3 ms·

> Washington cannot have a veto over European legislation or foreign policy initiatives In regards to foreign policy, Europe will really have to invest in its

> Washington cannot have a veto over European legislation or foreign policy initiatives In regards to foreign policy, Europe will really have to invest in its military capabilities if they want more independence from the US. The fact that Europe was not able to effectively intervene in either Bosnia or Libya without US assistance when they are literally in the EU’s back yard means that the EU foreign policy will play second fiddle to US foreign policy.

cycop 7y ago
Sounds like bad foreign policy , there are plenty of examples in history of what is bad for EU is even worse for the rest of Western countries. But works in reverse also, what is bad for the US is bad for the EU. Isolation is never the answer and only makes dictators that suppress human rights.
jnurmine 7y ago
To understand the situation of today it is helpful to understand the past; the European efforts to build up a common pan-European defence infrastructure has been traditionally continuously torpedoed by Great Britain and this has taken place over a long period of time. There are of course reasons for this, and obviously Great Britain is acting in their self-interest (they don't want a "shadow NATO" and they don't want to diminish in importance in USAs eyes, UKUSA/FVEY etc.), but Great Britain's interests are not really in the interests of Europe as a whole. Now that Brexit seems to be happening, one way or another, expect to see a lot of European Union movement in the defence area. Also, time will tell if the e.g. UK Joint Expeditionary Force will stay in existence and enhance the new pan-European defence mechanisms with, among other things, British nuclear weapons, or not. Furthermore, it is very naïve to assume that Europe is not already doing full-on preparations for the military implications of Brexit as well as the everso more likely dismantling of NATO. Mr. Trump has been signalling the latter for a long time, and even though much of his output seems to be a clumsy way to lure EU into doing more military business with the USA, the fact is that the White House and particularily the President of the USA is acting more and more erratic every day, so basically anything could happen (and probably will!). Having a strategical autonomy and owning a substantial defence ability and capability is an existential issue for Europe, given its geographical location, as well as the increasingly hostile political rhetoric and gray zone actions of its neighbours, as well as the continuously erratic behaviour of its number one ally.
- osullivj 7y ago
  All good points. However, it's important to remember that France remains at the core of the EU, and has her own nuclear weapons (force de frappe) and large military. There was always a tension between UK participation with EU diplomatic/military initiatives, and UK alignment with the Anglophone world for military and intelligence cooperation: US leadership and fives eyes intelligence cooperation with US, Canada, Australia & NZ. The US/UK "special relationship" is a cliche much favoured by British politicians, but it does have real substance in the close military and intelligence cooperation. Of the world's five official nuclear weapons states, only one of them buys rather than builds - the UK buys the Trident missile system from the US. The warheads are of course UK manufactured with plutonium from our nuclear power stations. The UK was the first country to build nuclear power stations in the 50s. Propoganda at the time was all about clean cheap electricity. But their ultimate purpose was to generate plutonium for weapons.
tomjen3 7y ago
Not really. The fact that most EU nations don't control their own nuclear weapons (or don't have the in the first place) does. North Korean can't be invaded, because they have nukes. Iran would be untouchable if they had nukes. The Soviet Union had to obey the orders of the US, until they got nukes of their own. Sweden, of all countries, had a greater effect in the Albanian genocide than the US. Had Srebrenica been controlled by the Swedish armed forces and not the Dutch there would have been no massacre, or at a minimum the massacre would have been opposed by the armed forces stationed there, which would mean that it would have been no massacre at all.
antirapepolice 7y ago
Well, for starter if US start removing their nuclear silos from European soil, it could be beneficial for European independence. Imagine trying to be independent from someone who put a bomb under your bed. Anyway EU foreign policy is not based on military capabilities alone, but mainly on diplomacy and foreign policy.

cycop 7y ago

Sounds like bad foreign policy , there are plenty of examples in history of what is bad for EU is even worse for the rest of Western countries. But works in reverse also, what is bad for the US is bad for the EU. Isolation is never the answer and only makes dictators that suppress human rights.

jnurmine 7y ago

To understand the situation of today it is helpful to understand the past; the European efforts to build up a common pan-European defence infrastructure has been traditionally continuously torpedoed by Great Britain and this has taken place over a long period of time. There are of course reasons for this, and obviously Great Britain is acting in their self-interest (they don't want a "shadow NATO" and they don't want to diminish in importance in USAs eyes, UKUSA/FVEY etc.), but Great Britain's interests are not really in the interests of Europe as a whole. Now that Brexit seems to be happening, one way or another, expect to see a lot of European Union movement in the defence area. Also, time will tell if the e.g. UK Joint Expeditionary Force will stay in existence and enhance the new pan-European defence mechanisms with, among other things, British nuclear weapons, or not. Furthermore, it is very naïve to assume that Europe is not already doing full-on preparations for the military implications of Brexit as well as the everso more likely dismantling of NATO. Mr. Trump has been signalling the latter for a long time, and even though much of his output seems to be a clumsy way to lure EU into doing more military business with the USA, the fact is that the White House and particularily the President of the USA is acting more and more erratic every day, so basically anything could happen (and probably will!). Having a strategical autonomy and owning a substantial defence ability and capability is an existential issue for Europe, given its geographical location, as well as the increasingly hostile political rhetoric and gray zone actions of its neighbours, as well as the continuously erratic behaviour of its number one ally.

osullivj 7y ago
All good points. However, it's important to remember that France remains at the core of the EU, and has her own nuclear weapons (force de frappe) and large military. There was always a tension between UK participation with EU diplomatic/military initiatives, and UK alignment with the Anglophone world for military and intelligence cooperation: US leadership and fives eyes intelligence cooperation with US, Canada, Australia & NZ. The US/UK "special relationship" is a cliche much favoured by British politicians, but it does have real substance in the close military and intelligence cooperation. Of the world's five official nuclear weapons states, only one of them buys rather than builds - the UK buys the Trident missile system from the US. The warheads are of course UK manufactured with plutonium from our nuclear power stations. The UK was the first country to build nuclear power stations in the 50s. Propoganda at the time was all about clean cheap electricity. But their ultimate purpose was to generate plutonium for weapons.

tomjen3 7y ago

Not really. The fact that most EU nations don't control their own nuclear weapons (or don't have the in the first place) does. North Korean can't be invaded, because they have nukes. Iran would be untouchable if they had nukes. The Soviet Union had to obey the orders of the US, until they got nukes of their own. Sweden, of all countries, had a greater effect in the Albanian genocide than the US. Had Srebrenica been controlled by the Swedish armed forces and not the Dutch there would have been no massacre, or at a minimum the massacre would have been opposed by the armed forces stationed there, which would mean that it would have been no massacre at all.

antirapepolice 7y ago

Well, for starter if US start removing their nuclear silos from European soil, it could be beneficial for European independence. Imagine trying to be independent from someone who put a bomb under your bed. Anyway EU foreign policy is not based on military capabilities alone, but mainly on diplomacy and foreign policy.