Von der Leyen says Europe is drawing up 'precise' plans to send troops to Ukraine, FT reports
Posted by HalfLeper@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 75 comments
evgis@reddit
They keep on negotiating between themselves and just ignore what Russia has been repeating for 3 years, no NATO in Ukraine.
Getting high on their own supply...
Child_Summer@reddit
Russia itself pushed Ukraine to seek security assurances with NATO by attacking them. Now they want to act like abandoning the most efficient protection is a way for peace? Beggar's belief.
ferroo0@reddit
NATO was never the most efficient protection against Russia. Can you imagine most prominent members of NATO going to war with Russia for Ukrainian sake? Article 5 is not a juridical obligation, article 5 is just a suggestion that your fellow members should do something for the sake of your defense.
most efficient protection is cooperation. Why won't US attack Denmark to get Iceland for themselves? because Denmark is rich, and Iceland by itself isn't going to give any money, it's not going to buy any products and won't produce shit by themselves. Costs to gain ratio is negative, war won't bring the same amount of money as will Danes themselves.
Child_Summer@reddit
The point of NATO is that russia is scared to death of it. It doesn't matter if article 5 is a suggestion or an obligation, there's noone who would risk testing it to find out.
Cooperation is not a defence. That option has been tried over and over. How many times must it fail for people to finally learn the lesson? Denmark's buying power didn't stop the US from issuing annexation threats and runnjng covert ops against Greenland. It won't stop a full-scale attack either if it comes to it.
viktlo70@reddit
so, when some countries or EU officials are stating that Russia is a menace to NATO and can attack NATO countries, they are fundamentally lying ?
Child_Summer@reddit
Of course not, have you read my comment?
viktlo70@reddit
if it is true that "The point of NATO is that russia is scared to death of it.", it is quite obvious that saying that Russia is a real threat to NATO is a lie.
Child_Summer@reddit
Local redditor discovers two things can be true at the same time. More at 10.
Russia being scared of direct confrontation with NATO and russia trying its best to cause damage whenever it can get away with it are not mutually exclusive.
viktlo70@reddit
but since they are scared of a war with NATO, it is a lie that there is a real risk of Russia attacking NATO territory, since this would mean open war.
Child_Summer@reddit
Except there are ways to cause damage without direct military attack
ferroo0@reddit
yes, that's why Russians attacked Ukraine once there was a possibility of them joining NATO. And now entirety of NATO won't risk their own political careers just to fight Russia for Ukrainians - since they're going to be at disadvantage now. Thus, NATO is unreliable.
I understand your point of opposing invasion using a hard power, I get it, but there needs to be a lot of hard power to do that, and Ukraine was never really at a point where there was enough of it to fight off Russia. Same with Denmark - how much military will be enough to go toe-to-toe with the US? there needs to be a fine balance between economical and strategic advantages, sure, but straight up relying on the fact that NATO will just fight anyone is naive.
outsourcing entirety of your defense to foreign alliance is a risky deal, and was never on the table for Ukraine. Ukraine should have prioritized economical links with Russia first and foremost, and tried to keep neutral political attitude towards Russia, and threaten those ties only when push comes to shove, rather then suddenly trying to make a hard pivot towards West after a Maidan revolution. Ukraine gambled on it's military preparing for 8 years, and Russian economy crumbling under pressure.
it never happened, and there's nothing to rely on anymore. NATO is unwilling, Russia nationalized their productions, and Ukraine has no economical leverages anymore, after nordstream pipelines were blown up.
Child_Summer@reddit
You're mixing cause and effect up a lot. Russia didn't attack Ukraine because there was a possibility of them joining NATO. In fact, Ukraine was consitutionally neutral. The neutrality clause that opened up the mere possibility of trying to join NATO was repealed in December of 2014. The war with russia was well underway by then. There was no option for economic pressure, let alone against russia. The war was forced on Ukraine despite close economic ties.
Same with Maidan. Ukraine didn't just pivot towards West after Maidan out of the clear blue sky. They were attacked and left with no choice but to seek help. There are no other actors in Eastern Europe apart from russia and EU so the choice was made for them.
NATO not being eager to fight for Ukraine isn't putting its reliability into question. Ukraine is not a member, it can't invoke article 5. NATO may or may not be unreliable but Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Besides, war is hard to sell for any european democracy. Let alone a war for a non-member. The hesitation to join western alliances is what may have burried Ukraine, not the attempt to join.
The point is, hard power is the only thing that can protect you against an invasion. Sure, strengthening economic ties might make an invader think twice before committing troops. That's what Europe banked on with russia. And yet here we are. Russia thought twice and chose war anyways. Over a decade later they are still on a rampage and Europe still can't efficiently sanction the war effort. What's Denmark going to do against the US army? Stop trading? It won't matter once the invasion starts. Even if your military is not enough to go toe-to-toe with a stronger enemy - it still will help you way more than economic ties. The worst sanctions russia suffered were imposed by Ukrainian drones hitting its refineries, not by EU waving papers around. Even if Ukraine eventually loses - russia will be crippled for it, rendering it peaceful for decades to come.
NATO is not about outsourcing defence. It's about building up your military to join a collective defence effort if needed. In fact, the only time article 5 was ever invoked was by the US. Countries treating NATO as a way to outsource defence are making a huge mistake. As great a tool as NATO is for its intimidation effect, the cracks that the shield has are caused by individual members neglecting their armies. And if these cracks keep accumulating - then it's feasible someone might eventually try to see how far article 5 really goes. Luckily, the russian invasion gave a wake-up call to Europe.
viktlo70@reddit
except they asked access to NATO in 2008
Child_Summer@reddit
Sure, after russia made an attempt to violate their borders for no apparent reason in 2003. Actions have consequences.
https://cepa.org/article/lessons-from-russias-first-assault-on-ukraine-20-years-since-tuzla/
viktlo70@reddit
from Wikipedia: "Russia recognized Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea in the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997, but the status of Tuzla Island was not settled and remained a sore spot in Russia–Ukraine relations."
ShootmansNC@reddit
European troops deployed into an active conflict outside of their borders are not protected by article 5.
That's why europe keeps talking about doing it, but actually are never going to unless they get security assurances from Russia that those troops won't be attacked.
And good luck with getting Russia to agree to that.
HalfLeper@reddit (OP)
Isn’t this exactly that, though? An alternative to NATO in Ukraine? 🤨
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
How is it an „Alternative“? French and UK troops are NATO troops
HalfLeper@reddit (OP)
Not if they’re there as French and UK troops. The same way they’re not U.N. troops in such a capacity. The alternative is no troops, which is obviously a non-starter.
Usernamenotta@reddit
That's some heavy mental gymnastics my friend.
I think Russia would be happier with Romanian and Bulgarians as NATO troops than with British and French. Because Romania and Bulgaria don't have nukes
HalfLeper@reddit (OP)
They’re not installing nukes, though…
ferroo0@reddit
but how would French and UK troops will distance themselves from NATO? how would Russia agree to troops, that are part of NATO, but distanced themselves on paper only?
I highly doubt that's going to pan out. At this point it's better to use third-party troops from elsewhere, rather then trying to prove to Russia that somehow French troops won't have to do anything with the rest of NATO even if push comes to shove.
ImpossibleToe2719@reddit
British and French troops are NATO troops.
Hyndis@reddit
The main problem is that the EU is trying to bureaucracy its way to victory. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. They're so used to bureaucracy that they cannot even comprehend a situation where it has no effect. It doesn't work in a shooting war and its not even applicable.
You can't win a shooting war by having meetings to schedule committee hearings to determine a schedule for an exploratory subcommittee. You win a shooting war by having infantry, tanks, and artillery shooting explosives to kill the enemy, turning the enemy into a fine pink mist.
Europe needs to get out of this soft power mindset. Both Trump and Putin operate on a hard power mindset, and they're ignoring Europe because Europe has zero hard power, and neither of them care about paperwork.
The EU is like that scene in Game of Thrones season 1 where Ned Stark proudly shows up to the throne room with a piece of paper saying he's in charge, thinking the piece of paper protects him because he did everything proper and bureaucratic and got the signatures.
Spoilers: the piece of paper did not protect Ned Stark.
Paper is paper, and power is power.
NeJin@reddit
Much as I hate to rain on your analogy, but that's a rather... willfull interpretation.
Ned *did* invest in hardpower - he tried to buy the citywatch, because he was aware how outnumbered he was. He just got played by Littlefinger, because much like Tywin, he couldn't conceive commoners being players.
You may or may not have a point, but perhaps political opinions shouldn't be based on faulty readings of fictional media - after all, that's hardly persuasive, no?
Hyndis@reddit
Ned Stark thought the paper protected him. He forgot that paper is symbolic and force is power. Force, being the application of violence.
Major powers of the world also ignore words on paper. They only pay attention to the credible application of violence. If you can't defend it, it's not yours.
That's the analogy. It shouldn't have been an obscure analogy to pick up on.
NeJin@reddit
It wasn't obscure, it's just that your analogy is bad. I understand the underlying point perfectly well, but that doesn't change the fact you're misinterpreting Neds character and the story. I don't like seeing good media butchered for political ends.
You can take your pick whether I am critizing your media literacy or your honesty, but either way, you are wrong. Ned did NOT believe the letter of the law would be enough; if he did, he wouldn't have asked for or accepted Littlefingers help in trying to recruit the entire citywatch to enforce the succession.
Usernamenotta@reddit
The fact that you disagree with him is showing exactly that you have no idea about GoT. He nails Ned's demise on the head.
Ned was 'honorable', but he was an idiot. The whole season and part of later season is about how the stereotypical 'honorable' people are idiots. You can be honorable, like Jon, or Sansa, and cover your back before you take action, or you can be honorable like Ned and rush in alone, FUCKING INJURED, in the middle of a closed space, full of enemies. Like that idiot did not even consider spreading the news to the public, like shouting: 'Baratheons have black hair, all of them, the kids are Lannister gold'.
Hyndis@reddit
Okay, we're done. I don't have time for insults.
Pklnt@reddit
In other words, the EU stomachs deploying troops if Russia and the USA allows it.
Commiessariat@reddit
How can the EU be this feckless? For real, wasn't the EU supposed to be this big geopolitical powerhouse that was going to counterbalance US influence? What the fuck happened?
robber_goosy@reddit
Economically they are a huge powerhouse. Military, they are pathetic.
moonorplanet@reddit
Europe had ambitions of being a powerhouse and in doing so brought in the ire of the US. The Euro was never allowed to reach it full potential and Iraq was punished for even considering a PetroEuro. Since 2017, Europe has managed to elect feckless subservient leaders von der Layen being the the queen among them.
It's too late for Europe now, since 2022 they've managed to cause irreparable damage to their economy and then gone on to cause irreparable damage to their soft power and lost any moral high ground they had.
Pklnt@reddit
I mean, it's filled with countries that borderline want to be subservient.
Look at Denmark, we hear a lot about them lately. How they're concerned about Greenland being threatened by the US, or how the US is spying on them.
It would be sad, unless you remember that a few years ago, the very same Prime Minister that complains about Trump's threats, PLEDGED to oppose Macron's plans for an EU army because they didn't want to risk alienating the US.
A few years ago, Denmark was accused of working with the US... to spy on EU Leaders.
Look at Latvia, opposed in 2019 Macron's plan for an EU Army because we can't risk the US' ire. And now in 2025 the Baltics are blaming Europe for not having autonomy, therefore relying on the US is important. Fucking lol.
Look at Germany, country can't even sanction Israel for the Human rights violations because they're so guilt ridden. They now oppose EU plans to do anything against Israel.
Look at France, one of its main CEO (Dassault) in the MIC acts like a scorned ex wife that still bitch about other European countries buying the F-35, dude is almost trying to sabotage the FCAS so that Dassault still has monopoly in France.
The Entire European Union is filled with countries like that. Cowards that bark a lot but do not do much outside of said barking.
Go in the Europe's sub and you'll find the very same cowards that complained about Western Europe being unreliable, now very worried about Trump abandoning them. Cowards that somehow think EU having infrastructure sabotaged by Russia (Nordstream) is extremely wrong and a declaration of war, but now that the stories hint at an Ukrainian op, they all claim that it's good that Ukraine sabotaged said infrastructure.
How do you expect a continent to become a powerhouse when you see shit like that?
Financial-Chicken843@reddit
Fr,
Europe is so willing to bend the knee for America and American interest you wonder if they’re mere client states of the US post WW2.
The rhetoric i keep hearing is “its all nice in theory but will the public stomach it when their boys start coming home in body bags dying for ukraine”.
And they say this even when talking about stationing troops in the rear manning AA guns or logistics and a stray ruzzian missile hits them.
But yet hundreds of British and lesser number of other European countries troops died + thousands wounded in two decades long wars in the Middle East and a large portion of the public was fine with it.
A war that mainly served America interest and bought little return for most of Europe except more refugees and migrants and continued risk of terror attacks.
But yet British, French and other European troops died for these wars. A war against an enemy that wasn’t an existential threat against Europe?
Yes, islamic extremist are heinous but no, they don’t have nukes, they cant invade the UK and as much as right wing racist love to scaremonger, they cant destroy democracy by simply introducing sharia law.
But Russia is a real existential threat to Europe. It actively attempts to subvert and destroy democracies from within by pushing far right and fascist politicians into power, it isn’t afraid of killing dissidents abroad with bullets or poisoning. Its actively waging a war against a European neighbour and has had a track record of doing so since the Georgian War. Russia is 100x the threat that is Al Qaeda and Terrorism from a strategic perspective but yet it seems Europeans are more willing to die killing poor brown people who cant hit back in the interest of the United States?
A war is literally on their continent yet they struggled to get consensus on as minor things as sending obsolete tanks as military aid to Ukraine.
Yes, European aid is flowing now with jets and shit but it’s all been drip feed against a Russia that knows EU is weak willed and pussyfooting.
We have North Korean troops actively fighting in the frontlines for Russia because they’re helping “defend Russia” but yet we cant even have European troops in the rear guard help “defend Ukraine”?
I mean what is a modern European army for anyway? Is it merely just a world police force to bully poor brown people in the Middle East when it’s easy? If this is not the war, the military was raised to fight and deter then what is it for anyway? To fight each-other? France vs UK? Those days are over? Fight China? Unlikely, not in the next few decades and even if Taiwan does become a hot war, Europe will probably sit it out because its not really their fight and China’s goal is to take Taiwan without fighting.
I mean, Europe can raise their defence spending all they like but if Putin knows if its all bark no bite and the Europoors are unlikely to ever use it directly against Russia when Russia wants to go for a land grab then half its purpose as deterrence has failed.
I mean North Koreans are actively involved in the war fighting and i felt like Europe just gave a stern word and collectively shrugged.
When its against poor brown ppl with sandals and AKs with the backing of uncle sam and the morality and end goal seems nebulous, the use of force and bleeding of blood seems awfully easy for these Europeans but when the stakes are high and war is at their doorsteps, waged by a power that isnt afraid to kill,cheat and lie and actively subvert their democratic societies, Europe seems paralysed.
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
What makes you think that a large portion of the public was fine with wars in the Middle east?? There were literally big protests
Financial-Chicken843@reddit
A large portion of the public was fine with it because it was seen as humanitarian mission that bought freedom and democracy to ppl oppressed by islamic extremist in Afghanistan and Iraq and to curb terrorism.
chillichampion@reddit
Not to mention those adventures in the Middle East were more like expeditions compared to what could be a high intensity war with Russia where the prospect of thousands of body bags coming home every month. It would be incredibly unpopular.
chillichampion@reddit
Not to mention those adventures in the Middle East were more like expeditions compared to what could be a high intensity war with Russia where the prospect of thousands of body bags coming home every month. It would be incredibly unpopular.
insitnctz@reddit
Because Europe is a US vassal years now. They don't act as an independed state but only to the orders and interests of the US. It was of the best interests of the US for European armies to remain idle and for the region to not be armed. They don't risk another rivalry, they gain full control over the region, they have monopoly over the arms deals on that region, with hundreds of billions dollar deals, and Europe countries basically become client states.
But now the situation has changed. USA wants to make war with China in the future, and needs to drag Europe with them. Europe will have to distract Russia, who is allied to China. Trump uses the Ukrainian war not only as profit, but also as leverage. A disarmed Europe is useless in the case of a usa China war, and China has the stronger allies.
The problem with the eu, is that it is nothing more than a mere vassal that awaits orders from USA and has to take permission over everything. Eu parliament is compromised by fucking everyone at this point(cia, mossad, svr) so do many governments and systems(the push of far right in many countries is a clear indication). Corruption has ruined Europe to the point it's just a backwater region at this point and clearly not autonomous.
Everything that goes on currently is against Europe's best interest yet they support these actions. Israel wars in Middle East will result in more terrorism and more illegal immigrants in Europe yet we support these wars. Russia is advancing aggressively, but we need permission to intervene to defend EUROPEAN LANDS, our fucking lands. There is huge threat literally next to us, and we are pretending we don't see it.
The goverments of the member states of the eu, the eu parliament etc are the most worthless, corrupt people we could have had, and nothing is gonna change until we get real leaders, patriots(not far right or fascists) with balls.
zaplayer20@reddit
EU Parliament is filled with corrupt people, simple as that. What do you think EU can do in this war between Ukraine and Russia? Intervene? Out of the question, send peacekeeping troops in Ukraine without Russia's approval? Out of the question, continue to finance Ukraine as a gambler addiction that keeps losing? One way to lose everything in the process. I have said a long time ago on other comments, we are basically changing the mob boss from Russian to American and both of them are not looking great.
Also, a very important matter, why is EU making this problem in Ukraine as EU's problem not Ukraine's problem? Why do we MUST be guarantors? To not lose relevance, prestige, face?
My guess is that if Zelensky regime doesn't get a favorable peace deal, he will most likely spill the beans on how this all war started and it's pretty telling, they killed a main guy in the Maidan revolution.
chillichampion@reddit
It is simple. Zelensky and EU gambled and promised their population that a full scale victory over Russia is possible. Now that it is impossible, they can’t admit reality as they would lose face.
GalaXion24@reddit
I mean we kind of all knew that Nordstream was blown up in some sort of Ukrainian-Polish operation supported by the UK and probably US.
Nordstream itself was bad and a symptom of these unreliable member states looking out for their own short-term profits over collective European security, and evidently we are unable to systematically resolve these issues politically, so honestly fuck Germany and I'm glad it was blown up.
Russia sabotages cables and that's really not ok, but they really had no strong reason to sabotage Nordstream.
Pklnt@reddit
If buying Russian gas was a problem, we would have blown up Yamal before Nordstream.
BendicantMias@reddit
The big geopolitical powerhouse to counterbalance US influence is and was China, not Europe. They just liked to claim they were independent, which even that we've now seen isn't true. China seems to be resisting the US just fine.
draft_final_final@reddit
As much as they like to shit on Americans (and a lot of it is justified), the entire EU welfare state goes bye bye if they actually have to spend money to defend themselves.
usesidedoor@reddit
It's much more complex than that.
For example, you guys spend much more in healthcare as percentage of GDP than any of us over here, and yet you manage to have the most dysfunctional healthcare system within NATO.
Tough_Substance7074@reddit
They failed to cohere into a strong federation of states, like the US, and create a unified military. They may have stopped killing each other lately, but the old rivalries persist. The French do not like to cooperate with the Germans, and the UK dipped out entirely. Unless this changes, they cannot realize their potential.
As military pressure from the east mounts, we may see a change. It’s difficult to imagine Russia getting to their doorstep anytime soon, given how long they’ve been bogged down in Ukraine, so the growing threat may be slow enough it doesn’t galvanize them.
Bananana_in_a_box@reddit
"They failed to cohere into a strong federation of states, like the US, and create a unified military."
You do have to realise that that is far easier said than done. These are all countries that are very different culturally from each other, often having a history of wars and feuds that go back 100's of years. The usa had a far more cohesive cultural identity (and also no rich history of states having wars against each other), and thus when needed it was far easier to form its Federal government.
You guys have had 1 civil war and that is still a source of division in the usa and something often talked about. Now imagine that times a 100. the sad reality is that while europeans get along really well these days, there is still a large amount of distrust between countries, especially since many smaller countries have histories of being oppressed by their neighbouring countries and are thus very uncomfortable with uniting and handing over their self governance to others.
Trust me, i want nothing more than a united states of europe. But as of right now that is unfortunately something that is extremely unlikely to happen.
ferroo0@reddit
hard disagree. Russia made a hard pivot towards the East, and copied Chinese strategy of foreign policy - treat everyone like a customer, sell to whoever is willing to buy your stuff, and don't get in someone else's issues if they don't have anything to do with you. Something like a foil to US world police and globalization policies.
and I highly doubt that Russians would invade Europe, since there's no reason to attack walking money bags, who desperately want to give their funds for the resources they desperately need. If Russians are successful in fortifying themselves in Eastern Europe, then I think there will be an influence war over Europe - who gets to be their provider of natural resources and defense? it's extremely unlikely that this will ever happen (because if Europe will ever find themselves in this situation, where they need to chose 1 out of 2 partners - it's going to be between China and US), but the closest thing to a war between Russia and the West that we'll ever see.
the other thing that I can imagine is Russia betting on BRICS and pushing for closer ties with the rest of BRICS states to actually compete with US+EU in terms of economic influence. War is too costly to profit from, it's much more lucrative to sell weapons, rather then pay with your soldiers for questionable benefits.
Hyndis@reddit
They're like the United States under the confederated government, prior to the Constitution creating a federal government.
The Articles of Confederation resulted in a pathetically weak central government that couldn't even pay its army. George Washington famously kept the army together despite them not getting food or paychecks through sheer personal will and charisma. States under the Articles of Confederation had all of the power, the central government had nearly none. The early US very nearly lost the war because it couldn't agree to pay for an army.
The EU seems to be stuck in this phase of organization.
I think the EU needs to either federalize into a proper country with a strong federal government, such as a United States of Europe, or they need to give up this dream and all the countries need to go their own way.
This confederated system is the worst of both worlds. It binds them all to the same fate yet there's no one at the steering wheel driving it.
russellvt@reddit
See: NATO
PressPausePlay@reddit
I mean.... It's not that complicated. It's why Putin is so powerful. Attacking Russia has always been an issue becsuse if Russia truly gets their dick kicked in they're going to balkanize. And that's how you end up with a nuclear armed Dagestan. Which also isn't preferable. Sending troops as a peacekeeping force, after negotiations is pretty responsible in this respect.
BallisticFiber@reddit
But did they display a solidarity in actions too? I hope they did :D
Southern-Chain-6485@reddit
"The backing of US Capabilities" can also mean "American intelligence" or "American logistics" rather than "Article 5 protection"
The USA will not go to war against Russia for Ukraine.
ferroo0@reddit
doesn't change much tbf, it still relies on US assistance, and US under Trump may as well middle finger Europe to continue normalizing relations and trade with post-war Russia.
ferroo0@reddit
coalition of unwilling strikes again 🙏🙏🙏
imunfair@reddit
Whenever I read their plans it sounds like their guarantees are US involvement with them sending a few troops as a ride along. It's like me drawing up plans for Mike Tyson to go fight my bully while I stand there and watch. I can write down all of these hopes and dreams into "plans" but at the end of the day it's just a fiction.
archontwo@reddit
Well, not so surprising. After all, Europe has hollowed out its military over last decades
TimeIntern957@reddit
And they would probably be stationed in the west of Ukraine, surounded by human shields.
VintageGriffin@reddit
Whatever it is, it's going to take a year of meetings, summits, hundreds of public statements, thousands of news articles and terabytes of group photos - and in the end be just as unrealistic and wholly detached from reality as their peace plan for Ukraine is.
Troops from whose army? Germany just declined even the considerations of, Poland isn't going to do it, and neither would Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy etc.; who made statements on that already at some point.
By the way, why is an unelected bureaucrat of an economic union even talking about military troop deployments in the first place? Who died and made you the chief almighty?
Usernamenotta@reddit
EU has ceased being an economic union decades ago. Every EU country must enshrine in its constitution that European law trumps national law
EdHake@reddit
By « europe » she means France and UK, who are doing so in a bilateral agreement where EU and Van der Leyen have no say ?
This women has done more harm to EU image than what Farage and all anti-EU politicians have done until know.
Really hope for her to end up in jail for the COVID/Pfeiser scandale because that is the only thing that I can see save from tar and feather.
VintageGriffin@reddit
She's being lined up to be the next president of Germany instead. The system rewards it's own.
You really can't make this stuff up.
Thangoman@reddit
Im not as well versed on German politics but isnt putting hwr as a presidential candidate the absolute worst option for the comservatives? Im not even sure that she would win against the other non nazi parries
Wooden-Agent2669@reddit
German President isn't the same as Chancellor.
Thangoman@reddit
I know it isnt, but doesnt it work like countries like Poland?
PreviousCurrentThing@reddit
Isn't that a demotion though? Don't they have anywhere higher for her to fail up to?
azriel777@reddit
she is horrible, but then so is the whole EU itself. It needs to be dismantled just for their insane push for mass immigration that is destroying every country that is doing it and every government becoming a dictatorship.
Bananana_in_a_box@reddit
Just know that you guys blowing up the sand pit is what caused the mass immigration in the first place...
second The EU is probably the only way to actually do ANYTHING against this mass migration. things would easily be 10x worse if the border states had to deal with it on their own and even more migrant pingping happened between european states... sure Merkel's migration policy was a disaster, and frankly did far more bad than good. but the EU has learned and is improving its migration stance (even if thats at its typically glacial pace)
as for every government becoming a dictatorship is just nonsense... sure you get the occasional stuff like the chat control business but frankly i very much doubt thats ever passing. frankly the USA is far more dictatorial these days than we'd ever dream of being
ferroo0@reddit
>oppose EU
>do nothing
>von der leyen tries to counter opposition
>opposition wins by doing nothing substancial
shugthedug3@reddit
The chatter these past few weeks has led me to believe this was all decided during that mass trip to the USA and we haven't really been informed of what our 'leaders' have decided for us.
Starmer has started talking as if it's an inevitability that British troops will be deployed to Ukraine.
Objective-Wasabi7889@reddit
More buzzwords and sensational headlines that mean nothing whatsoever.
kaschperli@reddit
Just send back the millions of Ukrainian refugees and their families that are hiding in safe European countries. They destroyed European gas pipelines and cost us trillions of euros.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.