/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Hopefully soon.
I'd be neutral on the EU if they weren't functionally acting as America's bitch now and Germany's bitch before that. It's actually embarrassing how much it seems to serve the US agenda at this point, and the US is itself run by Zionist psychos. It's really difficult to believe that the EU would behave the way that it does if it wasn't controlled by the US.

The same time the US implodes and the next thing, whatever it is, is ready for all of the core "white" countries.

I give it maybe a year at the rate we're going, plus whatever time is necessary to finalize the "confused fighting". But, just like with the fall of the US, the fall of the EU won't really be "collapse", but elimination of the last remaining democratic pretenses of the states. That was guaranteed by the Ukraine War, where the last legitimacy of the nation-state was obliterated by decree, now that it can be done. It was really funny how that happened and the idiots doubled down on "nation-state essences" as a talking point, because they didn't know what any of it meant or had any idea what a "law" was.

i think people overestimate usa influence

i think people in modern world can live without usa

>>487465
Euroscepticism is about Euros hating the EU because it's not Nazi enough, has to be nice to the US and liberalism. The moment they can, they're going to make something like the EU, but entirely free of democracy and with no US influence since the US no longer exists. It could inherit the EU structure, but it would no longer be "the EU" in this supposed rules-based order they want to insist is a thing. What they want is the Fourth Reich. It would always be centered where the first three were, which makes "US is literally Fourth Reich" a little annoying to me. I would go on rants about it, if not for the reality that the US is entirely owned by those who want a Nazified world, who want the former US to be a hellish slave plantation.

You can tell the elites of Europe are beyond done with the EU. But, I'll tell you right now, they're not interested in "closed borders" or any of the faggotry they're selling to promote the Fourth Reich to retards who don't know anything about anything. You already see the "nationalist" leaders promoting European integration harder than the liberals ever did.

>>487320
I think it's more likely that NATO gets dissolved. For several reasons. The US is refocusing it's military posture to Asia. NATO has stagnated in terms of strategic thinking, and it kinda decayed into a sales platform for privatized military production of high cost and mediocre battle-performance weapons. The Ukraine war damaged NATO prestige, because countries not in the inner ring of NATO are beginning to wonder whether they could be made a sacrifice like Ukraine.

For the EU question. The benefits of being a large trading block is what pulls Europe together, but there also are bugs in the system. I think individual European countries used to be able to have their own monetary policy, which allowed individual countries to make adjustments suitable for the kind of economy they had. The optimum monetary policy for a country with an export surplus is different than for a country with an import surplus, for example. There was supposed to be a mechanism that compensated for that, but it wasn't implemented or didn't work right.

Also i think Europe has the wrong kind of military policy. European countries used to do big military power projection, way back when the primary power source was coal, fueling things like steam powered battleships. But now the main power source for a military is oil derived liquid chemical fuels. Europe has hardly any of that. While converting coal into liquid chemical fuel is possible, it's not really a viable option to field a military comparable to what the US or Russia has. Coal has comparably low energy density to start with, and when adding more losses with another conversion step, energy density goes down even more. That creates a situation where one has to move literal mountains to enable that fighter jet to switch on the afterburner. So the optimal military posture for Europe is a low mobility defense force that is deeply dug in, with a few long range missiles. More infantry with anti-material weapons on motor-bikes or ultra-light aircraft and less heavy-tanks or attack-helicopters. France has a reasonably good nuclear deterrent with it's nuclear submarines, that will offer effective deterrence for another 20-30 years. Which should be enough time to make low-cost copies of the fancy kinetic-warhead missiles the Russians have pioneered. Those will be the best deterrent until directed energy weapons get really powerful, which is a long way off. Directed energy weapons are at a stage comparable to when we made cannons out of tree-trunks that were reinforced with metal rings. As far as drone warfare is concerned, every country is worried about a machine-locust swarm eating their population, so who ever cooks up the most cost effective way to do area denial for drones wins the weapons export-game. A big obstacle is that the ruling class in Europe wants an expeditionary force for coercive diplomacy, which is the exact opposite of what geographic realities dictate, because that requires very high mobility and loads of fuel.

If Europe's Union dissolves the pieces will become West Ur@sia read phonetically I'm avoiding a glowy trigger word
A cause for this could be a continuation of the energy starvation policy. Avoiding that fate means abolishing the self-harm policy of import blockade on cheap fuel. And in the medium term it means building lots of nuclear power plants.
Another cause would be abolishing the social security services in favor of chasing a militarism fantasy, that is not compatible with actually existing reality.

>>487323
The US will experience a small amount of de-federalization with a little more political power going towards individual regional states, but a break-up is extremely unlikely.

>>487509
europe can use liquid CNG gas (LNG) tanks
or hydrogen tanks

problem is not really fuel,
as you need to unit-production too (and that requires kind of alot of energy)

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/hyundai-reveals-worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-battle-tank/

its even real because its relatively easy

>>487510
>>487511
I know that there are ships that use LNG turbines. I only absentmindedly skimmed over how that worked, so take this with a grain of salt: You can't burn LNG directly because it's super cold. So there are 2 stages, the first one uses the cold LNG as the cold side of a heat engine, and hot exhaust from the second stage as the hot side. The first stage extracts some energy from that temperature differential and warns up the LNG. Then the warmed up LNG goes into the second stage where it gets burned normally. While these are efficient and economical, they are absolutely huge relative to the power they produce, and will never fit into a tank.

Hydrogen fueled tanks are technically plausible, because fuel-cells can use hydrogen to make loads of electricity. But you also have to consider logistics. Which means that unless the civilian economy also begins using lots of hydrogen, so that a large hydrogen infrastructure gets build, you can't use it for tanks. If you build one specialty facility that generates your tank fuel, a opponent only needs to hit that facility and all your tanks are neutralized. Until there's lots of trucks and other type of heavy machinery power by hydrogen, H2-tanks are not viable.

You are also correct that tank production is very energy intensive, since tanks usually are made out of 30+ tonnes of steal. Tanks definitely are toys for energy rich societies, which Europe really isn't at the moment. Also we found out during the Ukraine war that Neo-liberal economies are not capable of mass-producing shells for tanks or artillery. It felt like a regression to artisanal production. Which indicates that the decay of industry is worse than we thought.

Unless there is a hard break from neo-liberal austerity policy, and there is at least 10 years of significant state directed industrial build up, heavy weapons are out.

>>487531
do you think normal tanks aren't like that ?

>>487535
actually gas ballons explode rather not violently so if you mount them some where outside in the save place (at the top)
they most likely won't damage a tank (at least the polymer ones)