Trump admin seizes US$120,000,000 owned by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as stake in an offshore wind project, demands that it be invested in fossil fuel development instead.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Time to gather NATO and drop those US bonds!

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago

As afraid as I am of that, being stuck here, this is what needs to happen. Dollar needs to crash now.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

NATO is fundamentally a US driven project. There is no NATO without the US.

[–] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Call it what you want, but the US is still deep in the FA stage.

Eventually things will shift to the FO phase.

With their national debt being carried by the countries they continually seem to want to ridicule, alienate and bully, eventually something has to give.

Trump seems hell bent on torching the US from the inside out, and it’s working.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sure, eventually the empire is going to unravel, and it looks like that unravelling is happening an accelerating pace now. That said, Trump is himself a product of the failing system. People like him have always been around, but it's the declining material conditions in the US that allowed opportunists to get into positions of power. The direction of travel will be exactly the same when Trump is gone.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

I fear you're right

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

And the thing is this:

It's not the United States versus the rest of the world.

It's the people currently in control of the United States versus the rest of the world.

The people in the United States are not largely on the side of the people currently running things.

The people of the United States will benefit in the long run from that happening, even if it's going to be hell to get there.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

That's what the US thinks, but it isn't true. NATO would definitely not be as strong...but to abandon the alliance altogether just because the US pulls out, would be suicide for most of Eastern Europe and the Nordic States.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's not what the US thinks, that's what material reality tells us. The US accounts for the vast majority of critical and high-end weapons systems such as missiles, stealth fighters, and strategic systems. Approximately 80-90% are US made https://agendapublica.es/noticia/20845/javier-colomina-nato-european-war-such-as-one-ukraine-90-of-missiles-used-come-united-states

For conventional weapons like like artillery shells or tanks Europe does produce some https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/1_trillion_10_years_europes_long_road_to_military_independence_from_the_us_hidden_challenges-17291.html

However, all western countries are entirely dependent on US satellites and have no immediate alternative without the US. The Americans also do pretty much all the coordination and planning in NATO. If they left, the alliance might hobble along, but it would be a shadow of its former self.

Also, as Ukraine and Iran show, NATO military doctrine is now obsolete:

A single team of some 10 Ukrainians, acting as the adversary, counterattacked the NATO forces. In about half a day they mock-destroyed 17 armored vehicles and conducted 30 “strikes” on other targets.

https://archive.ph/HcED9

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You seem to be operating on the false assumption that the US would suddenly stop selling weapons to Europe if they chose to leave NATO. That's almost as absurd as saying Russia would refuse to sell oil and gas to Europe over their support for Ukraine.

Besides, none of that has anything to do with whether or not NATO would still exist if the US did leave. There would obviously be a scramble to realign logistical infrastructure, but the rest of NATO is more than capable of doing that. It's not like EU countries don't have the capability to expand their own industries...they just haven't had the incentive.

But, the point I was actually disputing was whether or not NATO would survive a US withdrawal...and as I said, it would have to. If the US pulled out, it would be suicide for the remaining countries to try and "go it alone". If anything NATO would become even more important than ever, if the US left.

Also not sure what significance that last article has to this topic, given the fact that the US was also a part of those drills. That's just a testament to the effectiveness of Ukraine's forces, as well as an acknowledgement that modern drone warfare is changing the way battlefield tactics need to be structured. Not to mention it's always been the case that seasoned forces that are currently engaged in real combat are going to have a huge advantage over forces that aren't, no matter what kind of training they've received.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The US actually needs to produce weapons to sell them. Just go look at stuff like missile production rates. The US ran through more than half its stocks in the war on Iran in just a couple of months. They need to replenish thousands of missiles now while they're able produce the them in artisanal numbers. Since the US still has ambitions of challenging China in Asia, that's where whatever they're able to produce will go. They already had to pull weapons from the vassals all over the world like THAAD batteries from Korea. That's how things are going.

And I don't see how the rest of NATO will magic factories and logistics chains into being. This isn't like printing money. Real world infrastructure takes decades to build. You have to train the workers, build factories, engineer machines, and so on. There is no way to produce all that in the foreseeable future in nations that are thoroughly deindustrialized. The skill base isn't there.

If the US pulled out, the rational thing for smaller countries would be to make deals with other big powers like China to balance the US.

The last point shows that the alliance is not combat effective. So, it's not going to provide the kind of protection people expect even if it did survive, and magically figured out how to produce weapons at scale.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's weird that you keep emphasizing weapons sales. Weapons sales have nothing to do with maintaining NATO, as a defensive alliance. Sure, you need weapons to defend yourself and your allies...but you wouldn't just cancel the alliance if your stockpiles are low, or your supply chains were inadequate. It also has nothing to do with their current combat effectiveness. Those considerations have nothing to do with maintaining the alliance.

And there's no "magic" involved when you are scaling up your own production. It takes investment. Not magic. Europe has some of the most advanced military manufacturing on the planet...just not at the scale necessary to cut the US out of the loop. That's where the investment would come in...to scale up production to meet demand. It isn't about inventing new capabilities on the fly. Those capabilities already exist.

And no, the "rational thing" would not be to turn to China. They are not a NATO ally. Why would anyone in NATO turn to a potential adversary for their military tech? That's almost as bad as relying on the US under their current administration. China is notorious for copyright infringement, as it is. Why would anyone trust them to keep highly sensitive military technologies proprietary?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

First of all, NATO is not a defensive alliance by any stretch of imagination. This alliance has a long history of invading and destroying countries and it's responsible for killing and displacing millions of people. NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Second, it's kind of weird that you don't understand why weapons production is a key part of a military alliance. Who produces the military strength is, in fact, the key question. And read what I actually wrote. What I said was that replacing the US role would take decades. I said there's no magic way to shortcut that.

We can also see how this investment of yours works out in practice already. Europeans pledged to produce 1.5 mil artillery shells for Ukraine. A bunch of money was allocated to various slush funds, and the shells never materialized. That's what NATO is actually good at, sucking money out of productive economy and driving austerity to line the pockets of the oligarchs.

And not sure which capabilities you claim already exist. Given how NATO weapons performed in Ukraine and Iran, it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful capability here.

And why would it matter whether China is a NATO ally or not. China is the only major world power that can contest the US. Why would anybody be imbecilic enough to want to turn China into a potential adversary? What sort of absolute idiocy would that be. Also, what military technology could China possibly steal from countries that are far behind it technologically in every way. What fantasy world do live in? Chinese universities dominate world rankings right now. China has more scientists than all of the west combined. They're at the bleeding edge of pretty much every technological field.

These new results reveal the stunning shift in research leadership over the past two decades towards large economies in the Indo-Pacific, led by China’s exceptional gains. The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five years (2019–2023) is leading in seven. China led in just three of 64 technologies in 2003–20074 but is now the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies in 2019–2023, increasing its lead from our rankings last year (2018–2022), where it was leading in 52 technologies.

If anything, it's NATO countries who would be stealing Chinese tech and not the other way around.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wait. You think it would take "decades" for some of the most industrialized countries on the planet to start making weapons...that they already know how to make? I don't think you realize how many of the highly specialised machines that are required for making those weapons, are actually manufactured in Europe already.

Europeans pledged to produce 1.5 mil artillery shells for Ukraine. A bunch of money was allocated to various slush funds, and the shells never materialized.

Are you talking about this? If so, it seems you are getting your information from questionable sources.

And yes, NATO is a defensive alliance. If you want to get technical about that list of countries that "NATO" attacked...that was actually the United Nations, in every case except for Iraq. And most NATO nations didn't participate in that invasion. That was the US and Great Britain acting alone, very similar to the current situation with the US and Israel attacking Iran. All the other campaigns you mentioned were UN sanctioned. I agree that some of those should never have happened...but at least place the responsibility where it belongs.

And why would it matter whether China is a NATO ally or not. China is the only major world power that can contest the US. Why would anybody be imbecilic enough to want to turn China into a potential adversary?

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China cannot be trusted with proprietary military designs. They would be sold to the highest bidder as soon as China was able to replicate the manufacturing process. There is a reason why most of NATO's weapons are produced in the US, and the rest are produced by NATO allies. You don't just outsource your highly classified military tech, to people you know will steal it.

And not sure which capabilities you claim already exist. Given how NATO weapons performed in Ukraine and Iran, it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful capability here.

I don't know, man. Ukraine has done pretty well, holding off Russia for the last few years, using NATO's surplus. Again, I think you're getting bad information when it comes to the specifics of your argument.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Wait. You think it would take “decades” for some of the most industrialized countries on the planet to start making weapons…that they already know how to make? I don’t think you realize how many of the highly specialised machines that are required for making those weapons, are actually manufactured in Europe already.

Go read up on the state of industrialization in the west. Seems like you're living in a fantasy universe here. Even in the US, which is the most industrialized western country, industry accounts roughly for 11% of the economy now. The west literally cannot produce many critical components on its own nowadays, and has to import them from China. The west has no way to refine rare earth for example.

Europe can't even produce something as basic as artillery shells in any meaningful scale. It cannot produce drones because those need Chinese components. It cannot produce hypersonic weapons because it doesn't have the technology.

Seems like you're the one getting your info from questionable sources https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-will-only-supply-half-promised-shells-ukraine-by-march-borrell-2024-01-31/

And on top of that, many of the shells delivered were of low quality and didn't work properly. The fact that Europe has severe problems with production is a pretty well known fact. https://www.setav.org/en/europes-struggle-cheap-weapons-at-scale

And yes, NATO is a defensive alliance.

And no, calling yourself a defensive alliance doesn't make you one. NATO invades countries, and that makes it an offensive alliance. United Nations never authorized attacks on Yugoslavia. I don't know if you're just ignorant or intentionally spreading misinformation here.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China cannot be trusted with proprietary military designs.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China is far ahead of the west technologically, and actually produces modern weapons like drones and hypersonics which the west is not able to.

There is a reason why most of NATO’s weapons are produced in the US, and the rest are produced by NATO allies.

Yeah, that reason is that other western countries are vassals who are technologically behind the US, and the US will not share their tech.

You don’t just outsource your highly classified military tech, to people you know will steal it.

I literally linked a study showing that China is ahead in practically every key technology. We'd be the ones doing the stealing. I also love how you chose not to engage with that since it doesn't fit your fantasy narrative.

I don’t know, man. Ukraine has done pretty well, holding off Russia for the last few years, using NATO’s surplus. Again, I think you’re getting bad information when it comes to the specifics of your argument.

Hmm, yeah let's just see how well NATO weapons are performing there https://youtu.be/c5FqxA-KjkM

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

JFC. Buddy, you are living in a bubble. You're making such easily disproven assertions, that it makes me wonder if you're not just trolling with this shit. Everything you've said, is such a broad generalization, that it effectively nullifies any conclusion you come to. None of it is accurate.

Maybe I could recommend actually learning something about the world instead of just running all your questions through ChatGPT?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Amazing counterpoint kiddo.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Seriously. I'm not going to go through that whole screed, point by point. If you're going to use AI to make your arguments, you need to ask the right questions. You clearly have a bias here, which is making your queries biased. That's why your answers aren't accurate.

You aren't even responding to my points directly...you're just going off on a tangent because you think it "sounds right"...but it misses the entire point I was making.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like you're projecting there kiddo. You've shown yourself to be clueless and dishonest throughout this discussion. You're unable to engage with anything being said yo you. I assume you frantically looked up your arguments on grok or whatever it is you use. Now you're accusing me of the same. It's sad and pathetic and you should go outside. You're not fooling anybody here. Bye.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's funny how most people who claim "projection" are the ones doing the projecting.

Ok. Without going into every point you made Individually, I'll cover the most important mistake you made...the difference between "capability" and "scale".

You keep claiming that NATO isn't "capable" of doing 'x' or 'y', because (insert false reasoning here). All of that is easily disproven by the fact that in the EU alone, all the things you claim it can't do...are already being done. Just not at the same scale as say, China.

The source of your misunderstanding comes from not being able to tell the difference between "capability" and "scale". Most of the articles you are scraping for your argument, are making that distinction...albeit using subtle language. That's why you're missing it. You have to actually read the whole article and understand what they are saying, in order to see where you are getting things wrong.

Your entire assertion that Europe isn't "capable" of producing artillery shells is also...on its face... completely false. I have no idea why you think that, when a basic Google search will return hundreds of results that contradict you. That, I can only assume, is based on your own bias. You are either skipping those sources because you disagree with them...or you are literally just relying on AI to give you the answers you are looking for, and you're framing your queries in such a way that it is ignoring the answers you don't want to hear.

So, back to "scale". That's where China has the advantage over Europe. Not on "capabilities". "Scale".

The thing with scale is, it's easy to achieve as long as you already have the capabilities. Capabilities are the hard part. Those take "decades" to produce. That's why it's taken China so long to get to where they are now. But, scale? That just takes investment and a relatively short amount of time.

It also requires incentive. Something Europe hasn't had until recently. Why invest in scaling up your production when you can just buy the product from a reliable source? Except now, that source has become unreliable. Now, they need to scale up production on their own. So, they take all the knowledge and experience they already have, and scale it up to meet demand. It's all about replication and mass production. Not R&D. That part's easy, when you already have the capability.

And at the end of all this...you still don't understand the original point I was making. An alliance is not made or broken based on weapons sales. It's based on intent, politics and necessity. 1st and foremost, NATO is a defense alliance. The idea is that the member states are stronger together, than they are separately. That's just basic common sense. So, dissolving the alliance just because your biggest partner leaves the group, is fundamentally the stupidest conclusion that you could come to, based on the entire purpose of having that alliance. It makes literally NO sense. None of the reasons you've provided even come close to addressing that basic premise. It's all just word salad in response to a very simple concept.

You are flailing around, just looking for a reason to be right, without actually thinking about any of it long enough to grasp why you're wrong.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh I thought you were done, but here we have another word salad. Weird how you haven't actually added anything of substance to the discussion or made any new points I haven't already addressed. Pretty clear who's actually flailing around here. Sad.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Lol! You would do much better in conversations like these, if you took the time to read what people write. Not just my comments, but even the subject matter that you claim to know about. Because, as someone who actually does know this topic very well...your confidence only highlights your ignorance.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I literally provided you with sources, which you clearly did not read, and here you are still pretending you're right. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you for providing some levity in these hard times.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

OMG. Ok, now you're once again admitting exactly what I've been saying to you for the last several comments. You have no actual idea what I'm talking about, and clearly no idea what you're talking about, either.

I addressed the articles you posted. In fact, I specifically responded to what was in those articles, that you seemed to be misinterpreting. It's obvious that you either didn't read what was in them yourself...or you simply didn't understand the content. That's the entire reason why I talked about the difference between "capabilities" (what you keep talking about), and "scale" (what those articles were talking about).

Those articles clearly support my position...not yours. All I'm doing is trying to help you understand what they're saying...because you obviously don't get it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I love how you just don't know when to shut up. You just need to have the last word in every conversation because your parents never loved you, don't you?

p.s. if you had any reading comprehension then you'd realize the articles do not, in fact, support your position for the reasons I clearly explained to you repeatedly in this thread. Simply stomping your feet and repeating that you're right won't make it so I'm afraid. I'll let other people read through this and decide for themselves. Enjoy having the last word that you so desperately need.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 6 days ago

🤨

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wonder if they break-up and reform as a nom-US version, if their logo will continue to be reminiscent of the swastika?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago

lol yeah, it's not too subtle