Olof Larsson

All those nations have separation of church and state. The level of religousness (specifically christianity) in Angola, Ethiopia and Romania is very high. If you look at a list of the most religious countries, you will find such shining exemples of freedom, prosparety and non existant corruption like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malawi, while at the bottom of the list you will find horrible cases of despotism, poverty and corruption like Estonia, Sweden and Denmark. In the US the most religious states are the famously whealthy states of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, while at the bottom of the list you find the poor, uneducated and inbread yokels in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine... I have no objection with religion in general of christianity in particular, but if one claims that: well, then you are objectivly wrong, by any non faith-based metric.

And all of this doesn't in any way prove your statement that: Because state churches (as in mandatory state sactioned religions in a society) has been the norm all over the world since at least the neolithic. Europe created it's first civilisations with state churches, Europe created it's first states with state churches, Europe created it's first towns with state churches, Europe created it's first cities with state churches, Europe created it's first empires with state churches, Europe invented science with state churches, Europe created global colonial empires with state churches, Europe started the industrial revolution with state churches and so on. And do note that at a societal level there is a inverse relationship between religiosness and prosperaty, as well as religiosness and freedom. I.e. the more religious a population is, the poorer and less free, they tend to be.

Elon Musk doesn't pay for Starlink in Ukraine. Ukraine, other states and non-state actors do. And obviously no-one outside of the US would trust Starlink, if the US decides to shuts down the system in Ukraine. It would obviously also make Teslas free-fall in sales continue. So that would be a horrible business decision by Trump. Not that big of a surprice, considering how bad of a businessman he is.

Yes, they have a very small colonial police force. Five rifle batallions, one 105mm batallion, no armour, no ADA, no combat aircrafts, and much to small to even just patrol the coastline of New Zeeland. Finland with a similar sized population, can mobilise 20-30 times more and 30 times more artilleripieces. Each and every one of them more powerful then the NZ guns.

Their navy is a very good complement to the US Navy, because they haven't gotten into the US tendency of goldplating everything, putting huge resources in colonial warfare (CSG's with weak ASuW, huge attacksubs to house SOF and fire a small amount of cruise missiles, rather then doing submarine stuff), a oversized gator navy (in the age of ground based AShM's and the US lack of mine sweeping ability) and the stupidity that is the LCS. Both classes. Their army is by all accounts good, but no bigger then Finland (despite a vastly larger population), and their airfroce is only 2-3 times larger then the Swedish air force, and with F-15's from the 1980's as the bulk of the fighter force.

Nor will the US have to bother with early warning radar data from Canada, Denmark and the UK, nor worry about basing tankers on Ascension Island, or operating bombers, tankers and transport aircraft out of Diego Garcia, flying COD-missions to carriers in the Med from Italy and so on. The US is only able to be a global superpower thanks to its allies and the access to bases in allied nations, and quite frankly, it's allies is the biggest advantage USA have over China. Yes, US allies have underspent on defence (especially Japan, Australia and New Zeeland), and most allies have (urged on by the US) spent money unvisely in the last ~25 years, as they have gone all in to support the US in their colonial policing, rather then focusing on defence against a peer och near-peer opponent. But the way Donald Trump tries to get Europe (but not Japan, Australia and New Zeeland) to increase their spending, is just asinine & counterproductive, as it runs the risk of greatly decreasing the US military capacity as well as the US looses allies, bases, arms export & so on.

So Europe started to go downhill at least 6000 to 7000 years ago and most likely 50'000 to 60'000 years ago?

The same number that every other nation have sent. Not a single one...

Arms - Since the spring of 2022. We have sent of are about to send AEW, 200 APC's, ICV.s, tanks, combat boats, artillery systems, SAM's, anti ship missiles (well ground launched Hellfires, that we have used as light anti-ship weapons), anti tank weapons, munition and so on. The US has prevented Sweden from sending combat aircraft. Troops - The government seems willing to do so, if there is a cease-fire. And that is despite (unlike the US) Sweden not being contractually obliged to support Ukraine against the Russian war of aggression. As a percentage of GDP Sweden have sent or pledged twice as much as the US.

No he doens't negotiate a cease-fire. A negotiation is impossible without both parties involved. The only thing he does right now is selling the US to Russia, while ruining the fruits of the last 85 years of US diplomacy. He shows the world that any deal signed with the US is only useful as toiletpaper. That means that no nation can lean towards the US for their security and co-operation. That in turn will largly kill US arms export, not only for complete systems, but also using components, software and so on in new domestic designs. It also means that countries like Canada, Denmark, and the UK will see very little benefit of letting the US base their assets on their territories for other purposes, then as a way the put pressure on the US, to force the US behave as mature as at least a 8 year old.

Mainly radios, i.e. to coordinate mortars, 155's, drones and other supporting assets. Small arms fire is overwhelmingly used for suppressive fire. More often then not, on targets that you cannot even see.

Yes, to get the most out of them, you need massed armour and the ability to operate with your own strike aircrafts close enough to the front line. Without full integration that is not going to happen. Not that Russia can mass armoured divisions eighter way, with their current ability seemingly limited to concentrate technical companies, dirtbikeplatoons, and crutchinfantrysquads at the same place. I could se the Brimstone being useful in the SEAD role, as well as engaging ships from USV's.

And so far with a per round cost higher then .50BMG for the high pressure ammo...

It's a mixed bag. The HIMARS/MLRS was notably truly a game changer with western counter battery radars, wrecking compete havoc with Russian logistics and their artillery, and forcing them to completely change indirect fire doctrine. Massed fires was simply not possible, when they couldn't bring masses of munition forwards, and when they lost artillery pieces at a staggering rate. HIMARS/MLRS was also very useful in the SEAD role and they made the Russian logistics in Cherson untenable, resulting in what was arguably Ukraines most important territorial gain, after the russian rout in the spring of 2022. Patriot (and other western air defence systems) have also proven to be very, very capable, even against russian "wunderwaffen". The only failures have (AFAIK) been the Excalibur and GL-SDB, both with small warhead, reliance on GPS, and in the GL-SDB long exposure time at lower altitudes to jamming. SDB, JDAM and AASM seems to be doing fine, and the same with the SCALP/Storm Shadow. I haven't heard much about the Brimestone though.

Well, for one thing they can easily cut of all Russian export and imports via the Baltic sea and Black sea.