5 ms·

>the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony". Wh

>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?).
- m000 2y ago
  EU was created to stop European countries from trying to dominate each other. And one can say that it worked very well, despite any political grudges. EU did try to extend the paradigm to relations with Russia. And it also worked for a while, until USA started meddling with Ukraine to avoid drifting into irrelevance as a superpower. The people in EU no longer feel any need to dominate their neighbours. It is the USA that attempts to force their hand, aided by the current corrupt EU political elite (hello Mark Rutte).
  - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
    You misunderstand me. The EU will dominate its theater neighbors: Russia (once Putin dies and the country turns into total chaos), Africa, Middle East, Arctic (because Canada will closely align with the EU, that provides right there about 50% of arctic control by EU/non-US NATO, and when Putin falls and Siberia is up for grabs, it will be the EU or China that grab it.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      I don't completely disavow your predictions about the power potential of the EU (It certainly has them in terms of GDP, population and some resource factors) but you're grossly overstating the potential cohesiveness of this currently fragile whole. While the EU as a single body maintains a facade of unity while things are more or less stable and no major sacrifice is required of many of its members, long-held nationalisms and individual member-level self interests are not far below the surface of individual countries. In a major crisis, these could easily break open and shatter the union. The U.S on the other hand is exceptionally cohesive (current superficial political divides notwithstanding). Virtually all Americans identify with the idea of America as a whole single nation and would ferociously defend this ideal if it were seriously threatened. This gives it a unique edge when coupled with its enormous material power, it's superb access to internal natural resources and its obvious geographic invulnerability to military harm from anything except nuclear attack or maybe, a massive EMP strike. Russia has no chance whatsoever of actually successfully invading the EU nations via conventional military means, but it can threaten them in ways that don't apply to the United States and any enemy it has..
aredox 2y ago
Again: since then end of the Cold War - and even before - the US has undercut at every turn both the European Military sector and any political attempt at a common military policy. At every turn. The US has always wanted the EU to be a "junior" partner, dependent on the US, to make sure it doesn't challenge it one day. The proof to what I write? Watch how quick Trump and his coterie will become belligerent when the EU doesn't buy US weapons or begins to show strategic autonomy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 2y ago
The postwar US policy was to defend Europe to prevent Europe from re-arming. Just like the Japan policy exists in an odd super-position of helping the US defend against China while not being allowed to have aircraft carriers. (the suspiciously long decked ship named after one of the Pearl Harbor carriers, the JSDF Kaga, is a helicopter carrier. For treaty purposes this a completely different kind of thing, nothing to see here) Edit in response to [deleted] comment: > Until recently, "covering European defense" from what? What were the dangers that Europe was threatened with? Russia (again); also "terrorism" and, in the 90s, the Balkan conflict. The war in Ukraine began in 2014, not 2022, explictly in response to Euromaidan. Shortly afterwards Russian forces shot down a Malaysian civilian airliner carrying Dutch nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 In 2018 Russia carried out a nerve agent chemical warfare terrorist attack against the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... ; this was extremely under-emphasized at the time.
- m000 2y ago
  > In 2018 Russia carried out a nerve agent chemical warfare terrorist attack against the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... ; this was extremely under-emphasized at the time. And now it is extremely over-emphasized. /s A targeted assasination attempt, as despicable as it may be on its own right, is miles away from a "chemical warfare terrorist attack" against a country, don't you think?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > A targeted assasination attempt, as despicable as it may be on its own right, is miles away from a "chemical warfare terrorist attack" against a country, don't you think? Given how weak most terrorist attacks are, I'd say it's absolutely the same ball park as most such attacks. Of course, as various media noted at the time, the media reporting of terrorism during the war on terror was wildly out of kilter with the actual risk.
  - pjc50 2y ago
adrian_b 2y ago
Due to the standardization provided by NATO, much of the money spent by European countries has gone to American companies. It is hard to determine whether the European countries have gained more by spending less on defense than they have lost by buying more American weapons. At least for the newer members of NATO it is pretty certain that their admission has brought great profits for USA, because in most cases it has been conditioned by the requirement to fund expensive contracts with US companies, e.g. for military aircraft.

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?).

m000 2y ago
EU was created to stop European countries from trying to dominate each other. And one can say that it worked very well, despite any political grudges. EU did try to extend the paradigm to relations with Russia. And it also worked for a while, until USA started meddling with Ukraine to avoid drifting into irrelevance as a superpower. The people in EU no longer feel any need to dominate their neighbours. It is the USA that attempts to force their hand, aided by the current corrupt EU political elite (hello Mark Rutte).
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  You misunderstand me. The EU will dominate its theater neighbors: Russia (once Putin dies and the country turns into total chaos), Africa, Middle East, Arctic (because Canada will closely align with the EU, that provides right there about 50% of arctic control by EU/non-US NATO, and when Putin falls and Siberia is up for grabs, it will be the EU or China that grab it.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    I don't completely disavow your predictions about the power potential of the EU (It certainly has them in terms of GDP, population and some resource factors) but you're grossly overstating the potential cohesiveness of this currently fragile whole. While the EU as a single body maintains a facade of unity while things are more or less stable and no major sacrifice is required of many of its members, long-held nationalisms and individual member-level self interests are not far below the surface of individual countries. In a major crisis, these could easily break open and shatter the union. The U.S on the other hand is exceptionally cohesive (current superficial political divides notwithstanding). Virtually all Americans identify with the idea of America as a whole single nation and would ferociously defend this ideal if it were seriously threatened. This gives it a unique edge when coupled with its enormous material power, it's superb access to internal natural resources and its obvious geographic invulnerability to military harm from anything except nuclear attack or maybe, a massive EMP strike. Russia has no chance whatsoever of actually successfully invading the EU nations via conventional military means, but it can threaten them in ways that don't apply to the United States and any enemy it has..

aredox 2y ago

Again: since then end of the Cold War - and even before - the US has undercut at every turn both the European Military sector and any political attempt at a common military policy. At every turn. The US has always wanted the EU to be a "junior" partner, dependent on the US, to make sure it doesn't challenge it one day. The proof to what I write? Watch how quick Trump and his coterie will become belligerent when the EU doesn't buy US weapons or begins to show strategic autonomy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 2y ago

The postwar US policy was to defend Europe to prevent Europe from re-arming. Just like the Japan policy exists in an odd super-position of helping the US defend against China while not being allowed to have aircraft carriers. (the suspiciously long decked ship named after one of the Pearl Harbor carriers, the JSDF Kaga, is a helicopter carrier. For treaty purposes this a completely different kind of thing, nothing to see here) Edit in response to [deleted] comment: > Until recently, "covering European defense" from what? What were the dangers that Europe was threatened with? Russia (again); also "terrorism" and, in the 90s, the Balkan conflict. The war in Ukraine began in 2014, not 2022, explictly in response to Euromaidan. Shortly afterwards Russian forces shot down a Malaysian civilian airliner carrying Dutch nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 In 2018 Russia carried out a nerve agent chemical warfare terrorist attack against the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... ; this was extremely under-emphasized at the time.

m000 2y ago
> In 2018 Russia carried out a nerve agent chemical warfare terrorist attack against the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... ; this was extremely under-emphasized at the time. And now it is extremely over-emphasized. /s A targeted assasination attempt, as despicable as it may be on its own right, is miles away from a "chemical warfare terrorist attack" against a country, don't you think?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > A targeted assasination attempt, as despicable as it may be on its own right, is miles away from a "chemical warfare terrorist attack" against a country, don't you think? Given how weak most terrorist attacks are, I'd say it's absolutely the same ball park as most such attacks. Of course, as various media noted at the time, the media reporting of terrorism during the war on terror was wildly out of kilter with the actual risk.
- pjc50 2y ago

adrian_b 2y ago

Due to the standardization provided by NATO, much of the money spent by European countries has gone to American companies. It is hard to determine whether the European countries have gained more by spending less on defense than they have lost by buying more American weapons. At least for the newer members of NATO it is pretty certain that their admission has brought great profits for USA, because in most cases it has been conditioned by the requirement to fund expensive contracts with US companies, e.g. for military aircraft.