5 ms·

This has to be a troll post, right? Europe just spent two decades funding the military force invading it right now by importing fossil fuels from its invader i

by creato 3y ago

This has to be a troll post, right? Europe just spent two decades funding the military force invading it right now by importing fossil fuels from its invader in great quantities. Simultaneously, Europe let its ability to defend itself atrophy. Now Europe is relying heavily on the US for both more fossil fuels and military support, and yet here you are looking down your noses at the US while praising China's leadership for selling you solar panels, allegedly at dumped prices which crushed your own local industry. You really are great at seeing the bigger picture!

novolunt 3y ago
[dead]
Guthur 3y ago
The invasion happened 80 years ago, it was the US. The US has more military in Europe than most European countries.
- vasco 3y ago
  People need to look at a map of US bases in Europe and realise they never left. Same with Japan and Korea.
  - Guthur 3y ago
    They had a golden opportunity and they took it, they created an empire for the modern era, turned on the fire hose of propaganda and convince us that the most warlike nation of the last century is some how the good guy.
    - lifestyleguru 3y ago
      > turned on the fire hose of propaganda and convince us that the most warlike nation of the last century is some how the good guy. The more I grew the more I became hyper aware of American military propaganda in Hollywood movies. It's glaring when the same movies portray Soviet army and equipment - in that case everything is poor CGI and cheap dummies.
    - Kon5ole 3y ago
      Nobody's perfect but the US with all it's flaws is vastly preferable to being conquered by a military dictatorship. Which basically was the other option for Europe during the past 80 years. Look at what happens the very second the US seems weak - two semi-senile candidates and a nation divided, suddenly every indisputably bad guy in the world starts testing the waters. Where would their ambitions stop if democratic nations had no teeth?
dotancohen 3y ago
You are also pointing out a major problem with fossil fuels. Had Europe gone renewable much earlier, it would not find itself with the same lack of energy now as it currently suffers. Did the world not learn anything in 1973?
- aredox 3y ago
  Shell, and BP, and Total made sure it didn't happen...
  - lifestyleguru 3y ago
    Had you ever been directly employed by any of them, you'd be absolutely certain of their flawless ethical intentions. /s
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  > Had Europe gone renewable much earlier I don't think that's even possible. Most of Europe (esepcially Northern Europe) is really, really dark, and solar in only now becoming vaguely viable. Wind is better, but even then only the North Sea is really an option. Hydro was tapped out decades ago. What are you left with then?
  - anovikov 3y ago
    What are the choices? Everyone will have to go renewable sooner or later because of global warming (and if you ignore global warming, you will still to do it, just bit more later, because fossil fuels will run out). It's relatively easy to put together a package of renewable sources to cover all energy needs anywhere. In terms of electricity, that's already done in EU - fossil fuels only cover ~30% of consumption now (31.6% in 2023 and falling by ~3% points per year), and will be 0% by 2035, that looks easy today and does not require any new invention nor even existing tech getting cheaper. We currently deploy quite a bit more renewable capacity than needed every year to make it work. As for all kinds of energy together, that's quite a bit harder and so far, we are not there, but it shouldn't take more than about 5 years to arrive to the necessary rates of deployment.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Criticizing America for spending so much on guns and oil is a traditional continental European pastime.
- imjonse 3y ago
  And also for using big guns to defend big oil.
dgan 3y ago
How they were supposed to know Pootin would start a war? Sounds easy to accuse them afterwards
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  By not assuming everyone is motivated by prosperity.
- x3n0ph3n3 3y ago
  Crimea and Georgia?
  - dgan 3y ago
    Crimea wasn't 2 decades ago. Georgia isn't "them", it's not Europe
- overstay8930 3y ago
  Bruh Europe literally saw Russia invade Georgia immediately after it said it wanted to be closer to Europe in 2008, that should have been it. It was for America, meanwhile the EU basically was a Kremlin mouthpiece: I hate trump as much as the next dude but he was not kidding when he said at the NATO summit that there was some really bad people in the German government. That Russian invasion of Georgia report made by the EU? The mainstream acceptance of events is that Gazprom paid off some people in the German government to just make something up as long as it didn't blame Russia.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
aredox 3y ago
The US heavily encouraged the atrophy of Europe to defend itself, throwing a wrench every time they could through politically the UK, kneecapping the European defense industry by using the NSA to do industrial espionage to win contracts... The US didn't want an independent EU able to do things without them.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Is there no limit to the lengths people will go to blame the US for everything? No blame at all for EU leaders?
  - aredox 3y ago
    Don't worry, I blame both. Here is sone anti-americanists saying the same (except... they're not anti-americanists): https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ Maybe, before the EU tries again to better its defenses, can we have the security that our "ally" won't try to kneecap it once again? Because we invested billions in e.g. developing Rafale fighters, and then the US bankrolls its F-35 everywhere. This isn't tenable.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Ah we share peak nihilism then.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >No blame at all for EU leaders? You mean the "client state" representatives promoted, pre-approved, wined, and dined by the US (ever since WWII and the Marshall plan, and to an even greated degree after the last decently strong and independent European statesmen faded off 2-3 decades ago)?
  - aredox 3y ago
    "The role played by the United States makes the situation worse. Efforts at improving defense industrial cooperation, namely by the EU, have often been met by fierce opposition from the United States. After all, American defense contractors greatly benefit from inking contracts across Europe that deprive European companies of business. Thus efforts by Europe to get its industrial act together are met by stiff resistance by American administrations, which channel the concerns of U.S. companies about being locked out of the European market. For instance, after the EU announced plans for a new European Defense Fund and an initiative to develop new weapons systems, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and other Trump administration officials strongly objected and aggressively lobbied for U.S. companies to have access to the paltry EU funds. This rather petty concern, U.S. access to the European defense market, has not gone away under Biden. In fact, the Biden administration has also forcefully lobbied EU member states on defense initiatives. Even with a war on, the major focus of the EU-U.S. security dialogue has been, at the insistence of Washington, finalizing an innocuous “administrative arrangement” granting the United States potential access to more EU defense euros. U.S. opposition has had a significant chilling effect on attempts to improve coordination. It just takes a few skittish EU member states, worried about the reaction from their security guarantor, to pump the brakes on collective EU efforts. Partly because of such obstruction, European defense cooperation has declined over the past decade." "Ultimately, of course, the perilous state of European armed forces is the fault of European governments. But NATO’s role in bringing about this state of affairs also deserves scrutiny. " https://archive.ph/4o4r5#selection-2067.0-2137.22 https://archive.ph/4o4r5#selection-2067.0-2137.22
coldtea 3y ago
>Europe just spent two decades funding the military force invading it right now by importing fossil fuels from its invader in great quantities. Or, rather, spent decades doing pragmatic good deals for fossil fuels with a country whose resources could use to its benefits. Then decided ("decided") to shoot itself in the foot by cutting them off, and be the useful idiot in the games between two countries and their proxy war, ignited after one recentlessly pushed to get its military bases to the other's borders. >Now Europe is relying heavily on the US for both more fossil fuels and military support The only reason Europe even asks for US military support is because European politicians, of the useless imbecilic kind that have been in power for the last 2-3 decades, are wined/dined/pushed around to do so (and to deal with the proxy wars the US pushes onto its lap).

by creato 3y ago

novolunt 3y ago

[dead]

Guthur 3y ago

The invasion happened 80 years ago, it was the US. The US has more military in Europe than most European countries.

vasco 3y ago
People need to look at a map of US bases in Europe and realise they never left. Same with Japan and Korea.
- Guthur 3y ago
  They had a golden opportunity and they took it, they created an empire for the modern era, turned on the fire hose of propaganda and convince us that the most warlike nation of the last century is some how the good guy.
  - lifestyleguru 3y ago
    > turned on the fire hose of propaganda and convince us that the most warlike nation of the last century is some how the good guy. The more I grew the more I became hyper aware of American military propaganda in Hollywood movies. It's glaring when the same movies portray Soviet army and equipment - in that case everything is poor CGI and cheap dummies.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    Nobody's perfect but the US with all it's flaws is vastly preferable to being conquered by a military dictatorship. Which basically was the other option for Europe during the past 80 years. Look at what happens the very second the US seems weak - two semi-senile candidates and a nation divided, suddenly every indisputably bad guy in the world starts testing the waters. Where would their ambitions stop if democratic nations had no teeth?

dotancohen 3y ago

You are also pointing out a major problem with fossil fuels. Had Europe gone renewable much earlier, it would not find itself with the same lack of energy now as it currently suffers. Did the world not learn anything in 1973?

aredox 3y ago
Shell, and BP, and Total made sure it didn't happen...
- lifestyleguru 3y ago
  Had you ever been directly employed by any of them, you'd be absolutely certain of their flawless ethical intentions. /s
dukeyukey 3y ago
> Had Europe gone renewable much earlier I don't think that's even possible. Most of Europe (esepcially Northern Europe) is really, really dark, and solar in only now becoming vaguely viable. Wind is better, but even then only the North Sea is really an option. Hydro was tapped out decades ago. What are you left with then?
- anovikov 3y ago
  What are the choices? Everyone will have to go renewable sooner or later because of global warming (and if you ignore global warming, you will still to do it, just bit more later, because fossil fuels will run out). It's relatively easy to put together a package of renewable sources to cover all energy needs anywhere. In terms of electricity, that's already done in EU - fossil fuels only cover ~30% of consumption now (31.6% in 2023 and falling by ~3% points per year), and will be 0% by 2035, that looks easy today and does not require any new invention nor even existing tech getting cheaper. We currently deploy quite a bit more renewable capacity than needed every year to make it work. As for all kinds of energy together, that's quite a bit harder and so far, we are not there, but it shouldn't take more than about 5 years to arrive to the necessary rates of deployment.

Dalewyn 3y ago

Criticizing America for spending so much on guns and oil is a traditional continental European pastime.

imjonse 3y ago
And also for using big guns to defend big oil.

dgan 3y ago

How they were supposed to know Pootin would start a war? Sounds easy to accuse them afterwards

actionfromafar 3y ago
By not assuming everyone is motivated by prosperity.
x3n0ph3n3 3y ago
Crimea and Georgia?
- dgan 3y ago
  Crimea wasn't 2 decades ago. Georgia isn't "them", it's not Europe
overstay8930 3y ago
Bruh Europe literally saw Russia invade Georgia immediately after it said it wanted to be closer to Europe in 2008, that should have been it. It was for America, meanwhile the EU basically was a Kremlin mouthpiece: I hate trump as much as the next dude but he was not kidding when he said at the NATO summit that there was some really bad people in the German government. That Russian invasion of Georgia report made by the EU? The mainstream acceptance of events is that Gazprom paid off some people in the German government to just make something up as long as it didn't blame Russia.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

aredox 3y ago

The US heavily encouraged the atrophy of Europe to defend itself, throwing a wrench every time they could through politically the UK, kneecapping the European defense industry by using the NSA to do industrial espionage to win contracts... The US didn't want an independent EU able to do things without them.

throwaway5959 3y ago
Is there no limit to the lengths people will go to blame the US for everything? No blame at all for EU leaders?
- aredox 3y ago
  Don't worry, I blame both. Here is sone anti-americanists saying the same (except... they're not anti-americanists): https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ Maybe, before the EU tries again to better its defenses, can we have the security that our "ally" won't try to kneecap it once again? Because we invested billions in e.g. developing Rafale fighters, and then the US bankrolls its F-35 everywhere. This isn't tenable.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Ah we share peak nihilism then.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >No blame at all for EU leaders? You mean the "client state" representatives promoted, pre-approved, wined, and dined by the US (ever since WWII and the Marshall plan, and to an even greated degree after the last decently strong and independent European statesmen faded off 2-3 decades ago)?
- aredox 3y ago
  "The role played by the United States makes the situation worse. Efforts at improving defense industrial cooperation, namely by the EU, have often been met by fierce opposition from the United States. After all, American defense contractors greatly benefit from inking contracts across Europe that deprive European companies of business. Thus efforts by Europe to get its industrial act together are met by stiff resistance by American administrations, which channel the concerns of U.S. companies about being locked out of the European market. For instance, after the EU announced plans for a new European Defense Fund and an initiative to develop new weapons systems, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and other Trump administration officials strongly objected and aggressively lobbied for U.S. companies to have access to the paltry EU funds. This rather petty concern, U.S. access to the European defense market, has not gone away under Biden. In fact, the Biden administration has also forcefully lobbied EU member states on defense initiatives. Even with a war on, the major focus of the EU-U.S. security dialogue has been, at the insistence of Washington, finalizing an innocuous “administrative arrangement” granting the United States potential access to more EU defense euros. U.S. opposition has had a significant chilling effect on attempts to improve coordination. It just takes a few skittish EU member states, worried about the reaction from their security guarantor, to pump the brakes on collective EU efforts. Partly because of such obstruction, European defense cooperation has declined over the past decade." "Ultimately, of course, the perilous state of European armed forces is the fault of European governments. But NATO’s role in bringing about this state of affairs also deserves scrutiny. " https://archive.ph/4o4r5#selection-2067.0-2137.22 https://archive.ph/4o4r5#selection-2067.0-2137.22

coldtea 3y ago

>Europe just spent two decades funding the military force invading it right now by importing fossil fuels from its invader in great quantities. Or, rather, spent decades doing pragmatic good deals for fossil fuels with a country whose resources could use to its benefits. Then decided ("decided") to shoot itself in the foot by cutting them off, and be the useful idiot in the games between two countries and their proxy war, ignited after one recentlessly pushed to get its military bases to the other's borders. >Now Europe is relying heavily on the US for both more fossil fuels and military support The only reason Europe even asks for US military support is because European politicians, of the useless imbecilic kind that have been in power for the last 2-3 decades, are wined/dined/pushed around to do so (and to deal with the proxy wars the US pushes onto its lap).