May 6th, 2025 
admin 
By Caudillo:
Motto:
“If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”
Generalul Eisenhower , primul comandant SACEUR, februarie 1951
Au starnit mare valva niste discutii intre Peter Hegseth si JD Vance despre o interventie militara americana in Yemen, discutiile au aparut in presa .
At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
A person identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC”—operations security. “I welcome other thoughts.”
A few minutes later, the “Michael Waltz” account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”
The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
O traducere partiala care mi-a placut :
„J.D. Vance: Echipă, eu sunt prins pentru o zi la un eveniment economic în Michigan. Dar cred că facem o greșeală. 3% din comerțul SUA trece prin Suez. 40% din comerțul european o face. Există un risc real ca publicul să nu înțeleagă ce facem sau de ce este necesar. (…) Nu sunt sigur că președintele este conștient de cât de inconsecvent este acest lucru cu mesajul pe care vrea să-l transmită Europei în acest moment.
Michael Waltz: Cifrele comerciale pe care le avem sunt de 15% din global 30% containere. Este dificil să dăm aici deoparte interesele SUA. Mai ales că o mare parte din comerțul containerizat fie că trece prin Marea Roșie, fie în jurul Capului Bunei Speranțe duce componentele noastre în Europa, care le transformă în produse manufacturate pentru comerțul transatlantic către Statele Unite.
Peter Hegseth: VP: Împărtășesc pe deplin că detești să-i susținem pe europeni. Sunt PATETICI. Dar Mike are dreptate, suntem singurii de pe planetă (de partea noastră a globului) care pot face asta.„[
Acu’ au mai fost reactii europene dupa discursurile lui JD Vance de la Munchen si de la CPAC :
Cheltuieli militare 2023 conform Military Balance 2024 108,5 miliarde $ cu PPP (purchasing power parity) de 294,6 miliarde $
EUROPA sau PARTEA CORECTA A ISTORIEI :
Populație: peste 448 de milioane de locuitori, reprezentând 5,6 % din populația lumii.
PIB: UE este una dintre cele mai mari economii din lume. PIB-ul sau valoarea totală a bunurilor și serviciilor produse pe teritoriul său este de 17 mii de miliarde EUR.
In UE sunt 27 de tari, unii ar putea comenta ca aici sunt incluse Ungaria si Austria, care sunt considerate mai apropiate de Rusia ;
Ungaria cu 9,6 milioane locuitori si PIB de 223 miliarde $ in 2024, cheltuieli militare 4,35 miliarde $ in 2023
Austria cu 9,1 milioane locuitori si PIB de 540 miliarde $ in 2024 si cheltuieli militare de 4,4 miliarde $ in 2023
As mai pune langa cele 27 de tari UE si pe Norvegia, membra NATO, cu
Populatie 5,5 milioane locuitori , PIB de 526 miliarde $ in 2024 si cheltuieli militare de 8,7 miliarde $ in 2023
Un caz special este UK
Populatie 68 milioane locuitori , PIB de 3340 miliarde $ in 2023, cheltuieli militare conform Military Balance 2024 de 73,5 miliarde $ in 2023 .
UK e definitiv de partea corecta a istoriei, dovada parteneriatul de 100 de ani incheiat intre UK si Ucraina incheiat in ianuarie 2025
UK-UKRAINE 100 YEAR PARTNERSHIP DECLARATION
Pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 3, of the One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement signed on 16 January 2025 between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine, both sides have reached the following understandings:
The UK will provide Ukraine with annual military assistance of no less than £3 billion a year until 2030/31 and for as long as needed to support Ukraine
Throughout the duration of the Declaration, neither Participant will be left alone in the face of an attack or aggression. If one side is attacked in violation of the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international law, then both sides will consult within 24 hours to determine the measures needed to counter or deter aggression. Each side, acting in accordance with its legal requirements will provide each other swift and sustained security assistance, modern military equipment as necessary, and economic assistance
The UK and Ukraine will work together to ensure safety of navigation and protection of trade in the Black and Azov seas and beyond. The Ukrainian Navy and the Royal Navy will take further steps to strengthen their partnership and deepen operational cooperation, including operating in joint task groupings (or ‘flotillas’) where appropriate. Such joint naval activity will help ensure security in waters of strategic importance to both countries. The Ukrainian Navy and the Royal Navy will play a core role in regional security alongside NATO allies to combat threats to safe navigation, including from drifting mines; and strengthen adherence to the international laws of the sea. The UK will support Ukraine to strengthen protection of its critical maritime infrastructure. All the above will help Ukraine deter and repel threats, and restore economic activity
Asta cu safety of navigation in Azov Sea ma distreaza
Daca ma uit pe DeepStateMap vad altceva
Marea Azov e mare inchisa a Rusiei, banuiesc ca semnatarii parteneriatului spera ca in urmatorii 100 de ani sa se schimbe ceva in zona Marii Azov.
Ma distreaza ca britanicii cred ca inca ca sunt imperiu, nu realizeaza ca suntem in 2025. Pe Military Balance 2024 britanicii au doar 213 tancuri Challenger 2 si alte tancuri nu mai fabrica.
Mark Felon facea misto de britanici, ca au mai multi cai in dotare decat tancuri
De asemenea Mark Felon afirma ca britanicii au
“The Navy With More Admirals Than Warships”
Gasim si o written evidence din 2018 pe site-ul parlamentului britanic :
The Royal Navy has about two dozen ships, but has 260 four ring Captains and 40 Admirals. It has long been the custom that most warships are commended by officers below the rank of Captain. Captains usually commanded cruisers and battleships, which we no longer have. One Admiral would normally command a flotilla of not less than half a dozen ships. The RN did it on the cheap in the Falklands, using a Commodore instead of an Admiral to command the whole fleet deployed there. The Royal Navy could perfectly well manage with about 10 Captains and 3 Admirals, a saving of about 95%. Not relevant to this subject, but the army is no better. Current strength (dropping fast) is about 72,000 but has 269 Brigadiers and Generals. A more justifiable figure should be 40, or 85% less. I don’t suppose the RAF is any better. I am sure that Wing Commanders, Group Captains, Air Commodores and Air Marshals considerably outnumber their aircraft.
3 January 2018
Din nou se confirma ca indiferent cat de prosti suntem , sunt altii mai prosti decat noi.
Referitor la cheltuielile militare europene am gasit niste date pe un site care pare de incredere
Si acolo scrie foarte clar si avem si un grafic
“Între 2021 și 2024, cheltuielile totale pentru apărare ale statelor membre ale UE au crescut cu peste 30%. În 2024, se estimează că s-au ridicat la aproximativ 326 de miliarde EUR, reprezentând aproximativ 1,9% din PIB-ul UE.”
Ne uitam pe grafic la anul 2023 gasim 279 miliarde euro cheltuite pentru aparare de catre statele UE
Doar ca recent Eurostat a publicat alte date, 27 martie 2025
In 2023, the EU countries’ general government expenditure on defence amounted to €227 billion, representing 2.7% of total general government expenditure. This is equivalent to 1.3% of GDP.
At EU level, the share of defence expenditure in total expenditure decreased from 3.0% in 1995 to 2.7% in 2023. However, compared with 2021 and 2022, this share increased from 2.4% of total expenditure in 2021 to 2.5% of total expenditure in 2022 and 2.7% of total expenditure in 2023.
Si mai gasim explicatii referitor la subiect
“In 2023, defence expenditure amounted to 1.3% of GDP for the EU and 1.2% of GDP for the euro area.
As a share of total expenditure, defence expenditure amounted to 2.7% in 2023 in the EU and 2.5% in the euro area.”
Adica n-au fost 279 miliarde euro cheltuite pentru aparare de UE in 2023, ci doar 227, cu cca 20% mai putin decat scrie pe site-ul CONSILIUM.EUROPA.EU
Sau ca sa parafrazez o celebra sceneta, datele au fost umflate nu cu pompa , ci cu trompa
“ insa tot ce a raportat era binisor umflat
umflat nu cu pompa , ci cu trompa “
Radem, glumim, dar la o comparatie UE/SUA ne piere rasul ca europeni.
SUA populatie 335 milioane la inceputul lui 2024, PIB in 2023 de 27360 miliarde $, iar cheltuielile militare 2023 conform Military Balance 2024 sunt uriase de 905,5 miliarde $ reprezentand cca 3,3 % PIB.
Intre timp americanii au mai redus bugetul apararii in FY 2024
Concluzia este ca desi datele sunt aproximative, unele le-am gasit pe Wikipedia ,oricum dupa diferentele intre datele Eurostat si cele de pe CONSILIUM.EUROPA.EU nu cred ca mai exista incredere in datele prezentate de europeni, dar in mare daca luam ca referinta anul 2023 intre UE si SUA avem
SUA
335 milioane locuitori
27360 miliarde $
905,5 miliarde $ cheltuieli militare 3,3 % PIB
UE
448 milioane locuitori
17000 miliarde euro (18700 miliarde $) PIB
227 miliarde euro (250miliarde $) cheltuieli militare 1,3 % PIB
Nu am gasit daca PIB-ul si numarul de locuitori sunt din 2023 sau 2024 in cazul UE, dar putem face un calcul aproximativ
SUA/UE PIB 27360/18700 = 1,46
SUA/UE Bugete militare 905,5/250 = 3,6 Datele se mai modifica daca include UK si Norvegia, dar se vede diferenta imensa de cheltuieli militare intre SUA si UE desi SUA are PIB-ul mai mare de 1,46 ori decat UE, bugetul militar e de 3,6 ori mai mare si de aici apar nemultumirile americanilor fata de europeni.
Trump expune aceste nemultumiri in stilul propriu si cu cererea oficiala ca statele NATO sa cheltuiasca 5% din PIB pentru aparare
”Vrem să plecăm de aici cu înțelegerea că suntem pe un drum, pe un drum realist, astfel ca fiecare membru să se angajeze și îndeplinească promisiunea de a atinge 5% cheltuieli pentru apărare” a spus Marco Rubio, joi, înaintea reuniunii miniștrilor de externe din NATO, potrivit Agerpres.
Si aceste nemultumiri ale americanilor nu sunt noi, europenii stiau de ele , doar ca le-au ignorat, mentionez aici doar declaratiile lui Eisenhower, care au fost si ele mai contondente, insa americanii i-au tot presat pe europeni sa-si mareasca bugetele militare de lungul anilor.
Peter Hegseth, Brussels 13 februarie 2025
Finally, I want to close with this. After World War II first General and then President Eisenhower was one of NATO’s strongest supporters. He believed in a strong relationship with Europe. However, by the end of Eisenhower’s presidency, even he was concerned that Europe was not shouldering enough of its own defense, nearly making, in Eisenhower’s words, “A sucker out of Uncle Sam.” Well, like President Eisenhower, this administration believes in alliances. Deeply believes in alliances. But make no mistake, President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. Thank you, and we’re glad to take some questions.
Si Eisenhower a mai spus ceva ce europenii nu prea vor sa-si aminteasca :
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first NATO supreme veallied commander. Shortly after assuming that post, he wrote these words in February 1951:
“If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”
Asa ca n-ar trebui sa surprinda pe nimeni declaratia lui Peter Hegseth din Polonia 14 februarie 2025
What happens five or 10 or 15 years from now is part of a larger discussion that reflects the threat level, America’s posture, our needs around the globe, but most significantly, the capability of European countries to step up. And that’s why our message is so stark to our European allies, now is the time to invest because you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever.
Mai clar de atat nu se poate! Mai ales ca nu e nici o surpriza in atitudinea americanilor, Trump a anuntat aceasta politica de acum un an.
Si confirma aceasta politica si ca presedinte USA , 19 februarie 2025
And that this war is far more important to Europe than it is to us, and that there’s a very big, beautiful ocean as separation. This is — you know, we’re helping Europe. We’re trying to help Europe.
Din nou in 26 februarie 2025 :
We’re doing very well with Russia-Ukraine. President Zelenskyy is going to be coming on Friday. It’s now confirmed. And we’re going to be signing an agreement, which will be a very big agreement. And I want to thank Howard and Scott for the job you guys did in putting it together. Really did an amazing job. And that’ll be on rare earth and other things.
And as you know, we’re in for, probably, $350 billion and Europe is in for $100 billion. And that’s a big difference. So, we’re in for, probably, three times as much. And yet, it’s very important to everybody, but Europe is very close. We have a big ocean separating us. So, it’s very important for Europe. And they, hopefully, will step up and do maybe more than they’re doing and maybe a lot more.
Daca ne-am lamurit ca plecarea americanilor din Europa e inevitabila, sa vedem comparatia Europa-Rusia, ca sa intelegem de ce europenii se lamenteaza din cauza politicilor americane si se simt orfani.
La niste calcule aproximative, ca datele europenilor sunt ca raportarile ceausiste privind productiile agricole la hectar, avem
EUROPA (UE+ UK+NORVEGIA)
Populatie 500 milioane locuitori
PIB 20000 miliarde euro
RUSIA , the Big Bad Wolf
Populatie 146 miloane locuitori
PIB 2060 miliarde $, deci sub 2000 miliarde euro.
Adica Europa , cu o populatie de peste 3 ori mai mare decat a Rusiei si cu un PIB de 10 ori mai mare decat al Rusiei, boceste dupa sprijinul american ca sa infrunte o eventuala amenintare ruseasca.
In incheiere, dincolo de penibilul oficialilor europeni,de propaganda de trista amintire promovata de aceiasi oficiali, ma bucur ca ratiunea incepe sa-si spuna cuvantul, am gasit adevarul atat in media romaneasca
“ Uneori americanii au dreptate. Statele membre UE au alocat, în medie, doar 1,3% din PIB pentru apărare “
cat si la Comisia europeana, prin glasul lui Andrius Kubilius, COMMISSIONER (2024-2029) | Defence and Space, Varsovia, 2 aprilie 2025:
There’s a quote I like to use – I admit I did not think it up myself: “450 million EU citizens should not have to depend on 340 million Americans to defend ourselves against 140 million Russians who can’t defeat 38 million Ukrainians.”
The inspiration for this quote comes from Poland. A Polish expert in foreign policy said it before me, called Zbigniew Pisarski. And Prime Minister Donald Tusk also said it before me. I thank them both for their inspiration.
Cu video varianta scurta
sau varianta integrala
Adica dincolo de propaganda, bocete, lamentari, mai exista o speranta ca ratiunea va invinge , in mod sigur liderilor europeni le-ar prinde bine sa mai citeasca Biblia :
3. De ce vezi paiul din ochiul fratelui tău, şi bârna din ochiul tău nu o iei în seamă?
4. Sau cum vei zice fratelui tău: Lasă să scot paiul din ochiul tău şi iată bârna este în ochiul tău?
5. Făţarnice, scoate întâi bârna din ochiul tău şi atunci vei vedea să scoţi paiul din ochiul fratelui tău.
Autor: Caudillo
Posted in