6 ms·

I think Russia is the wrong place to look for what European countries will and won’t do. On the whole the EU project, and the approach of tight economic ties a

I think Russia is the wrong place to look for what European countries will and won’t do. On the whole the EU project, and the approach of tight economic ties across the continent has been a huge success. Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Before the EU and the drive to economic integration, Europe had been in a state of almost perpetual war between the different states. Even today the economic integration has made war between most European states unthinkable. Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France or vice-versa, something that almost habitual before the 21st century. Russia is the anomaly here, the one case where economic integration didn’t prevent war. But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
unmole 4y ago
> Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Yeah, except for the wars in: - Cyprus - Yugoslavia - Georgia - Moldova
- freeflight 4y ago
  Which is actually a pretty good track-record compared to back to back literal world wars, with a very long period of pretty much every state waring with each other before that.
hjoldic 4y ago
throw-ru-938 4y ago
> Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. You forgot the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.
- darebak 4y ago
  And those countries were very much economically interdependent.
- ahoka 4y ago
  Don't forget the Cod Wars between Iceland and UK!
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    What? NATO navies actually rammed and shot "a bit" on each other. And I haven't heard of this. How.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Then the Great Emu War is gonna blow your mind.
- juanani 4y ago
jollybean 4y ago
This is propaganda. "Before we had war, but now we don't, must be EU" And your own evidence: "Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France" .... contradicts your point - the UK was not part of the EEC/EU for most of it's existence, so did the EU/EEC 'stop wars'? Seems like 'UK and France' learned to get along without 'deep economic integration'. And Switzerland? They've never been to war - and they have the least amount of 'economic integration. Neither Finland. South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either. "But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless." More likely the 'approach' is not hugely relevant.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > the UK was not part of the EEC/EU for most of it's existence, so did the EU/EEC 'stop wars'? Not for lack of trying. The U.K. very much wanted to be part of the EU/EEC almost from inception. Going to war with a union you want join isn’t generally seen as a good way prove the advantages of your joining the union. Additionally the U.K. and France did build extremely close economic ties during and after WW2. Much easier to trade with your neighbour than random countries on the other side of the planet. Switzerland and Finland are both part the European Economic Area, the treaty the provides the underpinnings of free trade in Europe. All joined the EEA because it was clear that building wealth and prosperity through economic integration was a smarter approach than trying to invade your neighbours. > South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either. Many of these counties are separated by significant physical distance, making war unlikely and difficult, or simply don’t have resources worth stealing via war. What to be gained by invading Singapore or Japan? They have no natural resources worth talking about, and country under force foreign rule tends to be an unproductive one. Canada and US almost went to war several times before WW2. Primary preventers of those wars were either colonial rulers not wanting to get into a shooting war with another colonial country, or the simple fact that both countries had plenty of natural resources already, so bother with the expense and difficulty of invading a neighbour for resources you can dig up in your own back yard? At the end of the day, there’s only a handful of reasons that make warfare worthwhile. Primarily the reason is access to naturals resources you don’t have within your own territory. But why bother invading if you can just trade instead? Much cheaper and easier, hence economic integration becomes an obvious path forward. Once you’re integrated, why would risk easy cheap access to resources by invading? You pour huge amounts of money, time and people in to a war, and gain what? Slightly cheaper access to resources, but if you consider the cost of war, it’s obvious that just trading for resources is cheaper, faster and easier.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

unmole 4y ago

> Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Yeah, except for the wars in: - Cyprus - Yugoslavia - Georgia - Moldova

freeflight 4y ago
Which is actually a pretty good track-record compared to back to back literal world wars, with a very long period of pretty much every state waring with each other before that.

hjoldic 4y ago

throw-ru-938 4y ago

> Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. You forgot the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.

darebak 4y ago
And those countries were very much economically interdependent.
ahoka 4y ago
Don't forget the Cod Wars between Iceland and UK!
- rightbyte 4y ago
  What? NATO navies actually rammed and shot "a bit" on each other. And I haven't heard of this. How.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Then the Great Emu War is gonna blow your mind.
juanani 4y ago

jollybean 4y ago

This is propaganda. "Before we had war, but now we don't, must be EU" And your own evidence: "Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France" .... contradicts your point - the UK was not part of the EEC/EU for most of it's existence, so did the EU/EEC 'stop wars'? Seems like 'UK and France' learned to get along without 'deep economic integration'. And Switzerland? They've never been to war - and they have the least amount of 'economic integration. Neither Finland. South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either. "But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless." More likely the 'approach' is not hugely relevant.

avianlyric 4y ago
> the UK was not part of the EEC/EU for most of it's existence, so did the EU/EEC 'stop wars'? Not for lack of trying. The U.K. very much wanted to be part of the EU/EEC almost from inception. Going to war with a union you want join isn’t generally seen as a good way prove the advantages of your joining the union. Additionally the U.K. and France did build extremely close economic ties during and after WW2. Much easier to trade with your neighbour than random countries on the other side of the planet. Switzerland and Finland are both part the European Economic Area, the treaty the provides the underpinnings of free trade in Europe. All joined the EEA because it was clear that building wealth and prosperity through economic integration was a smarter approach than trying to invade your neighbours. > South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Canada, US, Mexico have not fought wars against each other either. Many of these counties are separated by significant physical distance, making war unlikely and difficult, or simply don’t have resources worth stealing via war. What to be gained by invading Singapore or Japan? They have no natural resources worth talking about, and country under force foreign rule tends to be an unproductive one. Canada and US almost went to war several times before WW2. Primary preventers of those wars were either colonial rulers not wanting to get into a shooting war with another colonial country, or the simple fact that both countries had plenty of natural resources already, so bother with the expense and difficulty of invading a neighbour for resources you can dig up in your own back yard? At the end of the day, there’s only a handful of reasons that make warfare worthwhile. Primarily the reason is access to naturals resources you don’t have within your own territory. But why bother invading if you can just trade instead? Much cheaper and easier, hence economic integration becomes an obvious path forward. Once you’re integrated, why would risk easy cheap access to resources by invading? You pour huge amounts of money, time and people in to a war, and gain what? Slightly cheaper access to resources, but if you consider the cost of war, it’s obvious that just trading for resources is cheaper, faster and easier.