A Euro army is the way forward. There’s a perception in the US that the European members of NATO aren’t pulling their weight, rather living comfortably with the US doing the heavy lifting. There will come a day when serious conversations will be had on this side of the pond towards scaling back or even leaving NATO. Europe will need to be ready for that day.

No. The opposite. I was criticising that we are looking into how to fight against Russia when we are even not ready to go for relevant sanctions.

ah, yes, my mistake to misinterpret.

That is more a problem of perception. A lot is done quietly from development and integration of former eastern bloc economies to developing country's aid and such. Maybe not as sexy but certainly a considerable European share already happening. It goes up to german funding US military installations in Germany like the new Landstuhl military hospital.
If NATO's east is now under fire we need to cooperate more than ever.

Time to face the realities. The Cold War is back. The US pivot to Asia contributed to this mess.

And that would alleviate the US Military Budget exactly in which way? Apart from losing influence in Europe.
For Europe to replace US deterrence only a massive ramp up of Submarine based Nuclear strike capability would do the job. Everything else won't help much if there is such a big imbalance wrt to the ultimate stick. Conventionally, Russia has the Military potential to invade the Baltics and maybe Ukraine. But that's it. Anything beyond that would end with them having to go Nuclear.

German’s funding infrastructure in Germany to live under the umbrella the US provides seems pretty light. Many NATO members aren’t living up to their fair share, not me saying it, numerous US presidents of differing stripes are.

Perception is critical as it often intersects reality. In the case of Germany, an underfunded military, a nation that’s allowed itself to become dependent on its likely opponent, Russia for energy and now potentially pushing away a nuclear role in its own defense. This isn’t lost on this side.

The European members of NATO (or better yet, a Euro army) should be able to contain Russia, why seemingly can’t they?

As to the pivot, you’re correct the Cold War is back. Thing is, Europe has one front, the US has two.

Germany the way it is today has been created exactly the way the US wanted. Including the limited military capabilities.
It will be more expensive for the US to let Europe care about itself. That's a history lesson the US learned the hard way.

That sounds like an entitlement attitude.

Germany has been making its own decisions for a long time. Contrast the Bundeswehr when Soviet tanks were expected to roll down the Fulda gap against its current state, a little over 1/3 the size. That wasn’t a decision made in Washington DC. Europe has become too comfortable expecting the US to defend it. Time for that to end. NATO isn’t facing the Warsaw Pact, it’s likely opponent is one it should be able to contain. It chooses not to, preferring to rely on its bodyguard.

Well there is always room for improvement but I don't agree they would not contribute enough as a lot of infrastructure and support just is not labeled defence budget. They even went to Afghanistan after 9-11 no questions asked.
Plus it's clearly in the US interest to have a strong presence in Europe and to remain. The entire problem got blown out of proportion under President Trump for some reason.
I truly miss the strategic view and experts the US had for international politics and diplomacy. Now it's just America first and not much else beyond political correctness and domestic fights. You might have already noticed that China and Russia and others are already trying to exploit this perceived weakness? Much of the problem is caused west of the Atlantic.

Yes, the US does have an interest in Europe, wish Europe would could clearly determine what it’s own interests are.

The problem wasn’t blown out of proportion by Trump, he elevated it to the public realm. Obama made no bones about it, Euro members of NATO were lacking in their financial commitments. Problem was it was hushed conversations behind closed doors and didn’t yield much. Trump in his inelegant style certainly did start a conversation.

Europe doesn’t spend its share and is overly reliant, yet it’s the US fault, not buying it. I got the same entitlement attitude when I made my adult daughter start paying for her own mobile phone and car insurance.

Because they are not supposed to have thousands of nuclear warheds and hundreds of Sea- launched ICBMs in the first place.
Conventionally, Russia can't overrun Europe. Nuclearly it can.

You’re ok with the status quo?

Not that clear cut imho.
Russia was fed up with getting shafted by the Ukraine transit fees for gas, so they built Nord Stream 2, which bypasses intermediate jurisdictions, with the support of Schroeder, the then German Chancellor, who wanted to bring Russia into the tent rather than keeping it outside. That was not well received in Washington, so obstacles emerged. Still, the pipeline is now complete and available, with flows subject to political approval.
Obviously Russia is trying to put pressure on the EU customers to open the valves, the pipeline was not cheap and the bills need to be paid.
Whether this upcoming cold spell is enough to force the issue remains uncertain, but the reality is that Europe will continue to need energy and Russia has the supply, so a solution will eventually be found.

No, not really. But at the same time I don't see an easy solution apart from reducing the dependency on Russian Gas so that at least there is a chance for painful sanctions.
Militarily Europe has surely significant potential for improvement also conventionally but that won't change anything really wrt Russia bullying the Baltics or Ukraine.
If Europe would really be required to be able to defend itself this would require massvie Nuclear up- arming since that is the area where there is a huuuuge Gap to Russia.
Conventionally, Europe is generally mostly on Eye level with Russia - in some areas superior (Air Force) in some areas inferior (Army, Navy) but overall an invasion by Russia deep into foreign territory (which typically requires massive advantage) would likely end in tears and Russia having to resort to Nukes.

How many years do we reckon Vlad has left in power? Maybe if we can string things along like this for a decade or so Russia may not be such a problem, maybe even a willing partner.

Some reports of another Coup in the making . Winter is coming and winter Sieges can be brutal .
When will the tourists return ?

Provocations continue in Belarus…

Apparently the Coup is booked for next Wednesday..

MSN

Afaik, Putin is 69, so probably still good for the rest of this decade. He is probably as good as we can expect, a skillful politician and a smart player in international affairs.
My sense is that it will be difficult to find a more willing partner. Yeltsin was very accommodating, all it got Russia was NATO moving east, contrary to what Russia thought had been agreed.
Meanwhile, the ongoing sanctions simply force Russia to embrace China, despite the visceral Russian concern about again getting dominated by modern day Tatars.
How this helps the US and Europe to better counterbalance China is unclear.

I share these doubts. In Russian elctions regularly the second and third ranked parties/candidates are even (way) more hard-core and crazy than Vlad'. I'm afraid all he is doing is playing to the audience. Our problem is not only this one Chap. It is a rather a whole Nation which has not fully swallowed the loss/decline of former Importance.