Because the idea of a European alliance is nonsense. NATO IS the European alliance. And NATO's strategy for defending against Russia is a nuclear killchain with one critical position in Ukraine. What would a European alliance do? Not defend against Russia? Or defend against Russia in a different way? Would they do that while still in NATO or would they have to dismantle NATO first and then build this alliance?
It's nonsense. You can't just make a new transnational military that is capable of defending against Russia by just saying "European Alliance".
The UN doesn't have sufficient military to do such a thing. They would need make an alliance to be strong enough against Russia, or it would have to the be the US. This is what we have now, it's called NATO, and the point is that NATO advanced on Russia. So sure, you can say the UN will enlist all the NATO countries to fight Russia, but only in defense, and no one in Europe would agree to that.
Still delusional. Russia has no interest in attacking Ukraine. Learn the history. Every single Russian intervention into Ukraine has been in response to Western meddling.
You want the Ukrainian people to be safe, get the West the fuck out of it
This is delusional. It's not a personal vendetta against the USA. Nuclear Europe fielding military in Ukraine is a red line for Russian national security. Until people understand the reality of security, you're all going to be blathering idiots.
There are two positions on security - it's either I am secure while you are not or it's we're both secure. Mutual security is the only way that peers can engage sustainably. Assymetrical security cannot be sustained by peers.
Ukraine being a non-militarized buffer between Europe and Russia is critical to Russian national security. Any arrangement where Ukraine is militarily aligned with the rest of Europe is an asymetrical security situation where Europe has security at the expense of Russia losing security.
It will never be sustainable.
Russia will either establish Ukraine as fully demilitarized with its constant oversight for the next several decades, as a result of the violation of trust that the US and EU committed, or Russia will occupy Ukraine. These are the only two options that establish mutual security and thus are the only sustainable options. Anything else is an escalation by Europe.
I am so tired of these sorts of shallow analyses from people that think their screw-ups are actually caused by EDAs or micro services or whatever. They're even totally transparent about the fact that they did because they heard cool things but never say "so we sat down to learn about best practices, what the current state of the art is, and considered how our use cases matched the architecture"
They just say "we thought it would be cool so we just started doing it and it sucked - here's why that's an inherent problem of the architecture and not in any way related to our behavior".
Yes. If you take a team of people who build n-tier and hexagonal MVC monolithic apps, and then tell them to build micro services, they're going to build a bunch of n-tier or hexagonal MVC monolith candidates and eventually end up with a single service that does too much and ultimately becomes the monolith.
Yes. If you take a team that does 100% synchronous HTTP interfaces, SOAP or ReST, and then tell them to build microservices, they're going to daisy chain those microservices via synchronous HTTP interfaces, and if you tell them to build an EDA they are going to build an EDA that attempt to replicate all of the aspects of their synchronous HTTP interfaces with busy polling loops.
So stop doing that and actually do the hard thing of learning fundamentally different architecture, techniques, technologies, trade offs, best practices, operational patterns, design patterns, and heuristics and principles for managing software. Learning is difficult and humbling. But it sure beats writing ignorant articles like this.
There is going to be a war launched against China that the USA will lead and it is currently trying to figure out which countries will support the war effort and which will resist. NATO may end up being an occupying force in Europe to discipline any country that doesn't support the USA's belligerence, and NATO will certainly provide sufficient cover for collaborative war activities like recruiting soldiers from Europe, deploying them to hot spots, and occupying resistance nations for "peacekeeper" missions.
I am genuinely concerned that we are running towards the big one.
Need I point you to WW2 and the failure of Comintern to convince any meaningfully powerful movement in Western Europe to adopt revolutionary defeatism?
This is exactly what it's going to take for the USA to lead a coalition of the West to fight a world war against China and the rest of the anti-imperialists
Socialism and social democracy are diametrically opposed. Social democracy is capitalism managing its captive populace through concessions to avoid socialism.
Are you saying Russia isn't under sanctions right now? Are you saying that the private wealth of Russian corps and citizens stores in North Atlantic institutions wasn't frozen and then spent?
No, it's not bad in the least. No one of any importance will even notice it, let alone ask you about it. I'm great at school and I took 5 and half years to finish college. It had no impact on my life at all
Show the "clear attempts to stop the genocide". Please. Back your bullshit up. Bonus points if you match it up with the arms deliveries and other material support of the Israeli war machine. I certainly won't expect you to read between the lines when you show milquetoast rhetoric juxtaposed against arms deliveries, but we can do that together.
Lose influence in WHAT negotiations? Like Israel had something the USA wanted? If the US has just stopped sending arms, munitions, and intelligence to Israel, what do you think Israel would have done "in the negotiations"? Tarrifs on the US? Like, what the fuck do you think is actually happening here?
Wow, taking a page right out of Trump's playbook - Biden failed while he was in power because of Trump when Trump wasn't in power. You really are Blue MAGA
You think Putin believes Russia can conquer Europe? No wonder all of your analysis sounds cracked.