Connect with us

conflict

Europeans Aren’t Concerned About Russian Bear Invading Continent After Ukraine

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By MORGAN MURPHY

 

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)

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Communist China makes shocking number of crucial US military equipment components: report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Andrew Powell

From 2005 to 2023, Chinese manufacturers in the U.S. supply chain have grown from around 12,000 to almost 45,000.

A new report details how deep the People’s Republic of China has embedded itself within the U.S. supply chain, especially for military machinery. While U.S. lawmakers have been calling for an end to this for some years, China’s domination continues unabated.

According to the report, China’s presence in the U.S. supply chain has been steadily rising for the better part of almost 20 years. From 2005 to 2023, Chinese manufacturers in the U.S. supply chain have grown from around 12,000 to almost 45,000.

The use of forced labor and dangerous working conditions gives China the ability to quickly churn out products, while keeping cost savings at a premium.

Between 2014 and 2023, the data presents a concerning trend of China outpacing U.S. supply chains across almost all industries, by 1,800 percent in some instances – including electronics, transportation, materials and chemicals, and industrial equipment.

A large number of Chinese semiconductors are used in critical military platforms, accounting for around 40 percent of all U.S. Department of Defense weapons systems and infrastructure, and are further linked to military supply chains such as Patriot air-defense missiles and B-2 bombers.

For example, a Lockheed Martin missile factory situated in Alabama produces Javelin anti-tank weapons which use more than 200 semiconductors in each weapon. This equates to thousands of Chinese-made semiconductors within U.S. weaponry.

“U.S. companies at the bottom of the supply chain pyramid often source these parts from China in open market transactions. As a result, many essential components in sensitive U.S. military systems now come from China. Countless major weapons platforms are vulnerable,” the report states.

The report notes China now has a larger naval force than the U.S., with 340 new warships, and is on track to reach 400 by 2025, and 440 by 2030. Currently, U.S. Navy has under 300 warships.

Furthermore, China tops the U.S. in shipbuilding capabilities, with 17 naval shipyards in China having the ability to produce new warships, compared with five naval shipyards in the U.S.

To alleviate this, the report points out the U.S. could use its allies – which would include Japan and South Korea – to open shipyards to assist with ship production, bringing vital technology and techniques with them. However, the report states the U.S. government is reluctant to invest more funding into ship manufacturing.

Some state leaders are fighting back against this trend. In January, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the Sunshine State will invest over $380 million into semiconductor manufacturing. Over $100 million will be focused on developing Florida’s semiconductor “talent-pipeline” with significant investment into state colleges and universities, including the University of Florida’s Semiconductor Institute.

“Industries like semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging support our national security and create economic opportunities in our state,” DeSantis said in a statement from his office.

WND contacted GOP members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the report on Chinese made military components, but did not receive a response at the time of publishing.

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.

Continue Reading

conflict

Boris Johnson lobbies Trump at RNC to back down from peace talks on Ukraine

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a flying visit to the Republican National Conference this week, in a mission to persuade Donald Trump to continue the war in Ukraine.

Pictured with Trump on Tuesday, Johnson said he had spoken to Trump about Ukraine, adding, “I have no doubt that he [Trump] will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.”

With Trump, his vice president pick JD Vance, and even Senator Lindsey Graham calling for an end to the proxy war against Russia, Johnson is making a second attempt to sabotage a realistic peace in Ukraine.

Johnson’s war record

Boris Johnson has used the war in Ukraine to cement a legacy for himself as a sort of latter-day Winston Churchill. Mere weeks after Russia’s invasion, he made another flying visit – this time to Kiev.

The reason for his unscheduled arrival in the office of the then-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky was that a peace deal had been agreed between Ukraine and Russia.

Brokered in Istanbul, Turkey, its existence was confirmed by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who was party to the negotiations.

It was Johnson who urged Zelensky to throw this peace deal in the garbage, giving assurances that the U.K., U.S., NATO, and the EU would back Ukraine to victory in the war instead.

That would have completely ended the credibility of Ukrainian and Western propaganda that Russia was planning to conquer Ukraine and then further expand its empire into more of the former Soviet Empire slave states.

However peace comes now, it is unlikely to be agreed on the generous terms rejected by the sudden, last-minute intervention by Boris Johnson, who hosted the neo-Nazi Azov battalion in the U.K. Parliament in May. It is a strange “Churchill” indeed who waves a flag inspired by the Waffen-SS.

Ukraine – ‘functionally destroyed’

Johnson is responsible instead for a policy which has seen Ukraine “functionally destroyed as a country,” as JD Vance said in December 2023. The likely future U.S. vice president noted the terrible losses and declining population of Ukraine, saying, “The average age of a soldier in the Ukrainian army right now is 43.”

Pointing out the futility of continuing to send money to Ukraine, Vance sensibly asked, “What is 61 billion dollars [more] going to accomplish that a hundred billion hasn’t?”

His announcement as Trump’s VP pick, along with Trump’s miraculous survival of Saturday’s assassination attempt, has proven doubly alarming to all those whose futures are staked on that of Project Ukraine.

The end times

There can be no surer sign of the end times – whether for Ukraine or more generally – than career warmonger Lindsey Graham calling for peace.

In remarks which will likely ruin Boris Johnson’s day, Politico reported on July 17 that the childless senator had begun to echo the Trump/Vance line to stop the war in Ukraine.

“I want to end this war in Ukraine, and it’s going to be a diplomatic solution,” said Graham, adding “it’s going to take a guy like President Trump to bring this war to an end honorably.”

Graham echoed the emerging, if limited, realist viewpoint of Trump and Vance, repeating the charge that neither NATO nor Europe have been meeting the costs of their own security arrangement.

That has been paid for by the U.S., and according to Graham, that too must end. “NATO needs to pay more,” he said, recalling Vance’s speech in April in which he charged Europe of “failing to stand on its own two feet.”

The massive cost of providing the security umbrella through NATO to Europe is one reason for a revision of U.S.-European security policy. Downstream of this is the urgent need for Europe – including the U.K. – to rediscover the art of diplomacy.

Politicians such as Boris Johnson face humiliation in any peace deal with the Russians. The German and French leadership, and that of the EU itself together with many member nations, have all been totally committed to humiliating, weakening, and breaking up Russia, the regime change removal of its president, and the total victory of Ukraine. None of these goals were ever remotely realistic.

The German government has sought to criminalize the anti-war AfD, which was the second most popular party in Germany in the recent EU elections.

READ: Germany’s vice chancellor refuses to rule out criminalizing anti-globalist AfD party

Its finance minister Robert Habeck admitted, amidst a domestic financial crisis, that he had sent all the money to Ukraine.

France’s Emmanuel Macron has made reckless statements promising to send French troops to fight Russia, and the outgoing foreign minister of the U.K. David Cameron privately admitted in late June that the British pro-Ukraine war position was “fixed” and would not change with the election of a Labour government.

Cameron was right. It has not changed. On July 10 it was reported that the new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised Ukraine £3 billion a year ($3.88 billion) “for as long as it takes.”

EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen has consistently called for the ousting of Valdimir Putin and for the war to continue. She famously stated in September 2022 that “Putin will fail and Ukraine and Europe will prevail.”

Staking the political future of Europe on the impossible goal of Ukrainian victory was a reckless and unforced error, which lent an air of gravitas to a political class bereft of sane initiative.

The EU has recently selected a second pantsuited militant as its chief diplomat. Kaja Kallas, former leader of the tiny Baltic state of Estonia, called for the breakup of Russia mere weeks ago, and pledged support for “Ukraine’s victory” at last week’s NATO summit.

Kallas’ statement of 2022, reported in the U.K.’s pro-war Daily Telegraph

Europe has lost the art of diplomacy, and its leaders stand to lose all credibility as their Ukrainian war ends. This war made them appear serious, albeit serious about a delusion which promised only more death, and the dangerous potential of escalation to all out nuclear war.

To be faced with reality for these people is to be faced with political extinction. Relations with Russia will be normalized, as in the real world neither Russia nor Europe can hope for much of a future in the absence of resumed diplomatic and energy links.

It seems strange to say it, but these are strange times. The political leadership of pro-Ukraine Europe is fighting for its life to prolong a war that will risk the lives of everyone else. It is implacably opposed to peace, as this means political suicide.

Like their counterpart in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, these are politicians for whom peace spells doom. It is for this reason they will do anything in their power to prevent peace breaking out.

Continue Reading

Trending

X