JD Vance

[cromwell]

I tend to agree with what he said about Europe's drift away from free speech and democratic values, even if his audience didn't.

But what struck me was his reference to the cancelled Romanian Presidential election - because I'd never heard of this before.

So after a quick Google I found out that Presidential elections had been held in Romania, the first round in November and the second round in December.
Apart from the fact that they didn't hold the second round, because it had been "influenced by Russian misinformation". Cancelled by the Romanian Constitutional Court.
What a brilliant excuse!
Any time the result looks like going against you, blame Russian misinformation and cancel the election.

The man in the lead after the first round was an independent nationalist and the person in second place was from the centre right.
So there was obviously a chance of people voting the wrong way, and they weren't having that?

[TheOstrich]

Funilly enough, I was coming on here to say pretty much (but not quite) the same thing.

You may not like Vance, his Boss, his McCarthyite stooge, his Party, his Politics, his Beliefs - I certainly don't like a single one of them - but it cannot be denied that it was a carefully crafted speech that even the Guardian factchecker could find little fault with.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... s-stand-up

And it is (yet another and possibly the final) huge wake up call to Europe, who have had collective heads in the sand for decades, to get their act together. You might take issue with Vance's interpretation of some of the points raised, but they are real issues nevertheless and he was right to highlight them.

Europe can no longer trust the United States. The United States is only interested in itself. Europe has to start owning its own future; something it should have started doing well before yesterday. And we, the UK, are geographically part of Europe, whether we like it or not.

We need, like Russia, to move to a Wartime Economy, we need to build up a Defence Industry and we have a maximum 5 years to get it done. And so do the countries of Europe. Getting away with spending just 0.2% of your GDP because you're historically a "neutal" country ain't going to wash no more.

In passing, it strikes me the only person who can get a huge win-win out of this current denoument is Rachael Reeves. What a perfect opportunity to perform a U-turn on her recent catastrophic taxation ploys and simply announce 2p on all rates of Income Tax to fund defence of the realm, together with an issue of Defence Bonds with, let's say, 3.5% annual interest. And use it for Defence - no more of this funding the NHS or rail workers pay-rises.

[cromwell]

I think the EU was constructed with the idea that wars were finished with.
Now that WW1 has returned to 21st century Europe, what next?
We aren't that unified nation that we were in 1939, or even 1969. The demographic has changed. Should war descend on us (and please let it not), parts of our population would be off back to their ancestral homelands tout suite.

Which is a step away from where I started the thread, but still.
Vance pointed out that we (or at least our leaders) have become less democratically inclined and more authoritarian, and he is right.

As far as the threat from Putin goes, maybe. But the Russians haven't even managed to defeat Ukraine militarily.
Trump is merely repeating something that Saint Barack of Obama said - that as far as defending themselves goes, we in Europe had become "free riders"; happy for the Americans to defend us whilst not spending much on defence. If America has had enough of being used, who can blame them?

[Workingman]

Putting war aside, global politics is all over the place with all this social media stuff and the mainstream also piling in with its allegations - to suit whichever side it supports, of course!.

I remember the days when the Mirror ran pro Labour articles and the Mail did the same for the Tories. They were all filled with lies, myths and legends but not a peep was said about their "influence" or "vote rigging".

Now we are in a world of the 15 second soundbite and suddenly it is a big problem! Non-aligned voters have always been persuaded to vote one way or the other and the "winners" always get found out in the end. Just let them get on with it.

As for European defence... Well now! Very many were against a European army (armed forces) because it was an EU thing. "Oh no, we can't have that, we are sovereign and need our own forces under our command." Yet here we are talking of Europe (collectively) upping its defence spending and of integration.

We want things all ways so long as it is not an EU thing. Pfff.

[medsec222]

If we want to keep ourselves safe it is down to each country to put more into NATO to ensure that safety. America is no longer willing to be the main contributor to make the rest of the world safe and expects the other member States to pay their way. America has been upfront and quite clear about this. Vance is also right about Europe's drift away from free speech and its own democratic values. His audience didn't like it but nevertheless what he said is quite true. As a country we seem to be fearful of calling out something which is wrong in our society in case we cause offence to others with different values. This is surely at the expense of our own democratic values which the majority of us hold dear, and we are going down a slippery slope when we look the other way and remain silent. This is the internal danger which I think JD Vance is referring to. However, I would not like to see a European Army.

[Workingman]

However, I would not like to see a European Army.

Hmm, tough one. Why not? We already operate under 'Johnny Forriner' control from NATO and on UN peacekeeping missions. It will not be an EU army, if that bothers you.

The USA, and to a certain extent Russia and China, possibly India in the future, have an advantage. They each have massive internal military industrial complexes (MIDs) that Europe does not have.

Their MIDs work to the same briefs for equipments. Yes, they have different manufacturers, but once a winner is picked they all go the same way. Europe is a patchwork by comparison. The Brits do this, the French do that, the Italians... If a piece of kit fails for the others it can be cannibalised and the parts reused, that's not the case for Europe.

Europe needs to work together both in kit and command structures; there is nothing to fear about either choice. R&D, research and production costs would be cut and operations integrated - what's not to like?

[medsec222]

As I understand it, Trump has not threatened to withdraw from NATO, he just wants the other member States to pay more into the pot. The structure is there already so why would we need a separate European Army? This would mean we would have to pay our share to that, as well as putting more into NATO wouldn't it? And would the other European countries pay their share of maintaining a European army or would they cry poverty leaving the bill to be paid by the more affluent countries. Then there would be the problem of coming to mutual agreement as to how, when, and where this army will be deployed. It will be interesting to hear the thoughts of the hierarchy of the British Army. I haven't read any comments as yet.

[cromwell]

I remember the days when the Mirror ran pro Labour articles and the Mail did the same for the Tories. They were all filled with lies, myths and legends but not a peep was said about their "influence" or "vote rigging".

This is what I mean. What is "misinformation" anyway? Information the political class doesn't want people to know? Lies? Why not call it lies then?

Anyhow, suppose the Russians or anyone else is spreading misinformation. How do we know if that misinformation has affected the way that people vote? We can't possibly know, it is completely unprovable.

With the political desire to control the content of the internet, I think we will hear a lot more about misinformation, and most of it may well be misinformation itself!

[Workingman]

With the political desire to control the content of the internet, I think we will hear a lot more about misinformation, and most of it may well be misinformation itself!

Aye, and to paraphrase an old saying: "One person's misinformation is another person's truth." I mean it is not as if all those fine upstanding media outlets or politicians would ever try to persuade us to their ways of thinking; now would they?

[Suff]

I get a lot of information from X, not the MSM, so I knew about the Romanian cancelled election when it happened.

I assume that if you didn't hear about the Romanian election you also didn't hear about the EU higher ups saying they could "cancel" the German election results if AfD got too much power??? After all they did it with Romanian they said so they could do it with Germany.

They also did it with Austria for those who chose to remember.

As for the defence situation? They were warned in the last Trump Presidency. Buck up or you are on your own. So they made some offers to appease Trump then went back to their bad old days with Biden.

Now the US is saying, essentially, "we, the US, will not accept Ukraine in NATO. This is no big deal really, Turkey blocked Sweden and Finland for long enough and they are hardly indispensable.

The US is also saying that if there are no negotiations then they will not continue funding the war in Ukraine indefinitely. Something I assume, WM, you are in favour of. Although perhaps not the way in which it is being done by talking to Russia first without Ukraine. This actually makes sense as it allows the US to sound out what is possible with Russia then go back to Ukraine and have the hard discussions.

Now the EU is faced with the unedifying decision to step up and push hundreds of billions into Ukraine in weapons and ammunition or accept what the US is doing. At the same time they have finally come to the realisation that if they won't at least try to defend themselves the US will walk away from NATO and they will be left vulnerable.

Let's face reality here. Russia is reaching out to China and NK to buy ammunition. Because they let their manufacturing base slide and need to build it back up again. Chances that the EU can produce the weapons and ammunition required for Ukraine? Slim to none. Britain is OK for British needs plus additional for a small conflict. France also. The rest? Minimal capability.

As for the "european army"? It is an EU Army created by the Lisbon Treaty and command and control chops to Germany in a conflict. Something which will not happen for either the UK or France.

Oh and lest everyone forget, Russia is a European country. People keep talking about "Russia AND Europe". Just as we talk about Britain AND Europe. We need a better distinction.