12 ms·

>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities. They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmar

>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities. They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Here you have it, it's no secret: Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday. Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom." German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.

jmnicolas 6y ago
> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    Of course you need a strong army to protect your country so that your neighbors don't become hungry for what you have. However I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      > I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality I suggest ignoring "geopolitics", and considering to what extent your input matters even in local political matters. If you find that such impact is minimal locally, then from a political consideration, it is a waste of your time to spend energy on "Russian threat" or any other geopolitical narrative (many dating to 19th century.) You should focus on your local issues. Geopolitical policy is opaque to uninitiated and uninformed. It is not clear to me why the elite make a show of discussing geopolitics for the public at large. Join CFR in a meaningful capacity and you may get a whif of what actually are the dynamics and issues that drive international relations.
      - jmnicolas 6y ago
        Geopolitics matter even for simple people like me: first it's always better to not live in the matrix of lies of someone else and secondly it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen.
        eternalban 6y ago
        > it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen. This is hopelessly naive, imho. The information asymmetry is off the charts, and a rational "analyst/reader" (the role you want to play) of geopolitics should be aware of this fact, and its implications. You simply have no idea what is really going on. You don't have the data and it is naive to assume what is printed in a handful of outlets by an equally limited number of promoted authors are the "geopolitical facts". So, yes geopolitics certainly "matter" but that was not the point.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  They have literally been caught financing Brexit and every major alt-right, antidemocratic, Europe-skeptic party there is - Germany's AfD, France's FN, Italy's Salvini bunch. Russia is a threat to democracy and an enemy of Europe, directly competing with China.
  - morsch 6y ago
    Well yeah, but the thread so far was referring to military threats.
    - drran 6y ago
      If Russian Federation can be beaten by west military, then it's stupid to threat western countries in any way. They can bluff West for a few years, but then what?
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      Russia can't compete with any Western country in open warfare. Cyber warfare and nation destabilizing by propaganda campaigns however? That is way cheaper, and the Russians have quite a history of such actions with the KGB. The side benefit is that, in contrast to a Russian airplane dumping Russian bombs on a city, the Russian government can easily deny that they are responsible for a group of hackers or an oligarch's "donation" to a far right party.
  - SilentBan 6y ago
    The Russian brigade is doing great job downvoting you. This is another proof that you are right.
- zaphirplane 6y ago
  I thought it was about getting land locked not so much having a NATO country on it border
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Warm water port + not wanting a NATO country within driving distance of Moscow. Same reason why Russia is heavily invested in maintaining its hegemony over Belarus.
- ignasl 6y ago
  They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. Country leader shouldn't just look in the last 2 years - he needs to prepare country for the next 50 years.
  - iguy 6y ago
    I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).
- oblio 6y ago
  Geopolitics are an interesting thing. It's also interesting how 2 regimes with totally different ideologies ended having similar borders (Imperial Russia and the USSR). > Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe Those poor schmucks not in Western Europe can just be thrown under the bus like the last 2 times, right? :-)
toyg 6y ago
Denmark is somewhat more reliant on the US than the average European country because of Greenland. Eastern countries like Poland are similarly beholden to NATO because Russia is an immediate threat for them. Everyone else is basically just lazy: relying on the Americans saves us a lot of money and effort that European public opinion is unwilling to spend. This allows e.g. France to play “Africa’s cop” to prop up their own economy and influence. This laziness will probably bite us in the ass at some point. Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World. You cannot build a superpower-sized army in a few months, and direct threats are only increasing (as well as Russia we now have Turkey, Lybia, Egypt, Algeria, Serbia - they could all go rogue at short notice and literally start firing shots at the continent).
- avar 6y ago
  > Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World[...] It was Obama who started pushing for the 2% policy and got NATO countries to agree to ramp spending up to that before 2024[1]. Before that there's been decades of the US trying to push Europe to take defense spending more seriously. Trump's had more juvenile rhetoric on the issue, but he fundamentally wasn't saying anything to NATO or enacting any policies that Obama pursuing before him. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/europe-begins-to-rethink-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/europe-begin...
  - toyg 6y ago
    Yeah but with Obama and his predecessors it was just about money, everyone knew the score. This could be bargained at diplomatic level with other stuff. Trump looked willing and able to actually do the unthinkable and redeploy away, irrespective of strategic considerations, and his closeness with Putin and Erdogan was unsettling. Biden will likely mark a return to the old haggling, but in 4 years' time the US might get another strongman and we'd be at risk again. Democracy will always need an arsenal, and it's not a given anymore that the US really want to be that arsenal.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
goatinaboat 6y ago
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. It will never happen. There has been - on paper - a Franco-German brigade for decades, it’s never deployed anywhere. Meanwhile supposed arch-rivals UK and France have been doing joint operations all over the place and this is only set to increase. Besides it was all triggered by Trump saying some NATO countries were failing to meet their commitments, and no one knows what Biden thinks about it
cturner 6y ago
I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of muscular military engagement, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDP on military. Due to its regular shadow operations in other countries, Russia has a ready supply of veteran soldiers who could be drawn on in a hostile engagement. European nations could have used the ‘NATO’ Afghanistan invasion as an opportunity to develop a similar pool, but made only token efforts. Germany is even worse than Denmark. It is laughable for Merkel to make these comments. She has been in power for fifteen years. All through that time, Germany has been amongst the worst NATO members against it’s treaty obligations. Beyond the realities of military capability, there are the political problems. The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Structurally, they are in a weaker position to coordinate a war even than the US was in its articles of confederation era.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR. It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.
  - lumberjack 6y ago
    Americans won't know this history. They also don't know that weak countries prefer to remain neutral rather than join NATO. Joining NATO also makes you a target. US tried hard to get everyone to join, including a fair bit of meddling in nation politics. Despite this neither Finland nor Sweden are in NATO.
coldtea 6y ago
>They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone (and in no great shape to be a threat, even if they wanted), except immediate neighbors they have disputes with for centuries, and which, more often than not, are themselves armed and weaponized by NATO as proxies against it.
- elevenoh 6y ago
  "Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone" Haven't we entered an age where 'non-eyeToEye-threats' can do enormous damage, even if by error (e.g. nuclear bombing the US)?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    No, we're still in the age when a certain superpower messes up the whole world, supports fundamentalists and jihadis, destabilizes regions, invades countries, and then cries about the terrorism threat...
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Agreed. France alone probably has sufficient military power to balance Russia. European countries can stand up to what is obviously unacceptable (industrial espionage conducted by US military intelligence). But Denmark in the later years have chosen not to.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    France alone probably has sufficient military power to balance Russia. It depends on the theatre. At sea, probably, in a nuclear exchange France has sufficient deterrent capability. But in a land war, tank on tank the way God meant it to be, France’s 200 tanks are no match for Russia’s thousands. Remember purchasing power parity. Russia may be poorer than France, but it’s stuff costs a lot less too.
_RPL5_ 6y ago
Your argument is that EU countries will not stand up to the US, because they are afraid of losing American protection. However, in case of Germany you linked evidence that goes directly against your argument: >German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. Given the context of the thread, this quote reads like the Germans want to build their own army to spite the US. For example, because the US spied on them. --- As far as Denmark goes, their feelings regarding the US are probably genuine, but I very much doubt that the Danes see Russia as an existential threat. The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. If you read between the lines you find that the main security benefit of US/NATO is keeping Europeans from fighting each other rather than defending them from some external threat. I that sense, I completely agree that US and NATO are the cornerstone of European security. And that's why industrial espionage against them is a bad idea. It makes European countries suspicious of the US and suspicious of each other. The resulting fragmentation leads to insecurity and then we are back to 1939 eyeing each other as our next meal.
- avar 6y ago
  How is the argument that EU countries won't stand up to the US refuted by the desire of some politicians in the EU to create an EU army. As long as that army doesn't exist those EU countries still rely heavily on the US for security, and therefore the dynamic the GP is proposing might exist today.
- jopsen 6y ago
  > The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. Technically, Russia did occupy the Danish Island of Bornholm following the German occupation. The gave it up in 1946, but still it spent almost a year under soviet occupation. On topic, I think we just like Americans and buying planes from the US was more or less a forgone conclusion :) Besides nobody has ever been fired for buying the most advanced plane from the US -- hopefully we only need them because they are cool, hehe, so what does it matter if they can fly?
  - _RPL5_ 6y ago
martinlaz 6y ago
>> German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. Source? She said that two years ago [1] but on Tuesday her defense minister sounded much less enthusiastic about it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/merkel-joins-macron-in-calling-for-a-real-true-european-army https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/merkel-joins-m... [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eus-dependence-on-us-is-sobering-facts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eu...
lowdose 6y ago
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. African population is going to quadruple by 2100.

jmnicolas 6y ago

> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.

roenxi 6y ago
If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  Of course you need a strong army to protect your country so that your neighbors don't become hungry for what you have. However I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    > I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality I suggest ignoring "geopolitics", and considering to what extent your input matters even in local political matters. If you find that such impact is minimal locally, then from a political consideration, it is a waste of your time to spend energy on "Russian threat" or any other geopolitical narrative (many dating to 19th century.) You should focus on your local issues. Geopolitical policy is opaque to uninitiated and uninformed. It is not clear to me why the elite make a show of discussing geopolitics for the public at large. Join CFR in a meaningful capacity and you may get a whif of what actually are the dynamics and issues that drive international relations.
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      Geopolitics matter even for simple people like me: first it's always better to not live in the matrix of lies of someone else and secondly it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen.
      - eternalban 6y ago
        > it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen. This is hopelessly naive, imho. The information asymmetry is off the charts, and a rational "analyst/reader" (the role you want to play) of geopolitics should be aware of this fact, and its implications. You simply have no idea what is really going on. You don't have the data and it is naive to assume what is printed in a handful of outlets by an equally limited number of promoted authors are the "geopolitical facts". So, yes geopolitics certainly "matter" but that was not the point.
mschuster91 6y ago
They have literally been caught financing Brexit and every major alt-right, antidemocratic, Europe-skeptic party there is - Germany's AfD, France's FN, Italy's Salvini bunch. Russia is a threat to democracy and an enemy of Europe, directly competing with China.
- morsch 6y ago
  Well yeah, but the thread so far was referring to military threats.
  - drran 6y ago
    If Russian Federation can be beaten by west military, then it's stupid to threat western countries in any way. They can bluff West for a few years, but then what?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Russia can't compete with any Western country in open warfare. Cyber warfare and nation destabilizing by propaganda campaigns however? That is way cheaper, and the Russians have quite a history of such actions with the KGB. The side benefit is that, in contrast to a Russian airplane dumping Russian bombs on a city, the Russian government can easily deny that they are responsible for a group of hackers or an oligarch's "donation" to a far right party.
- SilentBan 6y ago
  The Russian brigade is doing great job downvoting you. This is another proof that you are right.
zaphirplane 6y ago
I thought it was about getting land locked not so much having a NATO country on it border
- fakedang 6y ago
  Warm water port + not wanting a NATO country within driving distance of Moscow. Same reason why Russia is heavily invested in maintaining its hegemony over Belarus.
ignasl 6y ago
They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. Country leader shouldn't just look in the last 2 years - he needs to prepare country for the next 50 years.
- iguy 6y ago
  I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- elmo2you 6y ago
  In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).
oblio 6y ago
Geopolitics are an interesting thing. It's also interesting how 2 regimes with totally different ideologies ended having similar borders (Imperial Russia and the USSR). > Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe Those poor schmucks not in Western Europe can just be thrown under the bus like the last 2 times, right? :-)

toyg 6y ago

Denmark is somewhat more reliant on the US than the average European country because of Greenland. Eastern countries like Poland are similarly beholden to NATO because Russia is an immediate threat for them. Everyone else is basically just lazy: relying on the Americans saves us a lot of money and effort that European public opinion is unwilling to spend. This allows e.g. France to play “Africa’s cop” to prop up their own economy and influence. This laziness will probably bite us in the ass at some point. Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World. You cannot build a superpower-sized army in a few months, and direct threats are only increasing (as well as Russia we now have Turkey, Lybia, Egypt, Algeria, Serbia - they could all go rogue at short notice and literally start firing shots at the continent).

avar 6y ago
> Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World[...] It was Obama who started pushing for the 2% policy and got NATO countries to agree to ramp spending up to that before 2024[1]. Before that there's been decades of the US trying to push Europe to take defense spending more seriously. Trump's had more juvenile rhetoric on the issue, but he fundamentally wasn't saying anything to NATO or enacting any policies that Obama pursuing before him. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/europe-begins-to-rethink-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/europe-begin...
- toyg 6y ago
  Yeah but with Obama and his predecessors it was just about money, everyone knew the score. This could be bargained at diplomatic level with other stuff. Trump looked willing and able to actually do the unthinkable and redeploy away, irrespective of strategic considerations, and his closeness with Putin and Erdogan was unsettling. Biden will likely mark a return to the old haggling, but in 4 years' time the US might get another strongman and we'd be at risk again. Democracy will always need an arsenal, and it's not a given anymore that the US really want to be that arsenal.
saiya-jin 6y ago

goatinaboat 6y ago

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. It will never happen. There has been - on paper - a Franco-German brigade for decades, it’s never deployed anywhere. Meanwhile supposed arch-rivals UK and France have been doing joint operations all over the place and this is only set to increase. Besides it was all triggered by Trump saying some NATO countries were failing to meet their commitments, and no one knows what Biden thinks about it

cturner 6y ago

I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of muscular military engagement, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDP on military. Due to its regular shadow operations in other countries, Russia has a ready supply of veteran soldiers who could be drawn on in a hostile engagement. European nations could have used the ‘NATO’ Afghanistan invasion as an opportunity to develop a similar pool, but made only token efforts. Germany is even worse than Denmark. It is laughable for Merkel to make these comments. She has been in power for fifteen years. All through that time, Germany has been amongst the worst NATO members against it’s treaty obligations. Beyond the realities of military capability, there are the political problems. The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Structurally, they are in a weaker position to coordinate a war even than the US was in its articles of confederation era.

coldtea 6y ago
>The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR. It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.
- lumberjack 6y ago
  Americans won't know this history. They also don't know that weak countries prefer to remain neutral rather than join NATO. Joining NATO also makes you a target. US tried hard to get everyone to join, including a fair bit of meddling in nation politics. Despite this neither Finland nor Sweden are in NATO.

coldtea 6y ago

>They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone (and in no great shape to be a threat, even if they wanted), except immediate neighbors they have disputes with for centuries, and which, more often than not, are themselves armed and weaponized by NATO as proxies against it.

elevenoh 6y ago
"Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone" Haven't we entered an age where 'non-eyeToEye-threats' can do enormous damage, even if by error (e.g. nuclear bombing the US)?
- coldtea 6y ago
  No, we're still in the age when a certain superpower messes up the whole world, supports fundamentalists and jihadis, destabilizes regions, invades countries, and then cries about the terrorism threat...
throwaway4good 6y ago
Agreed. France alone probably has sufficient military power to balance Russia. European countries can stand up to what is obviously unacceptable (industrial espionage conducted by US military intelligence). But Denmark in the later years have chosen not to.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  France alone probably has sufficient military power to balance Russia. It depends on the theatre. At sea, probably, in a nuclear exchange France has sufficient deterrent capability. But in a land war, tank on tank the way God meant it to be, France’s 200 tanks are no match for Russia’s thousands. Remember purchasing power parity. Russia may be poorer than France, but it’s stuff costs a lot less too.

_RPL5_ 6y ago

Your argument is that EU countries will not stand up to the US, because they are afraid of losing American protection. However, in case of Germany you linked evidence that goes directly against your argument: >German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. Given the context of the thread, this quote reads like the Germans want to build their own army to spite the US. For example, because the US spied on them. --- As far as Denmark goes, their feelings regarding the US are probably genuine, but I very much doubt that the Danes see Russia as an existential threat. The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. If you read between the lines you find that the main security benefit of US/NATO is keeping Europeans from fighting each other rather than defending them from some external threat. I that sense, I completely agree that US and NATO are the cornerstone of European security. And that's why industrial espionage against them is a bad idea. It makes European countries suspicious of the US and suspicious of each other. The resulting fragmentation leads to insecurity and then we are back to 1939 eyeing each other as our next meal.

avar 6y ago
How is the argument that EU countries won't stand up to the US refuted by the desire of some politicians in the EU to create an EU army. As long as that army doesn't exist those EU countries still rely heavily on the US for security, and therefore the dynamic the GP is proposing might exist today.
jopsen 6y ago
> The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. Technically, Russia did occupy the Danish Island of Bornholm following the German occupation. The gave it up in 1946, but still it spent almost a year under soviet occupation. On topic, I think we just like Americans and buying planes from the US was more or less a forgone conclusion :) Besides nobody has ever been fired for buying the most advanced plane from the US -- hopefully we only need them because they are cool, hehe, so what does it matter if they can fly?
- _RPL5_ 6y ago

martinlaz 6y ago

>> German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. Source? She said that two years ago [1] but on Tuesday her defense minister sounded much less enthusiastic about it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/merkel-joins-macron-in-calling-for-a-real-true-european-army https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/merkel-joins-m... [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eus-dependence-on-us-is-sobering-facts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eu...

lowdose 6y ago

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security. African population is going to quadruple by 2100.