4 ms·

This is not correct. NATO has been the peacekeeping element in Europe. Not the EU, which is a far younger organisation than NATO.

ben_w 5y ago
They do different things. Metaphorically, NATO is a wall-building exercise while the EU is bridge-building. NATO has an external focus, initially keeping Europe safe from the Warsaw Pact. The EU is an economic bloc: while it does have a mutual defence article, that article is explicitly secondary to NATO obligations. More importantly it builds the peace, with the primary threat being economic/political, with loss of access to the decision making process (if they’re a member state) or much softer and less well defined big-fish-ness (for non-member-states) rather than violence.
- scarygliders 5y ago
  The point I was making was in response to the claim that the EU have been responsible for helping keeping the peace in Europe, which is clearly an incorrect claim. In fact technically speaking neither NATO nor the EU have prevented wars happening in /Europe/ over the last 60-odd years. And I mean Europe. The EU is not Europe. You only have to search on wars in Europe in the last 60 years, the list is long.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The comment from @dukeyukey that you replied to says, as a reply to the suggestion we invest in peace rather than adverts: > I'd argue the European Union was an experiment in peace along these lines, to bind a war-torn continent so close together that war becomes unthinkable. I read that as more about bridge-building (and building the peace) than “peace keeping” in the “play nice or we shoot” sense that I get from NATO. > In fact technically speaking neither NATO nor the EU have prevented wars happening in /Europe/ over the last 60-odd years. And I mean Europe. The EU is not Europe. Okay, but why must the perfect be the enemy of the good? The context looks to me like “the EU is an attempt” not “the EU perfectly does this thing”.

ben_w 5y ago

They do different things. Metaphorically, NATO is a wall-building exercise while the EU is bridge-building. NATO has an external focus, initially keeping Europe safe from the Warsaw Pact. The EU is an economic bloc: while it does have a mutual defence article, that article is explicitly secondary to NATO obligations. More importantly it builds the peace, with the primary threat being economic/political, with loss of access to the decision making process (if they’re a member state) or much softer and less well defined big-fish-ness (for non-member-states) rather than violence.

scarygliders 5y ago
The point I was making was in response to the claim that the EU have been responsible for helping keeping the peace in Europe, which is clearly an incorrect claim. In fact technically speaking neither NATO nor the EU have prevented wars happening in /Europe/ over the last 60-odd years. And I mean Europe. The EU is not Europe. You only have to search on wars in Europe in the last 60 years, the list is long.
- ben_w 5y ago
  The comment from @dukeyukey that you replied to says, as a reply to the suggestion we invest in peace rather than adverts: > I'd argue the European Union was an experiment in peace along these lines, to bind a war-torn continent so close together that war becomes unthinkable. I read that as more about bridge-building (and building the peace) than “peace keeping” in the “play nice or we shoot” sense that I get from NATO. > In fact technically speaking neither NATO nor the EU have prevented wars happening in /Europe/ over the last 60-odd years. And I mean Europe. The EU is not Europe. Okay, but why must the perfect be the enemy of the good? The context looks to me like “the EU is an attempt” not “the EU perfectly does this thing”.