What @CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de already said. Politico is only semi-credible as a source. They have a tendency to mix journalism with insider gossip and narrative framing. I often find their articles to be… politically convenient interpretations that look more solid than the underlying evidence really warrants.
I think you forgot the /s
Back in the days an “Antisemite” was a person who doesn’t like jews. Today, an “Antisemite” is a person who jews don’t like.
Nazis doing nazi things. Would be funny, if it wasn’t such a effing tragedy.
What was signed in 25. August 1933?
I think the problem with this would be soft power. A super power just needs to expand its sphere of influence to pull 10-20% of the signed countries on it’s side. If a second super power does the same, the whole alliance is left paralyzed and unable to invoke anything. But I like the Idea of a world wide alliance.
I start to like this guy. He is acting like a leader. Can I please have a copy of him for my German Government, please?
Call me a pessimist, but I doubt that the US will pull out of NATO. NATO grants them immense strategic leverage, and the ability to define the borders of its empire by placing troops in key countries. The ability to rapidly engage in conflicts and project its power. I highly doubt that the US will ever pull out - even if the angry orange shit stained child decides to. It would be a nail in the coffin, and the Pentagon knows it.
Your second point, of the US turning back to normal… I doubt it. You have 77M people who voted for this. They are openly hostile towards their enemies. I’d argue that hatred and fascism have already build a comfortable nest inside their heads. Back in the days, German fascism was most effectively ended by total and unconditional defeat + the following occupation. I don’t see a way how masses of people de-fascistify in a soft way. But then again: maybe I’m a pessimist.
I like the idea! But I’d argue that such an alliance needs cohesion in order to work. And sadly, I can’t imagine a German soldier readily risk his life to defend the country of… say… Myanmar. Or Bhutan. Just as an example. Humans sometimes need to identify with a group in order to feel empathy for said group. Thats why I like the Idea of a centralized European Arme. It’s a possible source for cohesion.
Has anyone fact-checked this? TheFreePress sounds like a serious institution, but it’s really just a fancy looking blog run by very few people with a strong political opinion. No editorial board, no standards, etc… Wikipedia doesn’t accept them as a reliable source and instead lists them as a self-publishing service.
I’d say it’s a real dilemma. “Commit war crimes, or see your whole carreer crumble to dust, along with everything you’ve ever worked for”. Thats tough, especially since the US has no real social safety nets that would protect you in case the administration goes rogue on you. Some of the soldiers might be good people. I pity them.
Edit: yeah, I thought about it a bit more thoroughly. I was wrong, sorry. Nothing is more important than human rights.
IMO the Trump Administration is just projecting all the time. If MAGA says “Those ppl want to do this and that” it’s reasonable to assume that “this and that” is actually what MAGA themselves want to do very badly. Examples:
JD Vance: “This is one of the worst examples of foreign interference in an election that I have ever seen in Europe.”
-> The US is literally intervening in Hungary’s election itself. Vance appeared in Budapest to back Viktor Orbán and said he was “here to help.” Plus, they made it a part of their National Security Agenda to push for some sort of “change” within the EU to make us align with them.
Donald Trump: “You’re gambling with World War Three.”
-> The US is itself escalating everything. Trump has paired this rhetoric with coercive pressure on Ukraine and, more recently, with ultimatums toward Iran, including threats of devastating strikes.
Donald Trump: “Law firms are weaponizing the legal system.”
-> The US is now itself using state power punitively against legal opponents. Trump’s executive orders targeted major law firms and courts described the measures as unconstitutional / retaliatory.
Trump administration officials: “Europe needs more free speech, and Washington will fund free speech initiatives there”
-> The US is itself pressuring speech / media. The administration pursued measures against NPR, PBS, and the AP while presenting itself abroad as an anti-censorship actor.
They promised “Freedom against ideological coercion”
-> and they immediately started imposing ideological coercion of their own by interfering with universities.
In other words: listen to what they say “the others” will do. They will do it themselves.
There are some indirekt, but significant points.
I think this guy is a lost case.
I have no interest in continuing a discussion on that basis, so I am leaving it here.
I am surely willing to argue with you, if you are able to stick to facts instead of emotionally perceived truths.
The Traffic Light coalition had to balance Germany’s pro-Israel stance with growing criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. After an initial phase of strong support (due to Germanys so called “Staatsräson”), the coalition became more critical, slashed arms exports in 2024 compared with 2023, and provided major humanitarian aid to Gaza. Saying they “cheered for genocide” is polemical and mislead. Maybe you should reconsider your news sources.
Also, nuclear power is not a viable path for Germany. New plants are too expensive, take too long to build, and offer hardly any practical advantage over faster expansion of renewables, grids, and storage. The Greens acted accordingly. You COULD criticize the ban of nuclear power in the first place - but that was the doing of the CDU/SPD, not the Greens.
I somewhat agree with you regarding taxation. They could have done more. But then again: they were in a coalition with two parties, that are ideologically very different. It’s far from precise to measure a partys moral by the actions of a coalition in which they were a junior-partner. Stop dealing in absolutes.
I’d not call it green-washing, but realistic politics focussed on finding possible majorities through compromises, without insisting on maximum demands, ideologically speaking. This is often interpreted as “greens doing conservative politics”. In reality, they are doing the right thing. Just at a slower and less radical rate than some (like me) would like. I accept that. Due to the nature of the system, some progress needs to happen slowly in order to not disrupt it.
If disruption is your goal however, than yeah, the German Green Party is really bad at that.
It really is sneaky. I wonder If it was intentional, or if media coverage was simply overshadowed by everything else currently going on. Either way, I somewhat disagree.
Of course. The US dont have the balls to terrorize someone who is as big as them. Like the ugly school bully who rips smalIer children off their lunch money. I see them as a rogue regime by now.