4 ms·

> 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 withd

> 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.
  - hajile 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence to go along with that claim? I'd guess if the US could spare people and equipment, it would be moving much closer to China at the moment.
    - bee_rider 6y ago
      The EU has a combined GDP more than 10x that of Russia. Russia has some advantages -- having one of the world's biggest nuclear stockpiles means that they basically get to pick their conflicts, and being an arms exporter means their military R&D is in some sense subsidized by other countries, but still, that's a pretty big deficit to make up. And they have notably not picked any conflicts that the EU would find existential. They are just set up differently. The EU doesn't have a central military, so they can't do foreign adventures very well, and as a result they don't invade places very often. But this could be seen as a good thing...
  - rconti 6y ago
    My knee-jerk impression is that the European countries don't have the will to deploy their military in a show of force, which is different from saying they wouldn't technically be able to defend their borders from actual force rather than creeping intimidation. On the other hand, the US actually LIKES the show of force, and sees it as a strategic strength, to the extent that they're overjoyed to have an ally to protect as an 'excuse' to flex muscle in the region.
- simonh 6y ago
  The only reasons Europeans care about the US military presence in Europe are (1) the economic benefits and (2) the signalling of solidarity against Russia. Actually countering Russian military capacity really isn't an issue any more, and Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent. Russia is a threat, but in the annoying neighbours who keeps holding loud parties, deal drugs and litter the streets and who's dog keeps crapping on your lawn kind of way. You don't want to do anything to encourage them, but actually your uncle is in the police and you have two cousins in the Army, and if the neighbours tried anything really serious, reality would assert itself pretty fast, and not in their favour. The US is keeping it's military presence in Europe to serve US strategic interests, yes versus Russia but also with respect to the Middle East. US operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are heavily supported from bases in Europe. Pulling out those bases would cripple US ability to support those operations and project power across large swathes of Euraisa and Africa.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    > Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent But would they be willing to sacrifice their countries in a nuclear exchange on behalf of Germany? Also, Britain and France have far fewer nukes than Russia and the US. In addition, they don't have the massive land area to make a first strike implausible.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Actually countering Russian military capacity really isn't an issue any more, and Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent Yes, NATO is probably safe from a preemptive nuclear strike from Russia, thanks to mutually assured destruction. Which... okay, yes. It's distinctly better than not being safe from a preemptive Russian nuclear strike. However, this is merely necessary; not sufficient. Have you considered the vast number of non-nuclear aggressions that Russia might undertake, and in fact has already undertaken? Crimea was safe from Russian nuclear attack too. Ask them how it went. Are France and the UK's nuclear arsenal going to help if Russia makes more Crimea-style land grabs? Shuts down shipping lanes? Cuts pipelines or internet access? Shoots down geostationary satellites over Europe? Assassinates the leader of a NATO nation? Granted, there's no guarantee that the United States would help you then, either. We have not been the most reliable partner, and I am deeply sorry for that. I do not support the leaders who have made things this way. I want us to be a better partner. Regardless, surely you understand that there is a great need for conventional military deterrence by NATO? Nukes solve an extremely limited list of potential problems.

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.
- hajile 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence to go along with that claim? I'd guess if the US could spare people and equipment, it would be moving much closer to China at the moment.
  - bee_rider 6y ago
    The EU has a combined GDP more than 10x that of Russia. Russia has some advantages -- having one of the world's biggest nuclear stockpiles means that they basically get to pick their conflicts, and being an arms exporter means their military R&D is in some sense subsidized by other countries, but still, that's a pretty big deficit to make up. And they have notably not picked any conflicts that the EU would find existential. They are just set up differently. The EU doesn't have a central military, so they can't do foreign adventures very well, and as a result they don't invade places very often. But this could be seen as a good thing...
- rconti 6y ago
  My knee-jerk impression is that the European countries don't have the will to deploy their military in a show of force, which is different from saying they wouldn't technically be able to defend their borders from actual force rather than creeping intimidation. On the other hand, the US actually LIKES the show of force, and sees it as a strategic strength, to the extent that they're overjoyed to have an ally to protect as an 'excuse' to flex muscle in the region.
simonh 6y ago
The only reasons Europeans care about the US military presence in Europe are (1) the economic benefits and (2) the signalling of solidarity against Russia. Actually countering Russian military capacity really isn't an issue any more, and Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent. Russia is a threat, but in the annoying neighbours who keeps holding loud parties, deal drugs and litter the streets and who's dog keeps crapping on your lawn kind of way. You don't want to do anything to encourage them, but actually your uncle is in the police and you have two cousins in the Army, and if the neighbours tried anything really serious, reality would assert itself pretty fast, and not in their favour. The US is keeping it's military presence in Europe to serve US strategic interests, yes versus Russia but also with respect to the Middle East. US operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are heavily supported from bases in Europe. Pulling out those bases would cripple US ability to support those operations and project power across large swathes of Euraisa and Africa.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent But would they be willing to sacrifice their countries in a nuclear exchange on behalf of Germany? Also, Britain and France have far fewer nukes than Russia and the US. In addition, they don't have the massive land area to make a first strike implausible.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Actually countering Russian military capacity really isn't an issue any more, and Britain and France have enough nukes to act as a deterrent Yes, NATO is probably safe from a preemptive nuclear strike from Russia, thanks to mutually assured destruction. Which... okay, yes. It's distinctly better than not being safe from a preemptive Russian nuclear strike. However, this is merely necessary; not sufficient. Have you considered the vast number of non-nuclear aggressions that Russia might undertake, and in fact has already undertaken? Crimea was safe from Russian nuclear attack too. Ask them how it went. Are France and the UK's nuclear arsenal going to help if Russia makes more Crimea-style land grabs? Shuts down shipping lanes? Cuts pipelines or internet access? Shoots down geostationary satellites over Europe? Assassinates the leader of a NATO nation? Granted, there's no guarantee that the United States would help you then, either. We have not been the most reliable partner, and I am deeply sorry for that. I do not support the leaders who have made things this way. I want us to be a better partner. Regardless, surely you understand that there is a great need for conventional military deterrence by NATO? Nukes solve an extremely limited list of potential problems.