Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "" video.

@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Military spending has been ran down in European countries for decades to pay for other things.
3
Because without America's contribution to the defence of Europe, Europeans would have to cut social services and pay more tax for their own defence. And European economies (especially Britain's) are too fragile for that without risking a financial crisis.
2
@jais61 Do you think they are Amazon? Germany's first responsibility is to the collective defence of Nato.
2
@enricogattone432 Continuing to raid the defense budget for social spending without raising taxes.
2
@ikiruyamamoto1050 Did European countries or America ever tell Ukraine that it had a security guarantee?
2
Ukraine is not a member of Nato. The military spending that Nato members are obliged to meet but keep wriggling out of are quite separate to spending on supporting Ukraine
2
@tonyserratore9018 The US is attempting to make Russia get sickened and quit in Ukraine, but it cannot try to totally defeat Russia in Ukraine, otherwise it would end up facing an alliance of Russia and China.
1
Funny how Biden is not called these names even though the policy has been essentially unchanged from Biden's time supporting Ukraine against Russia (almost three years).
1
American strategists want to sicken Russia and make it quit, not defeat it. That was true under Biden, and it continues to be true under Trump.
1
He is successfully demanded that European Nato members spend 5% of GDP on defence, For many that is more that doubling their defence budget. How is that helping Russia pray tell?
1
@unvergebeneid Ukraine's interests are not identical with any other countries'. Let us not pretend otherwise.
1
@enricogattone432 So in other words European countries are not really giving any extra to towards meeting their Nato commitments.
1
@unvergebeneid Russia would react to any attempt to 'destroy its war machine;' it is far from fully mobilized. So doing what you suggest would increase the intensity of the fighting in Ukraine without bringing a defeat of Russia in the war or even a terminal stalemate closer.
1
@ikiruyamamoto1050 Ukraine was paid off by the West to renounce nuclear weapons in the Budapest agreement. Money was paid. That was what they kept demanding to sign: more money.
1
@sidemixsessions Only if you count what they are spending on Ukraine.
1
@sidemixsessions That is only true of European Nato countries pledge to match the 5% GDP on defence by 2035 commitment that America made (the Europeans did very reluctantly and only out of fear that Trump would walk away from Nato). The Europeans countries' pledge to actually spend 5% is not taken seriously by anyone because it allows spending on things such as money for Ukrainian armed forces and roads and bridges in European countries to be classified as going toward fulfilling their 5% on defence. Just accounting tricks. America currently spends 3.4% on defence, and the real commitment made by European Nato countries is to spend 3.4% on actual weapons and troops for their own armed forces to defend each other by 2035. Incidentally, by that time the Poles will be on average richer than the British.
1
@PaulGudeDeberitz Norway has indeed said along with other European Nato countries that it will be spending 5% by 2035 (including some red neat for Anders a fleet of anti submarine warships with helicopters), but it was only a year ago that Norway was saying it would be increasing to a mere 2% (and that was not a real increase at all because Norway's GDP had declined during the lockdown years) . Trump did what no president has done before by threating Europe that the US would be walking away unless the European members of Nato matched American spending on defence by 2035 (that is when 5% of GDP is supposed to be reached by the US). The 5% figure can include 1.5% of investments in non military infrastructure, energy and supply. The frigates that Norway has ordered as part of its--in effect--commitment to spend 3.5% on an armed forces of Norway build up has to met by really painful increases because these kind of forces are extremely expensive. Like almost all European Nato countries Norway was herertofor getting its defence on the cheap. Under Trump the free ride is over and that is deeply resented and characterised as being pro Russia by European countries.
1
He is increasing the US defence spending to 5% and forcing the European Nato members to do the same (for many a massive increase almost double what only 12 mnths ago they were saying is the max they'd spend). Is Nato an alliance to defend against Russia or isn't it ? How can more military force for Nato members be a good thing for Russia? The evidence does not suggest Trump want to inflict a serious defeat on Russia in Ukraine by sopping them in their tracks and forcing them into a ceasefire without recognition of their gains, but there was never any evidence that Joe Biden wanted to do that either.
1