5 ms·

While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never me

by svara 7y ago

While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Where would these people, and support for them, come from?

jacquesm 7y ago
> I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Just to give you one example: if a Trump type would gain the upper hand in any one of the larger European countries all of which have a strong representation of what I'd loosely term neo-nationalists the stage would be set for an 'us vs them' degrading of international relations. The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. Alternatives for this: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Moldavia and Romania are all sitting on Putin's doorstep and splitting Europe could be the precursor to Russia crossing its borders. Especially the Baltic situation is very much analogue to the Ukraine one with Kaliningrad in the role of Eastern Ukraine and the ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Lithuania potentially mobilized in the same way they were in Ukraine. Europe/NATO then has the choice to fall apart or come to the aid of their members; which more or less would set the stage for WWIII. None of this is fun to contemplate but I think these risks are real.
- dfawcus 7y ago
  Don't worry - assuming the Tories do win a majority, and the UK leaves the EU: Then with the loss of the SM, and no trading relations (probably for 7+ years), our economy will take a serious hit, and we'll likely suffer some form of recession. There are plenty of us who know that such an economic impact is simply a consequence of our own choices. We're going to be too busy sorting out our own problems, with each domestic side blaming the others, and possibly successive governments from opposite sides of political spectrum. A return to the 70s. So I rather doubt we'll be a threat to any other European state. We'll be navel gazing for some time. Also our conventional forces are seriously eroded, we've wasted money on useless aircraft carriers, and other vanity kit. The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state, and some nutter finds the nuclear trigger.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state I don't rule that out. The amount of venom and irrationality injected into UK politics right now as well as the Scottish / Irish issues combined with a healthy bunch of scapegoating could just about do it. Best case the Union collapses, Scotland joins the EU (against the wishes of Spain this will be a hard thing to accomplish) and Ireland does not fall back into their old habits. It's a serious problem and the number of people that will suffer because of these idiots that are trying hard to diminish the size of the pond so they will appear bigger is going to be in the 10's of millions at best, many more in the worst case.
    - Jamwinner 7y ago
      At what point would letting all the gilded royal bs, half-hearted HoC jousting for image, and entrenched party politics fall and starting fresh make sense? To say the UK has some 'technical debt' would be understated at best.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        That very much depends on the price ticket attached to 'fail'. Agreed on the tech debt, that's an excellent way of putting it. Other people might call it tradition but I think an improvement is long overdue.
- svara 7y ago
  > The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. > Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. I see what you're saying, but I didn't say "fight in a neighboring country", but "fight a neighboring country". The idea that the world is a game of Civilization and that there is anything to be gained by invading some other country is largely seen as absurd here, as far as my personal experience goes. That's the point I was making. You would first need to raise a whole generation of people who see that differently, which frankly sounds about as realistic as raising a generation of people who will challenge their rival to a pistol duel because they slept with their girlfriend. And I really can't see the scenario where it truly becomes a question of self defense, and some continental european country needs to defend itself against the pillaging and raping british. Is there any indication in the UK that anybody would be interest in that type of activity? Regarding your point about the eastern border of the EU, and Russia's activities there - that one I'll grant you. But still, from there to intra-european strife still seems like a long way.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > which frankly sounds about as realistic as raising a generation of people who will challenge their rival to a pistol duel because they slept with their girlfriend. I don't see any obstacle to this in terms of the attitudes of the people involved. It'd be really, really easy to raise a generation of men who thought this was a reasonable thing to do. It's not happening now because of external controls, not because so many people are shocked at the very idea.
    - svara 7y ago
      Nah man - Getting angry or even violent in response to infidelity, sure. But a life-or-death duel is something else. It's a ritualized way of obtaining satisfaction relative to some mortal insult to your honor. That custom existed in Europe in a world that was completely different from today's, amongst a narrow and very specific stratum of society.
GVIrish 7y ago
There are a couple of things that could upset the geopolitical status quo in a way that could lead to war in Europe. A massive influx of refugees from the Middle East in particular could have the effect of destabilizing any of the countries that accept them. It could also embolden and empower nationalists who in turn may make extreme choices that could lead to open hostility. If there's a resurgence in radical Climate change may indeed be the cause of large refugee crises hitting Europe. Depending on how bad climate change related events are, it could degrade the ability of governments to maintain order and provide public services. Those are things that can lead to unpredictable and violent outcomes. Then there's the specter of Putin's Russia using covert and direct military action to reclaim former Soviet territory, subvert European governments, spread nationalist propaganda, etc. And there's always the Black swan event that no one had on their radar that could massively change the playing board. We've already seen a big upheaval with Brexit, the Trump presidency, and the Syrua refugee crisis. More of that kind of stuff would be really bad news for Europe.
vasac 7y ago
You would be surprised how fast things played out in Yugoslavia. I clearly remember 15 years old me at 1989 when I become aware how expensive weapons really are and how stupid is to spend such large amount of money on something that we obviously will never need. War started two years later, I got drafted couple of years later and ended using same weapons that I firmly believed we'll never need. You can argue that I was naive kid but war came as a big surprise to large percentage of adults too. From memoirs of various politicians it's clear that they had much better grasp on reality but for general public things moved from bad to worse really, really fast.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Spot on. A friend in Poland, fairly high up in politics there visited Yugoslavia a few months before war broke out. Afterwards we spoke and he said he had absolutely no indication that anything was brewing at all. It was well known that Tito kept a tight lid on the factions, it took about 10 years until Croatia started to stir and another year for Slovenia to secede and that set the stage for the largest war on European soil in decades.
- svara 7y ago
  Thanks for your comment, it's really interesting and helpful to hear from someone who's actually seen this play out in real life. I suspect it's not you, but me who's sounding naive here. I do believe, though, that there's something about stable, market-oriented democracies that makes violent conflict unlikely, and there's quite some empirical evidence for that, too. See Steven Pinker and so on. The history of Yugoslavia may therefore not generalize to today's Europe. Also, attitudes of people do matter, and they certainly do in a democracy. Many of the young men who went to fight in WW1 truly believed they were taking part in some great, noble, adventure of historic proportions. This world view just does not exist anymore, it seems about as close to my life as, say, the Spanish inquisition, and I'd wager that's true for most people in Europe today.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    You're not answering me, but for that it is worth I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong. And thank you for the exchange.

by svara 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

> I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Just to give you one example: if a Trump type would gain the upper hand in any one of the larger European countries all of which have a strong representation of what I'd loosely term neo-nationalists the stage would be set for an 'us vs them' degrading of international relations. The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. Alternatives for this: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Moldavia and Romania are all sitting on Putin's doorstep and splitting Europe could be the precursor to Russia crossing its borders. Especially the Baltic situation is very much analogue to the Ukraine one with Kaliningrad in the role of Eastern Ukraine and the ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Lithuania potentially mobilized in the same way they were in Ukraine. Europe/NATO then has the choice to fall apart or come to the aid of their members; which more or less would set the stage for WWIII. None of this is fun to contemplate but I think these risks are real.

dfawcus 7y ago
Don't worry - assuming the Tories do win a majority, and the UK leaves the EU: Then with the loss of the SM, and no trading relations (probably for 7+ years), our economy will take a serious hit, and we'll likely suffer some form of recession. There are plenty of us who know that such an economic impact is simply a consequence of our own choices. We're going to be too busy sorting out our own problems, with each domestic side blaming the others, and possibly successive governments from opposite sides of political spectrum. A return to the 70s. So I rather doubt we'll be a threat to any other European state. We'll be navel gazing for some time. Also our conventional forces are seriously eroded, we've wasted money on useless aircraft carriers, and other vanity kit. The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state, and some nutter finds the nuclear trigger.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state I don't rule that out. The amount of venom and irrationality injected into UK politics right now as well as the Scottish / Irish issues combined with a healthy bunch of scapegoating could just about do it. Best case the Union collapses, Scotland joins the EU (against the wishes of Spain this will be a hard thing to accomplish) and Ireland does not fall back into their old habits. It's a serious problem and the number of people that will suffer because of these idiots that are trying hard to diminish the size of the pond so they will appear bigger is going to be in the 10's of millions at best, many more in the worst case.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    At what point would letting all the gilded royal bs, half-hearted HoC jousting for image, and entrenched party politics fall and starting fresh make sense? To say the UK has some 'technical debt' would be understated at best.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      That very much depends on the price ticket attached to 'fail'. Agreed on the tech debt, that's an excellent way of putting it. Other people might call it tradition but I think an improvement is long overdue.
svara 7y ago
> The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. > Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. I see what you're saying, but I didn't say "fight in a neighboring country", but "fight a neighboring country". The idea that the world is a game of Civilization and that there is anything to be gained by invading some other country is largely seen as absurd here, as far as my personal experience goes. That's the point I was making. You would first need to raise a whole generation of people who see that differently, which frankly sounds about as realistic as raising a generation of people who will challenge their rival to a pistol duel because they slept with their girlfriend. And I really can't see the scenario where it truly becomes a question of self defense, and some continental european country needs to defend itself against the pillaging and raping british. Is there any indication in the UK that anybody would be interest in that type of activity? Regarding your point about the eastern border of the EU, and Russia's activities there - that one I'll grant you. But still, from there to intra-european strife still seems like a long way.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > which frankly sounds about as realistic as raising a generation of people who will challenge their rival to a pistol duel because they slept with their girlfriend. I don't see any obstacle to this in terms of the attitudes of the people involved. It'd be really, really easy to raise a generation of men who thought this was a reasonable thing to do. It's not happening now because of external controls, not because so many people are shocked at the very idea.
  - svara 7y ago
    Nah man - Getting angry or even violent in response to infidelity, sure. But a life-or-death duel is something else. It's a ritualized way of obtaining satisfaction relative to some mortal insult to your honor. That custom existed in Europe in a world that was completely different from today's, amongst a narrow and very specific stratum of society.

GVIrish 7y ago

There are a couple of things that could upset the geopolitical status quo in a way that could lead to war in Europe. A massive influx of refugees from the Middle East in particular could have the effect of destabilizing any of the countries that accept them. It could also embolden and empower nationalists who in turn may make extreme choices that could lead to open hostility. If there's a resurgence in radical Climate change may indeed be the cause of large refugee crises hitting Europe. Depending on how bad climate change related events are, it could degrade the ability of governments to maintain order and provide public services. Those are things that can lead to unpredictable and violent outcomes. Then there's the specter of Putin's Russia using covert and direct military action to reclaim former Soviet territory, subvert European governments, spread nationalist propaganda, etc. And there's always the Black swan event that no one had on their radar that could massively change the playing board. We've already seen a big upheaval with Brexit, the Trump presidency, and the Syrua refugee crisis. More of that kind of stuff would be really bad news for Europe.

vasac 7y ago

You would be surprised how fast things played out in Yugoslavia. I clearly remember 15 years old me at 1989 when I become aware how expensive weapons really are and how stupid is to spend such large amount of money on something that we obviously will never need. War started two years later, I got drafted couple of years later and ended using same weapons that I firmly believed we'll never need. You can argue that I was naive kid but war came as a big surprise to large percentage of adults too. From memoirs of various politicians it's clear that they had much better grasp on reality but for general public things moved from bad to worse really, really fast.

jacquesm 7y ago
Spot on. A friend in Poland, fairly high up in politics there visited Yugoslavia a few months before war broke out. Afterwards we spoke and he said he had absolutely no indication that anything was brewing at all. It was well known that Tito kept a tight lid on the factions, it took about 10 years until Croatia started to stir and another year for Slovenia to secede and that set the stage for the largest war on European soil in decades.
svara 7y ago
Thanks for your comment, it's really interesting and helpful to hear from someone who's actually seen this play out in real life. I suspect it's not you, but me who's sounding naive here. I do believe, though, that there's something about stable, market-oriented democracies that makes violent conflict unlikely, and there's quite some empirical evidence for that, too. See Steven Pinker and so on. The history of Yugoslavia may therefore not generalize to today's Europe. Also, attitudes of people do matter, and they certainly do in a democracy. Many of the young men who went to fight in WW1 truly believed they were taking part in some great, noble, adventure of historic proportions. This world view just does not exist anymore, it seems about as close to my life as, say, the Spanish inquisition, and I'd wager that's true for most people in Europe today.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  You're not answering me, but for that it is worth I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong. And thank you for the exchange.