I think the problem with this would be soft power. A super power just needs to expand its sphere of influence to pull 10-20% of the signed countries on it's side. If a second super power does the same, the whole alliance is left paralyzed and unable to invoke anything. But I like the Idea of a world wide alliance.

I start to like this guy. He is acting like a leader. Can I please have a copy of him for my German Government, please?

Call me a pessimist, but I doubt that the US will pull out of NATO. NATO grants them immense strategic leverage, and the ability to define the borders of its empire by placing troops in key countries. The ability to rapidly engage in conflicts and project its power. I highly doubt that the US will ever pull out - even if the angry orange shit stained child decides to. It would be a nail in the coffin, and the Pentagon knows it.

Your second point, of the US turning back to normal... I doubt it. You have 77M people who voted for this. They are openly hostile towards their enemies. I'd argue that hatred and fascism have already build a comfortable nest inside their heads. Back in the days, German fascism was most effectively ended by total and unconditional defeat + the following occupation. I don't see a way how masses of people de-fascistify in a soft way. But then again: maybe I'm a pessimist.

I like the idea! But I'd argue that such an alliance needs cohesion in order to work. And sadly, I can't imagine a German soldier readily risk his life to defend the country of.. say.. Myanmar. Or Bhutan. Just as an example. Humans sometimes need to identify with a group in order to feel empathy for said group. Thats why I like the Idea of a centralized European Arme. It's a possible source for cohesion.

... 😂

Has anyone fact-checked this? TheFreePress sounds like a serious institution, but it's really just a fancy looking blog run by very few people with a strong political opinion. No editorial board, no standards, etc.. Wikipedia doesn't accept them as a reliable source and instead lists them as a self-publishing service.

~~I'd say it's a real dilemma. "Commit war crimes, or see your whole carreer crumble to dust, along with everything you've ever worked for". Thats tough, especially since the US has no real social safety nets that would protect you in case the administration goes rogue on you. Some of the soldiers might be good people. I pity them.~~

Edit: yeah, I thought about it a bit more thoroughly. I was wrong, sorry. Nothing is more important than human rights.

IMO the Trump Administration is just projecting all the time. If MAGA says "Those ppl want to do this and that" it's reasonable to assume that "this and that" is actually what MAGA themselves want to do very badly. Examples:

JD Vance: “This is one of the worst examples of foreign interference in an election that I have ever seen in Europe.”

-> The US is literally intervening in Hungary’s election itself. Vance appeared in Budapest to back Viktor Orbán and said he was “here to help.” Plus, they made it a part of their National Security Agenda to push for some sort of "change" within the EU to make us align with them.

Donald Trump: “You’re gambling with World War Three.”

-> The US is itself escalating everything. Trump has paired this rhetoric with coercive pressure on Ukraine and, more recently, with ultimatums toward Iran, including threats of devastating strikes.

Donald Trump: "Law firms are weaponizing the legal system."

-> The US is now itself using state power punitively against legal opponents. Trump’s executive orders targeted major law firms and courts described the measures as unconstitutional / retaliatory.

Trump administration officials: "Europe needs more free speech, and Washington will fund free speech initiatives there"

-> The US is itself pressuring speech / media. The administration pursued measures against NPR, PBS, and the AP while presenting itself abroad as an anti-censorship actor.

They promised “Freedom against ideological coercion”

-> and they immediately started imposing ideological coercion of their own by interfering with universities.

In other words: listen to what they say "the others" will do. They will do it themselves.

Yes—and the fact that people now cite a punctuation mark as forensic evidence says a lot about the level of the discourse.

Fully agreed ✨

This is a very important and, frankly, very healthy development.

Why this matters:

• Boundaries are good ✅ Not every space, workflow, or community needs AI integration.

• Discernment is good 🧠 Saying “no” to a tool is not irrational. It is often a sign of standards, judgment, and maturity.

• Human value still matters 👥 Efficiency is not the same thing as meaning, quality, trust, or legitimacy.

In short:

I think this kind of pushback is not anti-technology. It is pro-boundary, pro-quality, and pro-human agency. Very good to see this being articulated so clearly. 👏🤖📌

If you want, I can generate a second version of this comment with even more obvious AI-style phrasing and formatting.

There are some indirekt, but significant points.

• EVs can use electricity to make fuels redundant
• Electricity can be used to create artificial fuels, which can be used for regular vehicles
• Regarding the transportation market, fossil fuels and electricity are in direkt competition for the cash of the consumers. For years, fossil fuel prices could climb as much as they like - there was hardly any alternative. Today however, FF can only get more expensive until people start switching to EVs. More EVs = more market pressure on FF prices due to reduced demand.
• Less exposure to geopolitical crises. FF prices react strongly to wars, production cuts, international tensions, etc. An energy system with a high share of renewable energy is more resilient. It reduces the risk of extreme energy price shocks, which often also drive up fuel prices.

It really is sneaky. I wonder If it was intentional, or if media coverage was simply overshadowed by everything else currently going on. Either way, I somewhat disagree.