5 ms·
Because they’d rather depend on an ally than an openly hostile state. Because the US would massively subsidize LNG exports to EU in order to support their allie
by rosndo 5y ago
Because they’d rather depend on an ally than an openly hostile state. Because the US would massively subsidize LNG exports to EU in order to support their allies?
- ezconnect 5y ago
- rosndo 5y agoHa ha, funny joke. Where are the 100k+ US troops on Ukrainian borders?
- beeboop 5y agoThe US has caused more death in the past 60 years from military intervention than all other countries combined
- rosndo 5y agoAh, nonsensical whataboutism. How is this relevant to a conversation about Russian actions in Europe? As far as I understand the US still remains on another continent.
- beeboop 5y agoIf you ignore American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, governments that were destabilized and replaced with US-approved leaders, and US military bases in dozens of other countries - sure, yeah, the US remains in north america. The parent comment has been flagged, but if I recall this conversation about hostility - trying to argue that the US is not hostile and that Russia is somehow unique and uniquely deserving of punishment is ridiculous, which is my point by saying the US has caused millions of deaths in the past 60 years.
- rosndo 5y agoUS is not hostile towards Europe. Russia is. Nobody gives a shit about the bad stuff US is doing elsewhere. It is utterly irrelevant to this conversation about European decisionmaking regarding Russia. What you’re getting at is meaningless virtue signaling.
- rpadovani 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deploym... They are only 64k+ indeed. But they are already inside EU, since WWII.
- rosndo 5y agoAnd most of those are far far away from the border. You might as well criticize Russia for having troops sitting in military bases near Moscow. But hey, I raise you Kaliningrad.
- rpadovani 5y agoAh, you were talking about Ukraine specifically, not dislocating your troops in other countries, where the local population doesn't want you, 'cause you have the upper hand. My bad.
- rosndo 5y agoI’d argue that the local populations are largely very happy with US presence in Europe. I know they’re very popular in Romania, being big spenders. Outside of Europe the US has obviously been up to a bunch of nasty shit, but I think we are talking about European decisionmaking here.
- rpadovani 5y ago> I’d argue that the local populations are largely very happy with US presence in Europe. Not in Germany, where they have their biggest presence: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/deutsche-finden-abzug-der-us-soldaten-ueberwiegend-gut-16889268.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/deutsche-finden-a... Nor in Italy, where they have the second-biggest presence. But it is easy to understand, considering they kill civilians for fun, but get processed in US[0], and are responsible for countless violences in the cities where their bases are[1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash [1]: https://www.vice.com/it/article/znjkke/vicenza-soldati-usa-stupro-391 https://www.vice.com/it/article/znjkke/vicenza-soldati-usa-s...
- vadertemp 5y agoUS has not deployed to Ukraine because its not in its national interest whereas Russia does have an immediate security concern with NATO expansion to its borders after the end of the cold war. US has deployments all over the world after WWII in order to bully and protect its own interests. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
- mechanical_bear 5y agoIs there a legitimate concern that NATO would occupy/attack Russian territory?
- kbart 5y agoNo. All ex-Soviet countries that joined NATO did that willingly as a way to protect their independence (looking at the examples of ex-Soviet countries that did not, it's clear that was the right decision). The "threat" of NATO invading Russia is bullshit and whataboutism.
- mechanical_bear 5y agoAgreed, whole heartedly.
- wbsss4412 5y agoUS deployments aren’t generally against the will of host nations. There certainly is plenty of coercion involved in having so many deployments, but plenty of it has to do with strategic alliances.
- ezconnect 5y agoSyria and South American countries have US military by force.
- 5y ago
- blitzar 5y agoRussia wants war, just look how close they put their country to our military bases. https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/russia-wants-war-look-how-close-they-put-their-country-to-our-military-bases-nato.jpg https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/russia-wants...
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoThe thing is, these are Russian soldiers occupying Donbas (now officially, from 2014 unofficially), not American ones.
- parasense 5y ago> Because they’d rather depend on an ally than an openly hostile state. That's the assumption, but it doesn't follow natural economic laws.... where price ultimately prevails. One only needs to look at how global oil prices were weaponized, in essence Persian-gulf oil producers openly conspired to sell barrels of oil cheaply to deprive their South American oil exporting competitors from realizing higher gains. And... one only needs to look to Argentina to see how that played out. The point is, energy importers prioritize lower price, and energy exporters are willing to maintain lower prices to protect their cartel or monopoly. Russia has provided affordable cheap natural gas as a strategic goal to create an effective monopoly in Europe. Not recognizing this monopoly is a form of denial or rationalization, and isn't very helpful. Europe simply cannot cut away the lower energy prices, as that has deep macro economic consequences.
- rich_sasha 5y agoFor every $1 spent on Russian gas, I need to spend an extra $X on armament, to counter the extra Russian defence spending funded with the gas. Spending that money, or a bit more, in the US, at least I’m not funding an openly hostile regime. Some would eve argue you could reduce your defence spending by some amount $Y.