J.D.Vance changed, or actually expanded the position of looking at Europe's defence.
To date, routinely, the issue of defence has been considered as a defence against a threat, understood as an external threat. And Vance modified the problem, went 1 step further, and asked a question about what we wanted to defend. And he pointed to an interior threat.
So the key question is the purpose. alternatively of wandering around in duress.
And from this position we can ask another question, a very disturbing question - why do Western countries usage so small to defend themselves? possibly the European establishment believes that, in fact, there is nothing to defend, there are no values to defend. They didn't make anything worth defending. specified a form of self-criticism would be very useful to them.
And as far as Vance's full speech is concerned, he deserves the title of historical, no doubt. Besides, it was model, especially if you consider its design. The content was crushing for the European establishment, but the form was very mild. Vance was gentle adequate to not ask another crucial question: why would America bear tremendous costs to defend Euroduro and Euroduro?
Team - Trump, Vance and Musk - is just a revelation. large tercet. It is confirmed, openly in social-political life, that Jonathan Haidt's technological thesis with the advantage of 6:3 of the conservative head over the liberal.
And look at the effect in Poland.
Jackals from Tusk's gang rolled up their tail and stopped barking at Americans, due to the fact that it's risky, but for a change, due to the fact that their tongue is sniveled, they released ratlers specified as Forge and trolls on portals.
Liberal polytidios themselves, voluntarily rejected the category of fact as a consequence of which they fell into delusions, and now they resent others erstwhile they remind them of the truth. Vance loyally warns them: red light, stop, don't go. And they're evil.
