3 ms·

From my perspective we are only at the beginning of a period where Europe doesn't jump for US. Through NATO they follow us along into dubious, pointless, dange

From my perspective we are only at the beginning of a period where Europe doesn't jump for US. Through NATO they follow us along into dubious, pointless, dangerous US conflicts, sparing the US President from asking Congress for authorization, while bearing the brunt of extraterritorial attacks since there arent two gigantic oceans separating them from the conflict. The US uses almost countless Europe located bases for missile shields against Russia and to many hawkish people the cold war is still going on as if it was the 80s still. Europe still depends on Russia for energy so this symbiosis is seen as important. But I think this changes because the UK was the only EU member state vetoing an EU military, and with them gone the EU can arm itself. Dismantling a lot of the need for the US, we can mostly assume it will be to keep out Russia and lessen the burden of NATO but there are a lot of values that differ if we are being honest.

rootusrootus 5y ago
Is the EU going to arm itself with nuclear weapons? France has them, but that's it for EU member nations AFAIK.
- btilly 5y ago
  You are correct. The complete list of countries known to have nuclear weapons worldwide is The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Now that the UK is no longer in the EU, France is it. In fact France is surprisingly militaristic. For example it is the only EU country in the top 10 on https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    To "have" nuclear weapons in your context likely means "controls". Meaning, some of those countries store part of their nuclear weapons in other countries that are not on your list.
    - Fnoord 5y ago
      Correct. My country, The Netherlands, is hosting US nukes (not officially but its a public secret). Officially, we don't have nukes, nor do we host them.
      - fleddr 5y ago
        I know, if I'd throw a stone right now, I might actually hit one.
    - btilly 5y ago
      You are correct, but less correct than you might think. Per https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/11/new_article_where_the_bombs_ar/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/11/new_article_where_the..., about 15 years ago the only country to put its nuclear weapons in other countries was the USA. That said, US nuclear missiles are in many EU countries thanks to NATO.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Remember that France was the first country calling for intervention in Libya, and made a big deal of pushing Clinton and Obama towards intervention. They are also wrapping up their own counterterrorism operation in the Sahel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
- KingOfCoders 5y ago
  France offered nuclear weapons to Germany several times (mostly to share costs), Germany declined. Personally I think as Germans we need nuclear weapons, but the huge majority of Germans are against having them. [Edit] After 1990. Sarkozy: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-thanks-sarko-s-nuke-offer-bombs-with-berlin-a-506124.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-th...
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I did not know this, and frankly it seems to be at odds with my understanding of French politics during that period. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm happy to get other evidence, but can you point me to something? Update: thanks!
freeflight 5y ago
> From my perspective we are only at the beginning of a period where Europe doesn't jump for US. As a European, I tend to agree with that assessment, particularly with countries like Germany. Most of the US military presence might be gone compared to cold war levels, but the pro-US political presence mostly remains the same. Which is actually quite astounding considering we are slowly entering the second decade of when this distancing started [0] and it had plenty of additional contributions since then [1]. [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/2014...
- KingOfCoders 5y ago
  My experience from growing up in the 70s and 80s in Germany: I saw dozens of warplanes every day simulating low level penetrations, I don't see any today. I quite often saw US military in the forrests, US tanks on the streets, haven't seen one in decades. The US was such a topic, that there were many Anti-US demonstrations, there were attacks on US installations - none today. Public political discussion always considered the US, because of the scare of the Soviet Union, which was daily present (how many millions of kids in the 80s in Europe feared nuclear war?). But already in 1990 when I was in the military the attitude had changed a lot.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    To this day you can live in a small Bavarian town, and have the US army keep you awake late into the night with training exercises that involve plenty of shooting, as it's, for example, the case for the people living near Grafenwöhr. To this day it's completely legal for the NSA to operate in Germany and spy on literally anybody [0] Neither do I see the attitude change on a grander political level in Germany. Most of the German political landscape is still plenty happy displaying a double-moral that's would transplant neatly right back into the cold war [1] One of the weirder examples: Persecuting alleged Syrian torturers for crimes against humanity committed in Syria [2]. While crimes against humanity committed by the US, trough German territory, are apparently not in the jurisdiction of German courts [3]. That's not what a "neutral" Germany looks and acts like, that's what a Germany looks and acts like that was for decades groomed to be a US vassal. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-10/nsa-uerberwachung-merkel-interview-foschepoth https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-10/nsa-uerberwa... [1] https://youtu.be/C4RalenYhoY https://youtu.be/C4RalenYhoY [2] https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-hands-down-historic-syrian-torture-verdict/a-56670243 https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-hands-down-historic-syria... [3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...

rootusrootus 5y ago

Is the EU going to arm itself with nuclear weapons? France has them, but that's it for EU member nations AFAIK.

btilly 5y ago
You are correct. The complete list of countries known to have nuclear weapons worldwide is The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Now that the UK is no longer in the EU, France is it. In fact France is surprisingly militaristic. For example it is the only EU country in the top 10 on https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php.
- fleddr 5y ago
  To "have" nuclear weapons in your context likely means "controls". Meaning, some of those countries store part of their nuclear weapons in other countries that are not on your list.
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    Correct. My country, The Netherlands, is hosting US nukes (not officially but its a public secret). Officially, we don't have nukes, nor do we host them.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      I know, if I'd throw a stone right now, I might actually hit one.
  - btilly 5y ago
    You are correct, but less correct than you might think. Per https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/11/new_article_where_the_bombs_ar/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/11/new_article_where_the..., about 15 years ago the only country to put its nuclear weapons in other countries was the USA. That said, US nuclear missiles are in many EU countries thanks to NATO.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Remember that France was the first country calling for intervention in Libya, and made a big deal of pushing Clinton and Obama towards intervention. They are also wrapping up their own counterterrorism operation in the Sahel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
KingOfCoders 5y ago
France offered nuclear weapons to Germany several times (mostly to share costs), Germany declined. Personally I think as Germans we need nuclear weapons, but the huge majority of Germans are against having them. [Edit] After 1990. Sarkozy: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-thanks-sarko-s-nuke-offer-bombs-with-berlin-a-506124.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-th...
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I did not know this, and frankly it seems to be at odds with my understanding of French politics during that period. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm happy to get other evidence, but can you point me to something? Update: thanks!

freeflight 5y ago

> From my perspective we are only at the beginning of a period where Europe doesn't jump for US. As a European, I tend to agree with that assessment, particularly with countries like Germany. Most of the US military presence might be gone compared to cold war levels, but the pro-US political presence mostly remains the same. Which is actually quite astounding considering we are slowly entering the second decade of when this distancing started [0] and it had plenty of additional contributions since then [1]. [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/2014...

KingOfCoders 5y ago
My experience from growing up in the 70s and 80s in Germany: I saw dozens of warplanes every day simulating low level penetrations, I don't see any today. I quite often saw US military in the forrests, US tanks on the streets, haven't seen one in decades. The US was such a topic, that there were many Anti-US demonstrations, there were attacks on US installations - none today. Public political discussion always considered the US, because of the scare of the Soviet Union, which was daily present (how many millions of kids in the 80s in Europe feared nuclear war?). But already in 1990 when I was in the military the attitude had changed a lot.
- freeflight 5y ago
  To this day you can live in a small Bavarian town, and have the US army keep you awake late into the night with training exercises that involve plenty of shooting, as it's, for example, the case for the people living near Grafenwöhr. To this day it's completely legal for the NSA to operate in Germany and spy on literally anybody [0] Neither do I see the attitude change on a grander political level in Germany. Most of the German political landscape is still plenty happy displaying a double-moral that's would transplant neatly right back into the cold war [1] One of the weirder examples: Persecuting alleged Syrian torturers for crimes against humanity committed in Syria [2]. While crimes against humanity committed by the US, trough German territory, are apparently not in the jurisdiction of German courts [3]. That's not what a "neutral" Germany looks and acts like, that's what a Germany looks and acts like that was for decades groomed to be a US vassal. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-10/nsa-uerberwachung-merkel-interview-foschepoth https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-10/nsa-uerberwa... [1] https://youtu.be/C4RalenYhoY https://youtu.be/C4RalenYhoY [2] https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-hands-down-historic-syrian-torture-verdict/a-56670243 https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-hands-down-historic-syria... [3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...