conflict
Europeans Aren’t Concerned About Russian Bear Invading Continent After Ukraine
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The foreign policy blob in Washington, D.C., would have us believe that Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler 2.0 and must be stopped before he rolls over the rest of Europe. It is an intellectually lazy argument.
In the first place, Russia has struggled in its fight with Ukraine—a small nation with one-fourth Russia’s population and far fewer resources. How would Mother Russia fare against the combined firepower of NATO? Likely not so hot: Europe’s economy is six times larger than Russia’s. Likewise, the population advantage of Europe stands three-to-one over Russia.
Aside from Russia’s vast nuclear weapons stockpiles, it is no match for Europe.
Putin knows he would be crushed in a head-to-head with NATO and has repeatedly made clear that he has no interest in going to war with any NATO country, including Poland.
Secondly, if Europe was seriously under threat from the Russian bear, you might think that Europeans themselves would be more alarmed. They don’t seem to be. In fact, across nearly every threat measured by the Munich Security Council, trends show a downward ebb among Europeans. To most, Russia ranks as a threat below radical Islamic terrorism and mass migration. The Germans are more worried about cyber attacks than Putin; to the French, racism is more worrisome.
Aren’t these the very people America is spending $185 billion in Ukraine to protect from Russian expansionism?
Across the European continent, the United States maintains 100,000 troops on 185 major military bases and 78 minor sites (minor being defined as less than 10 acres or $10 million). Taken altogether, American forward operating bases in Europe sprawl over 265,000 acres with an estimated value of $95.5 billion. When one examines the Department of Defense’s annual budget, protecting Europe is America’s largest yearly expenditure—and that’s before Ukraine supplemental funding is added to the tally.
Yet the average resident of Berlin is likely more worried about his email getting hacked than he frets about the Kremlin rolling tanks through Deutschland.
Europe was the world’s center for combat power from roughly 1400 until 1945. No more. Even the larger armies of NATO are struggling to maintain effective combat power. The British Army cannot sustain a complete expeditionary armored brigade. At 23 years old, the Charles de Gaulle, France’s flagship and sole aircraft carrier, is reaching the end of its effective lifespan but sea trials are not expected to begin for its replacement until 2036.
The French have less than 90 heavy artillery pieces—Russia is losing more each month fighting Ukraine. Reporting in October 2022 found that Germany only had enough ammunition for two days of war, far below the NATO 30-day minimum. In 2022 NATO exercises, none of the Bundeswehr’s 18 new Puma infantry fighting vehicles were able to complete the drill.
Ukraine has revealed many of NATO’s weakness. These led a professor of war studies at the University of Warwick, Anthony King, to remark that Europe has “systematically demilitarized itself because it didn’t need to spend the money. They have basically gone to sleep.”
That ambivalence toward defense comes across in another recent survey of Europeans. Sixty percent of Italians, 47% of Germans and 40% of the French are in favor of cutting off arms shipments to Ukraine. Across Europe, 60% think that Ukraine will be an economic burden. Among the French, Spanish and Italians, more than 40% either don’t know or don’t care who wins the war in Ukraine.
Perhaps America’s security blanket for Europe has been too heavy and we have indeed lulled the continent into a stupor. Or maybe Europeans are correct in their assessment of Putin—that his invasion of Ukraine is not a precursor to the reassembly of the U.S.S.R.
In either case, more American taxpayers are questioning the D.C. logic that demands ever-increasing blank checks for a war with no end in sight.
Morgan Murphy is a former DoD press secretary, national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, a veteran of Afghanistan.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Featured image credit: (Screen Capture/CSPAN)
conflict
Zelenskyy Suddenly Changes Tune On Russia Peace Deal After Trump Blocks Flow Of Military Aid
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Wallace White
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dramatically changed his tune on peace negotiations with Russia just hours after President Donald Trump pulled the plug on military aid Monday.
Zelenskyy issued a long statement to X Tuesday, floating prisoner exchanges, a halt on air operations and naval operations as potential first steps towards peace, while also lamenting his fiery meeting in the Oval Office on Friday. Just a day earlier on Monday, Zelenskyy said that he believed an end to the war with Russia was “very, very far away,” prompting Trump to halt all military aid to the nation that evening and slam his comments on Truth Social.
“None of us wants an endless war,” Zelenskyy said on X. “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins,” Zelenskyy continued. “We are grateful for this. Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”
Zelenskyy originally came to the White House Friday to sign a mineral deal that would have allowed for U.S. investment in mining projects in the nation, which was seen as the first step towards a U.S.-brokered ceasefire. However, he was asked to leave the White House without signing the deal after making statements Trump and Vice President Vance deemed “disrespectful.”
For instance, Zelenskyy implied that the U.S. might “feel” the impact of war in the future. The U.S. has spent over $170 billion on Ukraine’s defense since the war began three years ago.
After the meeting, Trump said in a Truth Social post that Zelenskyy was “not ready for peace” because U.S. involvement grants him a “big advantage in negotiations.”
In Zelenskyy’s new post Tuesday, he said he was ready to sign the mineral deal at “any time and in any convenient format.”
“We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” Zelenskyy said on X. The deal in its final form did not explicitly make any security guarantees from the U.S.
Trump’s exchanges with Zelenskyy are not the only example of his penchant for aggressive advocacy abroad, as earlier in his administration, he leveraged tariff threats to gain concessions from Mexico and Canada to crack down on the fentanyl epidemic among other issues.
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
The United Kingdom, France, and Ukraine are working on a ceasefire proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war, aiming to present the plan to President Donald Trump. The move follows a tense Oval Office meeting that has strained U.S.-Ukraine relations.
Key Details:
- British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are leading efforts to mediate a Ukraine peace deal, with Italy also signaling interest.
- The plan involves a ceasefire, European-led security guarantees, and a “coalition of the willing” to stabilize Ukraine post-conflict.
- Trump remains skeptical of long-term U.S. security commitments, making European efforts critical to any peace deal’s success.
Diving Deeper:
Following an explosive Oval Office exchange between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European leaders have intensified their efforts to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine. The U.K. and France have taken the lead in drafting a ceasefire plan, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasizing that a “coalition of the willing” must act swiftly to bring an end to the bloody three-year conflict.
In a Sunday interview with the BBC, Starmer confirmed that the U.K., France, and Ukraine had agreed to begin formal negotiations on a peace plan, which they would later present to Washington. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also expressed interest in playing a role, hinting at a broader European effort to push for a settlement.
However, Europe’s diplomatic push faces major obstacles. The proposal reportedly includes European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine—something Russia has flatly rejected. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the idea “unacceptable,” accusing European nations, particularly France and the U.K., of fueling the war instead of ending it.
Further complicating matters, Starmer stressed that the plan should include a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine—an idea Trump has repeatedly dismissed. At his first Cabinet meeting, Trump made it clear that Europe should take the lead, stating, “I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.”
Zelensky’s insistence on American security commitments during Friday’s meeting reportedly led to the breakdown in talks, with Trump removing him from the White House and stating that the Ukrainian leader “can come back when he is ready for peace.” In response, European officials rallied around Zelensky, with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calling the White House exchange “horrifying” and the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, suggesting that the “free world needs a new leader.”
While Europe’s push for a peace plan may help Zelensky demonstrate openness to negotiations, its chances of success remain uncertain. Without Trump’s backing or Russian agreement, the proposal risks becoming another diplomatic exercise with little impact on the battlefield. Furthermore, if European nations wish to replace the U.S. as Ukraine’s primary security guarantor, they will need to significantly increase their defense spending—something unlikely given their entrenched welfare commitments.
For now, European leaders appear eager to test Trump’s willingness to engage in peace efforts on their terms. Whether he accepts their proposal, or insists on his own approach, could define the next phase of the war.
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
War against the US? Chrystia Freeland says Canada, allies need to build ‘New World Order’ to combat Trump
Liberal leadership race guarantees Canadian voters will be guided by a clown show for a while yet
Can Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoMisinformed: Hyped heat deaths and ignored cold deaths
-
National1 day agoTrudeau fills Canadian courts with Liberal-appointed judges before resigning as prime minister
-
International1 day agoCommerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Business2 days agoTrump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
Alberta1 day agoSecuring the Alberta-U.S. border
-
Business1 day agoNext federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Crime1 day agoReporter Exposes The Left’s $20 Billion Climate Slush Fund