7 ms·

The Euro-American Split (I): Dread Possibility

28 points by Khaine 2y ago

tomohawk 2y ago
[dead]
m000 2y ago
Although I agree with the conclusion that the necessity of NATO is to be questioned, some of the observations made are purely in the eye of the beholder. E.g. > Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets. From a European perspective, the "growing security burden" is largely an American self-serving assertion. Standing on the other side of the pond, one could also read the situation as "the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony".
- Ekaros 2y ago
  As European I only care about what might go in continental Europe. Any other part can fend of themselves, whoever the aggressor might be. It probably being USA... We really should focus on isolationism and global trade. Even securing shipping lines is short term thinking. Let the conflicts happen and then things stabilize.
  - Khaine 2y ago
    That makes no sense. If you care about global trade, you care about securing shipping lines. As has been shown, piracy from Somali and attacks from Yemen has significantly increased the cost of shipping, which puts a dampener on international trade.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      The problem is that you get the whole package, like WOT, color revolutions and so on.
- suraci 2y ago
  Common people and rulers usually have different perspectives. As a European, you would have such a perspective. But in the eyes of European politicians, they wouldn't view the issue as you do. This is because their sole purpose of existence is to be vassals of the hegemony. They are unable to accept the consequences of a U.S. strategic contraction. If the U.S. withdrew from Europe, Europeans would still be Europeans, but the politicians might not necessarily be.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?
  - krige 2y ago
    Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.
    - ChocolateGod 2y ago
      > Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
      - krige 2y ago
        Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  >the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony". What you say here is sort of absurd. The USA has by far spent much more on subsidizing and covering European defense than it has ever asked European powers to pay into its own global hegemony. Europe has inordinately benefited from this for decades, regardless of whether it also helps the U.S in its own defense or for that matter hegemonic needs, or not.
  - tw1231656 2y ago
    During the cold war the US needed markets in Western Europe. Countries like Germany were literally supposed to stop communist armies until the US troops arrive and possible get nuked in the process. That does not sound like a win at all, except for the US. Furthermore, without US military spending and protection claims, the dollar would collapse.
  - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
    It's almost like both sides benefited enormously from the relationship. But this is likely a very costly mistake for the US. The hegemony was chaired by the US obviously which was on the other side of an ocean. It's true that the US is a maritime power and is therefore easy to defend, but maritime empires are also difficult to administer and exert direct influence. Imagine if Germany had the level of hegemony (not in the nazi sense, just the absolute geopolitical power sense), being any country around it would be very dangerous, because it is inevitable that continental superpowers throw their weight around in ground military actions. Example: Russia obviously, and they aren't even really a superpower. This may awaken a sleeping tiger in the EU. An unreliable US and a common enemy (Russia) may integrate the largest collective GDP association and a half a billion people into a cohesive military power. France has occasionally been pseudo-imperialist in Africa in recent years, but the EU is poised to dominate Africa and possibly (if it can defeat them in the correct way) all of Russia if it properly arms. Because if you force people to militarize, there has to be a justification for it economically. The natural justification of a militarized EU is to dominate its continental neighbors and exert trade dominance over its hemisphere. The US should be concerned about its naval dominance as well, the pillar of its maritime power. The Ukraine war has shown that drones make littoral combat extremely dangerous for any capital surface ship, and it's likely in the next ten years that a swarm drone fleet will do the same for submarines in nearshore. The next question is when drones become usable against deepwater ships. Carrier groups may still be able to project air power, but air drones may whittle away at even high altitude air superiority that carriers can project. Brazen nazi salutes by US leaders are critically damaging the "brand" of the United State in EU. I can't think of anything short of actual military action against the EU that would more motivate disentanglement from the US. People need to remember that the US doesn't really make anything anymore, it was all outsourced to China. Our maritime dominance kept us (eg the petrodollar system) in a position of global economic control, but if the EU and China simply cut America out of the equation, and only treat it as a consumption market (what would the EU need from America that Africa and Asia/China could not provide?).
- rayiner 2y ago
  Then Europe should be cheering that the US now has an administration that’s no longer interested in maintaining American hegemony. If that were so valuable, Germany or France would be rushing in to displace the U.S. as hegemon, right?
suraci 2y ago
this article is better than i expected since most English articles about geopolitics are filled with ideologically driven whining. i like how it referenced Planck's principle > Cultures do not change when people replace their old ideas with new ones; cultures change when people with new ideas replace the people with old ones. I want to add something, here, 'people with new ideas', is not trump, trump is a man without any ideas, the one with new ideas is JD Vance
- e40 2y ago
  The people with new ideas are the authors of project 2025, not that I agree with any of that nonsense. JD is a sycophant.
  - suraci 2y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I said, Here, 'new' is not a compliment but an objective description to differentiate it from 'old'. What I mean is, JD Vance represents the ideas of the group of Americans who voted for Trump - the group of Americans who believe they don't reap benefits from the hegemony it's quite obvious base on what he said https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073 https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073 https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/vance-speech-munich-full-text-read-transcript-europe/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/vance-speech-munich-ful...
    - torlok 2y ago
      Vance is just Thiel's tool to spread the same anti-government rhetoric that has been widening the wealth gap in the US since the 50s. People like Musk and Thiel want weak, isolated governments, because that paves the way for their libertarian utopia where the only rule is money.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        You’ve got it backward. Globalists want weak governments that they can play in a global race to the bottom. Vance is a conservative nationalist, and is one of the least “small government” types in the party.
gizajob 2y ago
Might be less of a problem if America hadn’t bankrupted itself militarily with 20 years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that it didn’t need to be in.
gaussiandistro 2y ago
[flagged]
TacticalCoder 2y ago
[dead]
aredox 2y ago
This bullshit can look reasonable, but the US has undercut the European Defense initiatives and industry at every turn during the last 30 years, using their geopolitical reach and tools like Echelon for industrial spying to win military procurement programs, and their special relationship with the UK to veto any EU-wide initiative towards defense. The US goals have been for decades to force the EU to buy US military hardware and to make sure the EU can't become an independent military power. They kept Europe on a leash, kept it tame, and now they complain that "we depend on us". Make no mistake, the second the EU becomes militarily independant and strong, they will complain as loudly. Look first for Trump applying pressure because we don't buy American weapons, and then him or his cult casting the EU into their geopolitical adversary.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  But the Trump administration is ... charitably ... being isolationist and is poised to fire a massive number of generals from the existing military leadership. They have also massively purged the CIA and NSA, while installing moronic stooges at the head of all of those agencies. Uncharitably ... he is doing Putin's bidding for whatever unknown reason Putin has such absolute influence over Trump, because Putin thinks it will allow him to invade eastern NATO and retake the Sulwalki gap and possibly the former warsaw pact, which is basically a pipe dream of a madman. Russia does not have the military hardware to beat Ukraine, and it doesn't have the manpower: Russian meat waves can barely be sustained in Ukraine, and certainly wouldn't against the EU NATO forces as they exist now.
tw1231656 2y ago
Since Trump's inauguration the new talking point on all social media is that "the EU is freeloading on the US". This is patently false. Whenever the EU starts its own defense initiatives, the US interferes immediately: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/eu-fends-off-us-attack-in-spat-over-the-blocs-military-reforms/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/eu-fends-off-u... For a proper European deterrence the EU would needs its own nuclear force and an independent foreign policy. Which the US would attempt to shut down very quickly. What the US really wants is for the EU to buy US hardware with kill switches and manufacture shells for US directed proxy wars. Perhaps also supply EU soldiers in Ukraine that function as a tripwire for the continuation of Nuland's pet conflict. The status quo is that the EU is happy with its abusive vassal relationship, pays slightly less for defense and lets the US reap benefits from a sovereign foreign policy and a dollar that is propped up by its military might. Be careful what you ask for!
- pjc50 2y ago
  Article is paywalled?
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  France and the UK have nuclear capability sufficient for MAD, including I believe a full nuclear triad, certainly the sea-based and land-based parts. To reiterate, the EU is the largest GDP bloc and a half a billion people, and they have theater dominance over Africa and the Middle East, and possibly Russia if Putin dies and Russia fades further. If you force a country to arm, it looks for historical and geopolitically practical ways to benefit from that armament. That is geopolitical inevitability. The EU is dismissed as too fragmented to unite, but there are two very convenient boogeymen to unite the EU: Putin, an authoritarian ghoul of naked aggression with vast historical echoes in European history, and the openly nazi saluting US, with its own historical echoes and the simmering resentment of soft dominance.
DrNosferatu 2y ago
European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches) And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective *Liberal Democracy*. So, to be part, 1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel. 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in. 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Not one more *new* military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel. Hey, it would be actually great for their economy! Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan. US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members. Not interested? Bye, your problem.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The term “liberal democracy” is newspeak. What you mean is the opposite of democracy—a society run by judges and administrators that overrule democratically supported measures that offend their liberal ideologies.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    Newspeak is discarding the post (Yalta and) Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus. The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to counter the indeed newspeak self-named "Illiberal Democracy" - you, and everyone, knows very well today what that is. And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. Your subtext actually counters: - Equality before the law; - Free speech, assembly and religion; - Protection from arbitrary (state) power, as due process is actually a thing. Labeling these principles as "ideological" is misleading. Liberal democracy ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat. - Property rights and independent courts attract investment and foster prosperity (e.g., Denmark vs. Venezuela). You seem to forget that Liberal Democracy’s constraints on power are openly debated and codified in constitutions—unlike autocratic regimes that manipulate language (e.g., Russia’s "managed democracy"). Finally, Liberal Democracy is not a bug but a feature: - It prevents "51% oppression" (majorities violating minority rights / rule of the mob). - It enables peaceful power transitions (e.g., Biden to Trump in 2025, vs the reverse). - It fosters long-term stability by balancing popular will with rule of law.
mongol 2y ago
I can understand the economical argument. If the US wants to disengage from NATO and Europe it can do so orderly. But the way this handled makes the retreat from Afghanistan look exemplary in comparison. In addition. Extorting a country that is victim of military aggression. Going to bed with a bloodthirsty dictator. That has nothing to do with the defense-spending arguments. That is just amoral, to put it lightly.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The simple explanation is that Russia overwhelmingly won their war of propaganda and bribery. The American news organizations and public welcomed it because it was "anti-woke". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    How old are you? American liberals have been complaining that US neocons have been trying to relive the Cold War my entire adult lifetime. Obama was the one mocking Romney for his obsession with Russia. Trump is just an Al Gore liberal on this front: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-24-mn-41201-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-24-mn-41201... It was plausible to say the Soviet Union was a threat to America because it sought to export communism worldwide. Nobody thinks Russia has any such designs.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      It's quite remarkable how the parties flipped on this. I wonder if you could pin it down to a specific date? Perhaps it really was just Euromaidan. The NRA getting infiltrated happened in or before 2015: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-2015-moscow-trip-wasnt-official-emails-photos/story?id=60715741 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-2015-moscow-trip-wasnt-o... => https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/maria-butina-sentenced-18-months-russia-nra https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/maria-butina...

28 points by Khaine 2y ago

[dead]

m000 2y ago

Although I agree with the conclusion that the necessity of NATO is to be questioned, some of the observations made are purely in the eye of the beholder. E.g. > Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets. From a European perspective, the "growing security burden" is largely an American self-serving assertion. Standing on the other side of the pond, one could also read the situation as "the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony".

Ekaros 2y ago
As European I only care about what might go in continental Europe. Any other part can fend of themselves, whoever the aggressor might be. It probably being USA... We really should focus on isolationism and global trade. Even securing shipping lines is short term thinking. Let the conflicts happen and then things stabilize.
- Khaine 2y ago
  That makes no sense. If you care about global trade, you care about securing shipping lines. As has been shown, piracy from Somali and attacks from Yemen has significantly increased the cost of shipping, which puts a dampener on international trade.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    The problem is that you get the whole package, like WOT, color revolutions and so on.
suraci 2y ago
Common people and rulers usually have different perspectives. As a European, you would have such a perspective. But in the eyes of European politicians, they wouldn't view the issue as you do. This is because their sole purpose of existence is to be vassals of the hegemony. They are unable to accept the consequences of a U.S. strategic contraction. If the U.S. withdrew from Europe, Europeans would still be Europeans, but the politicians might not necessarily be.
skybrian 2y ago
Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?
- krige 2y ago
  Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    > Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
    - krige 2y ago
      Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.
southernplaces7 2y ago
>the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony". What you say here is sort of absurd. The USA has by far spent much more on subsidizing and covering European defense than it has ever asked European powers to pay into its own global hegemony. Europe has inordinately benefited from this for decades, regardless of whether it also helps the U.S in its own defense or for that matter hegemonic needs, or not.
- tw1231656 2y ago
  During the cold war the US needed markets in Western Europe. Countries like Germany were literally supposed to stop communist armies until the US troops arrive and possible get nuked in the process. That does not sound like a win at all, except for the US. Furthermore, without US military spending and protection claims, the dollar would collapse.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  It's almost like both sides benefited enormously from the relationship. But this is likely a very costly mistake for the US. The hegemony was chaired by the US obviously which was on the other side of an ocean. It's true that the US is a maritime power and is therefore easy to defend, but maritime empires are also difficult to administer and exert direct influence. Imagine if Germany had the level of hegemony (not in the nazi sense, just the absolute geopolitical power sense), being any country around it would be very dangerous, because it is inevitable that continental superpowers throw their weight around in ground military actions. Example: Russia obviously, and they aren't even really a superpower. This may awaken a sleeping tiger in the EU. An unreliable US and a common enemy (Russia) may integrate the largest collective GDP association and a half a billion people into a cohesive military power. France has occasionally been pseudo-imperialist in Africa in recent years, but the EU is poised to dominate Africa and possibly (if it can defeat them in the correct way) all of Russia if it properly arms. Because if you force people to militarize, there has to be a justification for it economically. The natural justification of a militarized EU is to dominate its continental neighbors and exert trade dominance over its hemisphere. The US should be concerned about its naval dominance as well, the pillar of its maritime power. The Ukraine war has shown that drones make littoral combat extremely dangerous for any capital surface ship, and it's likely in the next ten years that a swarm drone fleet will do the same for submarines in nearshore. The next question is when drones become usable against deepwater ships. Carrier groups may still be able to project air power, but air drones may whittle away at even high altitude air superiority that carriers can project. Brazen nazi salutes by US leaders are critically damaging the "brand" of the United State in EU. I can't think of anything short of actual military action against the EU that would more motivate disentanglement from the US. People need to remember that the US doesn't really make anything anymore, it was all outsourced to China. Our maritime dominance kept us (eg the petrodollar system) in a position of global economic control, but if the EU and China simply cut America out of the equation, and only treat it as a consumption market (what would the EU need from America that Africa and Asia/China could not provide?).
rayiner 2y ago
Then Europe should be cheering that the US now has an administration that’s no longer interested in maintaining American hegemony. If that were so valuable, Germany or France would be rushing in to displace the U.S. as hegemon, right?

suraci 2y ago

this article is better than i expected since most English articles about geopolitics are filled with ideologically driven whining. i like how it referenced Planck's principle > Cultures do not change when people replace their old ideas with new ones; cultures change when people with new ideas replace the people with old ones. I want to add something, here, 'people with new ideas', is not trump, trump is a man without any ideas, the one with new ideas is JD Vance

e40 2y ago
The people with new ideas are the authors of project 2025, not that I agree with any of that nonsense. JD is a sycophant.
- suraci 2y ago
  I think you misunderstood what I said, Here, 'new' is not a compliment but an objective description to differentiate it from 'old'. What I mean is, JD Vance represents the ideas of the group of Americans who voted for Trump - the group of Americans who believe they don't reap benefits from the hegemony it's quite obvious base on what he said https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073 https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073 https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/vance-speech-munich-full-text-read-transcript-europe/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/vance-speech-munich-ful...
  - torlok 2y ago
    Vance is just Thiel's tool to spread the same anti-government rhetoric that has been widening the wealth gap in the US since the 50s. People like Musk and Thiel want weak, isolated governments, because that paves the way for their libertarian utopia where the only rule is money.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      You’ve got it backward. Globalists want weak governments that they can play in a global race to the bottom. Vance is a conservative nationalist, and is one of the least “small government” types in the party.

gizajob 2y ago

Might be less of a problem if America hadn’t bankrupted itself militarily with 20 years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that it didn’t need to be in.

gaussiandistro 2y ago

[flagged]

TacticalCoder 2y ago

[dead]

aredox 2y ago

This bullshit can look reasonable, but the US has undercut the European Defense initiatives and industry at every turn during the last 30 years, using their geopolitical reach and tools like Echelon for industrial spying to win military procurement programs, and their special relationship with the UK to veto any EU-wide initiative towards defense. The US goals have been for decades to force the EU to buy US military hardware and to make sure the EU can't become an independent military power. They kept Europe on a leash, kept it tame, and now they complain that "we depend on us". Make no mistake, the second the EU becomes militarily independant and strong, they will complain as loudly. Look first for Trump applying pressure because we don't buy American weapons, and then him or his cult casting the EU into their geopolitical adversary.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
But the Trump administration is ... charitably ... being isolationist and is poised to fire a massive number of generals from the existing military leadership. They have also massively purged the CIA and NSA, while installing moronic stooges at the head of all of those agencies. Uncharitably ... he is doing Putin's bidding for whatever unknown reason Putin has such absolute influence over Trump, because Putin thinks it will allow him to invade eastern NATO and retake the Sulwalki gap and possibly the former warsaw pact, which is basically a pipe dream of a madman. Russia does not have the military hardware to beat Ukraine, and it doesn't have the manpower: Russian meat waves can barely be sustained in Ukraine, and certainly wouldn't against the EU NATO forces as they exist now.

tw1231656 2y ago

Since Trump's inauguration the new talking point on all social media is that "the EU is freeloading on the US". This is patently false. Whenever the EU starts its own defense initiatives, the US interferes immediately: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/eu-fends-off-us-attack-in-spat-over-the-blocs-military-reforms/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/eu-fends-off-u... For a proper European deterrence the EU would needs its own nuclear force and an independent foreign policy. Which the US would attempt to shut down very quickly. What the US really wants is for the EU to buy US hardware with kill switches and manufacture shells for US directed proxy wars. Perhaps also supply EU soldiers in Ukraine that function as a tripwire for the continuation of Nuland's pet conflict. The status quo is that the EU is happy with its abusive vassal relationship, pays slightly less for defense and lets the US reap benefits from a sovereign foreign policy and a dollar that is propped up by its military might. Be careful what you ask for!

pjc50 2y ago
Article is paywalled?
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
France and the UK have nuclear capability sufficient for MAD, including I believe a full nuclear triad, certainly the sea-based and land-based parts. To reiterate, the EU is the largest GDP bloc and a half a billion people, and they have theater dominance over Africa and the Middle East, and possibly Russia if Putin dies and Russia fades further. If you force a country to arm, it looks for historical and geopolitically practical ways to benefit from that armament. That is geopolitical inevitability. The EU is dismissed as too fragmented to unite, but there are two very convenient boogeymen to unite the EU: Putin, an authoritarian ghoul of naked aggression with vast historical echoes in European history, and the openly nazi saluting US, with its own historical echoes and the simmering resentment of soft dominance.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches) And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective *Liberal Democracy*. So, to be part, 1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel. 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in. 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Not one more *new* military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel. Hey, it would be actually great for their economy! Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan. US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members. Not interested? Bye, your problem.

rayiner 2y ago
The term “liberal democracy” is newspeak. What you mean is the opposite of democracy—a society run by judges and administrators that overrule democratically supported measures that offend their liberal ideologies.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Newspeak is discarding the post (Yalta and) Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus. The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to counter the indeed newspeak self-named "Illiberal Democracy" - you, and everyone, knows very well today what that is. And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. Your subtext actually counters: - Equality before the law; - Free speech, assembly and religion; - Protection from arbitrary (state) power, as due process is actually a thing. Labeling these principles as "ideological" is misleading. Liberal democracy ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat. - Property rights and independent courts attract investment and foster prosperity (e.g., Denmark vs. Venezuela). You seem to forget that Liberal Democracy’s constraints on power are openly debated and codified in constitutions—unlike autocratic regimes that manipulate language (e.g., Russia’s "managed democracy"). Finally, Liberal Democracy is not a bug but a feature: - It prevents "51% oppression" (majorities violating minority rights / rule of the mob). - It enables peaceful power transitions (e.g., Biden to Trump in 2025, vs the reverse). - It fosters long-term stability by balancing popular will with rule of law.

mongol 2y ago

I can understand the economical argument. If the US wants to disengage from NATO and Europe it can do so orderly. But the way this handled makes the retreat from Afghanistan look exemplary in comparison. In addition. Extorting a country that is victim of military aggression. Going to bed with a bloodthirsty dictator. That has nothing to do with the defense-spending arguments. That is just amoral, to put it lightly.

pjc50 2y ago
The simple explanation is that Russia overwhelmingly won their war of propaganda and bribery. The American news organizations and public welcomed it because it was "anti-woke". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
- rayiner 2y ago
  How old are you? American liberals have been complaining that US neocons have been trying to relive the Cold War my entire adult lifetime. Obama was the one mocking Romney for his obsession with Russia. Trump is just an Al Gore liberal on this front: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-24-mn-41201-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-24-mn-41201... It was plausible to say the Soviet Union was a threat to America because it sought to export communism worldwide. Nobody thinks Russia has any such designs.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    It's quite remarkable how the parties flipped on this. I wonder if you could pin it down to a specific date? Perhaps it really was just Euromaidan. The NRA getting infiltrated happened in or before 2015: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-2015-moscow-trip-wasnt-official-emails-photos/story?id=60715741 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-2015-moscow-trip-wasnt-o... => https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/maria-butina-sentenced-18-months-russia-nra https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/maria-butina...