No. of Recommendations: 2
Their military has ~200,000 active duty members. The reason it's going to take them that long to send those tanks is because it takes that long to build 100+ new tanks from scratch.
And train the crews
And train the mechanics
And set up a logistical train
And
And
And
...all of which is a mere restatement of my point. They haven't got anyone to send.
The fact that China has become a very large national security risk does not mean that Europe becomes any less of a national security risk. A new large threat in Asia might affect the relative military needs of the two theaters, but it doesn't reduce or diminish the specific threats posed in the European theater.
So if the response to rising Chinese power is to transfer resources from one theater to the other, there are downsides to that. It increases our exposure to the risk of negative consequences in Europe, if we're not maintaining as heavy a footprint there to put a lid on things.
Okay. So you think that Macron or Starmer or Kolz is really Napoleon Bonaparte IV (the 3rd was actually Emperor of France) ready to march to Moscow like his great-great-great-great-great grandad?
If the argument is that we can't rack up debt, that's a taxation and spending argument, not a tariffs and trade argument. Foreign investors don't hold an especially large percentage of our federal debt these days, and it's been declining for the last twenty years or so:
I covered this in my other thread. The tariffs are a stealth form of taxation, a back door way to implement a consumption VAT if certain industries don't onshore back to the United States.
