Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Europe to boot US out of NATO?

Donald Trump's announcement of the start of negotiations on Ukraine with Putin in a phone call sent shockwaves through European capitals. Any settlement in Ukraine will have ramifications for Europe's own security. France, Germany and Spain insisted that any peace deal in Ukraine could not be achieved without the involvement of European partners.

US defense chief, Hegseth, said it was Europe's responsibility to stop the Russian "war machine". Ukraine's dream of returning to its pre-2014 borders was an "illusionary goal" – and that Kyiv's wish for NATO membership was "not realistic".

This is payback time for disrespecting and ripping off the USA.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
NATO is the US foreign legion. You can't kick them out. That is not how being a colony works.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Can an empire be too racist to want a foreign colony? 😜
@Burnley123 The British Empire was not exactly woke and didn't have much of an issue. Ditto with France. Which Ironically Ukraine is fighting to preserve what is left of Napoleon's empire while they are supposedly in an existential fight at home.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Napoleon's Empire ended at the Battle of Leipzig. It was Entirely European and not settler colonist. There is no analogy with the Ukraine situation at all. Though as part of the Russian Empire, plenty Ukrainian soldiers fought against Napoleon's armies.

An analogy that would work a bit better would be Poland. Their soldiers fought enthusiastically for Napoleon (even in Spain) because the French Emperor represented the best chance of them re-establishing an independent state. Modern Ukrainians hitched themselves to NATO for a similar reason.

The French Empire (in the 'modern' sense) was created later in the 19th century.

My previous comment was half-joking. The point (which went over your head) is that MAGA is so ultra-nationalist that it doesn't care about the priorities of 'liberal interventionists'.
@Burnley123 That is news to the French. They call them "overseas territories" now but same difference. And yeah name dropping Napoleon is a bit of an exaggeration but he started the French colonial empire. He was even in Egypt and Syria in the 1790s but that is another matter.


I think you missed the point about Ukraine. For the last 2 years the Ukrainian HUR has been bragging about how they are basically fighting in France's last colonies (official or otherwise) in Central Africa and in Syria which used to be an official French colony.

The point was to illustrate that when you sign on with NATO official or otherwise your own nation's priorities become irrelevant. Which is how Ukraine ends up running around central Africa trying to preserve what is left of the French colonial project when they have bigger problems at home.


As for MAGA and liberal interventionists they are the same thing. The only difference is the talking points justifying the empire.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
That is news to the French. They call them "overseas territories" now but same difference. And yeah name dropping Napoleon is a bit of an exaggeration but he started the French colonial empire. He was even in Egypt and Syria in the 1790s but that is another matter.

It would definitely be news to the French that Napoleon started their overseas empire. He didn't. They had colonial interests in North America long before he rose to power but got wiped out by the British everywhere but Quebec in the Seven Years War. As a Canadian, you really should know a bit about that. Napoleon also literally sold Louisianna to the fledgling USA to fund his European wars.

I'm not arguing that Napoleon was anti-colonialist: He did oppose Haitian independence and did try to get an empire in Egypt.. I'm just mentioning all this to illustrate that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to European history. The wars he fought (outside Egypt and Syria- so 95% of them) were all in Europe and all an attempt to get one over other European Imperial Powers. The Holy Roman Empire (clues in the title) was his biggest victim in this sense but the Napoleonic Wars were not anything like the colony conquest that the French later did in Africa or earlier did in North America. His empire did not involve the subjugation of non-white people and did not last very long: in spite of his many impressive military victories.

So it's not just exaggerated: It's a completely irrelevant and ridiculous analogy.
@Burnley123 So we are just going to ignore the fact NATO has Ukraine running around Central Africa and the ME fighting to preserve what is left of French colonialism and argue about the minutiae of the 18th, and 19th century. Got it.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
argue about the minutiae of the 18th, and 19th century. Got it.

It's not minutiae. It's that your whole historical analogy is complete bollocks and you are giving opinions on things you do not know (as usual).

I am anti-imperialist: both historically and the modern variant. Britain, America, Canada and Russia are all imperial powers. We disagree on the last point but I'll happily leave it there.
@Burnley123 It is not an analogy. That is the first mistake. Ukraine has been fighting in Africa for 2 years to preserve French colonialism.

But I guess we will just ignore that and pretend it is not happening.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow You changed the point of contention and are now telling me what my argument is.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment