![]() |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4013284)
https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...rmuz-war-iran/
Let’s see…70% of the EUs LPG and oil pass through the strait, 2% of the US’s oil passes through the strait. Much of Western Europe was within range of the IRBMs Ukraine already had and all of it would have soon been within range. And, Oh yeah, a THEOCRACY headed by a West hating bat$hit crazy loon was about to get nukes. But not Europe’s problem. Check. Fuzzy is right. But I suppose every mortal conflict shares that adjective in one aspect or another. So what do we have before us that is clear? All ears for any relevant submissions which move us into a worthy, lasting resolution. Seemingly without help of so many that owe us so much. |
Still feckless after all these years….
EU leaders find themselves incapable of action despite wars so close to homeWith conflicts raging in the Middle East and Ukraine, a summit in Brussels merely exposed Europe’s powerlessness.https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-l...-ukraine-iran/ MARCH 20, 2026 5:19 AM CET BY SEBASTIAN STARCEVICBRUSSELS ― Two wars on Europe’s doorstep loomed over a 12-hour summit of EU leaders ― and for very different reasons they found themselves paralyzed rather than able to do much about either. Rarely has the bloc’s inability to take a lead on international affairs been so obvious. Between Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni ― heads of three of the world’s top 10 economies ― and the other 24 in attendance, they could only look the other way, squabble with each other, or offer little but words as the bombing, missile-firing and killing continued. “In these very troubled moments in which we are living, more than ever it’s decisive to uphold the international rules-based order,” European Council President António Costa, who chaired the gathering in Brussels, told reporters. “The alternative is chaos. The alternative is the war in Ukraine. The alternative is the war in the Middle East.”And that speech was about as far as it went. As Tehran pounded its neighbors, disrupting Europe’s energy supplies, Kyiv attacked Russian factories repairing military planes, and Donald Trump in Washington joked about the Pearl Harbor attack alongside the Japanese prime minister, European leaders used their talks to tinker with the bloc’s carbon permit scheme, the Emissions Trading System. It’s not a wholly unrelated matter to the global energy shock, but hardly an issue where the continent could demonstrate its geopolitical might. On Iran, leaders found they had little leverage or will to make any significant intervention. On Ukraine, more than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion ― a conflict where they do have leverage and they do have will ― they were unable to overcome internal divisions to approve sending €90 billion Kyiv’s way. There was “no willingness to get involved across the table” on the Iran conflict, said a senior European government official, granted anonymity like others quoted in this article to discuss the talks behind closed doors. German Chancellor Merz even complained that focusing on Iran risked shifting attention away from measures to boost Europe’s flagging economy — the summit’s original raison d’être before would affairs got in the way — according to three officials. “The world looked very different at Alden Biesen,” an EU official said, referring to last month’s competitiveness-focused meeting in a Belgian castle that was meant to set the stage for this summit. That was before Iran’s war and Ukraine’s funding dilemma, brought about by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán going back on his promiseto approve the loan, radically reshaped the agenda. Not our warThat’s not to say Iran was ignored completely.There was some renewed discussion about sending French warships to protect the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit point that Tehran has effectively shut down by threatening to strike ships, potentially with backing from the U.N. Security Council. “We have begun an exploratory process, and we will see in the coming days if it has a chance of succeeding,” Macron said. But the summit’s final statement stopped short of pledging any new mission, referring only to strengthening existing EU naval operations in the region. By the end of the talks, the EU’s leaders reached a sobering conclusion: Europe has little power or inclination to shape events. “Middle East impacts us a lot — but are we a player in the game?” an EU official who was party to the leaders’ discussions asked. “They’re trying to find a place in this debate and we have a lot of statements and positions [but] is there a role for Europeans for solving this process?” Evidently not, according to Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who warned leaders that “starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” according to two diplomats briefed on her remarks.Translation: This is not Europe’s war — and it’s not going to be. The EU was left with doing “what we always do,” an EU official said, writing “nice statements.” On Iran and on Ukraine, the EU didn’t get anywhere. Earlier predictions by diplomats that leaders might continue discussions through the night or even reconvene for a second day as the urgency of a world in turmoil forced them to face up to the challenges before them failed to materialize. Things were done and dusted before midnight.After 12 hours of few decisions, leaders were left with little new to tell people back home. “There are many things worrying about this war” in the Middle East, while Orban’s veto of the loan to Kyiv “is still there and we are extremely unhappy about this, and so of course is Ukraine,” Sweden’s Kristersson told reporters upon leaving the summit. And that was that. |
Feckless. Still feckless…
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015683)
|
So now, we can’t even tech stop our bases in Spain, France, Italy. NATO is a fraud.
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4018582)
So now, we can’t even tech stop our bases in Spain, France, Italy. NATO is a fraud.
|
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 4018596)
Has been for years.
|
APRIL 1, 2026 9:48 AM CET
BY MILENA WÄLDEU.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington may need to reconsider its relationship with NATO once the war against Iran is over, sharply escalating pressure on European allies that America accuses of withholding support. “We’re going to have to reexamine the value of NATO and that alliance for our country,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night. “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. That’s a hard one to stay engaged in,” Rubio added. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4018582)
So now, we can’t even tech stop our bases in Spain, France, Italy. NATO is a fraud.
they have the right to not be complicit in a war started by the US. furthermore, when you publicly shame, cajole, or otherwise be unpredictable towards your allies, it is easily spun by media to influence the constituents of the politicians that make decisions in those countries. This is quite literally “reaping what we sowed”. ive stated before that there were valid concerns about nato, but we needed to apply pressure behind closed doors. Even a dumbass like me would know that you cant get what you want by publicly shaming other countries. master strategist |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4018738)
this is not said in a negative tone:
they have the right to not be complicit in a war started by the US. furthermore, when you publicly shame, cajole, or otherwise be unpredictable towards your allies, it is easily spun by media to influence the constituents of the politicians that make decisions in those countries. This is quite literally “reaping what we sowed”. ive stated before that there were valid concerns about nato, but we needed to apply pressure behind closed doors. Even a dumbass like me would know that you cant get what you want by publicly shaming other countries. master strategist The master strategy might just be taking advantage of any excuse (no matter how thin) to get out of NATO. There are many on the right who would support that. Also the extreme left doesn't like foreign military expenditures either. Most Americans are far more concerned about the economy than with NATO. So maybe he accomplishes one of his objectives vis a vis untangling US security from EU/NATO. Maybe it would look like strategy in the end, if it goes down with everybody distracted by Iran and economics. Maybe the next admin could rebuild a modified security arrangement with Europe. Some pragmatists (including me) think that we should support global stability, and backstop other liberal democracies. But I would like to see them posing a credible deterrent on their own continent. As opposed to relying on US sacrificial lambs who are mainly there as a speedbump and Article V enhancement. But I will say that actually limiting our operations from EU bases and airspace is a pretty big escalation. It's one thing to not support the operation directly, or even oppose it publicly. But now it looks like we spend immense treasure to maintain OUR military capacity on the continent, but we're only allowed to use it for UE security, at their sole discretion??? That's not how the real world works. I'm heading in the direction of being OK with a trial separation from NATO, if not a full on divorce just yet. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands