> Europe is far more aligned with Russia than they are against. Both sides have the same goal. Russia is killing swaths of European men, and that's about it. Ukraine is killing swaths of European men. The territorial control doesn't explain the war. The killing is the purpose.
By this logic Japan was aligned with USA during WW2, because both sides were killing people.
The logic remains sound, but the facts are different. There was real territorial gain / loss in the Pacific theater. Japan's imperial motives make sense, because they actually did conquer a lot of Asia / Pacific Islands. The US's defense / retaliation motives also make sense, because the US did re-take its territory and force a surrender. So, the proffered motives don't appear to be a pretext.
There's also an absence of an apparent ulterior motive. The US and Japan were also on opposite sides of the world, and had little to no prior history. It's not clear why (or along what lines) they would cooperate with each other in the presence of such real territorial conflict.
Germany is a somewhat closer case. Germany and the US had a shared history and tradition. Socialist / Communist politics were widespread in both, and the US was largely divided as to whether they would support or oppose the German socialists / war. So there is a much stronger case for an ulterior motive here. Indeed, Germany indisputably wanted many of their own people to be killed. Their leadership's desire to kill jewish German is beyond dispute... so as it relates to other classes of Germans (e.g. those who fill the Wiermact ranks)... I don't think we can rule out the possibility on the grounds that those people were (also) German.
However, to get back to the territorial aspect, Germany conquered a lot of land, and the Allies took it back. So, a closer situation to the current stalemate in Ukraine would be WWI. If they're not making any progress in terms of territory... what progress do they think they're making? The main change I see from here is that people are dying... so that's probably the whole point.
I think you're being a bit dramatic. My voice is an outlier, and heavily downvoted. Being exposed to different ideas is a good thing. If you're not going to question your own views, at be grateful that others will.
If Europe wants North America to intervene in Europe's territorial disputes, then Europe should allow North America to have dominion over North America.
It's hypocritical for Europe to claim North American territory, and then claim we should be concerned about a European nation claiming European territory.
Russia and Ukraine are both on the same continent. They're neighbors. That's a much tougher decision than whether a European nation should control Greenland... that's not even on the same hemisphere.
The US, under Trump, also bombed and sanctioned Iran, a major ally of Russia and supplier of drones and drone parts, and kidnapped Maduro, their staunchest ally in the Western Hemisphere, and tariffed countries buying Russian energy, and seized an actual Russian-flagged (not "shadow") tanker, despite it having a submarine escort--something Europe would never have the will to do.
> Europe is far more aligned with Russia than they are against
Also note the shift by Canada and Europe to trade more with China. Obviously some trade with China is unavoidable, but seeing them running into the arms of Beijing is quite unexpected, given that China is the single largest consumer of Russian energy exports, and in turn supplies Russia with various restricted, "dual use" components for their drone and other munitions programs, along with vital intelligence for launching strikes in Ukraine.
What are you on about. We had a great thing going until your (Assuming this is a US person speaking and not a Russian or other troll bot) president started breaking that relationship down. We never threatened to "shoot first" lol, we simply responded to the threat of having Greenland taken by force.
Our relationship has been deteriorating because it was very clear that the US was not behaving like the ally they said they were.
The "if invaded" qualifier is fair, but what I heard from Danish authorities was that they would not wait to be fired upon. They said, if US forces came, then Denmark would "shoot first" regardless of whether the US had fired a shot.
Well, it's certainly a "worthless piece of land" (or close) compared to Crimea and all of the other Ukrainian territory Europe sat by and allowed Russia to devour since 2014. And even after 2014, Europe still went ahead with Nord Stream 2, anyway.
It's more like helping a friend move house, but he complains about you the whole time you're trying to help, and there's no pizza or beer, and when you ask to have the dusty old bread machine from the attic, they get super possessive and say they'll fight you.
And in that scenario, taking the bread machine anyways would be theft. Right?
You can say "fine, we're not friends anymore", or "that was a dick move", or "why not?" But if you take it, despite being told no, that's clearly a crime here.
Is it friendly to demand someone else's stuff with the threat of force?
Is it friendly to ignore the opinions of the 50k people who live there?
Is it friendly to not be satisfied with the clear existing agreements and alliances that already permit US bases there?
Would we consider it friendly if Denmark demanded "useless" parts of, say, Nevada, and threatened to wreck our economy and/or invade if we said no?
It's genuinely wild to me that you look at the available factual information and go "yep, Europe's being a big meanie here". Trump's threats are not the acts of a friend.
It doesn't; you're just dense or deliberately misconstruing my posts to grind your ideological axe. Europe should have checked Russia's aggression in 2014, when it annexed Crimea, not looked the other way and continued business as usual. Now Crimea is effectively gone for good, and Ukraine will be lucky if it gets back any significant quantity of Ukraine that Russia has stolen since 2022. Imagine how Ukrainians must feel, that Europe now is apparently willing to collectively go to war, but over an island in North America, and against the United States (a much more formidable power, militarily and economically than Russia), no less, but not for them.
