Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Macron's China Controversy Explained" video.

  1. ​ @bufordhighwater9872 Yep. But the huge spending on the military is also part of why Americans are less keen on taxation to begin with. It's a bit of a chicken vs the egg problem. People are more willing to be taxed if they see a tangible benefit from it. Americans don't really feel like they do.
    4
  2. ​ @MegaBanne No, you wouldn't. You're pissed at Macron, not the French people...
    2
  3. ​ @kenningtonrund282 As a European I totally get that sentiment, and partially share it. But please try to understand that the situation is difficult for Europe. Even if Europe threw its full support behind the US and Taiwan the military capabilities that far away from the continent would be limited. But we'd still be potential targets for Chinese nukes. Also when it comes to non-nuclear conflicts... Europe is mainly a economic powerhouse. This conflict with Russia has been quite damaging in that regard, we can't be in a economic conflict with Russia and China both at once, only one of them. Can you perhaps have a look at some of Peruns recent videos? Before the war in Ukraine I feel like he didn't really understand Europe. But he has improved greatly and seems to have a pretty solid grasp of our geopolitical situation now.
    2
  4. ​ @chihaya2299 The EU made an effort to ensure that everyone got it. A lot of EU countries had the capability to outbid other EU nations in a bidding war but didn't. There was preexisting deals etc too of course, but on the whole in terms of vaccines the way EU dealt with it was actually relatively fair...
    1
  5. ​ @birdatbattlefield That and just the whole it's wrong to leave Taiwan and other democracies to be anexed by China is part of why I dissagree with Macron on that topic. That said, he has a point with his overall sentiment. While Americans are overconfident in their "nuclear shield" it's likely that it would reduce the damage of a nuclear war to the US even if it definitely won't stop all the major cities from being destroyed. Europe doesn't have that kind of protection, even if the tech was in place, in part because Russia simply is too close and there's not enough response time so vs Russia the tech is a waste of money. But for China Europe is a easier target if they need to scare Americans with a nuke if they want to avoid sending several to either overwhelm the defenses or to make it more likely to encounter flawd parts of the quite frankly prototype nuclear shield. Attacking Europe would save more nukes for a main attack vs the US since it's less likely to be intercepted. Especially if China manages to get Russia to use theirs instead of using a Chinese nuke... They're allies so it would still be a deterrence... Also, European capacity to do much good in Asia in a conflict between superpowers is... Limited.... US allies generally have armies designed to deal with the local threats, be that South Korea with their huge number of artillery pieces or Finlands reserve army or Swedens SAAB Gripen fleet and Scandinavian CV90s. Not to mention all the infrastructure etc. US allies enable the US to be relevant geopolitically in their respective areas and even with the lower military spendings they still reduce the amount of resources that the US would need to get close to the same relevance significantly. NATO without the US is still bigger then the US military even with the low spending after the cold war. And in Asia the US allies there also got more troops etc. The US role in these conflicts would be to cover the capabilities lacking locally, like in South Koreas case nuclear deterrence for instance.
    1
  6. ​ @assertivekarma1909 I suggest that you have a look at Peruns videos about why the US is allied to relatively speaking weaker militarily nations. Because the story about "Europe leeching on US military gurantees" just isn't true.
    1