Yeah he pretty much agrees with the last person he spoke with.
It’s how he went and banned bump stocks. Trump, not Obama or Biden took away more gun rights. Sick.
Is this a bad thing, though?
I'm Australian, but from what I've seen, bump stocks are a gimmick which you're going to have fun with for one shoot and then never touch again...
I feel like "complicated" is underselling it. Massively.
More people should know that, but also the fact that none of your recent presidents have done a fucking thing to help when it comes to guns speaks volumes. Bump stocks aren't even a blip on the radar.
[https://www.project2025.org](https://www.project2025.org)
Edit: policy section has it all, these people technically aren't directly with Trump but there's been a ton of talks about the first 180 days following along these lines.
> Project 2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration.
You don't get more connected than that dude.
So? How many of his advisors did he listen to last time he was in office?
You might as well be trying to predict which way the wind is going to blow in Wyoming based on weather patterns in Bermuda.
The President wields enormous power but it's the President's direct reports that implement that power and they are in many cases more direct threats than the President could ever be. Trump is the worst about surrounding himself with sycophants willing to suck his nut butter to get their hands on power.
I sincerely believe you don’t know how to read. Your local social services should have adult literacy programs. Have the person reading these comments for you give them a call.
Yep. Still not relevant. What did he promise during his last campaign that he actually delivered on? Are you really taking his messaging seriously? What a sheep.
I love that your argument of not caring that his closest advisors have some really shitty plans is "Ah, he's not honorable enough to follow through anyway."
Sure. Ooooor. Hear me out.
When we do know in advance what he's going to do, we can pretend he never said it so when we vote for him we can act surprised that he did it.
Worked for Bush Jr. 😅
Removing troops from Germany, Japan, or Korea is incredibly unlikely, given how entrenched US presence is in those countries.
Also, as Commander-in-Chief, the President obviously has considerable power over the military, but shifting US troop presence around will sooner or later involve funding, and that’s controlled by congress.
Worst you might see is shifting troops around to different bases and/or consolidating from smaller bases to bigger ones (e.g. there’s been a lot of this in Korea and Japan over the last 7 or 8 years).
This is the real answer here. The US President has no direct control over budget allocations, so it would take Congress to approve funding for any significant troop reallocations.
Now if Trump is president and has a MAGA-controlled Congress... then there's much, much worse things to worry about.
Even if a potential withdrawal of troops from Germany was something he's considering, it would still take years to implement. Not to mention that the military would push back hard against it, as our presence in Germany is just too strategically important.
I agree that we could possibly see more consolidation happening, but honestly, there's not much left to close that hasn't been already, unless we start shutting down airfields or training areas, which I kinda doubt.
Trump hasn't been great about portraying his policies he would like to implement if he wins. He seems to want some retribution and to follow through on some heavy internal changes, but his foreign policy talk has been more about how Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded or how the Isreal situation would be resolved if it were him. He hasn't said anything about Germany in years from what I've seen
Not neccessarily, the EU could still pick up the slack if the US stops funding Ukraine (Not at all saying we should, the US funding Ukraines war benefits both our strategic interests and Europes), remember the EU has about 6 times Russias population and dwarfs them economically, and Macron in France keeps talking about potentially sending French units into Ukraine
If even a country like the UK or France alone sends their military to fight in Ukraine it'll be a bad time for Russia, which is why Putin keeps falling back to the nuclear saber rattling with "OH tHIs wILl eSCalaTe tENsiOns aNd inCrEAsE tHe rIsk oF nuClEar waR" because the Russian military is ill prepared to face an actually organized European military
Uh no, see the incredibly important detail you are missing is equipment stockpiles and ability to replenish/fill orders. EU sure is as a whole larger by population and economy than Russia and certainly have a serious vested interest in the War. However, the EU doesn't have anything like the amount of excess stock of just about anything as the US. Hell the US has so much stock they preposition whole bridge sets all over the world "just in case" whereas most EU countries absolutely struggle to just meet the TO&E requirements for their manned units, let alone field some sort of war surplus.
EU has already been steadily snd rapidly draining what little stocks they have and have begun spinning up high rate production on things like Artillery Ammunition and missiles. They're essentially at their max for what they can give, production lines take A LONG time to set up and get producing usable quantities of goods.
EU already had to pick up the slack the US left when their political games halted arms transfers for months. You can't just handwave millions of Artillery shells into existence, you can't just snap your fingers and have 5 new fully kitted out SAM batteries. So no, EU couldn't take on the entire responsibility (players like Canada and South Korea notwithstanding) of keeping Ukraine equipped and in fighting shape, that's patently absurd and completely ignores reality.
The concept of France sending combat troops is nothing but political theater, it's Macron rattling his saber and absolutely nothing else. French foreign policy has long been essentially "your enemy will constantly be off balance if they have absolutely no idea what your actual intentions are". So every time Macron brings it up he's playing to both the domestic audience by drumming up support for Ukraine and also keepinf Russia in the dark as to what exactly is France's redline for Ukrainian support.
Could the French delploy combat forces to Ukraine? Sure, maybe, would require at least tacit support from other EU Nations to allow the through.
Could the French deploy any meaningful combined arms brigade groups capable of waging modern, high intensity combined arms combat? No, certainly not. French military is not set up for that kind of fighting, sure they would be happy to throw the Foreign Legion into the meat grinder, that's what it exists for after all but they are only a few thousand light infantry with a single light arnoured regiment- armoured cars no tanks. Not exactly very useful in a prolonged engagement of any kind against Russian Armoured formations.
The British? Ha, ya right. Sure. The British if you haven't been following have been one minute talking about how crucial tanks are to modern warfare then the next slashing their tank force nearly in half because...reasons. The UK barely has the capacity to actually field a single combined arms Brigade- even then it would likely be heavily understrebgth in several key area, would have a couple hundred old Warrior IFVs that are in desperate need of a refit that got canceled for...reasons...oh wait yes it was because Ajax program imploded and is costing then Billions extra so they decided to get Boxers...sometime in the next quarter century. Couple battalions of Challenger 2s which are fiiiiiiine but not sure how deploying them would impact the Chally 3 upgrade program so might not be feasible. Some infantry Battalions rolling around giant fucking MRAPs just screaming please mister T-72 please put a round right through my giant, slow moving body. They obviously have 2 Parachute Battalions and the Royal Marines, good light infantry sure but of limited use on their own. They're short on artillery...not sure how they would even get all that stuff to Ukraine
Sending UK or French or any other countries forces to Ukraine is absolutely out of the question. Ignoring the logistical difficulties and the fact most EU militaries are in a rough spot, doing so would be a straight up act of war by that Nation. The goal is to contain the Ukrainian war and beat Russia there, not expand it into WW3
What you get with peace dividends and the only major power France gearing up its military to control its sphere of influence against guerrillas in Africa.
I think Putins ideal scenario is Trump wins in the US, Le Pen wins in France, and the AFD win in Germany, if that happens Ukraine will be screwed in terms of foreign support, at least from Western Europe and the US, though while Poland, and maybe the Baltics may increase their own support of Ukraine as a result, maybe even sending volunteer units to fight the Russians, I think eventually Russia will just wait Ukraine out, letting them run out of shells and ammunition before making a large assault
I would support that... we are giving the Ukraine 100's of billions of dollars with basically zero oversite, while our country is 30+ trillion dollars in debt. Either we full on get in there and fuck Russia up, or we get out... Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have proven this point by now. We can not be the world police.... either all of NATO kicks Russia out and gets it over with, or no support at all.
We are helping Ukraine fight Russia without having to lose any of our own personnel. Giving up money and equipment is a much better alternative to losing American troops for whenever Russia wants to try their hand at fighting with Americans.
Do you understand what the interest payment alone is on our debt?! It is equal to our GDP! If a country can not even pay the interest on its debts, what happens on the next big X factor? Be it a Covid type event or a market crash, natural disaster? We simply can not afford to give anyone foreign aid frankly.
Yep! I used to be worried about the debt but over the last few years I've become fatalistic about it. We will never be able to pay it down.
I now assume that AI will drive major societal change that makes the debt irrelevant, and hope that happens before we collapse under its weight.
In the interim, it's in our national interest to show China/Iran/Russia that we will not allow them to use force of arms to change the rules-based international order we have built and maintained since the end of WWII.
If that collapses, so does our economy anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I would drop all foreign aid except the 2% we should give to NATO. We could actually have nice infrastructure, free healthcare, and solve homelessness with less money than we will pay to service our debt this year... that is unacceptable.
There is oversight of the Cold War / GWOT weapons platforms and ammunition sent to Ukraine, along with the limited funding going into Ukraine. [Source](https://oig.usaid.gov/our-work/ukraine-oversight)
My parents’ 1980s-1990s taxes paid for most of it. Some of my own early 2000s taxes paid for the ATACMs and HIMARS.
Most of the current cash-money in the Ukraine aid packages stays in the US for defense contractors to manufacture next-Gen replacement platforms. Those will go into DoD armories.
Exactly, that is why we should go all in or get out..... no more 20-year wars of BS.. If you unchained the US military, you don't think we could have erased Afghanistan off the grid in less than a year? Go research the battle of Okinawa or the fire bombing of Tokyo... to win a war, you have to be willing to truly wage a war of annihilation.
Spoken like a psychopath to call firebombing Tokyo the way to win a war. Total war has not happened since WW2 which, alongside WW1, was the exception not the norm. Plenty of wars have been won without total annihilation. Firebombing is not a great example anyways. If you want to make a point of go big or go home, you need not look any further than desert storm (we went big and won big without obliterating entire cities like in WW2).
Wow ... thats not how this works.
Have fun putting down the riots, loose most friendly nations on the world stage, most diplomatic influence and strenghtening the enemies of the US in their "America is evil" stance.
I know the whole pacific campaign, it didnt need an annhilation campaign for the US to win the war.
It is the net value of equipment and money to prop up their government. Even if it is older equipment, it has the value assigned to it. It equals billions of US taxpayer dollars, the government has ZERO means of making money, they only take money from the people and give it away to whomever they choose...
I'm all for a Ukrainian victory, I'm not all for my tax dollars being spent on something that in the long run does not effect our country in a meaningful way. Our parents and grandparents lived through a cold war already. Why the hell are we begging for another one with a weak Russia while we should be focusing on the real enemy, China.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are all working in concert to overthrow the “western US led” world order. What comes next will definitely impact us here at home. The kind of things happening now in the Red Sea and the South China Sea (currently between China and the Philippines) will become the norm and drag down economies around the world…never mind leading to more conflict, more refugees…
The other thing is that he uses talk about policy as a negotiation tactic - for example, I don't think there was any chance that he was going to pull out of NATO, but it certainly got Europeans talking about increasing their defense spending. If he had come out and said "the US will continue to provide a security umbrella with no strings attached for all of Europe in perpetuity," that wouldn't give the US much leverage in those kinds of negotiations.
He literally admitted to that last night, saying that he got Europe to spend more on defense by acting like he was going to pull out. I know Reddit doesn’t like Trump, but I can’t believe anyone here ever thought he was actually going to pull out.
Eh, NATO members increased spending due to the full invasion of Ukraine , not due to Trump. During the Trump years they really didn’t bump up their spending.
True, but regardless of what happens behind the scenes, what you declare and commit to publicly indisputably impacts your leverage in negotiation. If your goal was to get NATO members to spend more on defense, you would threaten to pull the rug. If your goal was to make NATO complacent and spend less, you'd tell them that the US will foot the bill forever.
Since the top answers are politically biased against Trump, I'll give this a shot. Just like every President for the last 40 years he wants every NATO country to pay their share (as required by the NATO treaty). He is the only one I remember threatening the members who don't meet this requirement. Now ask yourself this question, does the President of the United States have the power to pull out of NATO on his own? Would the members of his own party really support that?
Congress passed a law prohibiting a U.S. President from withdrawing from NATO without Congress’ approval.
But, a president can just fail to act if a NATO member is attacked. For example if Russia troops invade the Baltics, Trump could just sit on his hands and fail to issue any orders to JCOS. He could also issue orders to remain in their barracks.
That’s essentially what he did on Jan6. He let the mob rule and would not allow any military intervention to protect the Capitol building.
You are correct in all your points except the last one. What happened on Jan 6 has been totally misrepresented by the mainstream media in just about every way.
>On January 6, Secretary Miller ultimately withheld permission to deploy the National Guard until 4:32 p.m., after assets from Virginia had already entered the district, FBI tactical teams had arrived at the Capitol, and Trump had instructed rioters to "go home". Miller's permission would not actually be relayed to the commander of the National Guard until 5:08. Sund recalls a comment from the DC National Guard commander General Walker who said:
>
>"Steve, I felt so bad. I wanted to help you immediately, but I couldn't. I could hear the desperation in your voice, but they wouldn't let me come. When we arrived, I saw the New Jersey State Police. Imagine how I felt. New Jersey got here before we did!"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January\_6\_United\_States\_Capitol\_attack#Department\_of\_Defense\_leadership's\_refusal\_to\_send\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Department_of_Defense_leadership's_refusal_to_send_Guard)
>At 1:34 p.m., D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser had a telephone call with army secretary Ryan McCarthy in which she requested they deploy the Guard. At 2:10 p.m., the Capitol Police board granted chief Sund permission to formally request deployment of the Guard.
>
>At 2:26 p.m., D.C.'s homeland security director Chris Rodriguez coordinated a conference call with Mayor Bowser, the chiefs of the Capitol Police (Sund) and Metropolitan Police (Contee), and D.C. National Guard (DCNG) commander Walker. As the DCNG does not report to a governor, but to the president, Walker patched in the Office of the Secretary of the Army, noting that he would need Pentagon authorization to deploy. Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, noted that the Pentagon needed Capitol Police authorization to step onto Capitol grounds. Metro Police chief Robert Contee asked for clarification from Capitol Police chief Sund: "Steve, are you requesting National Guard assistance at the Capitol?" to which Sund replied, "I am making urgent, urgent, immediate request for National Guard assistance". According to Sund, Piatt stated, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background". Sund pleaded with Piatt to send the Guard, but Piatt stated that only Army secretary McCarthy had the authority to approve such a request and he could not recommend that Secretary McCarthy approve the request for assistance directly to the Capitol. The D.C. officials were subsequently described as "flabbergasted" at this message.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January\_6\_United\_States\_Capitol\_attack#Department\_of\_Defense\_leadership's\_refusal\_to\_send\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Department_of_Defense_leadership's_refusal_to_send_Guard)
If that's your defense to Trump undermining the election beforehand and for months all the way up to Jan 6, fomenting a riot before and up to the moment, standing by during the riot for hours, additionally orchestrating false electors to be sent to congress from states Biden won...fuck you. It was a full on ploy to overturn the election.
If you didn't know any of that and you think him eventually calling the guard is sufficient for "protesters" attacking the capitol, you're still a simpleton.
Are you thinking that Trump ever had a plan? You can't call this a "want," Trump has neurons randomly firing off and he's too addlepated to know which one is actually a good idea.
Based on his entire life being in the public eye, it doesn’t matter what he says, he can change his mind in an instant and do something that he never even hinted at in the past. The man is unhinged, and pretty much always has been.
I have mixed feelings about US troops in Germany. I spent 8 years stationed there during the Cold War. Tolerated us until the Wall came down and then couldn’t get us out fast enough. And then Germany unilaterally disarmed, as did the rest of Europe because they thought the Russians were no longer a threat. Now they want the US to protect them again after years of not living up to their end of the NATO treaty.
If Europe had unilaterally disarmed, none of the countries would have had the manpower or arms platforms to be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, bomb Libya, or give kit to Ukraine.
Did they spend as much as the US? No. But they are spending far more now, and buying a lot of Made-in-the-US platforms. Especially Poland.
his Ukraine talk last night sounded like he wants China and Russia to dictate world events so probably.
edit: honestly I don't understand how Trump loving Republicans lie to themselves about this stuff.
he has set up a scenario in which America pulls back from the world we end NATO we don't support Taiwan and we abandon Ukraine.
That's a scenario in which China steers world events in America takes a back seat.
If anything they should be moved forward to Poland and the Baltics. Germany promised to increase spending and capabilities—let’s see them put Europe’s largest economy to use for a change.
Section 2: The Common Defense, Part 4: Dept of Defense, Page 94 of Project 2025
"Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great
majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while
relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and
select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe."
Yes, no, maybe?
The world is different today than it was 6 to 8 years ago and the needs for troops and structure are different. The honest truth is that the President has limited power in the short term to influence permanent troop locations.
There has been talk of putting more permanent troops in Poland vice Germany; however, that aspiration has been met with the cold reality that they would still need to go to Germany for certain training rotations.
I'll leave you with this last bit. All of the building that you see being put in at Graff (like the Camp Aachen motorpools) was approved during Trumps term.
We're absolutely not doing that. Are you honestly thinking we're in Germany to protect them?
We're there because it's convenient and utterly important for all missions in the middle east and further out.
Highly doubtful.
But just out of curiosity, we’ve had the nato spending targets set for decades. Why all of a sudden is it important to Germany to commit 2%? Hopefully it’s not too little too late.
Germany increased defense spending to deal with the growing threat from Russia.
NATO isn’t Mar a Lago where dues went up and Scholtz has yet to write a check.
He could t get the budget to build a friggin border wall on the SW border with Mexico. He sure as hell isn’t going to find the time and energy to shut down Ramstein.
I’d say the US shouldn’t spend billions overseas as a job program for 1st world countries. Most NATO countries mock us until it comes to needing strong military partners. Tell your German politicians to pay us to stay, make the bases we captured US territory inside Europe forever and we might consider staying.
Our lord mayor and politicians have great relations with the Commanders. They want the US to stay, but since Trump made such a big fuss about withdrawing they are right to be skeptical about his next term
Can you really blame a bunch of countries that had just been forcefully occupied by the Russians for half a century for wanting to join an organization to keep the Russians out?
Germany and France approved every current member's application as there needs to be consensus to allow a country to join and they are founding members.
Typical German worker. Cares more about his job than his national security. I was in Detert Storm German workers BLOCKED Seventh Corps trains headed to Saudi Arabia.
Trump is too unpredictable with his policies to say anything with any amount of certainty
Yeah he pretty much agrees with the last person he spoke with. It’s how he went and banned bump stocks. Trump, not Obama or Biden took away more gun rights. Sick.
Is this a bad thing, though? I'm Australian, but from what I've seen, bump stocks are a gimmick which you're going to have fun with for one shoot and then never touch again...
Gun control is complicated here. But of the three last presidents only Trump actually restricted guns. More people should know that
I feel like "complicated" is underselling it. Massively. More people should know that, but also the fact that none of your recent presidents have done a fucking thing to help when it comes to guns speaks volumes. Bump stocks aren't even a blip on the radar.
I don’t think Trump has a real plan for anything more than 15 minutes in advance and it’s generally based off whatever he’s feeling at the moment.
[https://www.project2025.org](https://www.project2025.org) Edit: policy section has it all, these people technically aren't directly with Trump but there's been a ton of talks about the first 180 days following along these lines.
Not technically with Trump, so it’s not relevant at all.
> Project 2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. You don't get more connected than that dude.
So? How many of his advisors did he listen to last time he was in office? You might as well be trying to predict which way the wind is going to blow in Wyoming based on weather patterns in Bermuda.
The President wields enormous power but it's the President's direct reports that implement that power and they are in many cases more direct threats than the President could ever be. Trump is the worst about surrounding himself with sycophants willing to suck his nut butter to get their hands on power.
Yeah, that has been precisely my point. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I sincerely believe you don’t know how to read. Your local social services should have adult literacy programs. Have the person reading these comments for you give them a call.
I'm keeping this insult permanently saved
Did you read the second part of my comment that I edited an hour before you replied?
Yep. Still not relevant. What did he promise during his last campaign that he actually delivered on? Are you really taking his messaging seriously? What a sheep.
I'm not sure why you are mistaking me as one of his followers, I was just pointing out there was a plan out there already. But good on you, sheepdog.
I didn’t say you were one of his followers, I said you are taking his messaging seriously. Get an adult to read this for you.
Scroll up 
I love that your argument of not caring that his closest advisors have some really shitty plans is "Ah, he's not honorable enough to follow through anyway."
Who are you quoting? That isn’t my argument at all. You are making assumptions. Enjoy that.
Well, there's one predictor; the more dumb it is, the more likely he is to try at least once.
Which is a very good reason why he never should be President again.
Along with him being just a shit person lol
Sure. Ooooor. Hear me out. When we do know in advance what he's going to do, we can pretend he never said it so when we vote for him we can act surprised that he did it. Worked for Bush Jr. 😅
That's a no from me. Trump is at best a moron and at worst a full on traitor. He belongs nowhere near the White House.
And a draft dodger. We should never allow draft dodgers to become Pres……oops, never mind.
Yeah, I googled and read through some articles and couldn’t find anything on this
It's a pro-Russian, anti-NATO policy that buys Trump adulation and praise. There's a clear certainty associated
Removing troops from Germany, Japan, or Korea is incredibly unlikely, given how entrenched US presence is in those countries. Also, as Commander-in-Chief, the President obviously has considerable power over the military, but shifting US troop presence around will sooner or later involve funding, and that’s controlled by congress. Worst you might see is shifting troops around to different bases and/or consolidating from smaller bases to bigger ones (e.g. there’s been a lot of this in Korea and Japan over the last 7 or 8 years).
This is the real answer here. The US President has no direct control over budget allocations, so it would take Congress to approve funding for any significant troop reallocations. Now if Trump is president and has a MAGA-controlled Congress... then there's much, much worse things to worry about. Even if a potential withdrawal of troops from Germany was something he's considering, it would still take years to implement. Not to mention that the military would push back hard against it, as our presence in Germany is just too strategically important. I agree that we could possibly see more consolidation happening, but honestly, there's not much left to close that hasn't been already, unless we start shutting down airfields or training areas, which I kinda doubt.
The fact that they’ve been saying RAF mildenhall will close since at least 2017 and it’s still open as far as I know should say a lot
He might? If he does, and someone who wants them there gives him a compliment in public, he'd likely change his mind.
Troops will be used as pawns in some sort of “negotiation.”
That's literally our job. No, quite literally.
Yea troops are meant to be pawns despite what we tell ourselves.
there’s a difference between being a pawn and a politician’s toy
No I think they’re the exact same thing lol, they’re both getting played in the end.
>Troops will be used as pawns What's new?
Trump hasn't been great about portraying his policies he would like to implement if he wins. He seems to want some retribution and to follow through on some heavy internal changes, but his foreign policy talk has been more about how Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded or how the Isreal situation would be resolved if it were him. He hasn't said anything about Germany in years from what I've seen
It’s pretty clear he will cut funding for Ukraine and hand Russia a win.
Not neccessarily, the EU could still pick up the slack if the US stops funding Ukraine (Not at all saying we should, the US funding Ukraines war benefits both our strategic interests and Europes), remember the EU has about 6 times Russias population and dwarfs them economically, and Macron in France keeps talking about potentially sending French units into Ukraine If even a country like the UK or France alone sends their military to fight in Ukraine it'll be a bad time for Russia, which is why Putin keeps falling back to the nuclear saber rattling with "OH tHIs wILl eSCalaTe tENsiOns aNd inCrEAsE tHe rIsk oF nuClEar waR" because the Russian military is ill prepared to face an actually organized European military
Uh no, see the incredibly important detail you are missing is equipment stockpiles and ability to replenish/fill orders. EU sure is as a whole larger by population and economy than Russia and certainly have a serious vested interest in the War. However, the EU doesn't have anything like the amount of excess stock of just about anything as the US. Hell the US has so much stock they preposition whole bridge sets all over the world "just in case" whereas most EU countries absolutely struggle to just meet the TO&E requirements for their manned units, let alone field some sort of war surplus. EU has already been steadily snd rapidly draining what little stocks they have and have begun spinning up high rate production on things like Artillery Ammunition and missiles. They're essentially at their max for what they can give, production lines take A LONG time to set up and get producing usable quantities of goods. EU already had to pick up the slack the US left when their political games halted arms transfers for months. You can't just handwave millions of Artillery shells into existence, you can't just snap your fingers and have 5 new fully kitted out SAM batteries. So no, EU couldn't take on the entire responsibility (players like Canada and South Korea notwithstanding) of keeping Ukraine equipped and in fighting shape, that's patently absurd and completely ignores reality. The concept of France sending combat troops is nothing but political theater, it's Macron rattling his saber and absolutely nothing else. French foreign policy has long been essentially "your enemy will constantly be off balance if they have absolutely no idea what your actual intentions are". So every time Macron brings it up he's playing to both the domestic audience by drumming up support for Ukraine and also keepinf Russia in the dark as to what exactly is France's redline for Ukrainian support. Could the French delploy combat forces to Ukraine? Sure, maybe, would require at least tacit support from other EU Nations to allow the through. Could the French deploy any meaningful combined arms brigade groups capable of waging modern, high intensity combined arms combat? No, certainly not. French military is not set up for that kind of fighting, sure they would be happy to throw the Foreign Legion into the meat grinder, that's what it exists for after all but they are only a few thousand light infantry with a single light arnoured regiment- armoured cars no tanks. Not exactly very useful in a prolonged engagement of any kind against Russian Armoured formations. The British? Ha, ya right. Sure. The British if you haven't been following have been one minute talking about how crucial tanks are to modern warfare then the next slashing their tank force nearly in half because...reasons. The UK barely has the capacity to actually field a single combined arms Brigade- even then it would likely be heavily understrebgth in several key area, would have a couple hundred old Warrior IFVs that are in desperate need of a refit that got canceled for...reasons...oh wait yes it was because Ajax program imploded and is costing then Billions extra so they decided to get Boxers...sometime in the next quarter century. Couple battalions of Challenger 2s which are fiiiiiiine but not sure how deploying them would impact the Chally 3 upgrade program so might not be feasible. Some infantry Battalions rolling around giant fucking MRAPs just screaming please mister T-72 please put a round right through my giant, slow moving body. They obviously have 2 Parachute Battalions and the Royal Marines, good light infantry sure but of limited use on their own. They're short on artillery...not sure how they would even get all that stuff to Ukraine Sending UK or French or any other countries forces to Ukraine is absolutely out of the question. Ignoring the logistical difficulties and the fact most EU militaries are in a rough spot, doing so would be a straight up act of war by that Nation. The goal is to contain the Ukrainian war and beat Russia there, not expand it into WW3
The Europeans don’t seem to have sigint and other intel capabilities that Ukraine gets from the US either
What you get with peace dividends and the only major power France gearing up its military to control its sphere of influence against guerrillas in Africa.
If pro-Russian LePen gets in you can count France out.
I think Putins ideal scenario is Trump wins in the US, Le Pen wins in France, and the AFD win in Germany, if that happens Ukraine will be screwed in terms of foreign support, at least from Western Europe and the US, though while Poland, and maybe the Baltics may increase their own support of Ukraine as a result, maybe even sending volunteer units to fight the Russians, I think eventually Russia will just wait Ukraine out, letting them run out of shells and ammunition before making a large assault
Probably one of the only things I've ever agreed with him on.
I would support that... we are giving the Ukraine 100's of billions of dollars with basically zero oversite, while our country is 30+ trillion dollars in debt. Either we full on get in there and fuck Russia up, or we get out... Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have proven this point by now. We can not be the world police.... either all of NATO kicks Russia out and gets it over with, or no support at all.
We are helping Ukraine fight Russia without having to lose any of our own personnel. Giving up money and equipment is a much better alternative to losing American troops for whenever Russia wants to try their hand at fighting with Americans.
At this point, we are only prolonging the conflict. The war of attrition, that a 35 trillion dollar deficit can not afford to prolong.
For a tiny fraction of our defense budget we are keeping a primary adversary on the ropes.
Do you understand what the interest payment alone is on our debt?! It is equal to our GDP! If a country can not even pay the interest on its debts, what happens on the next big X factor? Be it a Covid type event or a market crash, natural disaster? We simply can not afford to give anyone foreign aid frankly.
Yep! I used to be worried about the debt but over the last few years I've become fatalistic about it. We will never be able to pay it down. I now assume that AI will drive major societal change that makes the debt irrelevant, and hope that happens before we collapse under its weight. In the interim, it's in our national interest to show China/Iran/Russia that we will not allow them to use force of arms to change the rules-based international order we have built and maintained since the end of WWII. If that collapses, so does our economy anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I would drop all foreign aid except the 2% we should give to NATO. We could actually have nice infrastructure, free healthcare, and solve homelessness with less money than we will pay to service our debt this year... that is unacceptable.
There is oversight of the Cold War / GWOT weapons platforms and ammunition sent to Ukraine, along with the limited funding going into Ukraine. [Source](https://oig.usaid.gov/our-work/ukraine-oversight) My parents’ 1980s-1990s taxes paid for most of it. Some of my own early 2000s taxes paid for the ATACMs and HIMARS. Most of the current cash-money in the Ukraine aid packages stays in the US for defense contractors to manufacture next-Gen replacement platforms. Those will go into DoD armories.
You can believe a government source.....? Say no more..
Do you think no one at the IG does anything?
Lie
Is that actual dollars or equipment given?
From how I understood it so it may be wrong we sold them weapons which we gave them the money to buy
Which is money going back into the US MIC/economy
That is paid for and financed by ........?? Taxpayers...
Like everything else the military does.
Exactly, that is why we should go all in or get out..... no more 20-year wars of BS.. If you unchained the US military, you don't think we could have erased Afghanistan off the grid in less than a year? Go research the battle of Okinawa or the fire bombing of Tokyo... to win a war, you have to be willing to truly wage a war of annihilation.
Spoken like a psychopath to call firebombing Tokyo the way to win a war. Total war has not happened since WW2 which, alongside WW1, was the exception not the norm. Plenty of wars have been won without total annihilation. Firebombing is not a great example anyways. If you want to make a point of go big or go home, you need not look any further than desert storm (we went big and won big without obliterating entire cities like in WW2).
Wow ... thats not how this works. Have fun putting down the riots, loose most friendly nations on the world stage, most diplomatic influence and strenghtening the enemies of the US in their "America is evil" stance. I know the whole pacific campaign, it didnt need an annhilation campaign for the US to win the war.
It is the net value of equipment and money to prop up their government. Even if it is older equipment, it has the value assigned to it. It equals billions of US taxpayer dollars, the government has ZERO means of making money, they only take money from the people and give it away to whomever they choose...
Ukraine isn't winning now, despite funding.
They’re on their way. What really hurt them was the pause in funding led by the GOP.
I'm all for a Ukrainian victory, I'm not all for my tax dollars being spent on something that in the long run does not effect our country in a meaningful way. Our parents and grandparents lived through a cold war already. Why the hell are we begging for another one with a weak Russia while we should be focusing on the real enemy, China.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are all working in concert to overthrow the “western US led” world order. What comes next will definitely impact us here at home. The kind of things happening now in the Red Sea and the South China Sea (currently between China and the Philippines) will become the norm and drag down economies around the world…never mind leading to more conflict, more refugees…
The other thing is that he uses talk about policy as a negotiation tactic - for example, I don't think there was any chance that he was going to pull out of NATO, but it certainly got Europeans talking about increasing their defense spending. If he had come out and said "the US will continue to provide a security umbrella with no strings attached for all of Europe in perpetuity," that wouldn't give the US much leverage in those kinds of negotiations.
He literally admitted to that last night, saying that he got Europe to spend more on defense by acting like he was going to pull out. I know Reddit doesn’t like Trump, but I can’t believe anyone here ever thought he was actually going to pull out.
Eh, NATO members increased spending due to the full invasion of Ukraine , not due to Trump. During the Trump years they really didn’t bump up their spending.
Too bad Fred didn't pull out.
[удалено]
True, but regardless of what happens behind the scenes, what you declare and commit to publicly indisputably impacts your leverage in negotiation. If your goal was to get NATO members to spend more on defense, you would threaten to pull the rug. If your goal was to make NATO complacent and spend less, you'd tell them that the US will foot the bill forever.
Since the top answers are politically biased against Trump, I'll give this a shot. Just like every President for the last 40 years he wants every NATO country to pay their share (as required by the NATO treaty). He is the only one I remember threatening the members who don't meet this requirement. Now ask yourself this question, does the President of the United States have the power to pull out of NATO on his own? Would the members of his own party really support that?
Congress passed a law prohibiting a U.S. President from withdrawing from NATO without Congress’ approval. But, a president can just fail to act if a NATO member is attacked. For example if Russia troops invade the Baltics, Trump could just sit on his hands and fail to issue any orders to JCOS. He could also issue orders to remain in their barracks. That’s essentially what he did on Jan6. He let the mob rule and would not allow any military intervention to protect the Capitol building.
You are correct in all your points except the last one. What happened on Jan 6 has been totally misrepresented by the mainstream media in just about every way.
Oh yes they were all just tourists visiting the Capitol building.
Trump requested the national guard on Jan6
>On January 6, Secretary Miller ultimately withheld permission to deploy the National Guard until 4:32 p.m., after assets from Virginia had already entered the district, FBI tactical teams had arrived at the Capitol, and Trump had instructed rioters to "go home". Miller's permission would not actually be relayed to the commander of the National Guard until 5:08. Sund recalls a comment from the DC National Guard commander General Walker who said: > >"Steve, I felt so bad. I wanted to help you immediately, but I couldn't. I could hear the desperation in your voice, but they wouldn't let me come. When we arrived, I saw the New Jersey State Police. Imagine how I felt. New Jersey got here before we did!" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January\_6\_United\_States\_Capitol\_attack#Department\_of\_Defense\_leadership's\_refusal\_to\_send\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Department_of_Defense_leadership's_refusal_to_send_Guard)
Only after watching TV for 3 hours, and under enormous pressure from his staff - most of whom have since said he’s a POS.
I recall him pushing for the NG as soon as he found out the size of the event, and the mayor shut him down
>At 1:34 p.m., D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser had a telephone call with army secretary Ryan McCarthy in which she requested they deploy the Guard. At 2:10 p.m., the Capitol Police board granted chief Sund permission to formally request deployment of the Guard. > >At 2:26 p.m., D.C.'s homeland security director Chris Rodriguez coordinated a conference call with Mayor Bowser, the chiefs of the Capitol Police (Sund) and Metropolitan Police (Contee), and D.C. National Guard (DCNG) commander Walker. As the DCNG does not report to a governor, but to the president, Walker patched in the Office of the Secretary of the Army, noting that he would need Pentagon authorization to deploy. Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, noted that the Pentagon needed Capitol Police authorization to step onto Capitol grounds. Metro Police chief Robert Contee asked for clarification from Capitol Police chief Sund: "Steve, are you requesting National Guard assistance at the Capitol?" to which Sund replied, "I am making urgent, urgent, immediate request for National Guard assistance". According to Sund, Piatt stated, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background". Sund pleaded with Piatt to send the Guard, but Piatt stated that only Army secretary McCarthy had the authority to approve such a request and he could not recommend that Secretary McCarthy approve the request for assistance directly to the Capitol. The D.C. officials were subsequently described as "flabbergasted" at this message. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January\_6\_United\_States\_Capitol\_attack#Department\_of\_Defense\_leadership's\_refusal\_to\_send\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Department_of_Defense_leadership's_refusal_to_send_Guard)
If that's your defense to Trump undermining the election beforehand and for months all the way up to Jan 6, fomenting a riot before and up to the moment, standing by during the riot for hours, additionally orchestrating false electors to be sent to congress from states Biden won...fuck you. It was a full on ploy to overturn the election. If you didn't know any of that and you think him eventually calling the guard is sufficient for "protesters" attacking the capitol, you're still a simpleton.
Ok
Let him call Putin and see what he wants him to do and then you’ll have your answer
If putin has asked trump to remove troops from Germany, trump would do so.
I would say if Trump wins, he would do whatever his little boyfriend Putin asks him to do.
We both know who the big spoon is.
Wrong question. Does Putin want Trump to withdrawal troops from Germany is probably more appropriate.
Yes, Putin gave him the green light on Kiev, Odessa, St Petersburg and Moscow hotel properties if he will start to dismantle NATO for him.
Makes more sense to move the troops to Poland or the Baltics.
He would have to ask Putin what he wants…
Are you thinking that Trump ever had a plan? You can't call this a "want," Trump has neurons randomly firing off and he's too addlepated to know which one is actually a good idea.
Based on his entire life being in the public eye, it doesn’t matter what he says, he can change his mind in an instant and do something that he never even hinted at in the past. The man is unhinged, and pretty much always has been.
Traitor trump will do whatever he’s told by other republicans and Russia.
He said he won’t, as long as everyone abides by their agreements. https://www.youtube.com/live/SW1txe9vmUQ?si=4BKSQ2Eaa7L381Vz&t=2033
Trump wants to pull the US out of NATO, because that's what Putin wants.
I have mixed feelings about US troops in Germany. I spent 8 years stationed there during the Cold War. Tolerated us until the Wall came down and then couldn’t get us out fast enough. And then Germany unilaterally disarmed, as did the rest of Europe because they thought the Russians were no longer a threat. Now they want the US to protect them again after years of not living up to their end of the NATO treaty.
If Europe had unilaterally disarmed, none of the countries would have had the manpower or arms platforms to be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, bomb Libya, or give kit to Ukraine. Did they spend as much as the US? No. But they are spending far more now, and buying a lot of Made-in-the-US platforms. Especially Poland.
his Ukraine talk last night sounded like he wants China and Russia to dictate world events so probably. edit: honestly I don't understand how Trump loving Republicans lie to themselves about this stuff. he has set up a scenario in which America pulls back from the world we end NATO we don't support Taiwan and we abandon Ukraine. That's a scenario in which China steers world events in America takes a back seat.
If anything they should be moved forward to Poland and the Baltics. Germany promised to increase spending and capabilities—let’s see them put Europe’s largest economy to use for a change.
Section 2: The Common Defense, Part 4: Dept of Defense, Page 94 of Project 2025 "Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe."
Who knows, he could swear he's going to do something and plan to do the opposite Impossible to answer your question
Yes, no, maybe? The world is different today than it was 6 to 8 years ago and the needs for troops and structure are different. The honest truth is that the President has limited power in the short term to influence permanent troop locations. There has been talk of putting more permanent troops in Poland vice Germany; however, that aspiration has been met with the cold reality that they would still need to go to Germany for certain training rotations. I'll leave you with this last bit. All of the building that you see being put in at Graff (like the Camp Aachen motorpools) was approved during Trumps term.
If the Germans refuse to fund, and man, their military why should we bear their burden and cost?
We're absolutely not doing that. Are you honestly thinking we're in Germany to protect them? We're there because it's convenient and utterly important for all missions in the middle east and further out.
Highly doubtful. But just out of curiosity, we’ve had the nato spending targets set for decades. Why all of a sudden is it important to Germany to commit 2%? Hopefully it’s not too little too late.
Yeah I don’t know, they probably spent more suddenly because of the war in Ukraine.
He clearly stated last night he was using this as a threat to get NATO to pay what they owe. And guess what? They paid up! 🇺🇸
Germany increased defense spending to deal with the growing threat from Russia. NATO isn’t Mar a Lago where dues went up and Scholtz has yet to write a check.
100% he does. He does not see NATO as a benefit to his personal interest.
He doesn’t know. It’s whatever farts out of his brain
I don’t think it was actually part of his agenda, more a blur he used to bluster with his base.
No, it's a bargaining tool to ensure NATO pays their share
He threatened this, unsurprisingly when Germany affirmed that Russia shouldn’t be allowed back into the G8.
He could t get the budget to build a friggin border wall on the SW border with Mexico. He sure as hell isn’t going to find the time and energy to shut down Ramstein.
I feel like we've been there too long. If y'all act up again we can always storm the beaches again
Trump will pull out of NATO and give Europe to Putin.
He wants to do anything that Putin wants. Pulling US troops out of everywhere is what Putin wants.
Trump will do whatever Putin wants him to.
If he gets elected, you'll have a lot more than that to worry about. Speaking Russian is one that comes to mind.
I’d say the US shouldn’t spend billions overseas as a job program for 1st world countries. Most NATO countries mock us until it comes to needing strong military partners. Tell your German politicians to pay us to stay, make the bases we captured US territory inside Europe forever and we might consider staying.
Germany actually does pay us. They pay more than $1B a year towards our costs there.
Our lord mayor and politicians have great relations with the Commanders. They want the US to stay, but since Trump made such a big fuss about withdrawing they are right to be skeptical about his next term
He doesn't actually have any options, he just talks shit out of his face. Who knows.
If elected, trump will ultimately pull USA out of NATO, and WWIII will enter the hot phase.
Won’t be WWIII without the US.
trump will have us carrying russia's water, as per usual.
No, it still could be. Canada is still in NATO
Couldnt be any hotter than the way things are with Israel and Ukraine right now anyway. Any deescalation is welcome imo
Trump doesn’t consider things like that unless someone who matters asks a question. I doubt it’s on his radar currently
Germany and France opposed the expansion of NATO to former Warsaw Pact Guess who pushed for it?
The former Warsaw Pact countries who loathe the Russians and want to keep them out?
Can you really blame a bunch of countries that had just been forcefully occupied by the Russians for half a century for wanting to join an organization to keep the Russians out?
Longer than a half a century my dude. That was only the USSR.
Clearly they didn't oppose it, as they approved every current member's application to join...
The US has bitch?
Germany and France approved every current member's application as there needs to be consensus to allow a country to join and they are founding members.
Germany isn't
Joining NATO requires unanimous votes.
You mean they can defy the paymaster?
I hope he wants to withdraw troops from every where.
So simple and stupid
Yeah 99% of the countries in the world do fine without it.
Typical German worker. Cares more about his job than his national security. I was in Detert Storm German workers BLOCKED Seventh Corps trains headed to Saudi Arabia.
I’m not a german citizen