3 ms·

> It is the very fundamental structure of Europe that will never let it be a sovereign force ala US. I don't know if it's that simple. I think that European t

> It is the very fundamental structure of Europe that will never let it be a sovereign force ala US. I don't know if it's that simple. I think that European thinking has in the last 6 years or so realised much more that 1) a serious war can happen again in in their neighbourhood and 2) the USA's leadership cannot be relied on to be on their side, as much as was assumed before then. The article talks about "a distracted and politically unreliable America ... a growing awareness that continuing to rely on the United States entails long-term risks" More EU military spending - rearmament - is the obvious conclusion. The article claims that this hasn't been achieved. Ok it wasn't expected to be quick or easy. I don't really know what the evidence is that it can't or won't happen.

TMWNN 3y ago
>politically unreliable America In other words, an America that isn't guaranteed to do all the heavy lifting in European defense while Europeans sit back and criticize
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  No, in other words, an America that isn't guaranteed to be on the same side: opposed to dictators and warmongers.
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>, article <https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany-is-totally-controlled-by-russia https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany...>) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong? 2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas. Who was right, Trump or the Germans? Both incidents got much coverage in the US and European press, with the usual bien-pensants describing them as yet another example of Trumpian foolishness versus the sensible Europeans. Had the sensible Europeans listened to the Trumpian foolishness even five years ago, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills. This is the greatest bungling by German and Europeans in 75 years and, again, it is 100% self-inflicted. (This is now where the same bien-pensants' sycophants now pull out the "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"/"Trump said everything about anything so was bound to get something right"/"Trump also said uncomplimentary things about NATO so should have been arrested as a traitor" canards. And yes, I've seen all three responses, almost word for word, when I point to the above videos.) From this American's perspective, if the only accepted definition of "opposition to dictators and warmongers" is, as I said, an America that does all the heavy lifting in European defense while Europeans sit back and criticize, don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
      > If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? I refer you to my grandparent comment: "European thinking has recently realised", that unpreparedness being the main example of the realisation. IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway. > Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills. Citation needed, both for "existential economic threat" and "2500% rise in gas bill". Both are ridiculous. > 100% self-inflicted. I think that it's nonsense in general that country A's invasion of country B is a "100% self-inflicted error" of country C. > Had the sensible Europeans listened to Trump, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one. > don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep. No, I won't be surprised at all if the USA elects a sycophant towards dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep. No-one will. You've done it once already. That's the point.
      - TMWNN 3y ago
        >IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway. "oil imports from Russia will help peace" is, in fact, exactly the stance Germany took for about 20 years, until February 2022, with Merkel and her predecessor and successor all leading exponents. I ask again: Who was right? Trump or Stoltenberg? Who was right? Trump or Maas? Can you answer these questions honestly, or will you eternally avoid doing so with idiocies like "That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one"?
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > "oil imports from Russia will help peace" is, in fact, exactly the stance Germany took And no-one is disagreeing with that, can't you read?

TMWNN 3y ago

>politically unreliable America In other words, an America that isn't guaranteed to do all the heavy lifting in European defense while Europeans sit back and criticize

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
No, in other words, an America that isn't guaranteed to be on the same side: opposed to dictators and warmongers.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>, article <https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany-is-totally-controlled-by-russia https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany...>) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong? 2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas. Who was right, Trump or the Germans? Both incidents got much coverage in the US and European press, with the usual bien-pensants describing them as yet another example of Trumpian foolishness versus the sensible Europeans. Had the sensible Europeans listened to the Trumpian foolishness even five years ago, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills. This is the greatest bungling by German and Europeans in 75 years and, again, it is 100% self-inflicted. (This is now where the same bien-pensants' sycophants now pull out the "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"/"Trump said everything about anything so was bound to get something right"/"Trump also said uncomplimentary things about NATO so should have been arrested as a traitor" canards. And yes, I've seen all three responses, almost word for word, when I point to the above videos.) From this American's perspective, if the only accepted definition of "opposition to dictators and warmongers" is, as I said, an America that does all the heavy lifting in European defense while Europeans sit back and criticize, don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    > If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? I refer you to my grandparent comment: "European thinking has recently realised", that unpreparedness being the main example of the realisation. IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway. > Germany (and thus Europe) would not have faced an existential threat to its economy and industry from 1000-2500% rises in gas bills. Citation needed, both for "existential economic threat" and "2500% rise in gas bill". Both are ridiculous. > 100% self-inflicted. I think that it's nonsense in general that country A's invasion of country B is a "100% self-inflicted error" of country C. > Had the sensible Europeans listened to Trump, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one. > don't be surprised if America isn't so quick the next time to oppose dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep. No, I won't be surprised at all if the USA elects a sycophant towards dictators and warmongers on Europe's doorstep. No-one will. You've done it once already. That's the point.
    - TMWNN 3y ago
      >IDK what you think you're arguing against, that Europe could have realised earlier that neoliberal oil-imports from Russia were not actually going to help peace? yeah, sure, but not what anyone was saying anyway. "oil imports from Russia will help peace" is, in fact, exactly the stance Germany took for about 20 years, until February 2022, with Merkel and her predecessor and successor all leading exponents. I ask again: Who was right? Trump or Stoltenberg? Who was right? Trump or Maas? Can you answer these questions honestly, or will you eternally avoid doing so with idiocies like "That's certainly an opinion. Of all the points of view that I have seen today, that definitely is one"?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > "oil imports from Russia will help peace" is, in fact, exactly the stance Germany took And no-one is disagreeing with that, can't you read?