11 ms·

Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? It’s been 70 years since the end of World War 2, 30 years since the end of the Cold War. Let the wealthy democr

Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? It’s been 70 years since the end of World War 2, 30 years since the end of the Cold War. Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense. They can easily afford it. France and the UK have credible nuclear deterrents. Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. Send the young Germans; maybe they’ll stop looking down their noses at countries with functioning armies.

odiroot 5y ago
Let's say some of us trust US more in that regard. Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.
wwtrv 5y ago
Germans (or at least their politicians) would be happy to sell most of Eastern Europe to Russia one way or another. France doesn’t care that much. UK does, but their conventional military capacity is limited and them leaving the EU also complicated things (UK was the primary advocate of expanding EU into Eastern Europe.
sccxy 5y ago
German and French politicians have sold their soul to Gazprom. Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Germany and France are the NATO. Without us the alliance does not make sense and should not exist.
- egeozcan 5y ago
  > sold their soul to Gazprom Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    Gerhard Schröder (Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005) is chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft, the largest energy Russian company. François Fillon (Prime Minister of France from 2007 to 2012) is a board member of SIBUR, the largest petrochemical Russian company.
    - tpm 5y ago
      And Matthias Warnig, CEO of Nordstream, was an Stasi officer (that's an undisputed fact) and allegedly recruited by Putin himself to work for the Soviets/Russians.
      - caskstrength 5y ago
        Really makes me curious where will Angela Merkel end up.
        odiroot 5y ago
        Probably at her mountain "villa", gardening.
- nivenkos 5y ago
  "Sold their soul" - have you seen European energy prices? Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial. US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again. It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
  - sccxy 5y ago
    I'm in Eastern European Nato country. If you make your energy 100% dependant on Russian dictatator then you deserve those high energy prices. For you it is high energy prices, but for Ukraine it is life or death.
    - medo-bear 5y ago
      I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries. Mind you, they want to go to war but they DEMAND that other NATO countries help them. US and UK, on the other hand, also have obvious economic interests in screwing up Russia and will not hesitate to sacrifice Western Europe's well-being to drive their interests. Also US has been behaving more and more in an Anglo-centric (as opposed to NATO-centric) way, which also raises concerns
      - xdennis 5y ago
        People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine. If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".
        ivan_gammel 5y ago
        You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics. Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.
- jopsen 5y ago
  I can't help think that it's a bit unfortunate that the US would be selling LNG, if sanctions result in the EU not buying Russian gas. > Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat. I think that's a big stretch.
kesor 5y ago
France and the UK don't have an economic and political problem like the US has at the moment. Which is why they have no reason to "change the narrative" by distracting the public with useless wars. There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  France and the UK aren't in political crisis? Did we forget about Brexit and COVID so quickly? Same deal with yellow vests in France.
- octopoc 5y ago
  1. Starting a war with Russia is not the goal here. Deterring Russia is the goal. 2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. 3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deepsun 5y ago
    > could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try And they do try (and succeed) all the time: Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, South Osetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria.
- jeswin 5y ago
  > There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever. Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
vegai_ 5y ago
>Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Ukraine is not part of NATO amd no NATO country is under attack or has asked for assistance, quite the opposite actually. EU countries won't even be pulling their diplomats from Ukraine as talls continue.
  - tpm 5y ago
    Certainly war in a neighboring country is a cause for concern for NATO members. There aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks: the Russians are threatening full invasion of Ukraine and other countries are reacting. That's it really.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      There's no war in any neighboring countries that hasn't been there since 2014 so that doesn't explain or excuse anything. > here aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks Says you. The EU, who are a a part of said talks (unlike you), disagrees at this point.
      - crispypotatoes 5y ago
        [dead]
      - tpm 5y ago
        In what talks with whom is the EU engaging reagarding current buildup of Russian forces near Ukrainian borders (not only in Russia, but also in Belarus)?
        guerrilla 5y ago
        > “I don’t think we had to dramatise as far as the negotiations are going on — and they are going on.” As far as everything I've seen indicates, they're speaking continuously.[1] [1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-not-following-us-diplomat-families-withdrawals-from-ukraine/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-...
raverbashing 5y ago
> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Because of a thing called NATO, look it up > Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense. They do and they're free to associate with defensive purposes, as opposed to what Russia wants them to think. > Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. And Young Russians that joined the army have no business invading Ukraine
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- egeozcan 5y ago
  > Because of a thing called NATO, look it up To be fair, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries, and further east, Turkey is on the edge of leaving. This region is like a 7-D chess game.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    > Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries Only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova aren't part of NATO.
- azangru 5y ago
  > Because of a thing called NATO, look it up That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    I'm sure that marine and airspace incursions by russian craft are just happy accidents... I'm sure Putin's veiled (or explicit) threats against NATO countries (and Google has plenty of these) are just him being humorous Also the cyberattacks (some by Russian gov. APTs, some by entites tolerated by the gov) are just inoccent as well. Not to forget the Internet Research Agency.
m000 5y ago
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?
- voisin 5y ago
  Who paid for the reconstruction? Was this just the US gov’t paying US contractors?
newaccount2021 5y ago
melomal 5y ago
Because America has never missed a war. It's too profitable.
thomond 5y ago
> Send the young Germans And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?
flexie 5y ago
Young Europeans died in the US war in Afghanistan. So far, the only country to ever invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty is the US - on September 12, 2001. Adjusted for size of population, as many Danes as Americans died in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan... So, Europeans should come when the US calls, but not the other way around?
- snowgrove 5y ago
  You’re assuming that I or most Americans agree that the war in Afghanistan was worthwhile. Probably true at first, certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved. In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be. In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-c... >To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target. >The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%. >According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved." Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.
dan-0 5y ago
> Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.
- snowgrove 5y ago
  You’re right, they also enlist for free college and the signing bonus. My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    I never thought of universal healthcare as a security risk... (Sorry, bad joke) But historically NATO has been a pretty good deterrent against war. Should we stop that? As for the troops from various NATO rotating through eastern NATO countries: I really hope nothing bad happens, and they experience some new culture.
xdennis 5y ago
Why should the USA send troops to Europe? I'll remind you that article 5 of NATO was only invoked once: when you called for help to invade one of the poorest nations on earth: Afghanistan. Could the wealthy American democracy not defend itself?
- snowgrove 5y ago
  No NATO country has been invaded or attacked and Article 5 has not been invoked.
  - jagrsw 5y ago
    On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.
gls2ro 5y ago
Well, I really am not an expert in geopolitics, nor military strategies. But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders: 1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU. 2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this. 3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.
- jopsen 5y ago
  Yeah, compared to a war it's a lot cheaper for NATO to do some posturing.
caeril 5y ago
The idea of countries going to war over rational self-interest or actual tangible threats is an outdated notion. We pick our enemies along ideological and secular-religionist lines, and the continued existence (and god forbid, even flourishing) of polities that conduct their way of life differently from our own cannot stand. Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished. Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing. Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof. Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them. Such as it is, such as it has always been.
tzs 5y ago
> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence? I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away. One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.
- Redoubts 5y ago
  Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.
  - dismantlethesun 5y ago
    Western Europe is also less unified since it’s about 10+ counties instead of just 1.
    - Redoubts 5y ago
      Sounds like their problem.
  - petre 5y ago
    The Germans are blocking Estonia from exporting Soviet age howitzers to Ukraine. So until this nonsense stops, I wouldn't say we have the same interests. They can probably remember the GDR. If it were for Western Europe they'd leave us to our own fates, after they invested piles of EU funds into Eastern EU states. Fortunately the US always steps in before it's too late. Once an European security analyst one said that Russia and China are playing chess with the US and the EU, while the EU is playing backgammon.
    - 5y ago
2-718-281-828 5y ago
your assessment would make sense if we had any reason that US is considering that for humanitarian or altruistic reasons. rest assured - the only reason ever for any country (especially US) sending troops anywhere is for own benefit.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Is there oil in Ukraine we do not know about?
  - jopsen 5y ago
    If we wanted play the paranoid game of how this is all about oil, then one would argue the US wants sanctions against Russia. In particular closing NordStream2, so the US can sell LNG to Europe. In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
- jopsen 5y ago
  A war in Europe would also hurt the American economy. Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe. Yes, the US stands to benefit.
enigma20 5y ago
Why does/did US try to influence Nord Stream 2? Because that's what they always do. Pretend that they are friends doing things in others favour, but actually trying to affect things for their own interest, isn't it? But to have an influence, you have to show sometimes that you care, event if you actually don't.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Nord Stream is one of few sanctions that could actually bite. If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions. It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc. These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.
tomjen3 5y ago
If you are to rely on the Germans to protect Ukraine you are giving it to the Russians.
joeman1000 5y ago
Ukraine can’t afford anything you arrogant fool. It’s sandwiched between two superpowers who are both hostile. If the USA has set itself up as the world democracy squad in the last hundred years, it should honour that bloody title.
- snowgrove 5y ago
  I don’t see how not wanting my friends and family to die in someone else’s far-away ethnic conflict makes me an “arrogant fool.” Were you also a fan of the democracy squad’s 2003 Iraq invasion? South Vietnam couldn’t “afford anything” either, and Ukraine’s democracy is at least as corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
- twelve40 5y ago
  If the USA cared at all about "democracy" in Ukraine, it would at least try to clean up that toxic dump that is run by Kolomoyskii, Poroshenko, Akhmetov and the same greedy oligarchs and thieves for many decades now, no matter who the front clown is. But it seems like the local democracy is not really a concern as long as Ukraine can be used for other purposes.
jopsen 5y ago
I think the idea is the same as why many European countries went into Afghanistan: To demonstrate a commitment to NATO. Norway did actually achieve one of their goals in Afghanistan: > ...the domestic goal of the mission, to prove Norway a trustworthy US and NATO ally, was fully achieved. Sure, we can question the wisdom of going into Afghanistan. But that was kind of irrelevant to Norway given their domestic goal. In any case, it seems pretty clear these troops would (if mobilized) be stationed in NATO countries -- not Ukraine! Also note that many NATO besides the US has troops rotating through NATOs eastern members States.
rambojazz 5y ago
You make it sound like a cost, maybe it's just business?

odiroot 5y ago

Let's say some of us trust US more in that regard. Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.

wwtrv 5y ago

Germans (or at least their politicians) would be happy to sell most of Eastern Europe to Russia one way or another. France doesn’t care that much. UK does, but their conventional military capacity is limited and them leaving the EU also complicated things (UK was the primary advocate of expanding EU into Eastern Europe.

sccxy 5y ago

German and French politicians have sold their soul to Gazprom. Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
Germany and France are the NATO. Without us the alliance does not make sense and should not exist.
egeozcan 5y ago
> sold their soul to Gazprom Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Gerhard Schröder (Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005) is chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft, the largest energy Russian company. François Fillon (Prime Minister of France from 2007 to 2012) is a board member of SIBUR, the largest petrochemical Russian company.
  - tpm 5y ago
    And Matthias Warnig, CEO of Nordstream, was an Stasi officer (that's an undisputed fact) and allegedly recruited by Putin himself to work for the Soviets/Russians.
    - caskstrength 5y ago
      Really makes me curious where will Angela Merkel end up.
      - odiroot 5y ago
        Probably at her mountain "villa", gardening.
nivenkos 5y ago
"Sold their soul" - have you seen European energy prices? Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial. US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again. It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
- sccxy 5y ago
  I'm in Eastern European Nato country. If you make your energy 100% dependant on Russian dictatator then you deserve those high energy prices. For you it is high energy prices, but for Ukraine it is life or death.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries. Mind you, they want to go to war but they DEMAND that other NATO countries help them. US and UK, on the other hand, also have obvious economic interests in screwing up Russia and will not hesitate to sacrifice Western Europe's well-being to drive their interests. Also US has been behaving more and more in an Anglo-centric (as opposed to NATO-centric) way, which also raises concerns
    - xdennis 5y ago
      People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine. If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".
      - ivan_gammel 5y ago
        You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics. Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.
jopsen 5y ago
I can't help think that it's a bit unfortunate that the US would be selling LNG, if sanctions result in the EU not buying Russian gas. > Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat. I think that's a big stretch.

kesor 5y ago

France and the UK don't have an economic and political problem like the US has at the moment. Which is why they have no reason to "change the narrative" by distracting the public with useless wars. There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.

iamstupidsimple 5y ago
France and the UK aren't in political crisis? Did we forget about Brexit and COVID so quickly? Same deal with yellow vests in France.
octopoc 5y ago
1. Starting a war with Russia is not the goal here. Deterring Russia is the goal. 2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. 3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deepsun 5y ago
  > could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try And they do try (and succeed) all the time: Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, South Osetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria.
jeswin 5y ago
> There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever. Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.

vegai_ 5y ago

>Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.

guerrilla 5y ago
Ukraine is not part of NATO amd no NATO country is under attack or has asked for assistance, quite the opposite actually. EU countries won't even be pulling their diplomats from Ukraine as talls continue.
- tpm 5y ago
  Certainly war in a neighboring country is a cause for concern for NATO members. There aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks: the Russians are threatening full invasion of Ukraine and other countries are reacting. That's it really.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    There's no war in any neighboring countries that hasn't been there since 2014 so that doesn't explain or excuse anything. > here aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks Says you. The EU, who are a a part of said talks (unlike you), disagrees at this point.
    - crispypotatoes 5y ago
      [dead]
    - tpm 5y ago
      In what talks with whom is the EU engaging reagarding current buildup of Russian forces near Ukrainian borders (not only in Russia, but also in Belarus)?
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        > “I don’t think we had to dramatise as far as the negotiations are going on — and they are going on.” As far as everything I've seen indicates, they're speaking continuously.[1] [1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-not-following-us-diplomat-families-withdrawals-from-ukraine/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-...

raverbashing 5y ago

> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Because of a thing called NATO, look it up > Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense. They do and they're free to associate with defensive purposes, as opposed to what Russia wants them to think. > Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. And Young Russians that joined the army have no business invading Ukraine

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
egeozcan 5y ago
> Because of a thing called NATO, look it up To be fair, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries, and further east, Turkey is on the edge of leaving. This region is like a 7-D chess game.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries Only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova aren't part of NATO.
azangru 5y ago
> Because of a thing called NATO, look it up That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
- raverbashing 5y ago
  I'm sure that marine and airspace incursions by russian craft are just happy accidents... I'm sure Putin's veiled (or explicit) threats against NATO countries (and Google has plenty of these) are just him being humorous Also the cyberattacks (some by Russian gov. APTs, some by entites tolerated by the gov) are just inoccent as well. Not to forget the Internet Research Agency.

m000 5y ago

> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?

voisin 5y ago
Who paid for the reconstruction? Was this just the US gov’t paying US contractors?

newaccount2021 5y ago

melomal 5y ago

Because America has never missed a war. It's too profitable.

thomond 5y ago

> Send the young Germans And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?

flexie 5y ago

Young Europeans died in the US war in Afghanistan. So far, the only country to ever invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty is the US - on September 12, 2001. Adjusted for size of population, as many Danes as Americans died in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan... So, Europeans should come when the US calls, but not the other way around?

snowgrove 5y ago
You’re assuming that I or most Americans agree that the war in Afghanistan was worthwhile. Probably true at first, certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved. In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be. In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-c... >To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target. >The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%. >According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved." Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.

dan-0 5y ago

> Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.

snowgrove 5y ago
You’re right, they also enlist for free college and the signing bonus. My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
- jopsen 5y ago
  I never thought of universal healthcare as a security risk... (Sorry, bad joke) But historically NATO has been a pretty good deterrent against war. Should we stop that? As for the troops from various NATO rotating through eastern NATO countries: I really hope nothing bad happens, and they experience some new culture.

xdennis 5y ago

Why should the USA send troops to Europe? I'll remind you that article 5 of NATO was only invoked once: when you called for help to invade one of the poorest nations on earth: Afghanistan. Could the wealthy American democracy not defend itself?

snowgrove 5y ago
No NATO country has been invaded or attacked and Article 5 has not been invoked.
- jagrsw 5y ago
  On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

gls2ro 5y ago

Well, I really am not an expert in geopolitics, nor military strategies. But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders: 1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU. 2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this. 3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.

jopsen 5y ago
Yeah, compared to a war it's a lot cheaper for NATO to do some posturing.

caeril 5y ago

The idea of countries going to war over rational self-interest or actual tangible threats is an outdated notion. We pick our enemies along ideological and secular-religionist lines, and the continued existence (and god forbid, even flourishing) of polities that conduct their way of life differently from our own cannot stand. Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished. Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing. Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof. Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them. Such as it is, such as it has always been.

tzs 5y ago

> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence? I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away. One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.

Redoubts 5y ago
Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.
- dismantlethesun 5y ago
  Western Europe is also less unified since it’s about 10+ counties instead of just 1.
  - Redoubts 5y ago
    Sounds like their problem.
- petre 5y ago
  The Germans are blocking Estonia from exporting Soviet age howitzers to Ukraine. So until this nonsense stops, I wouldn't say we have the same interests. They can probably remember the GDR. If it were for Western Europe they'd leave us to our own fates, after they invested piles of EU funds into Eastern EU states. Fortunately the US always steps in before it's too late. Once an European security analyst one said that Russia and China are playing chess with the US and the EU, while the EU is playing backgammon.
  - 5y ago

2-718-281-828 5y ago

your assessment would make sense if we had any reason that US is considering that for humanitarian or altruistic reasons. rest assured - the only reason ever for any country (especially US) sending troops anywhere is for own benefit.

lostmsu 5y ago
Is there oil in Ukraine we do not know about?
- jopsen 5y ago
  If we wanted play the paranoid game of how this is all about oil, then one would argue the US wants sanctions against Russia. In particular closing NordStream2, so the US can sell LNG to Europe. In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
jopsen 5y ago
A war in Europe would also hurt the American economy. Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe. Yes, the US stands to benefit.

enigma20 5y ago

Why does/did US try to influence Nord Stream 2? Because that's what they always do. Pretend that they are friends doing things in others favour, but actually trying to affect things for their own interest, isn't it? But to have an influence, you have to show sometimes that you care, event if you actually don't.

alkonaut 5y ago
Nord Stream is one of few sanctions that could actually bite. If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions. It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc. These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.

tomjen3 5y ago

If you are to rely on the Germans to protect Ukraine you are giving it to the Russians.

joeman1000 5y ago

Ukraine can’t afford anything you arrogant fool. It’s sandwiched between two superpowers who are both hostile. If the USA has set itself up as the world democracy squad in the last hundred years, it should honour that bloody title.

snowgrove 5y ago
I don’t see how not wanting my friends and family to die in someone else’s far-away ethnic conflict makes me an “arrogant fool.” Were you also a fan of the democracy squad’s 2003 Iraq invasion? South Vietnam couldn’t “afford anything” either, and Ukraine’s democracy is at least as corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
twelve40 5y ago
If the USA cared at all about "democracy" in Ukraine, it would at least try to clean up that toxic dump that is run by Kolomoyskii, Poroshenko, Akhmetov and the same greedy oligarchs and thieves for many decades now, no matter who the front clown is. But it seems like the local democracy is not really a concern as long as Ukraine can be used for other purposes.

jopsen 5y ago

I think the idea is the same as why many European countries went into Afghanistan: To demonstrate a commitment to NATO. Norway did actually achieve one of their goals in Afghanistan: > ...the domestic goal of the mission, to prove Norway a trustworthy US and NATO ally, was fully achieved. Sure, we can question the wisdom of going into Afghanistan. But that was kind of irrelevant to Norway given their domestic goal. In any case, it seems pretty clear these troops would (if mobilized) be stationed in NATO countries -- not Ukraine! Also note that many NATO besides the US has troops rotating through NATOs eastern members States.

rambojazz 5y ago

You make it sound like a cost, maybe it's just business?