6 ms·

The EU knows this, but they will continue to comply with US trade sanctions until they can live without the US in all areas. A giant hurdle (but not the only o

by parsimo2010 6y ago

The EU knows this, but they will continue to comply with US trade sanctions until they can live without the US in all areas. A giant hurdle (but not the only one) is NATO and being able to counter Russia. While NATO and the EU are separate, many countries are members of both. If the EU took a hard stance and said that they value trade with China more than the US's security complaints, the US could very well use that as an excuse to pull troops out of Europe. And if anyone thinks that doesn't matter, just know that a Russian invasion (or more likely erosion of borders) is something that terrifies EU leaders far more than missing out on sales to China.

akie 6y ago
All this talk about NATO still being an active entity in the protection of Europe is dangerous and hopelessly naïve. As long as Trump is president, I don't think we need to have any illusions as to which side he would chose in a hypothetical armed conflict between the EU and Russia (he would pick no side). EU politicians should wake up and smell the coffee, and invest in an EU army before it's too late. We really (desperately) need strategic independence from the US and other foreign powers. The US in particular has been an unpredictable, unreliable, and untrustworthy partner in the past two decades or so (e.g. Iran deal, Paris climate accords, Iraq war, EU-US trade wars, ...) EDIT: Stop downvoting me and tell me instead where I'm wrong.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  > As long as Trump is president So until January 21st.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  > EU politicians should wake up and smell the coffee, and invest in an EU army before it’s too late They could, but at least in the short term it appears to be cheaper to let the US spend the money on their military and still get the benefits, even factoring some lost trade to China. It would take many $123mm lithography machines to make up for the billions they would need to create a standing army. That trade off will change, but everything hinges on the “before it’s too late” part of your argument, which you can be assured that virtually no democratically elected politician will get right, since they are looking at <10 years by nature of political campaigns.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Considering the previous Administration did little more than hashtag diplomacy in regards to Russia's take over Crimea and their conflict with Ukraine I do not understand why the EU hasn't moved on as it is. Trump could have been leveraged as a great excuse to finally do so. However it really comes down to money, the EU is fine with the current situation as long as it doesn't cost more money because no economy is in great shape right now.
- User23 6y ago
  If the Russians actually wanted to invade Europe they'd stir up some pointless local unrest and then just send a few million Russian refugees to collect welfare in Germany. Why even bother with the tanks?
Shivetya 6y ago
I understand the issues the US has but there are big difference here that you just cannot ignore. To give China preference in trade is to accept all that China is doing and will do. What would it take to say, no. From Hong Kong to treatment Uighurs and their threat towards Taiwan. The world as a whole needs to step back from trade with China as a whole. As for NATO , the EU has long has the technical means to do away with the need but they don't want to pay for it. How much do you value your security? Getting rid of NATO would be the first step in probably forcing the American government rethink its military spending; sadly the percentage of the US budget going there decreases by small percentages overall letting politicians on both sides claim they have reduced spending. Even halving the US defense budget won't solve the US deficit issues.
- hajile 6y ago
  > sadly the percentage of the US budget going there decreases by small percentages overall letting politicians on both sides claim they have reduced spending. Even halving the US defense budget won't solve the US deficit issues. I think more US citizens should understand this. Even if the ENTIRE military budget were eliminated, the budget wouldn't put the US in the black. In fact, eliminating EVERYTHING except benefits programs still wouldn't balance the budget. Millennial shouldn't forget that social security issues start in 2037 with a reduction to 76% of their current payout and it rapidly declines from there [0]. The only social program likely to work is the one you personally setup around yourself and save for right now. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
  - codr7 6y ago
    A friend of mine is buying gold. It's a mystery to me how you can sort of see that it's all going down the drain but still insist on believing that you'll be able to sail through it by careful planning. We're all in the same boat here, and it's sinking fast. It doesn't take much of a disaster for money (and gold) to become completely worthless.
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
buran77 6y ago
> until they can live without the US in all areas. The EU isn't necessarily worried it can't live without the US because the US wouldn't simply answer by withdrawing all support and embargoing the EU. They'd be shooting themselves in the other foot. But they would respond the way all superpowers do when direct, public intervention is not on the table. With subversion. If the NSA leaks have shown anything it's that even allies were thoroughly compromised and one button press away from a series of "unfortunate" events. What's been recently dubbed "asymmetric warfare" has existed for decades. It's simply deniable attacks, economic or actual warfare via proxies, etc. Covertly supporting certain political candidates while subverting others in order to destabilize a country is in any superpower's playbook. This is what the EU fears more than that it will suddenly have to face a Russian invasion without US support. For now it's a deal out of which the US gets far more than the rest. They get to cement their superpower status by having the most important and credible allies, and in exchange offer some protection and the promise of not shooting said allies in the foot... maybe just whack them over the shin once in a while. It's also cheaper to let the US do its military thing and be a bodyguard, and that means the EU can focus on more important social issues. Maybe it's a small price to pay, maybe not. Some future generation will have to answer that.
- hajile 6y ago
  > It's also cheaper to let the US do its military thing and be a bodyguard, and that means the EU can focus on more important social issues. Maybe it's a small price to pay, maybe not. Some future generation will have to answer that. I guess Europe had better hope America doesn't do what Americans want and pull troops home... The only truth of foreign policy is "might makes right". Ignoring treaties as just pieces of paper isn't new. Hegemony isn't just about power. If you have the might, you make the rules and can twist them to your benefit. In any case, I guess the EU believes an American hegemony beats out one by Russia or China by a large margin.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Europe's military as it is is enough to counterbalance Russia's. The US military presence in Europe is a relic from the cold war.
throwaway4good 6y ago
The US tech war against China acts as a massive subsidy for China's domestic semiconductor companies. I suspect that is why the Chinese response has been so muted.
- chrisjc 6y ago
  Interesting... Can you elaborate more on this idea?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I'd guess: the societal demand for tech is there, the government wants it to be fulfilled, so there will be ample money available for setting up the necessary infrastructure and training personnel, from both public and private sources.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    An economy independent of foreign supplies has been a goal of communist China since its inception. And an active government program for high-end chip production including foundries has been there for a decade. The problem is: How do you convince a world class chip designer like HiSilicon that it should use a local foundry rather than TSMC? TSMC which is more advanced, more reliable, maybe even cheaper? Without breaking China's commitment to WTO and other agreements that facilitate open trade. That problem is solved now by the policies of the US.
sangnoir 6y ago
The EU unsuccessfully tried to save the JCPA (aka "Iran nuclear deal") from US sanctions by creating an alternative financial payment infrastructure based on the Euro & European banks & side-stepping sanctions as enforced by the US Treasury. It totally would have worked, had the US not escalated to sanctioning any entities that dared to utilize this alternative system to deal with Iran. You are right to say the EU needs to get a bigger stick to successfully protect its interests when they diverge from American interests. In the long term - I'm talking decades - American troops will leave Europe, perhaps leaving a skeleton crew managing nuclear deterrence: whether they will be pulled back, or pushed out remains to be seen, but the natural evolution of the EU project will eventually result in a standing European army. What happens on Nov 3 will accelerate or delay this eventuality

akie 6y ago

All this talk about NATO still being an active entity in the protection of Europe is dangerous and hopelessly naïve. As long as Trump is president, I don't think we need to have any illusions as to which side he would chose in a hypothetical armed conflict between the EU and Russia (he would pick no side). EU politicians should wake up and smell the coffee, and invest in an EU army before it's too late. We really (desperately) need strategic independence from the US and other foreign powers. The US in particular has been an unpredictable, unreliable, and untrustworthy partner in the past two decades or so (e.g. Iran deal, Paris climate accords, Iraq war, EU-US trade wars, ...) EDIT: Stop downvoting me and tell me instead where I'm wrong.

DFHippie 6y ago
> As long as Trump is president So until January 21st.
parsimo2010 6y ago
> EU politicians should wake up and smell the coffee, and invest in an EU army before it’s too late They could, but at least in the short term it appears to be cheaper to let the US spend the money on their military and still get the benefits, even factoring some lost trade to China. It would take many $123mm lithography machines to make up for the billions they would need to create a standing army. That trade off will change, but everything hinges on the “before it’s too late” part of your argument, which you can be assured that virtually no democratically elected politician will get right, since they are looking at <10 years by nature of political campaigns.
Shivetya 6y ago
Considering the previous Administration did little more than hashtag diplomacy in regards to Russia's take over Crimea and their conflict with Ukraine I do not understand why the EU hasn't moved on as it is. Trump could have been leveraged as a great excuse to finally do so. However it really comes down to money, the EU is fine with the current situation as long as it doesn't cost more money because no economy is in great shape right now.
User23 6y ago
If the Russians actually wanted to invade Europe they'd stir up some pointless local unrest and then just send a few million Russian refugees to collect welfare in Germany. Why even bother with the tanks?

Shivetya 6y ago

I understand the issues the US has but there are big difference here that you just cannot ignore. To give China preference in trade is to accept all that China is doing and will do. What would it take to say, no. From Hong Kong to treatment Uighurs and their threat towards Taiwan. The world as a whole needs to step back from trade with China as a whole. As for NATO , the EU has long has the technical means to do away with the need but they don't want to pay for it. How much do you value your security? Getting rid of NATO would be the first step in probably forcing the American government rethink its military spending; sadly the percentage of the US budget going there decreases by small percentages overall letting politicians on both sides claim they have reduced spending. Even halving the US defense budget won't solve the US deficit issues.

hajile 6y ago
> sadly the percentage of the US budget going there decreases by small percentages overall letting politicians on both sides claim they have reduced spending. Even halving the US defense budget won't solve the US deficit issues. I think more US citizens should understand this. Even if the ENTIRE military budget were eliminated, the budget wouldn't put the US in the black. In fact, eliminating EVERYTHING except benefits programs still wouldn't balance the budget. Millennial shouldn't forget that social security issues start in 2037 with a reduction to 76% of their current payout and it rapidly declines from there [0]. The only social program likely to work is the one you personally setup around yourself and save for right now. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
- codr7 6y ago
  A friend of mine is buying gold. It's a mystery to me how you can sort of see that it's all going down the drain but still insist on believing that you'll be able to sail through it by careful planning. We're all in the same boat here, and it's sinking fast. It doesn't take much of a disaster for money (and gold) to become completely worthless.
  - burntoutfire 6y ago

buran77 6y ago

> until they can live without the US in all areas. The EU isn't necessarily worried it can't live without the US because the US wouldn't simply answer by withdrawing all support and embargoing the EU. They'd be shooting themselves in the other foot. But they would respond the way all superpowers do when direct, public intervention is not on the table. With subversion. If the NSA leaks have shown anything it's that even allies were thoroughly compromised and one button press away from a series of "unfortunate" events. What's been recently dubbed "asymmetric warfare" has existed for decades. It's simply deniable attacks, economic or actual warfare via proxies, etc. Covertly supporting certain political candidates while subverting others in order to destabilize a country is in any superpower's playbook. This is what the EU fears more than that it will suddenly have to face a Russian invasion without US support. For now it's a deal out of which the US gets far more than the rest. They get to cement their superpower status by having the most important and credible allies, and in exchange offer some protection and the promise of not shooting said allies in the foot... maybe just whack them over the shin once in a while. It's also cheaper to let the US do its military thing and be a bodyguard, and that means the EU can focus on more important social issues. Maybe it's a small price to pay, maybe not. Some future generation will have to answer that.

hajile 6y ago
> It's also cheaper to let the US do its military thing and be a bodyguard, and that means the EU can focus on more important social issues. Maybe it's a small price to pay, maybe not. Some future generation will have to answer that. I guess Europe had better hope America doesn't do what Americans want and pull troops home... The only truth of foreign policy is "might makes right". Ignoring treaties as just pieces of paper isn't new. Hegemony isn't just about power. If you have the might, you make the rules and can twist them to your benefit. In any case, I guess the EU believes an American hegemony beats out one by Russia or China by a large margin.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Europe's military as it is is enough to counterbalance Russia's. The US military presence in Europe is a relic from the cold war.

throwaway4good 6y ago

The US tech war against China acts as a massive subsidy for China's domestic semiconductor companies. I suspect that is why the Chinese response has been so muted.

chrisjc 6y ago
Interesting... Can you elaborate more on this idea?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I'd guess: the societal demand for tech is there, the government wants it to be fulfilled, so there will be ample money available for setting up the necessary infrastructure and training personnel, from both public and private sources.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  An economy independent of foreign supplies has been a goal of communist China since its inception. And an active government program for high-end chip production including foundries has been there for a decade. The problem is: How do you convince a world class chip designer like HiSilicon that it should use a local foundry rather than TSMC? TSMC which is more advanced, more reliable, maybe even cheaper? Without breaking China's commitment to WTO and other agreements that facilitate open trade. That problem is solved now by the policies of the US.

sangnoir 6y ago

The EU unsuccessfully tried to save the JCPA (aka "Iran nuclear deal") from US sanctions by creating an alternative financial payment infrastructure based on the Euro & European banks & side-stepping sanctions as enforced by the US Treasury. It totally would have worked, had the US not escalated to sanctioning any entities that dared to utilize this alternative system to deal with Iran. You are right to say the EU needs to get a bigger stick to successfully protect its interests when they diverge from American interests. In the long term - I'm talking decades - American troops will leave Europe, perhaps leaving a skeleton crew managing nuclear deterrence: whether they will be pulled back, or pushed out remains to be seen, but the natural evolution of the EU project will eventually result in a standing European army. What happens on Nov 3 will accelerate or delay this eventuality