But after translating and publishing the integral speech of Mr.Putin in the day of the signing of treaties on accession of Donetsk and Lugansk to Federal Russia, I must say that Europeans in their majority, possibly addicted by Psyops, and their Governaments, are really insignificant in every term. They are nobody, today, in the international panorama. A bunch of coward sheep or to be a bit more positive, a bunch of obsequious Vassals.
If you read that speech you'll find more than just the "special mission" in east Ukraine regions, that speech sign the END of any relationships with Europe, neutral or not, no more Russia diplomatic relationships. So whatever Austrians or Italians or Germans would do, it's over. Bye, bye, euro idiots!
There is, of course, a dose of rhetoric , as it should be, by a President of a great Nation. But Putin recap of West colonial history and West/East relations it's undoubtedly shareable in its content and in its conclusions. It's a long time I haven't read a speech by a President at that level of quality.
We, in the old and falling Europe have forgot what words mean, what a sentence can tell us. We gave up our history, cultural history and legacy to that idiot, nonsense, empty, arrogant, propaganda style of US Governments and speech.
And giving up our cultural heritage, knowledge, peculiarity for that American style, we gave up our Countries and Nations, our strengths, our traditions, our culture. Compared to that Putin's speech, even if with a required rhetoric, you realize that our Politicians or Presidents or PM are just puppets, clowns as Zelensky is, of USA. Of the only country in the whole World where TV Series are considered culture and Talk Shows, information. We couldn't finish in the worst and wrong hands.
I agree on the EU trajectory; you're a long-time reader, and this entire charade is one of the enduring topics of these pages.
I also agree on the importance of Mr. Putin's speech; it's a testament to the decay--moral, political, spiritual, and intellectual--of our times and societies; I would point to the absurd notion that 'Putin = Hitler', so widespread in many western media outlets and the like--and invite everyone to do a brief 'thought' experiment: just check how many of Hitler's of Mussolini's speeches were carried, quite favourably, by 'the western press' in the 1930s.
The virtual absence of what Mr. Putin said in Western legacy media tells you everything about that 'comparison' (and I shall post something about it, too).
On the other hand, as a staunch enemy of the EU and NATO, I must say this: the longer this entire mess continues--but how would it end? The 'collective' West has nothing to offer Russia…--the more likely the end of both EU and NATO becomes; if they won't go away in their current form before too long, I'd be very suprised.
Still waiting for "von der Lügen" to wanr Austri the way she did Italy. That she doesn't tells me that the EU leadership have the same view of the concept "democracy" as does the swedish national socialist worker's party (SAP, our former governemental party - they stopped using the full name after 1945 for some reason...), the CCP and the Kim dynasty of DPRK.
The people vote and then the politicians rule as advised by corporate masters.
And then they wonder why more and more flock to whatever idea comes along which seems to offer respite from this corporatis technocracy.
This is a question of sovereignty. When people realize that who they vote for doesn't matter (because all the power is in the hands of international organizations and/or technocrats and/or corporations), they generally don't bother to vote. Or they do vote, but for parties that promise to smash the whole thing. The parties in question usually fail to deliver on their promise to "smash the whole thing" and take sovereignty back, and when they do, the results are often not great (think various forms of totalitarianism). So, that's the conundrum. Alas, we're in a really deep hole right now, with imminent impoverishment (at a minimum) pretty much a certainty. What comes next may be quite ugly.
2. Did those punks state their covid policies in their manifestos?
3. If so, those who voted for the mandates can no complaints - and they can have no complaints when policies they oppose are mandated on them!
4. Did Putin interfere?
5. Who is the modern equivalent of that litte artist with a punny moustache?
" less than an hour after the first results were in, the head of the Green parliamentary party, one Sigrid Maurer, told Austrians to go f*** themselves." Really?!
At the end of the day, we collectively get what we deserve!
re 1) hard to say; Austria does paper-ballots only, and one needs photo ID to identify at the polls. As far as this looks, the results are 'free and fair', although I'd add that it wasn't much of a choice.
re 2) nope, of course not, for the presidency is a largely ceremonial office; the president could, theoretically, dismiss the gov't, but this has never been done sine 1945 (but it may still happen). The election was largely dominated by the fact that the senile incumbent faced the record number of six (!) opponents, which effectively split the anti-incumbent vote. Still, the Covid-related dishonesty, while nothing new or surprising, was palpable--as there are pictures of the 'victorious' Greens partying without face diapers, merely a few minutes after that one Ms. Maurer had announced the return of mask mandates.
re 3) well, turnout was really low, about 2/3 (once absentee ballots are considered), hence the 56-57% for the incumbent out of that turnout means…roughly 1/3 of the electorate was enough to generate a 'clear win'. I would welcome a debate about 'democracy', turnout, and the like, but this was not a direct election about mandates (which can be decreed by the Health Minister). Still, while I acknowledge the point you made (which is essential in electoral systems), I'd also point to the fact that 1/3 stayed home (idiots) and another 1/3 voted for 'anyone but this gut', which, to my mind, begs serious questions about the system itself.
re 4) not that I know of, at least not directly. As I described it, 'sanctions' are 'without alternatives', Putin akin to Hitler, the Russian military operation a 'bestial war of aggression' (W. Kogler), and everyone who criticises the government is a 'collaborator' (A. van der Bellen). In that sense, yes, Mr. Putin 'interfered', but I'd also add that he's probably done caring enough about small places like the Shire, ahem, Austria.
re 5) so far, no-one is poised to be nominated for this position, but I would think it won't be long.
As to your closing comment: well, hard to argue, eh? Perhaps people will wake up, but I for one won't hold my breath.
Harr, Barry, as to q4: there are allegations of election fraud, in particular as some 'right-wing alternative' media outlets published disastrous polling data in late July (with the incumbent reaching less than 40%), but this never made it into the mainstream--even though the polling was done by 'systemic' polling firms.
To cut this short: the allegations of fraud revolve not so much on voters abusing the process, but on poll workers and those who count the votes allegedly manipulating the outcome. So far, so conventional, at least in terms of process.
Be that as it may, the results won't be changed, hence it's almost absurd to pick these things apart (much like in the US, by the way). If there was 'election fraud', it will not be broadcasted…
As to the compulsory voting, it used to be like that in Austrian presidential elections, too, but that was changed in the 1970s (iirc, don't quote me on that periodisation, but I'm too short on time to check…). Parliamentary elections, which are way more important anyways, were never compulsory, but 'even' there, people seem to losing their interest (faith) in elections…
What a great time to end your neutrality! Just in time to "join" a nuclear war.
Actually, I don't think nuclear war is terribly likely, though the possibility cannot be discounted: WWI started essentially by accident, and it may be the same with WWIII. Most likely, though, the war in Ukraine will drag on, Russia will use ever more destructive power, while the Americans arm the Ukrainians to prevent Ukrainian defeat. And then at some point (could be in a couple of months, or in several years), the Americans will cut their losses and abandon their Ukrainian "allies." This is American modus operandi, after all. By then, Ukraine will be utterly destroyed, EU will only exist on paper (if that), and we'll all be much poorer. That's the most likely scenario, and the Europe is totally on board! But hey, who cares about things such as strategy, prudence, and likely outcomes, when we have Twitter outrage to worry about?! So, yeah, Austria should by all means abandon its neutrality.
As to the 'neutrality' issue, I'd add that Austria was never truly neutral after WW2. People were quite frustrated back then that the evil Rooskies prevented Vienna from jumping on the NATO bandwagon, but back then, politicians sensed a kind of opportunity (for business and personal enrichment, of course); also, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland were also (kind of) 'neutral', so Austrians didn't feel alone.
It's all changing now, with 'even' Switzerland (a long-term recipient of advanced US weapons, most notably the F/A-18) currently considering buying F-35s as a replacement, which also tells you a lot about the erosion of Swiss neutrality (but from a higher level relative to Austria), to say nothing about Sweden's and Finland's NATO ambitions.
In that sense, sure, it makes a certain amount of 'sense', if only because it wouldn't matter anyways. Austria's armed forces are destitute and would require massive spending (which, as a form of tribute, would flow mainly to US manufacturers, but perhaps that's the US's 'plan' behind the Ukrainian debacle--it already worked wonders in Germany and elsewhere as most NATO countries must now get 'standardised' equipment) whose funds would have to come from somewhere.
To close this out, I personally think that, with the next regular parliamentary election scheduled for autumn 2024, not much will change--if foreign affairs won't interfere. Yet, with these clowns in office, if change comes, it will be for the worse.
Our official line has been that we are a neutral nation. That's domestic-foreign policies (called "inrikes utrikespolitik" among swedish pol sci types, referring to the fact that the way you talk about foreign policits in the doemstic setting is in fact domestic politicking) only.
The reality is, which has never been a secret really, that Sweden has always been an ally of NATO, just not on paper. The main reson being the old ruling party, the Socialist Democrats, consisted of three main phalanxes: nationalist social-democratic, Soviet-aligned socialists, and US aligned corporatists, so the line about non-allied in peace and neutral in war was made up in the 1950s to placate these three and maintain peace in the party.
Our actual military has always been structured to fight delaying actions and await US and german troops, since the military was geared towards total war.
Sounds an awful lot like Austria, At least the country I grew up in.
The weirding appears to have started in the 1980s, with Austria's application for EC (later EU) membership, but I'm not sure about the causality there as the weirding might be older and it 'only' broke through to the mainstream by then.
Does Sweden have a two-party duopoly? It's strange that such different groups would wind up in the same party, but if there are only two parties to choose from, I can see how it might happen.
We might need to wait for Rikard's answer about Sweden; here's something on Austria (which is, or was, after all, quite similar):
Neither of the two big-tent parties--the conservative 'People's Party' (ÖVP) or the Socialists (SPÖ, they changed to 'Social Democrats after the end of the USSR)--really went through with US-led denazification after WW2. Power-politics and the 'exigencies' of the Cold War took precedence.
Both big-tent parties dominated domestic politics after 1945, but they began to precipitously shed support from the mid-1980s onwards. Neither party was (is) honest about its 'brown' past, but it's objectively worse on the left-of-centre side, which is analytically easy to understand: many working people abandoned the Social Democrats (as they called themselves before WW2) in the 1930s and left for the Nazi party, a fact that the current left-of-centre still cannot objectively admit to. Hence, there's huge agitation every time someone from 'the far right' enters the national political scene who doesn't denounce the Nazi régime; by comparison, no-one (in legacy media) is even bothering to ask about comparable notions with respect to the Social Democrats, the trade unions, and the like. Talk about double-standards…
Agree, problem is in that period of time, Europe will be over before Americans leave Ukraine. Their plan is not Ukraine, is to weaken Europe one for all and they'll succeed. Putin has no intention to waste time with us more. The Western clock is in countdown mode, so if someone will use nuclear first, those will be the psycho Nazi Amerikans as the did in Japan 77 years ago.
Maybe giving a couple of nuclear head missiles to the cocaine addict puppet Zelensky and his psycho nazi Ukrainian friends!
I'd point to two other little snippets, though: while I think you're both correct about the consequences for Europe (which isn't the EU) and its peoples, I'm more and more wondering how the US will chicken out. Clearly, as Kazimir stated, running away after some bravado is the MO of these people, hence the technicalities will be quite tricky, I'd imagine. Sure, one can repeal laws (such as SOFAs, both of the US and NATO kind); then there's logistics (see Kabul airport for how wonderful that turned out); but I'd consider the psychological shock--to Europeans--the most tricky part.
Akin to waking up after a trip, not knowing at first who and where you are, how you got there, and the like. That kind of stuff, for, not unlike in defeated Germany or Italy in 1945, there's hardly anyone in any kind of position who isn't 'compromised' by 'Transatlanticism'.
So, my money is on a lot of wanton destruction (other than WW3, in which case all of the above will be quite likely moot) by those who want to get out; a lot of pontificating and false equivalences; and a thoroughly disoriented population.
"Clearly, as Kazimir stated, running away after some bravado is the MO of these people, hence the technicalities will be quite tricky, I'd imagine."
Hey! I'm the one who pointed that out! ;-)
The United States not infrequently miscalculates and then cuts its losses, its supposed allies be damned. But in this particular case, there's the additional factor that the American war goal is simply to weaken Russia. They might succeed in that, if they can force the war to last long enough. And then... Why, mission accomplished! Ukraine is just regrettable collateral damage. So is the EU. Anyway, I see no point in being "mad" at the Americans. They're trying to protect their own interests (how well they're doing is a question for Americans and political analysts to answer). I'm mad at European "leaders" for just going along with this, against Europe's interests. As for Ukraine: it's had terrible leadership ever since it gained independence, so what's there to add?
'I see no point in being "mad" at the Americans. They're trying to protect their own interests (how well they're doing is a question for Americans and political analysts to answer). I'm mad at European "leaders" for just going along with this, against Europe's interests.'
The Americans are doing exactly the things Europeans once did, too; now, with the shoe being on the other foot, it's maddening to see how docile European 'leaders' have become.
You know, back in the day (late 18th c.), the American elites staged an insurrection (typically referred to as a 'revolution') to govern themselves; where is this kind of talk in Europe? After all, being 'asked' by the US to buy tons of new weapons is a kind of 'taxation', yet no NATO member is ever brought into the decision-making processes in Washington. Hence, we may, by way of analogy, conclude that Europeans are taxed without representation, i.e., have a legitimate reason (grievance) to break free from US domination.
NIce recap.
But after translating and publishing the integral speech of Mr.Putin in the day of the signing of treaties on accession of Donetsk and Lugansk to Federal Russia, I must say that Europeans in their majority, possibly addicted by Psyops, and their Governaments, are really insignificant in every term. They are nobody, today, in the international panorama. A bunch of coward sheep or to be a bit more positive, a bunch of obsequious Vassals.
If you read that speech you'll find more than just the "special mission" in east Ukraine regions, that speech sign the END of any relationships with Europe, neutral or not, no more Russia diplomatic relationships. So whatever Austrians or Italians or Germans would do, it's over. Bye, bye, euro idiots!
There is, of course, a dose of rhetoric , as it should be, by a President of a great Nation. But Putin recap of West colonial history and West/East relations it's undoubtedly shareable in its content and in its conclusions. It's a long time I haven't read a speech by a President at that level of quality.
We, in the old and falling Europe have forgot what words mean, what a sentence can tell us. We gave up our history, cultural history and legacy to that idiot, nonsense, empty, arrogant, propaganda style of US Governments and speech.
And giving up our cultural heritage, knowledge, peculiarity for that American style, we gave up our Countries and Nations, our strengths, our traditions, our culture. Compared to that Putin's speech, even if with a required rhetoric, you realize that our Politicians or Presidents or PM are just puppets, clowns as Zelensky is, of USA. Of the only country in the whole World where TV Series are considered culture and Talk Shows, information. We couldn't finish in the worst and wrong hands.
Bye, bye EU!
Kazimir,
I agree on the EU trajectory; you're a long-time reader, and this entire charade is one of the enduring topics of these pages.
I also agree on the importance of Mr. Putin's speech; it's a testament to the decay--moral, political, spiritual, and intellectual--of our times and societies; I would point to the absurd notion that 'Putin = Hitler', so widespread in many western media outlets and the like--and invite everyone to do a brief 'thought' experiment: just check how many of Hitler's of Mussolini's speeches were carried, quite favourably, by 'the western press' in the 1930s.
The virtual absence of what Mr. Putin said in Western legacy media tells you everything about that 'comparison' (and I shall post something about it, too).
On the other hand, as a staunch enemy of the EU and NATO, I must say this: the longer this entire mess continues--but how would it end? The 'collective' West has nothing to offer Russia…--the more likely the end of both EU and NATO becomes; if they won't go away in their current form before too long, I'd be very suprised.
Still waiting for "von der Lügen" to wanr Austri the way she did Italy. That she doesn't tells me that the EU leadership have the same view of the concept "democracy" as does the swedish national socialist worker's party (SAP, our former governemental party - they stopped using the full name after 1945 for some reason...), the CCP and the Kim dynasty of DPRK.
The people vote and then the politicians rule as advised by corporate masters.
And then they wonder why more and more flock to whatever idea comes along which seems to offer respite from this corporatis technocracy.
This is a question of sovereignty. When people realize that who they vote for doesn't matter (because all the power is in the hands of international organizations and/or technocrats and/or corporations), they generally don't bother to vote. Or they do vote, but for parties that promise to smash the whole thing. The parties in question usually fail to deliver on their promise to "smash the whole thing" and take sovereignty back, and when they do, the results are often not great (think various forms of totalitarianism). So, that's the conundrum. Alas, we're in a really deep hole right now, with imminent impoverishment (at a minimum) pretty much a certainty. What comes next may be quite ugly.
Fackel,
1. Are the results free and fair?
2. Did those punks state their covid policies in their manifestos?
3. If so, those who voted for the mandates can no complaints - and they can have no complaints when policies they oppose are mandated on them!
4. Did Putin interfere?
5. Who is the modern equivalent of that litte artist with a punny moustache?
" less than an hour after the first results were in, the head of the Green parliamentary party, one Sigrid Maurer, told Austrians to go f*** themselves." Really?!
At the end of the day, we collectively get what we deserve!
Good questions.
re 1) hard to say; Austria does paper-ballots only, and one needs photo ID to identify at the polls. As far as this looks, the results are 'free and fair', although I'd add that it wasn't much of a choice.
re 2) nope, of course not, for the presidency is a largely ceremonial office; the president could, theoretically, dismiss the gov't, but this has never been done sine 1945 (but it may still happen). The election was largely dominated by the fact that the senile incumbent faced the record number of six (!) opponents, which effectively split the anti-incumbent vote. Still, the Covid-related dishonesty, while nothing new or surprising, was palpable--as there are pictures of the 'victorious' Greens partying without face diapers, merely a few minutes after that one Ms. Maurer had announced the return of mask mandates.
re 3) well, turnout was really low, about 2/3 (once absentee ballots are considered), hence the 56-57% for the incumbent out of that turnout means…roughly 1/3 of the electorate was enough to generate a 'clear win'. I would welcome a debate about 'democracy', turnout, and the like, but this was not a direct election about mandates (which can be decreed by the Health Minister). Still, while I acknowledge the point you made (which is essential in electoral systems), I'd also point to the fact that 1/3 stayed home (idiots) and another 1/3 voted for 'anyone but this gut', which, to my mind, begs serious questions about the system itself.
re 4) not that I know of, at least not directly. As I described it, 'sanctions' are 'without alternatives', Putin akin to Hitler, the Russian military operation a 'bestial war of aggression' (W. Kogler), and everyone who criticises the government is a 'collaborator' (A. van der Bellen). In that sense, yes, Mr. Putin 'interfered', but I'd also add that he's probably done caring enough about small places like the Shire, ahem, Austria.
re 5) so far, no-one is poised to be nominated for this position, but I would think it won't be long.
As to your closing comment: well, hard to argue, eh? Perhaps people will wake up, but I for one won't hold my breath.
Thanks for the detailed replies.
btw. voting for Federal and State elections here in AUSTRALIA is compulsory. No voting; dip into your wallet!
You should have answered "Yes" to Q4 :) . It was a snark question ref the USA dems.
Harr, Barry, as to q4: there are allegations of election fraud, in particular as some 'right-wing alternative' media outlets published disastrous polling data in late July (with the incumbent reaching less than 40%), but this never made it into the mainstream--even though the polling was done by 'systemic' polling firms.
To cut this short: the allegations of fraud revolve not so much on voters abusing the process, but on poll workers and those who count the votes allegedly manipulating the outcome. So far, so conventional, at least in terms of process.
Be that as it may, the results won't be changed, hence it's almost absurd to pick these things apart (much like in the US, by the way). If there was 'election fraud', it will not be broadcasted…
As to the compulsory voting, it used to be like that in Austrian presidential elections, too, but that was changed in the 1970s (iirc, don't quote me on that periodisation, but I'm too short on time to check…). Parliamentary elections, which are way more important anyways, were never compulsory, but 'even' there, people seem to losing their interest (faith) in elections…
What a great time to end your neutrality! Just in time to "join" a nuclear war.
Actually, I don't think nuclear war is terribly likely, though the possibility cannot be discounted: WWI started essentially by accident, and it may be the same with WWIII. Most likely, though, the war in Ukraine will drag on, Russia will use ever more destructive power, while the Americans arm the Ukrainians to prevent Ukrainian defeat. And then at some point (could be in a couple of months, or in several years), the Americans will cut their losses and abandon their Ukrainian "allies." This is American modus operandi, after all. By then, Ukraine will be utterly destroyed, EU will only exist on paper (if that), and we'll all be much poorer. That's the most likely scenario, and the Europe is totally on board! But hey, who cares about things such as strategy, prudence, and likely outcomes, when we have Twitter outrage to worry about?! So, yeah, Austria should by all means abandon its neutrality.
As to the 'neutrality' issue, I'd add that Austria was never truly neutral after WW2. People were quite frustrated back then that the evil Rooskies prevented Vienna from jumping on the NATO bandwagon, but back then, politicians sensed a kind of opportunity (for business and personal enrichment, of course); also, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland were also (kind of) 'neutral', so Austrians didn't feel alone.
It's all changing now, with 'even' Switzerland (a long-term recipient of advanced US weapons, most notably the F/A-18) currently considering buying F-35s as a replacement, which also tells you a lot about the erosion of Swiss neutrality (but from a higher level relative to Austria), to say nothing about Sweden's and Finland's NATO ambitions.
In that sense, sure, it makes a certain amount of 'sense', if only because it wouldn't matter anyways. Austria's armed forces are destitute and would require massive spending (which, as a form of tribute, would flow mainly to US manufacturers, but perhaps that's the US's 'plan' behind the Ukrainian debacle--it already worked wonders in Germany and elsewhere as most NATO countries must now get 'standardised' equipment) whose funds would have to come from somewhere.
To close this out, I personally think that, with the next regular parliamentary election scheduled for autumn 2024, not much will change--if foreign affairs won't interfere. Yet, with these clowns in office, if change comes, it will be for the worse.
Point of order re: neutrality and Sweden:
Our official line has been that we are a neutral nation. That's domestic-foreign policies (called "inrikes utrikespolitik" among swedish pol sci types, referring to the fact that the way you talk about foreign policits in the doemstic setting is in fact domestic politicking) only.
The reality is, which has never been a secret really, that Sweden has always been an ally of NATO, just not on paper. The main reson being the old ruling party, the Socialist Democrats, consisted of three main phalanxes: nationalist social-democratic, Soviet-aligned socialists, and US aligned corporatists, so the line about non-allied in peace and neutral in war was made up in the 1950s to placate these three and maintain peace in the party.
Our actual military has always been structured to fight delaying actions and await US and german troops, since the military was geared towards total war.
Sounds an awful lot like Austria, At least the country I grew up in.
The weirding appears to have started in the 1980s, with Austria's application for EC (later EU) membership, but I'm not sure about the causality there as the weirding might be older and it 'only' broke through to the mainstream by then.
Does Sweden have a two-party duopoly? It's strange that such different groups would wind up in the same party, but if there are only two parties to choose from, I can see how it might happen.
We might need to wait for Rikard's answer about Sweden; here's something on Austria (which is, or was, after all, quite similar):
Neither of the two big-tent parties--the conservative 'People's Party' (ÖVP) or the Socialists (SPÖ, they changed to 'Social Democrats after the end of the USSR)--really went through with US-led denazification after WW2. Power-politics and the 'exigencies' of the Cold War took precedence.
Both big-tent parties dominated domestic politics after 1945, but they began to precipitously shed support from the mid-1980s onwards. Neither party was (is) honest about its 'brown' past, but it's objectively worse on the left-of-centre side, which is analytically easy to understand: many working people abandoned the Social Democrats (as they called themselves before WW2) in the 1930s and left for the Nazi party, a fact that the current left-of-centre still cannot objectively admit to. Hence, there's huge agitation every time someone from 'the far right' enters the national political scene who doesn't denounce the Nazi régime; by comparison, no-one (in legacy media) is even bothering to ask about comparable notions with respect to the Social Democrats, the trade unions, and the like. Talk about double-standards…
Agree, problem is in that period of time, Europe will be over before Americans leave Ukraine. Their plan is not Ukraine, is to weaken Europe one for all and they'll succeed. Putin has no intention to waste time with us more. The Western clock is in countdown mode, so if someone will use nuclear first, those will be the psycho Nazi Amerikans as the did in Japan 77 years ago.
Maybe giving a couple of nuclear head missiles to the cocaine addict puppet Zelensky and his psycho nazi Ukrainian friends!
https://propagator.substack.com/p/piu-di-una-meme-che-vien-di-notte
Hard to argue with any of these two comments.
I'd point to two other little snippets, though: while I think you're both correct about the consequences for Europe (which isn't the EU) and its peoples, I'm more and more wondering how the US will chicken out. Clearly, as Kazimir stated, running away after some bravado is the MO of these people, hence the technicalities will be quite tricky, I'd imagine. Sure, one can repeal laws (such as SOFAs, both of the US and NATO kind); then there's logistics (see Kabul airport for how wonderful that turned out); but I'd consider the psychological shock--to Europeans--the most tricky part.
Akin to waking up after a trip, not knowing at first who and where you are, how you got there, and the like. That kind of stuff, for, not unlike in defeated Germany or Italy in 1945, there's hardly anyone in any kind of position who isn't 'compromised' by 'Transatlanticism'.
So, my money is on a lot of wanton destruction (other than WW3, in which case all of the above will be quite likely moot) by those who want to get out; a lot of pontificating and false equivalences; and a thoroughly disoriented population.
Now, what can go wrong?
"Clearly, as Kazimir stated, running away after some bravado is the MO of these people, hence the technicalities will be quite tricky, I'd imagine."
Hey! I'm the one who pointed that out! ;-)
The United States not infrequently miscalculates and then cuts its losses, its supposed allies be damned. But in this particular case, there's the additional factor that the American war goal is simply to weaken Russia. They might succeed in that, if they can force the war to last long enough. And then... Why, mission accomplished! Ukraine is just regrettable collateral damage. So is the EU. Anyway, I see no point in being "mad" at the Americans. They're trying to protect their own interests (how well they're doing is a question for Americans and political analysts to answer). I'm mad at European "leaders" for just going along with this, against Europe's interests. As for Ukraine: it's had terrible leadership ever since it gained independence, so what's there to add?
Apologies, Irena.
I'm with you on the statement you made:
'I see no point in being "mad" at the Americans. They're trying to protect their own interests (how well they're doing is a question for Americans and political analysts to answer). I'm mad at European "leaders" for just going along with this, against Europe's interests.'
The Americans are doing exactly the things Europeans once did, too; now, with the shoe being on the other foot, it's maddening to see how docile European 'leaders' have become.
You know, back in the day (late 18th c.), the American elites staged an insurrection (typically referred to as a 'revolution') to govern themselves; where is this kind of talk in Europe? After all, being 'asked' by the US to buy tons of new weapons is a kind of 'taxation', yet no NATO member is ever brought into the decision-making processes in Washington. Hence, we may, by way of analogy, conclude that Europeans are taxed without representation, i.e., have a legitimate reason (grievance) to break free from US domination.
Sigh.