Europe is definitely in trouble. And America needs to stay out of everybody else’s business. I don’t think they ever will but it’s gonna be to their demise. We are still a young country, but arrogant, in my opinion.
And as far as NATO and the UN well they can go to h*ll!.
We will end up going to a one world government, which is not going to be good for any country. It’s a false sense of security and a loss of control for the citizens of everyone single country.
I wish it could be stopped and I would be first in line at all costs unfortunately, it cannot be stopped.
This is one of the most well written articles I’ve read on the subject matter and there’s so much to say ….there’s not enough characters allowed.
Thank you so much for your kind words! It truly means a lot to me that you found the article well-written and engaging. I also really appreciate your thoughtful comment—there’s a lot to unpack here, and I completely agree with you on many points.
I share your frustration with NATO. It hasn’t functioned as a purely defensive organization in practice, which undermines its stated purpose. Its actions often seem more about projecting influence aggressively than fostering genuine security.
When it comes to the UN, I see its potential as a framework for peaceful coexistence and non-intervention between nations, which I fully support in principle. However, I think the Security Council is where the UN's promise falters. Those veto powers and the disproportionate influence of a few countries make it impossible to act effectively on critical issues. It often feels like the UN is a "toothless tiger," unable to enforce its ideals truly.
I also resonate with your concerns about a one-world government. While unity and cooperation sound appealing theoretically, losing sovereignty and citizen control could lead to far greater problems. At best, it would be a false sense of security.
It’s a tough and frustrating reality, but I hope dialogues like this one can keep the conversation going and maybe inspire new ways to address these challenges. Thank you again for taking the time to comment—it’s people like you who make writing these pieces so rewarding. I genuinely mean this.
Nel, well it's something that people should be talking about because these are our lives. Too much government control is a bad bad thing.
We have to keep our sovereignty as individuals and I hear what you're saying about the UN but it's not a good thing. It really isn't and they will be the ones that will be running the one world government. It will come through the United Nations. Just too much corruption and I don't see any positive thing coming out of it.
Also, every country has its own set of issues and culture and yes, we can all be united, but not in the way they want us to be united.
It's all about control. And I'm a person that's not gonna give up my individuality or my rights are the choice to whether I have to take some medical thing or not be able to work because of it or whatever it is. And then that starts getting into the WHO. And you don't even want me to go there.
and then there's a WEF I mean all these organizations are sucking money from countries, which means they're coming from the taxpayers and they're not there for our benefit. I saw some videos when what people in the WEF were saying I mean these people need to be hung honestly it's ridiculous. And these videos were not supposed to get out but they did.
So let's stand strong and be strong and stay strong. As individuals as communities as states as countries and let's not let anyone come in and take us over. We will go down fighting at least I will 😉
I take a darker, more pessimistic view. The fact that we have the current set of European parties and politicians in the office precisely because the European Votes chose so. Once cannot blame Europeans living in the USA played any significant roles. It is the people who live in Europe to have voted these guys in. At a pure political science of view, I can raise doubt about the proportional representative system of voting for parties rather than candidates. Then party leader and machinery carry enormous weight. But quite often I trust one candidate from my precinct because I know him, but I have no real grasp of the party's platform. More realistically, how many people really find any party's policy platform 100% aligned with his personal views? With candidates in small precincts and winning by simple majority, we allow the voters to have a stronger identification with individuals, rather than a set of abstract policies or values, which can change overnight.
From a more military perspective, Not sure whether Bismarck or Moltke said it: one has to prepare according to opponent's capability, not by our judgment about his intention. On this ground, I can agree with higher defense spending. Even for the current European situation, I think even higher spending on the military is justified. My reasoning is based on the philosophy that national government's most important tasks are defense and diplomacy. All other tasks, from economic policy to education system and police forces, should be delegated to local governments, not centralized. Even if a Unified Europe was a good idea (I don't think so) the current EU form with its high concentration of everything and the intention to regulate everything from cradle to the grave is definitely not the right form for a unified Europe. I also blame the European social welfare systems, but that is more of a personal opinion, while European voters clearly like the idea. When governments post and enforce minimal regulation, protect personal security against crimes, lower the tax to the minimum level, and focus the spending only on the military and diplomatic business, Europe will be strong and will dare to defy the Americans.
Right now, being hijacked by the USA is the only choice. For Europe to have a spine, it must have a strong enough military. The tough part is how to have a government which focuses for DEFENSIVE military planning yet interferes with citizens' freedom minimally. Historically this is impossible. A government with strong military tends to use the military to hijack and enslave the people. (A conscription-based army, actually works against that kind of tendency because the army IS the people.) If so, then Unified Europe is a bad idea, and the current form of EU is a disaster.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment—your perspective brings a lot of depth to the discussion! I really appreciate the time you took to engage with this article.
I do see where you're coming from on the importance of military preparedness, and I agree that a government must prioritize defense and diplomacy. However, I take a more pessimistic view of Europe's current trajectory. Higher defense spending under the current political and social context might exacerbate inequalities and shift focus away from the common good. Apart from the obvious geopolitical context, where it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more is spent on militarization, the more likely a war in Europe.
For instance, while I support the welfare state and believe in balancing individual freedoms and collective responsibility, I don’t see the current spending priorities aligned with building a resilient Europe. I worry that centralizing resources in defense—especially without addressing the underlying socio-economic disparities—could deepen divisions rather than strengthen unity. Critically, I see how these deepened disparities are used as a catalyst by politicians and economic elites alike to push divisions and hopelessness and increase a thirst for war.
You also raised an interesting critique of the EU and proportional representation. You're right that many voters struggle to align fully with a party's platform, which can create a disconnect. However, I'm cautious about systems that overly emphasize individual candidates, as these can lead to uncertain dynamics and undermine cohesive policy planning. Perhaps there’s a middle ground worth exploring that retains the party's accountability while enhancing voter connection. (On another note, I highly doubt voters have much influence on policies in the current climate, at least in Europe.)
Lastly, I find the tension you highlight between a strong military and minimal government interference compelling. Historically, that balance has indeed proven elusive. I wonder, though, if a more robust welfare system and equitable economic policies could create the kind of social cohesion needed to sustain a strong, yet truly defensive, military. Also, a more equitable society would possibly lead to a people's military.
1. You have some very good points. I was talking about things in general, but specifically for Germany and EU, increasing military spending can be more troublesome than serving the nominal purpose. Russia will be absorbed in reconstructing the areas coming back to Russia. Unless eu really provokes for war, Russia would not want to bother with Europe.
2. I grew up in a mixed system of precinct candidates and trade-unions candidates, and never a true believer in single candidate system. It is actually the European politics drove me away against the party proportional system. I think party leaders gaining too much power when party machinery is not elected by party members rank and files. I don't have a good grasp yet. I was to trust the party covering individual candidate would provide common policy platforms much like the US system. Maybe we need a multi-branch system somewhat similar to the German vocational education system.
3. In the very old days when countries are of small sizes, conscription services and taxation records were administered as one system. A bit like the original Sparta: where a citizen was also a voter and a soldier. But given the modern technology and economy, large conscription army has some very real problems. Yet I see purely volunteer army being easier to become mercenary and more willing to open fire to the civilians due to the separation of people and military, much like the past British military. Russian style hybrid system is the one I consider as the best in the current world. Thirty years ago I would say Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel with universal conscription and very strong mobilization system were the best. But speed of war has accelerated.
The European public shows no appetite for waging war against our mighty neighbor to the east. Sabre-rattling does not win votes, and the populist tide will eventually sweep the Russophobes from power. When the West's Ukraine project finally collapses, it will shatter our delusions of military grandeur. NATO is at this point a second-rate expeditionary force, at best, and certainly no match for the Russians.
While it's true that the European public currently displays little appetite for war, this sentiment might be more fragile than it appears. Several factors could drastically shift public opinion. Firstly, deepening economic desperation, coupled with the increasing polarization we're witnessing, erodes social cohesion and solidarity. This creates a climate where people become more susceptible to extremist narratives and scapegoating, potentially even embracing war as a perceived solution to their woes. History offers numerous examples of economic hardship fueling conflict.
Secondly, the potential for manipulation, e.g., through a false flag operation, cannot be ignored. Such an event, however unlikely it may seem now, could be strategically used to manufacture consent for war by inflaming public emotions and creating a perceived external threat.
Finally, regarding the future of European military power, I believe a significant reassessment is on the horizon. However, this isn't necessarily tied to the outcome in Ukraine. Rather, the internal cohesion of the European Union itself will be the determining factor. The current trajectory, marked by internal divisions and the rise of nationalist movements, raises concerns. Even ostensibly populist leaders, often perceived as anti-establishment, might reveal themselves more hawkish than expected.
Therefore, while war may seem distant now, the underlying conditions are concerning.
Europe is definitely in trouble. And America needs to stay out of everybody else’s business. I don’t think they ever will but it’s gonna be to their demise. We are still a young country, but arrogant, in my opinion.
And as far as NATO and the UN well they can go to h*ll!.
We will end up going to a one world government, which is not going to be good for any country. It’s a false sense of security and a loss of control for the citizens of everyone single country.
I wish it could be stopped and I would be first in line at all costs unfortunately, it cannot be stopped.
This is one of the most well written articles I’ve read on the subject matter and there’s so much to say ….there’s not enough characters allowed.
Thank you so much for your kind words! It truly means a lot to me that you found the article well-written and engaging. I also really appreciate your thoughtful comment—there’s a lot to unpack here, and I completely agree with you on many points.
I share your frustration with NATO. It hasn’t functioned as a purely defensive organization in practice, which undermines its stated purpose. Its actions often seem more about projecting influence aggressively than fostering genuine security.
When it comes to the UN, I see its potential as a framework for peaceful coexistence and non-intervention between nations, which I fully support in principle. However, I think the Security Council is where the UN's promise falters. Those veto powers and the disproportionate influence of a few countries make it impossible to act effectively on critical issues. It often feels like the UN is a "toothless tiger," unable to enforce its ideals truly.
I also resonate with your concerns about a one-world government. While unity and cooperation sound appealing theoretically, losing sovereignty and citizen control could lead to far greater problems. At best, it would be a false sense of security.
It’s a tough and frustrating reality, but I hope dialogues like this one can keep the conversation going and maybe inspire new ways to address these challenges. Thank you again for taking the time to comment—it’s people like you who make writing these pieces so rewarding. I genuinely mean this.
Nel, well it's something that people should be talking about because these are our lives. Too much government control is a bad bad thing.
We have to keep our sovereignty as individuals and I hear what you're saying about the UN but it's not a good thing. It really isn't and they will be the ones that will be running the one world government. It will come through the United Nations. Just too much corruption and I don't see any positive thing coming out of it.
Also, every country has its own set of issues and culture and yes, we can all be united, but not in the way they want us to be united.
It's all about control. And I'm a person that's not gonna give up my individuality or my rights are the choice to whether I have to take some medical thing or not be able to work because of it or whatever it is. And then that starts getting into the WHO. And you don't even want me to go there.
and then there's a WEF I mean all these organizations are sucking money from countries, which means they're coming from the taxpayers and they're not there for our benefit. I saw some videos when what people in the WEF were saying I mean these people need to be hung honestly it's ridiculous. And these videos were not supposed to get out but they did.
So let's stand strong and be strong and stay strong. As individuals as communities as states as countries and let's not let anyone come in and take us over. We will go down fighting at least I will 😉
I take a darker, more pessimistic view. The fact that we have the current set of European parties and politicians in the office precisely because the European Votes chose so. Once cannot blame Europeans living in the USA played any significant roles. It is the people who live in Europe to have voted these guys in. At a pure political science of view, I can raise doubt about the proportional representative system of voting for parties rather than candidates. Then party leader and machinery carry enormous weight. But quite often I trust one candidate from my precinct because I know him, but I have no real grasp of the party's platform. More realistically, how many people really find any party's policy platform 100% aligned with his personal views? With candidates in small precincts and winning by simple majority, we allow the voters to have a stronger identification with individuals, rather than a set of abstract policies or values, which can change overnight.
From a more military perspective, Not sure whether Bismarck or Moltke said it: one has to prepare according to opponent's capability, not by our judgment about his intention. On this ground, I can agree with higher defense spending. Even for the current European situation, I think even higher spending on the military is justified. My reasoning is based on the philosophy that national government's most important tasks are defense and diplomacy. All other tasks, from economic policy to education system and police forces, should be delegated to local governments, not centralized. Even if a Unified Europe was a good idea (I don't think so) the current EU form with its high concentration of everything and the intention to regulate everything from cradle to the grave is definitely not the right form for a unified Europe. I also blame the European social welfare systems, but that is more of a personal opinion, while European voters clearly like the idea. When governments post and enforce minimal regulation, protect personal security against crimes, lower the tax to the minimum level, and focus the spending only on the military and diplomatic business, Europe will be strong and will dare to defy the Americans.
Right now, being hijacked by the USA is the only choice. For Europe to have a spine, it must have a strong enough military. The tough part is how to have a government which focuses for DEFENSIVE military planning yet interferes with citizens' freedom minimally. Historically this is impossible. A government with strong military tends to use the military to hijack and enslave the people. (A conscription-based army, actually works against that kind of tendency because the army IS the people.) If so, then Unified Europe is a bad idea, and the current form of EU is a disaster.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment—your perspective brings a lot of depth to the discussion! I really appreciate the time you took to engage with this article.
I do see where you're coming from on the importance of military preparedness, and I agree that a government must prioritize defense and diplomacy. However, I take a more pessimistic view of Europe's current trajectory. Higher defense spending under the current political and social context might exacerbate inequalities and shift focus away from the common good. Apart from the obvious geopolitical context, where it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more is spent on militarization, the more likely a war in Europe.
For instance, while I support the welfare state and believe in balancing individual freedoms and collective responsibility, I don’t see the current spending priorities aligned with building a resilient Europe. I worry that centralizing resources in defense—especially without addressing the underlying socio-economic disparities—could deepen divisions rather than strengthen unity. Critically, I see how these deepened disparities are used as a catalyst by politicians and economic elites alike to push divisions and hopelessness and increase a thirst for war.
You also raised an interesting critique of the EU and proportional representation. You're right that many voters struggle to align fully with a party's platform, which can create a disconnect. However, I'm cautious about systems that overly emphasize individual candidates, as these can lead to uncertain dynamics and undermine cohesive policy planning. Perhaps there’s a middle ground worth exploring that retains the party's accountability while enhancing voter connection. (On another note, I highly doubt voters have much influence on policies in the current climate, at least in Europe.)
Lastly, I find the tension you highlight between a strong military and minimal government interference compelling. Historically, that balance has indeed proven elusive. I wonder, though, if a more robust welfare system and equitable economic policies could create the kind of social cohesion needed to sustain a strong, yet truly defensive, military. Also, a more equitable society would possibly lead to a people's military.
1. You have some very good points. I was talking about things in general, but specifically for Germany and EU, increasing military spending can be more troublesome than serving the nominal purpose. Russia will be absorbed in reconstructing the areas coming back to Russia. Unless eu really provokes for war, Russia would not want to bother with Europe.
2. I grew up in a mixed system of precinct candidates and trade-unions candidates, and never a true believer in single candidate system. It is actually the European politics drove me away against the party proportional system. I think party leaders gaining too much power when party machinery is not elected by party members rank and files. I don't have a good grasp yet. I was to trust the party covering individual candidate would provide common policy platforms much like the US system. Maybe we need a multi-branch system somewhat similar to the German vocational education system.
3. In the very old days when countries are of small sizes, conscription services and taxation records were administered as one system. A bit like the original Sparta: where a citizen was also a voter and a soldier. But given the modern technology and economy, large conscription army has some very real problems. Yet I see purely volunteer army being easier to become mercenary and more willing to open fire to the civilians due to the separation of people and military, much like the past British military. Russian style hybrid system is the one I consider as the best in the current world. Thirty years ago I would say Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel with universal conscription and very strong mobilization system were the best. But speed of war has accelerated.
The European public shows no appetite for waging war against our mighty neighbor to the east. Sabre-rattling does not win votes, and the populist tide will eventually sweep the Russophobes from power. When the West's Ukraine project finally collapses, it will shatter our delusions of military grandeur. NATO is at this point a second-rate expeditionary force, at best, and certainly no match for the Russians.
While it's true that the European public currently displays little appetite for war, this sentiment might be more fragile than it appears. Several factors could drastically shift public opinion. Firstly, deepening economic desperation, coupled with the increasing polarization we're witnessing, erodes social cohesion and solidarity. This creates a climate where people become more susceptible to extremist narratives and scapegoating, potentially even embracing war as a perceived solution to their woes. History offers numerous examples of economic hardship fueling conflict.
Secondly, the potential for manipulation, e.g., through a false flag operation, cannot be ignored. Such an event, however unlikely it may seem now, could be strategically used to manufacture consent for war by inflaming public emotions and creating a perceived external threat.
Finally, regarding the future of European military power, I believe a significant reassessment is on the horizon. However, this isn't necessarily tied to the outcome in Ukraine. Rather, the internal cohesion of the European Union itself will be the determining factor. The current trajectory, marked by internal divisions and the rise of nationalist movements, raises concerns. Even ostensibly populist leaders, often perceived as anti-establishment, might reveal themselves more hawkish than expected.
Therefore, while war may seem distant now, the underlying conditions are concerning.