5 ms·

I find this idea totally weird. Can you look at the last decade of US military actions and say this has increased European security? I think most people would s

I find this idea totally weird. Can you look at the last decade of US military actions and say this has increased European security? I think most people would say no, of course not. Sure, the US pays a lot for defense, but is that money well spent? Did the EU benefit from the US invasion of Korea? Probably not. Vietnam? Also no. Iraq? Afghanistan? In all these cases, certainly no.

roenxi 6y ago
> Can you look at the last decade of US military actions and say this has increased European security? Here is a video [0] of the borders of European countries over the last 1500 years. There is potentially a correlation behind their stability since 1945 (11:16 in the video) and the US having a number of troops stationed in Germany comparable to the German army. It is debatable whether it was all to do with the US; but the circumstantial evidence is substantial. The border redrawings may resume one day. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
- adrianN 6y ago
  There hasn't been a credible outside threat to European security since the fall of the Soviet Union. Intraeuropean wars between major powers have become a lot less likely because of increased economic integration thanks to the EU.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Oh, just the small problems like Transnistria and Donetsk and Crimea. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but Baltic nations are really happy to be protected by NATO. They are in Russian sphere of interest and cannot defend themselves on their own.
rtx 6y ago
From the the time USA took over Western Europe it has been at its most peaceful.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It's not supposed to increase European security. It's supposed to increase senatorial and corporate security. If some other security also increases, that's a nice bonus.
readarticle 6y ago
Vietnam was originally a US funded French effort to retake its former colony, Iraq & Afghanistan rebalanced Middle Eastern power to secure an unthreatened flow of oil to Europe and Asia (even in the early 2000s, it was the EU almost wholly dependent on ME oil, not the US). And then obviously as a result of acting as a third party security guarantor deterring internal conflict, the EU exists.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  >rebalanced Middle Eastern power This is totally absurd. Do you seriously see Iraq or Afghanistan as balanced? Or are you using 'rebalancing' in the same way I could use 'rebalancing' to describe flipping a table? The second sentence is also ridiculous. The EU stops the EU from having internal conflicts. That's the original purpose of the union. I don't know what the US has to do with it.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    Balance of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(internationa... The Treaty of Rome was signed in the late 1950s. It, and the subsequent steps to today’s EU are products of Europe’s own internal balance being suspended by the presence of something roughly US shaped [0]. That statement isn’t particularly controversial without delving into some heady revisionism as far as I’m aware. The EU certainly wasn’t developed in a vacuum, and US involvement in the region—especially re: security—was substantial to say the least. [0] obviously there’s no formal role for the US in the EU, assuming a greater context.
    - pasabagi 6y ago
      I think in the immediate post-war era, the US was obviously the guarantor of european peace. That's very different to saying the EU exists because of the US. That's also very different to your claim that interventions in the ME were to protect European interests. Using your logic, you could say that Britain exists because of the US, because without US support, they would probably[1] have been invaded by the Germans. [1]: Not very probably, but the chances of the USSR rolling over Europe were always a bit slim too.

roenxi 6y ago

> Can you look at the last decade of US military actions and say this has increased European security? Here is a video [0] of the borders of European countries over the last 1500 years. There is potentially a correlation behind their stability since 1945 (11:16 in the video) and the US having a number of troops stationed in Germany comparable to the German army. It is debatable whether it was all to do with the US; but the circumstantial evidence is substantial. The border redrawings may resume one day. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI

adrianN 6y ago
There hasn't been a credible outside threat to European security since the fall of the Soviet Union. Intraeuropean wars between major powers have become a lot less likely because of increased economic integration thanks to the EU.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Oh, just the small problems like Transnistria and Donetsk and Crimea. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but Baltic nations are really happy to be protected by NATO. They are in Russian sphere of interest and cannot defend themselves on their own.

rtx 6y ago

From the the time USA took over Western Europe it has been at its most peaceful.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

It's not supposed to increase European security. It's supposed to increase senatorial and corporate security. If some other security also increases, that's a nice bonus.

readarticle 6y ago

Vietnam was originally a US funded French effort to retake its former colony, Iraq & Afghanistan rebalanced Middle Eastern power to secure an unthreatened flow of oil to Europe and Asia (even in the early 2000s, it was the EU almost wholly dependent on ME oil, not the US). And then obviously as a result of acting as a third party security guarantor deterring internal conflict, the EU exists.

pasabagi 6y ago
>rebalanced Middle Eastern power This is totally absurd. Do you seriously see Iraq or Afghanistan as balanced? Or are you using 'rebalancing' in the same way I could use 'rebalancing' to describe flipping a table? The second sentence is also ridiculous. The EU stops the EU from having internal conflicts. That's the original purpose of the union. I don't know what the US has to do with it.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Balance of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(internationa... The Treaty of Rome was signed in the late 1950s. It, and the subsequent steps to today’s EU are products of Europe’s own internal balance being suspended by the presence of something roughly US shaped [0]. That statement isn’t particularly controversial without delving into some heady revisionism as far as I’m aware. The EU certainly wasn’t developed in a vacuum, and US involvement in the region—especially re: security—was substantial to say the least. [0] obviously there’s no formal role for the US in the EU, assuming a greater context.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    I think in the immediate post-war era, the US was obviously the guarantor of european peace. That's very different to saying the EU exists because of the US. That's also very different to your claim that interventions in the ME were to protect European interests. Using your logic, you could say that Britain exists because of the US, because without US support, they would probably[1] have been invaded by the Germans. [1]: Not very probably, but the chances of the USSR rolling over Europe were always a bit slim too.