Simon Marks ... 'The US no longer has Europe's back' | LBC

What are you not getting, perhaps we can help.

Help Huh? This coming from the person who called Mike a pedophile.

Back to the issue….what part of Mike’s post didn’t you understand. Don’t run away now with your tail between your legs…be a man for a change Hysteria, what part confuses you?

If the US wants to leave NATO, it must. This is not going to save much money for America because they have always spent a high % of their GDP on the military, and this is not going to change...

China and America are going to end up in a war sooner or later, and I would prefer that NATO not join this war.

Europe has gone through its most peaceful years, even following World War 2.

That was at least until Russia invaded Ukraine. Now Europe is rearming once again.

America has been in many more wars than Europe in the last 80 years. These were independent actions, not linked with NATO in any way. Just like America's latest war in Venezuela, which is driven by America wanting access to the heavy/sour crude oil. This will allow America to increase tariffs on imported oil from Canada, or just drop Canada as a supplier of oil to try damage the economy of Canada.

Trump's America is drifting from the goals of NATO, which is self-defence for Democratic countries.

America is no longer an ally. They used to be the Democracy on the Hill - now they are just owned by billionaire campaign donors and politicians who are shareholders. They are turning into Russia with Oligarchs as competition declines. Big Tech is carrying them for now, but when countries start banning their data products, things will change.

Let’s see:

Korea ….defending South Korea when Kim senior invaded supported by Russia. South Korea has subsequently hopelessly outclassed it’s communist neighbor.

Cuba…another success in a confrontation provoked by Russia…no nukes on Cuba.

Vietnam…..the US was involved initially to support France, which was out of it’s depth. Escalated to defend S Vietnam from falling into the grip of the north. Ultimately the cost of defending the flaccid south became too great a burden in lives.

Kuwait…defended a weaker country against an unprovoked Iraqi invasion. Kuwait remained independent and a vital oil source.

Afghanistan….invaded to eject Al-Queda after 9/11 . That was easily done….occupation became a road to nowhere. A response was totally justified, it should have been done by air.

Iraq….9/11 was used as an excuse to invade, although the existence of weapons of mass destruction was broadly believed. This was the one war the US initiated where there was no moral or ideological imperative. The Iraqis were a danger to peace, as Kuwait demonstrated, but there was no immediate need for this invasion.

So most of these military engagements were reactive and designed to protect the West against aberrant regimes. Good luck with what follows if American leadership is replaced by, for example, the kind little men from China. And without American help in the form of NATO those critical Frogs and Krauts might actually have to send their sons, rather than the embarrassing Americans, to fight their own battles,

Obama at Mandela's funeral;

"South Africa shows us that we can change… South Africa shows us we can choose a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes… by peace and justice and opportunity.”

Meanwhile in Libya;

1. Civilian deaths directly from NATO (incl. U.S.) airstrikes:
2. Roughly 60–400+ civilians killed.
3. Total deaths in the 2011 Libyan war (all sides, all causes) — the broader “human cost” of the intervention and ensuing war: common estimates range from about 6,000 up to around 20,000+ people killed.

Yet, here we are, debating the taking out of some scumbag drug traffickers.

"...South Africa under the Apartheid as a decent country, it was a state that organised terrorism be it through torture of political opponents or assassination of local folks at night to strike terror among the populace."

These things are even worse now, plus 27K murders a year and a stagnant economy...

The Peoples of the EU are under the jack boot of the failing tyrannical Globalist leaders. These traitors have allowed the continent to be invaded by people's who hate Western Civilization.

The EU Globalists hate democracy and free speech.

The New US strategy document makes it clear the US supports the people of Europe but not the EU.

Quite rightly Elon Musk Calls for the EU to be disbanded. Hopefully the end of the EU is in sight.

President Trump looks to be signaling that if the EU Globalists want a war with Russia they are on their own.

As for the murderous narco terrorists kill everyone of them. Show no mercy. Every year 100,000 American die from drugs flooding into the US. Some say the figure for 2024 was nearer 200,000. After 4 years of the Korean war 54,000 American soldiers died.

The Demonrats are now siding with the narco terrorists!!!! As are some far left Stalinists on this board like dense Denise and Blobbrain the whacked out loon

I am very pleased President Trump is working to take down the Globalist rulers of the EU and Britain. Polls show Starmer at 14 percent. MACRON ALMOST AS BAD and the AFD now the biggest party in Europe.

Attention must be paid to Australia and NZ which are also crumbling under open border Globalist rule.

Thankfully the people are now awake and rising up.

The Globalust and their Marxist Islamic allies would love to get Pete Hegseth who is proving to be a great Secretary of War.

The Admiral commanding the operation says he ordered the second strike with no additional orders from Hegseth. So any idea of getting Hegseth collapses on the basis of this testimony.

Next the two survivors were apparently getting back on board the boat to radio for help If true the engagement obviously was not over.

Killing people trying to flood THE US with lethal drugs is a proper use of force.

One hopes that the Trump Administration will take out the dictator Madura and obliterate the cartel command posts, assets and supply routes.

Far left radical loons like dense Denise and Blobbrain are always on the side of the far left democrats and their law breakers.

These lunatics support defunding the police, the freeing by Soros backed DAs of rapists and murderers. They support the narco drug lords killing millions and using their wealth to traffic woman and children and commit unspeakable crimes.

Dense Denise and Blobbrain are brain washed nutjobs. Totally immoral. They disgust me.

Well done on entirely missing the point, everybody.

That being, to you guys, it's not about the action, it's justification, or the result...but rather about whom you want to blame and shame for it.

For example, a quick AI search of civilian casualties under Obama and Biden results in somebody large numbers, far greater than these supposed smugglers.

Nice trick in comparing all of Obama and Biden's military operation causalities to just Trump's action against alleged drug smugglers.

I asked both ChatGPT and Co-Pilot both concluding when comparing the Presidency of Obama, Trump's 1st Term and Biden's presidency the number of civilian's killed by US military operations authorized by those President's Trump who had the highest death toll and by a considerable margin over Obama while Biden was much lower than both. Not surprising considering Trump had by the first two years of his first Presidency carried out more drone strikes than Obama did in his eight years as President. And in his second term he's already exceeded the amount of drone strike's authorized by Biden.

For the supposed peace president, he's anything but.

Stav will prove how badly he missed the point by yelling "whataboutism".

Okay, while I could easily say whatboutism I won't. I'll point out your missing the point. The military operations order by Obama and Biden and I'm sure most of Trump's in his first term where aimed at actually terrorists or enemy combatants. Now you can still debate the legality and morality of such operations and whether those operations saved more lives than they cost.

But what's happening at the moment is Trump has arbitrarily started designating drug cartels as terrorists. A terrorist is someone who uses violence to achieve a political aim that's not what these drug cartels are doing, they are violent criminals trying to make money. If Trump can designate them terrorists at a whim then what's him to stop him from ordering a lethal strike or assassination of someone who say is allegedly a member of say antifa. What other category of criminal can simply be designated a terrorist so they can be disposed of without due process. In theory when these military operations are authorized there is legal experts on hand to provide advice on the legality of these operations, but the Trump administration had already shown itself liable to ignore the law when it suits them.

And secondly the operations Trump is conducting at the moment appears to be part of a pressure campaign to bring about regime change in Venezuela. That opens up another debate about both the legality and morality of such actions and also seems to be contradictory to Trump's promise of pulling the US out of foreign entanglements. It comes across as Trump acting abit Putin like in that he think's South and Central America are the US's sphere of influence and they are free to do as they please there.

America will soon create a new war hero movie about Venezuela, how they protected Democracy- the American way—with no mention of the oil, the true motive.

The bravely destroyed fishing boats and hijacked a tanker - making the Somalian pirates pale in comparison.

America as always will buy Venezuelan oil at marker prices. Just as it’s bought oil from any other producer at market prices. Snd now the woke left has managed to make drug smugglers heroes.These guys wouldnt hesitate to put a bullet through the head of a kid who needed their drugs and tried to steal them. Woke is a form of insanity, a kind of death wish.

If you admire Western culture, wake up, it needs to be protected,

Amazing yes...

"If you admire Western culture, wake up, it needs to be protected,"

100%

The America of today are bullies, led by a wannabe Hitler. If this were about drugs, America would target the countries of origin - not transit countries.

This is ALL about OIL. The Pirates of the Caribbean.

If America can just ignore international law, they are criminals. Many countries around the world are run by an authoritarian dictator. Look at North Korea - but if a country has nukes, they are safe from Trump.

Venezuela is widely seen as a major transit hub for cocaine and other drugs, not as a primary source country for their production.?

Source vs transit

1. The actual cultivation of coca (the plant used to make cocaine) is overwhelmingly concentrated in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, which together account for essentially all global coca production.?
2. International agencies therefore, label those Andean countries as the main source (or producer) countries, while Venezuela appears in reports mainly as a drug?transit or drug-transhipment country.?

Venezuela’s role in trafficking

1. Venezuela sits next to Colombia and has porous borders, weak institutions, and corruption, so Colombian cocaine is frequently moved through Venezuelan territory, ports and airstrips on its way to the Caribbean, Central America, the US and Europe.?
2. Analyses describe Venezuela as an important corridor whose security and governance problems facilitate trafficking, but they also stress that its own coca cultivation and cocaine production remain small compared with the big producers and that it plays virtually no role in newer synthetic drug production like fentanyl

Fnokkof snarkhole, you don't know nuffin.

new

gh

Quick side note, how are you guys embedding pictures into your posts?

Copy and paste works.

@Stav,

You have to right click, and then select copy image address (NOT image).

Then you need to use the Video icon on the word editor menu. Paste in the Image address

I find you have to put a bit of text on a line above the image before pasting.

Even just a small bit of text like a letter or character (e.g. -

This is an example of the image address that gets pasted into the YouTube Icon within the editor

https://static.independent.co.uk/2025/12/13/10/Russia_Ukraine_War_86405.jpg?quality=75&width=640&auto=webp

I'll spare our hard-suffering magamuppets the actual article but its simply more evidence of Batshit's madness.

Last month it was the ballroom ... out-trumping Marie Antoinette .

"I asked both ChatGPT and Co-Pilot both concluding when comparing the Presidency of Obama, Trump's 1st Term and Biden's presidency the number of civilian's killed by US military operations authorized by those President's Trump who had the highest death toll and by a considerable margin over Obama while Biden was much lower than both."

My word!

Have you lost your mind?

Surely you wouldn't even need AI to know that statement is categorically wrong.

You're becoming a dishonest operator, Stav.

Don't be that guy.

What part of that is categorically wrong?

Context….it’s a meaningless statistic.

I provided context in the subsequent paragraph.

Denmark suffered significant casualties in Afghanistan, with

around 43-44 soldiers killed, resulting in the highest death rate per capita within the NATO coalition, highlighting their heavy contribution to combat operations in the south, primarily from IEDs and combat engagements, even though most wounded soldiers survived due to improved medical care.

I'm curious why the UK got hit with tariffs. They have been a very loyal long term ally. They operated alongside US forces in Yugoslavia, the Gulf War, the military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. They have assisted in protecting Israel from Iranian missiles and supplied Israel America's key ally with military aid. The UK has bent over backwards to be nice too Trump with not one but two state visits and the US has a trade surplus with the UK.

But Trump tariffed them anyway.

,

OPINION

I provided context in the subsequent paragraph.

And the context negates the statistic,

Many countries have supported the U.S. militarily through alliances (like NATO), coalition operations (like in Afghanistan/ISAF, Iraq), or specific defense pacts (like the Rio Treaty for the Americas), with allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many Middle Eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) providing troops, bases, or significant aid, though it varies greatly by conflict and era, from the American Revolution (France) to modern conflicts

.

Key Examples of Allied Support

1. NATO Allies (Collective Defense): Countries like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and newer Eastern European states contribute forces and resources under NATO's Article 5 (collective defense).
2. International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan: Many nations, including Canada (largest contributor at one point), Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Turkey, sent troops and support.
3. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman are key partners, designated as Major Non-NATO Allies (MNNAs) and hosting U.S. forces.
4. Pacific Allies: Japan, South Korea, and Australia are crucial allies with significant military cooperation and bases.
5. Middle East: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and others are designated MNNAs with deep military ties and joint exercises.
6. Americas (Rio Treaty): The U.S. has mutual defense treaties with many Latin American nations, requiring assistance in attacks.
7. Early U.S. History: France provided crucial financial, military, and naval support during the American Revolutionary War, as noted on the Museum of the American Revolution.
8. 
   

How Countries Help

1. Deploying Troops: Sending combat units or support personnel (e.g., Canada in ISAF).
2. Providing Bases & Logistics: Hosting U.S. forces and facilitating operations (e.g., Japan, Germany, Middle Eastern allies).
3. Financial & Military Aid: Supplying funding or equipment (though the U.S. provides more aid than it receives, allies contribute).
4. Coalition Operations: Participating in multi-national efforts like Desert Storm, Afghanistan, or against ISIS.
5. 
   

This support is generally part of formal alliances (NATO, bilateral treaties) or specific coalitions for shared security goals, rather than individual countries "coming to help" the U.S. in isolation.

Oh I see the US has cancelled its £31 billion tech deal with the UK.

With an ally like that, who needs enemies.

Batshit's much happier with his new coterie of authoritarian likeminds .... Putin Orban Kim .....

Hahaha with allies like Ireland, you better not have enemies.

LOL, care to answer the question?

What did the UK do to deserve getting tariffed?

And now I see Trump is to sue the BBC for billions which if he wins will be paid for by UK taxpayers. Truly a friend indeed.

No Idea, but if I had to guess, I would suspect it had something to do with Starmer’s role in the Ukraine negotiations, holding hands with the little men in suits. And if the BBC ends up having to pay Trump billions they clearly lied about him and deserve to pay.

LOL and ROFL

A deal with Trump is not worth the paper it was written on

No Idea, but if I had to guess, I would suspect it had something to do with Starmer’s role in the Ukraine negotiations, holding hands with the little men in suits. And if the BBC ends up having to pay Trump billions they clearly lied about him and deserve to pay.

So if that's the case you think both Starmer and Europe was wrong to support Zelenksy in rejecting Trump pressure attempt to force Ukraine into a bad deal. I'm pretty certain you even called the recent 28 point plan a bad deal. Has something changed, or is this compulsion you have to defend the US from criticism or your desire to dump on Europe overriding your sense of right and wrong.

No the truth is that tariffs which where announced back in April supposedly came about after the Trump administration did a review of global trade. It also hit other countries that the US had trade surpluses with with tariffs as well showing the Trump administration either didn't care about the balance of trade and was just using tariffs as a tool to bully other countries or was just too lazy or incompetent to exclude countries countries which it had trade surpluses with it.

As for the latest development the withdrawing from the US-UK tech deal, Shark is quite apt in posting that I'm altering the deal clip, because its exactly what happened, the US started making additional demands on stuff that was never in the original agreement such as food standards.

The BBC was clearly wrong to edit the clip the way they did. It was also stupid because they could of made the exact same point without having to resort to editing the footage that way. Trump was the man overwhelming responsible for what happened on January 6th and he's a liar on a truly epic scale. If the BBC owe him billions, Trump himself should be liable for trillions.

So if that's the case you think both Starmer and Europe was wrong to support Zelenksy in rejecting Trump pressure attempt to force Ukraine into a bad deal. I'm pretty certain you even called the recent 28 point plan a bad deal. Has something changed, or is this compulsion you have to defend the US from criticism or your desire to dump on Europe overriding your sense of right and wrong.

Classical ….I must have a compulsion that overrides every vestige of morality. Nope, I don’t think it was an acceptable plan. But it was the only plan out there and Europe and America should have been united in the negotiations. Just as if Europe was really an ally. Public support for Zelensky’s rejection of peace terms meant more Ukranian boys are going to die before peace is achieved.

Europe blunders around making bellicose statements, without any independent ability to change Russia’s course. The Ukranians are doing an epic job, but slowly being defeated. And with Russia holding a vast supply of nukes, any direct European involvement, feeble as that may be, will only escalate risk.

A better agreement can and is being shaped out of the original plan. But it won’t ever be what the Ukraine wants, that’s the reality of the situation and at some point fighting over points you will concede a year from now makes no sense in terms of blood and grief.

Classical ….I must have a compulsion that overrides every vestige of morality. Nope, I don’t think it was an acceptable plan. But it was the only plan out there and Europe and America should have been united in the negotiations. Just as if Europe was really an ally.

You clearly do have that compulsion. Europe and America should have been united in negotiations?, would you just fuck off with this nonsense. This plan was actually Russia's plan devised by Kirill Dmitriev in his lopsided negotiations with those useful idiots Witkoff and Kushner. It was Dmitriev who leaked it to the press correctly anticipating would bounce the Putin admiring and Nobel peace prize seeking Trump into getting behind it. Credit to Marco Rubio for leaking to the press that was indeed a Russian plan and therefore undermining it from the American side. Europe and Ukraine were never consulted on it, they were excluded from negotiations on matters that primarily concern them not the US and then just had terms chucked at them because Trump is a lazy amoral c*nt who thought it was his shortcut to a noble peace prize.

Europe blunders around making bellicose statements, without any independent ability to change Russia’s course. The Ukranians are doing an epic job, but slowly being defeated. And with Russia holding a vast supply of nukes, any direct European involvement, feeble as that may be, will only escalate risk.

You can just sense the JD Vance/MAGA disdain for Europe dripping off you. Europe hasn't made any bellicose statements that's another lie from MAGA land, it simply understands that if Putin is allowed to have victory in Ukraine than it will simply come back for more and their expense, and that Trump's proposed plan is a direct threat to Ukraine's and Europe's security. As for European involvement being feeble you call being able to feel over 500 Nukes feeble?

A better agreement can and is being shaped out of the original plan. But it won’t ever be what the Ukraine wants, that’s the reality of the situation and at some point fighting over points you will concede a year from now makes no sense in terms of blood and grief.

It's not, nothing is going to come from these negotiations, we are just going through the motions of politely rejecting the plan so Trump doesn't get offended and cut off selling Europe weapons to give to Ukraine. Ukraine has already made concessions and acknowledged it won't get everything it wants, that was never the issue. Russia want's all of Ukraine, Donbass and its fortress belt is a severe obstacle to that which alone will take several years for Russia to overcome. Trump foolishly want's Ukraine to hand over one of its strongest cards, for what a temporary ceasefire back by no security guarantees that the Russians will break in a few years for now only for Europe and Ukraine having to listen to MAGA and Trump saying the Russian's would never have broken the ceasefire if Trump was still President.

More than three quarters of Ukrainians oppose ceding land, casting doubt on a resolution to the conflict being close at hand

President Zelensky has dampened hopes of an imminent peace deal in Ukraine, warning that Russia could reject a new European-backed plan and that Kyiv expects to receive fresh supplies of American weapons if it does.

The Ukrainian leader also said on Tuesday that a finalised set of peace proposals would be ready in the next two days and would then be presented by the United States to Moscow. The Kremlin said it was committed to achieving all its aims in Ukraine and it would not agree to Kyiv’s proposals for a Christmas ceasefire.

Washington has said that it is prepared to offer Ukraine “platinum standard” security guarantees based on ­Nato’s Article 5 mutual defence clause to safeguard any ceasefire. US officials also warned that the deal would “not be on the table forever”.

The town of Kramatorsk was hit by Russian airstrikes on Wednesday

JOSE COLON/ANADOLU/GETTY IMAGES

JOSE COLON/ANADOLU/GETTY IMAGES

There is scepticism in Kyiv at the offer, however, because Ukraine was already provided with security assurances from Britain and the US when it surrendered its nuclear missiles in 1994, as part of non-proliferation efforts after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

President Trump is putting pressure on Ukraine to withdraw its forces from the Donetsk region, including the heavily defended towns of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, as part of US efforts to push through a peace deal in the coming weeks.

Zelensky said Ukraine had no plans to surrender the coal-mining region to Moscow.

Showing a low-resolution version of the map. Make sure your browser supports WebGL to see the full version.

Updated Dec 16

Map: The Times and The Sunday Times•Source: Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project

Washington has proposed turning the slice of the Donetsk region that Ukraine still controls into a demilitarised “free economic zone”. But Moscow has said it would deploy its national guard and police to control the zone after a Ukrainian withdrawal.

“I want to stress once again: a ‘free economic zone’ does not mean under the control of Russia. We do not want to give up our Donbas,” Zelensky said. “Nevertheless, we are discussing the territorial issue. At this point, there is no consensus on it yet.”

• Putin’s mission to derail Ukraine, one train at a time

Despite Trump’s optimism about a possible resolution to the war, the biggest in Europe since 1945, Zelensky said President Putin could choose to continue fighting.

“I believe the United States will apply sanctions pressure and provide us with more weapons if [Putin] rejects everything. I think that would be a fair request from us,” he said. “In my view, the logic is this: if the United States is ready to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and to apply strong guarantees if Putin violates the agreement, then tell me — how is that different from a situation in which Putin does not want to end the war?”

Moscow has demanded Ukraine surrenders swathes of land, agrees to a ban on joining Nato and accepts limits on the size of its armed forces before there can be peace. Ukraine’s European allies have said that surrendering Ukrainian land to Russia would embolden Putin and threaten their own security.

Zelensky spoke alongside his foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, at the Hague

ROBIN VAN LONKHUIJSEN/ANP/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Although Zelensky has said that Kyiv is willing to abandon its ambitions of Nato membership in exchange for strong US security guarantees, Russia wants the alliance to pledge that it will never invite Ukraine to join, something that is likely to prove a sticking point.

Zelensky said on Monday that Kyiv supported the idea of a ceasefire, in particular relating to strikes on energy facilities, over Christmas.

But Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said on Tuesday: “We don’t want a truce to give Ukraine a breathing space and prepare for a continuation of the war. We want to stop this war, achieve our goals, secure our interests, and guarantee peace in Europe for the future.”

Sergey Rybakov, a Russian deputy foreign minister, said Moscow was not prepared to make any concessions on Ukrainian territory that it claims as its own.

Besides Crimea, which was annexed in 2014, Moscow has said Ukraine’s Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, collectively known as the Donbas, are “integral” parts of Russia. Ukraine still controls about a fifth of the Donetsk region and the main cities in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

The surrender of the Donbas would be likely to anger members of Ukraine’s armed forces, as well as its citizens. Seventy-five per cent of Ukrainians oppose a withdrawal from the eastern region, according to an poll published on Monday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. It found that more than 60 per cent were prepared to keep fighting “as long as necessary”.

Slava Ukraine