalent about them.

You were never going to vote for him regardless.

If all else was roughly equal with one difference between him and another candidate was his unconstitutional and treasonous plans for NATO/Russia, it would certainly be a deal breaker.

But it really does look like you just don't care about this, or at least don't care enough to where you might reconsider your support of Donald. Oh sure, he's saying he'll completely betray our allies, violate the constitution, encourage Russia to invade yet another country, and tell Putin he can "do whatever the hell he wants"....but to you, that's all just a "meh".

He really was right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and his supporters would stay loyal to him. It's utterly bizarre.

 

[Uncle J]

I disagree.

With what? That Donald said what he said?

The US supports its own interest and allies are only pawns with similar interests.
What I hear Trump saying is NATO needs to have more skin in the game or get out of the game. If Russia invaded a NATO territory, that would seem to force an increase in their financial obligation. I mean, 2% is all they are currently obligated to and they can’t seem to muster that.

As I noted to Riven, 11 countries met the 2% target last year, with 9 more being mere decimal points under it. Somehow I don't think Slovenia increasing their defense spending by 0.6%, or Luxembourg by 1.2% is going to make or break NATO.

But here is what I ponder. We didn’t have the global unrest we currently have under Trump. I think he’s a fair global negotiator and not a tyrant like Biden who has his interests at stake and not the American people’s stake. I think he and his cronies want war and civil unrest and I’ll bet if you followed the money, , it’s swinging back to him and his cronies.

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

 

[JJonas]

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

I think he mistakenly wrote Trump for Biden:

But here is what I ponder. We didn’t have the global unrest we currently have under Trump Biden. I think he’s a fair global negotiator and not a tyrant like Biden who has his interests at stake and not the American people’s stake. I think he and his cronies want war and civil unrest and I’ll bet if you followed the money, , it’s swinging back to him and his cronies.

Trump has an incredible great ego, therefore I see the prospect of his reelection as a mixed blessing. It would be however be unfair to dismiss everything he achieved. For example, he helped to negociate peace in the middle-east. Biden on the other hand brought much evil: tolerance (if not promotion) of riots, authoritarian measures (litany of executive orders, push for LGBTQ politics against christians, vaccine mandates, politicisation of the DOJ and the FBI against parents wanting to protect their kids and against the pro-life movement). This helped cause much unrest, so that more than ever there are concerns about secession of states and a potential civil war.

Biden seems to me to be more interested in defending his family's interests in Ukraine, than on the well being of the Ukrainians. I believe that his personal interests played an important role for the existence of the war. I also believe that under Trump this war would have less likely happened, as to my knowledge he doesn't have any interests to defend in this region.

 

[Uncle J]

Biden on the other hand brought much evil: tolerance (if not promotion) of riots, authoritarian measures (litany of executive orders, push for LGBTQ politics against christians, vaccine mandates, politicisation of the DOJ and the FBI against parents wanting to protect their kids and against the pro-life movement). This helped cause much unrest, so that more than ever there are concerns about secession of states and a potential civil war.

Again, what in the world are you even talking about? For example, what riots did Biden promote?

Biden seems to me to be more interested in defending his family's interests in Ukraine, than on the well being of the Ukrainians. I believe that his personal interests played an important role for the existence of the war. I also believe that under Trump this war would have less likely happened, as to my knowledge he doesn't have any interests to defend in this region.

That makes zero sense. What personal interests do you think Biden is protecting and how do you think that caused Putin to invade Ukraine?

And are you aware that Donald is the one telling Putin he can invade whatever country he wants and all Donald would do is tell him to "do whatever the hell he wants"?

 

[Riven]

Trump's rhetoric seems to be having a mostly positive effect on these European countries. They're beginning to understand that they need to invest more in defense.

 

[JJonas]

Again, what in the world are you even talking about? For example, what riots did Biden promote?

BLM riots

That makes zero sense. What personal interests do you think Biden is protecting and how do you think that caused Putin to invade Ukraine?

Do you deny that the Biden family has interests in Ukraine? His son Hunter Biden was making murky business in Ukraine. And I find it suspicious that the FBI felt like it needed social media to censor the story about his laptop and to falsely label it as russian disinformation.

Putin didn't want a NATO nation by his border. I believe there was room to find a solution that could be a good compromise for all parties but that the west block lead by the USA shown no interest with diplomacy but wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy to promote their interests in the region, so they sabotaged every efforts for peace. But it is all the hidden part of the iceberg which we can't see clearly.

 

[Uncle J]

BLM riots

Um....those took place in 2020, when Donald was president. Sheesh.

Do you deny that the Biden family has interests in Ukraine? His son Hunter Biden was making murky business in Ukraine. And I find it suspicious that the FBI felt like it needed social media to censor the story about his laptop and to falsely label it as russian disinformation.

You're all over the map here. Remember, your claim was that Putin invaded Ukraine because Biden was protecting his Ukrainian interests (which still makes zero sense). You've provided nothing to back that up.

Putin didn't want a NATO nation by his border.

Good grief....the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania....all of which border Russia....joined NATO in 2004, 20 years ago. So Putin has had NATO nations on his border for two decades.

If you're going to try and discuss this subject, at least educate yourself on the basic facts.

I believe there was room to find a solution that could be a good compromise for all parties but that the west block lead by the USA shown no interest with diplomacy but wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy to promote their interests in the region, so they sabotaged every efforts for peace. But it is all the hidden part of the iceberg which we can't see clearly.

So yet another unevidenced conspiracy theory. I'd ask you to support this one, but given your .000 batting average on your others, well......

 

[ezrider]

With what? That Donald said what he said?


As I noted to Riven, 11 countries met the 2% target last year, with 9 more being mere decimal points under it. Somehow I don't think Slovenia increasing their defense spending by 0.6%, or Luxembourg by 1.2% is going to make or break NATO.


I have no idea what you're even talking about.

Yes, but you do have to realize that it takes either extreme faith or strong delusion to be able to peer into their alternative reality.