10 ms·

It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freedomben 3y ago
I don't necessarily disagree as IMHO a diverse world that more accurately reflects the desires of local populations is a good thing, but I'd be curious to know why you would like the EU to seek independency from the US. What do you mean by that? Economic or more? Do you mean more home-grown tech companies for example?
- solardev 3y ago
  Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestrained wars between two nuclear powers. That's completely unprecedented in the entirety of our history, and it's not a coincidence.
    - eduction 3y ago
      Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        >> Article 5 >> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. >> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.
        eduction 3y ago
        Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be very difficult to stop without US support, at current defense levels, or without UK or France threatening a universal nuclear defense of other nato members.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.
        somenameforme 3y ago
    - Log_out_ 3y ago
      Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.
      - eduction 3y ago
        I’m not sure we’d have these new NATO members if American reliability were actually so bad.
    - fifilura 3y ago
      This could be a good place to Post a reminder that in 1995, Ukraine agreed to hand over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in return of a promise to not threaten or use military force against Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
      - chasd00 3y ago
        Ukraine had the weapons but no means to use them. Russia had the keys.
        FartinMowler 3y ago
        Then why did Russia feel the need to enter into the agreement if holding the keys was sufficient?
        orbital-decay 3y ago
        Maybe because these were radically different times, and the "we've always been at war with X or Y" is just a narrative? No, of course not, what a nonsense.
        Paradigma11 3y ago
        Sure, the Ukrainians would have needed some months to refit those weapons.
- malermeister 3y ago
  Not the person you responded to, but I agree that the EU needs a bit more independence from the US. To me, it's mostly about being able to stand up for ourselves on a world stage - ideally through a common EU military that is strong enough to deter adversaries even without US support. My main reason is the instability of the American political climate and the way every four years there's an election between a centrist and an extremist. Trump has already threatened to invite Putin to invade other NATO countries [0]. We can't risk being dependent on this madman. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
  - SllX 3y ago
    Speaking as an American I want this for the EU as well. I liked the prior world order, but I think the dream of keeping it alive died when our current dumbass-in-chief pulled out of Afghanistan in the stupidest way possible. The previous dumbass-in-chief who may well be the next dumbass-in-chief if the current one loses also abandoned our Kurdish allies and is promising to do worse than that. Also, I like Europe. I don’t want to see it falter.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      To be fair, abandoning our Kurdish allies (and before them, our Hmong allies) is an ongoing American theme. I had a good Kurdish friend who came over on a US carrier after we abandoned them after the Gulf War...
      - euroderf 3y ago
        Isn't Kurdistan still currently the largest stateless state (so to speak) ?
        ethbr1 3y ago
        That's probably a complicated slicing of "stateless state". Racial? Ethnic? Linguistic? Religious? I'm guessing it would be something approaching "associated peoples who are part of a state, but who have collectively demonstrated a desire for an independent state"? There are ~40M Kurds. Off the top of my head, Palestinians, Uyghurs, Basques, but I'm sure I'm missing a ton. There are 70M+ Tamils.
dragonwriter 3y ago
The EU is independent of the US. There's a difference between alliance and dependency (and EU isn't coextensive with European NATO, but they are pretty close.)
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission. (And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to believe it wouldn't need them very much)
  - unnouinceput 3y ago
    Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
    - TulliusCicero 3y ago
      The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
arrosenberg 3y ago
What does that practically mean though? Europe could stop Russia today, independent of the US. The first 18 months of ramping up production would be painful, but there is no question who would win. Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  The first thing a war usually uncovers is that a large part of the peacetime commanders, soldiery, equipment, and military industry is completely incompetent. I can't think of a war following a long peace where this hasn't been the case. And unfortunately, incompetence is difficult to quickly discover and replace.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Yes, but what is the threat to Europe that might cause war? Russia can't even project force to the Polish border. Certainly no military threats coming from North Africa.
nordsieck 3y ago
> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).
- lispm 3y ago
  The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are not designed to defend the EU. The UK isn't even anymore in the EU. The Brexit was also fueled by the UK not wanting to be part of an EU Army. There is simply no EU army, the EU is not a nation, the EU is not a defense union. Several EU countries are neutral, several countries make their own military decisions, based on the constitutional law, etc. For most purposes, NATO is the main international military organization for European countries, not the EU.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. Not really. > The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every European country, it does cover most of them, particularly the large and wealthy ones.
    - lispm 3y ago
      Sure it is a lot. It is extremely much. Your mistake is to compare it to the US. The US spends more, but for its world-wide empire, much of which has nothing to do with defending Europe or even NATO. That's not what Europe needs do.
bluGill 3y ago
For what? EU is plenty powerful enough to do that, but for what end. What would they do different that is significant. Sure there are minor differences in various policies and lots of disagreements, but overall our high level aims are too close and so the EU is better off not having to. Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex? If the EU wants to be independent they need to develop their own at great cost. (note that the US is already depending on EU's military industrial complex for various things, so you would also force the US to take those in-house) Which is why despite differences the US and EU are likely to remain allies for a long time - you cannot afford to go alone.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
You're confused. The US doesn't control the EU in any way. Or maybe you're not confused and you just object to the US and/or EU, but that's your problem, not theirs. Terminology note: 'independency' is an archaic form of 'independence' which in this context means a self-governing state as opposed to being controlled by another state. This might be confused with 'interdependence' which is a natural reality of almost everything on earth, but especially those who cooperate and work and trade together.
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  If you define "control" narrowly enough, nothing controls anything. But if you use a plain reading of "control" as in "can and will influence the actions of", it seems like "doesn't control in any way" is trivially false.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    In this context 'control' means having power over. If you're not independent then another country has power over your actions. Mere influence is insufficient since the influence runs two ways, which is the case between the EU and US.
    - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
      Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers? They aren't, right?
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        For their purposes, yes. The EU has more population, and the US has more military, but those things don't matter between them. Is a marriage unequal because the male could beat the female at any time because he's stronger?
        ifyoubuildit 3y ago
whereismyacc 3y ago
In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way? For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  If the US could just stop swinging wildly between two parties who hate each other being in control every couple of years, that might get done. These sorts of big complex trade agreements take _ages_ to negotiate and require a certain degree of stability; given the US's current hyper-partisanship it's probably not happening any time soon. Realistically TTIP was dead the day Trump was elected.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

I don't necessarily disagree as IMHO a diverse world that more accurately reflects the desires of local populations is a good thing, but I'd be curious to know why you would like the EU to seek independency from the US. What do you mean by that? Economic or more? Do you mean more home-grown tech companies for example?

solardev 3y ago
Not the OP, but in context, the US is a huge part of NATO's overall defense (and offense/force projection) capabilities. The EU on its own would have a harder time defending itself against aggression.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestrained wars between two nuclear powers. That's completely unprecedented in the entirety of our history, and it's not a coincidence.
  - eduction 3y ago
    Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      >> Article 5 >> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. >> such action as it seems necessary, including the use of armed force There's no mandatory requirement to deploy specific weapons, but I believe all NATO forces would be subordinate to CMC (rotating) and SACEUR (has always been a US leader)? Inasmuch as multinational command structures work.
      - eduction 3y ago
        Right but OP said it’s “effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons” and I’m curious how that is relevant to non nuclear NATO members like Germany. I don’t see how it helps Germany (or Finland, Poland etc etc) that France and UK have nuclear weapons, apart from deterrence against specifically nuclear Russian attacks. A conventional land invasion against a non nuclear NATO power would likely be very difficult to stop without US support, at current defense levels, or without UK or France threatening a universal nuclear defense of other nato members.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.
        somenameforme 3y ago
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    Which is why everyone bordering any empire currently looks for nukes or nuke eqivalents,as the American reliability falls apart. Must be fun to work at the iaa nowadays.
    - eduction 3y ago
      I’m not sure we’d have these new NATO members if American reliability were actually so bad.
  - fifilura 3y ago
    This could be a good place to Post a reminder that in 1995, Ukraine agreed to hand over all its nuclear weapons to Russia in return of a promise to not threaten or use military force against Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
    - chasd00 3y ago
      Ukraine had the weapons but no means to use them. Russia had the keys.
      - FartinMowler 3y ago
        Then why did Russia feel the need to enter into the agreement if holding the keys was sufficient?
        orbital-decay 3y ago
        Maybe because these were radically different times, and the "we've always been at war with X or Y" is just a narrative? No, of course not, what a nonsense.
      - Paradigma11 3y ago
        Sure, the Ukrainians would have needed some months to refit those weapons.
malermeister 3y ago
Not the person you responded to, but I agree that the EU needs a bit more independence from the US. To me, it's mostly about being able to stand up for ourselves on a world stage - ideally through a common EU military that is strong enough to deter adversaries even without US support. My main reason is the instability of the American political climate and the way every four years there's an election between a centrist and an extremist. Trump has already threatened to invite Putin to invade other NATO countries [0]. We can't risk being dependent on this madman. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
- SllX 3y ago
  Speaking as an American I want this for the EU as well. I liked the prior world order, but I think the dream of keeping it alive died when our current dumbass-in-chief pulled out of Afghanistan in the stupidest way possible. The previous dumbass-in-chief who may well be the next dumbass-in-chief if the current one loses also abandoned our Kurdish allies and is promising to do worse than that. Also, I like Europe. I don’t want to see it falter.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    To be fair, abandoning our Kurdish allies (and before them, our Hmong allies) is an ongoing American theme. I had a good Kurdish friend who came over on a US carrier after we abandoned them after the Gulf War...
    - euroderf 3y ago
      Isn't Kurdistan still currently the largest stateless state (so to speak) ?
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        That's probably a complicated slicing of "stateless state". Racial? Ethnic? Linguistic? Religious? I'm guessing it would be something approaching "associated peoples who are part of a state, but who have collectively demonstrated a desire for an independent state"? There are ~40M Kurds. Off the top of my head, Palestinians, Uyghurs, Basques, but I'm sure I'm missing a ton. There are 70M+ Tamils.

dragonwriter 3y ago

The EU is independent of the US. There's a difference between alliance and dependency (and EU isn't coextensive with European NATO, but they are pretty close.)

TulliusCicero 3y ago
In most ways yes, but militarily there's definitely some dependence on the US. A lot of European militaries were found to have relatively bare cupboards when the time to donate things to Ukraine came. Germany's Army Chief straight up said the army wasn't capable of fulfilling its mission. (And yeah the US struggled with artillery shells too, the difference is that the US has so much airpower it had a legit reason to believe it wouldn't need them very much)
- unnouinceput 3y ago
  Military it's inter-dependency, that' why we're allies. The whole point of an ally is to be inter-dependency of one another. I, for one, as a citizen of a NATO country, I am very happy with this arrangement.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    That only works if you are filling your side of the bargain. If you depend on the US and don't have your own army equipped, and the US depends on your army and isn't equipped to rescue you it all fails.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    The principle is interdependency, but in practice many European militaries don't have a ton to give. Since the cold war ended, many just sort of coasted on military spending. Of course, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, that's changed for a lot of them. There's renewed interest in taking the defense budget seriously.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago

arrosenberg 3y ago

What does that practically mean though? Europe could stop Russia today, independent of the US. The first 18 months of ramping up production would be painful, but there is no question who would win. Does Europe want to project force around the world? If so, why? It's much more cost-efficient to let the US taxpayer foot the majority of the bill for navigable seas.

ethbr1 3y ago
The first thing a war usually uncovers is that a large part of the peacetime commanders, soldiery, equipment, and military industry is completely incompetent. I can't think of a war following a long peace where this hasn't been the case. And unfortunately, incompetence is difficult to quickly discover and replace.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Yes, but what is the threat to Europe that might cause war? Russia can't even project force to the Polish border. Certainly no military threats coming from North Africa.

nordsieck 3y ago

> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with the possible exception of countries that actually border Russia/Belarus).

lispm 3y ago
The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are not designed to defend the EU. The UK isn't even anymore in the EU. The Brexit was also fueled by the UK not wanting to be part of an EU Army. There is simply no EU army, the EU is not a nation, the EU is not a defense union. Several EU countries are neutral, several countries make their own military decisions, based on the constitutional law, etc. For most purposes, NATO is the main international military organization for European countries, not the EU.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. Not really. > The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every European country, it does cover most of them, particularly the large and wealthy ones.
  - lispm 3y ago
    Sure it is a lot. It is extremely much. Your mistake is to compare it to the US. The US spends more, but for its world-wide empire, much of which has nothing to do with defending Europe or even NATO. That's not what Europe needs do.

bluGill 3y ago

For what? EU is plenty powerful enough to do that, but for what end. What would they do different that is significant. Sure there are minor differences in various policies and lots of disagreements, but overall our high level aims are too close and so the EU is better off not having to. Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex? If the EU wants to be independent they need to develop their own at great cost. (note that the US is already depending on EU's military industrial complex for various things, so you would also force the US to take those in-house) Which is why despite differences the US and EU are likely to remain allies for a long time - you cannot afford to go alone.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

You're confused. The US doesn't control the EU in any way. Or maybe you're not confused and you just object to the US and/or EU, but that's your problem, not theirs. Terminology note: 'independency' is an archaic form of 'independence' which in this context means a self-governing state as opposed to being controlled by another state. This might be confused with 'interdependence' which is a natural reality of almost everything on earth, but especially those who cooperate and work and trade together.

ifyoubuildit 3y ago
If you define "control" narrowly enough, nothing controls anything. But if you use a plain reading of "control" as in "can and will influence the actions of", it seems like "doesn't control in any way" is trivially false.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  In this context 'control' means having power over. If you're not independent then another country has power over your actions. Mere influence is insufficient since the influence runs two ways, which is the case between the EU and US.
  - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
    Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers? They aren't, right?
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      For their purposes, yes. The EU has more population, and the US has more military, but those things don't matter between them. Is a marriage unequal because the male could beat the female at any time because he's stronger?
      - ifyoubuildit 3y ago

whereismyacc 3y ago

In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way? For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.

rsynnott 3y ago
If the US could just stop swinging wildly between two parties who hate each other being in control every couple of years, that might get done. These sorts of big complex trade agreements take _ages_ to negotiate and require a certain degree of stability; given the US's current hyper-partisanship it's probably not happening any time soon. Realistically TTIP was dead the day Trump was elected.