3 ms·

I don't know where so many people justify that Europe militarizing is a good outcome. Best case, it's a massive drain on the global economy. Worst case, we are

I don't know where so many people justify that Europe militarizing is a good outcome. Best case, it's a massive drain on the global economy. Worst case, we are stuffing the powderkeg for WWIII. There's a reason the US was happy to pay more than it's fair share for NATO for so long. If we start to see tariffs take off internationally, like we did back with the Smoot Hawley tariffs 100 years ago, we are literally recreating the environment that created WWII, this time with Ukraine playing the part of Manchuria.

duxup 2y ago
Is Europe “militarizing” any different than now? Regardless, I don’t think they’ve been given a choice. And if nobody helps out anyone, you get everyone “militarizing”.
sirolimus 2y ago
So what are you proposing then? That Russia just takes Ukraine?
- legitster 2y ago
  The US to continue funding NATO and Ukraine.
  - selykg 2y ago
    Trump is holding that all hostage and is likely rooting for Russia (or worse). We know he idolizes him. So, Zelenskyy is supposed to just lay down and give up everything for a lopsided deal that will just hurt them more? The US is just going to take advantage of the entire situation. That’s what we have in power now, opportunists.
  - sirolimus 2y ago
    But the US doesnt want to. Are u paying attention?
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Sadly Trump has ended that as a solution. No one trusts the US's word that it will defend them now. Also, that defence now comes with a 'must kiss the king's ring' and 'protectorates must repay us with us dictating the terms when they are most vulnerable'.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    That option is over due to the American electorate. You have to cut the US out to ensure success and further disempowerment of Russia to prevent any further potential for Russia to initiate a conflict. The Russian economy has almost been brought to failure, Europe simply needs the will and resources to get there (EU countries are currently negotiating a €20B military package for Ukraine). Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872 > Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
mjburgess 2y ago
The worst thing for European security is for europe to become a military rival to Russia (, the US, China). This is a likely to be an increasinly popular desire for the publics of europe now that the US is withdrawing, but it's a dangerous trap -- the upside is that you retain a seat at the table, the downside is you will be grinding down your population in wars and military spending. The german model was the european model: spend almost nothing on defense, let the US provide the nukes, sit back and get rich. One reason this model may fail is the UK and France -- both are expeditionary forces (the UK where-ever the US is, and france in africa) trying to play at being a great power. This only ever worked because the US was prepared to bail them out whenever anything bad happened (cf. Libya). Without the US, both nations may try to drive towards EU military unification and hence genuine great power status. Good luck balancing the Chinese, Russia and US defense budgets. Europe's spending will be crippled, just as the US's is -- without global currency status to prop it up.
- hdjjhhvvhga 2y ago
  > One reason this model may fail is the UK and France Another reason is a bi-polar American president that can withdraw from NATO tomorrow effectively leaving Europe on its own. Europe has no other choice, they need to spend more on defense if they want to keep the war at bay.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  No, the worst thing for European security would be to not have enough military strength to stop Putin if he decides he wants Poland (as prominent Russians have said they should take, after Ukraine). And then East Germany, and Chechia, and Slovakia, and Hungary. And then who knows if he would decide he is done? Not being able to defend yourself is strictly worse for security than being able to defend yourself. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
soramimo 2y ago
The main need for this comes from the rise of China. Specifically, its rise in economic power and military capabilities make is so that 1) the US is no longer able to deter both Russia and China combined, but needs to prioritize China (its main geopolitical rival) and 2) Russia can openly engage in armed conflict without the fear of Western sanctions, as China will keep Russia's economy afloat (mainly via purchase of energy). With Trump back in the White House there is an additional motivation for EU countries to up their military spending; at best the US is now viewed as a less reliable ally (that may or may not help in the face of conflict), at worst the US will align itself with autocratic regimes to divide up the world in their respective spheres of influence and actively undermine the EU. So if you accept the premise that democracy (and the liberal, rule-based world order) is worthwhile defending, increased military spending of EU countries is in fact a "good thing" (as in, better than the alternative of submitting to imperialistic authoritarian neighbors).
- NalNezumi 2y ago
  I agree that increased military spending in Europe is a good thing.. for Europeans but net negative for the world. Also it's a pretty daft take to think that this sudden armament of Europe is going to help the "contain China" cause. Why would anyone in East/South East Asia now trust USA when they see economics as zero-sum game with military intimidation towards allies as a valid strategy for getting their way. China is doing the latter without the former, and most Asian nations has more to lose economically siding with US to begin with. Pivot to China have been the long running goal since Obama but why it took long time is because of dynamics like this. Just to on a whim in less than 2 month destroying all that. I can't imagine how this can be spun as a win, even with outlined goals of yours. Yeah good luck containing China when all their neighbors are now not sure about American commitment anymore. If I'm a Asian politician I'd probably just start nuke development and declare neutrality and ride this one out. Global free trade, which have benefitted all of Asia (including China) is not something US is supporting anymore anyway

duxup 2y ago

Is Europe “militarizing” any different than now? Regardless, I don’t think they’ve been given a choice. And if nobody helps out anyone, you get everyone “militarizing”.

sirolimus 2y ago

So what are you proposing then? That Russia just takes Ukraine?

legitster 2y ago
The US to continue funding NATO and Ukraine.
- selykg 2y ago
  Trump is holding that all hostage and is likely rooting for Russia (or worse). We know he idolizes him. So, Zelenskyy is supposed to just lay down and give up everything for a lopsided deal that will just hurt them more? The US is just going to take advantage of the entire situation. That’s what we have in power now, opportunists.
- sirolimus 2y ago
  But the US doesnt want to. Are u paying attention?
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Sadly Trump has ended that as a solution. No one trusts the US's word that it will defend them now. Also, that defence now comes with a 'must kiss the king's ring' and 'protectorates must repay us with us dictating the terms when they are most vulnerable'.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  That option is over due to the American electorate. You have to cut the US out to ensure success and further disempowerment of Russia to prevent any further potential for Russia to initiate a conflict. The Russian economy has almost been brought to failure, Europe simply needs the will and resources to get there (EU countries are currently negotiating a €20B military package for Ukraine). Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872 > Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

mjburgess 2y ago

The worst thing for European security is for europe to become a military rival to Russia (, the US, China). This is a likely to be an increasinly popular desire for the publics of europe now that the US is withdrawing, but it's a dangerous trap -- the upside is that you retain a seat at the table, the downside is you will be grinding down your population in wars and military spending. The german model was the european model: spend almost nothing on defense, let the US provide the nukes, sit back and get rich. One reason this model may fail is the UK and France -- both are expeditionary forces (the UK where-ever the US is, and france in africa) trying to play at being a great power. This only ever worked because the US was prepared to bail them out whenever anything bad happened (cf. Libya). Without the US, both nations may try to drive towards EU military unification and hence genuine great power status. Good luck balancing the Chinese, Russia and US defense budgets. Europe's spending will be crippled, just as the US's is -- without global currency status to prop it up.

hdjjhhvvhga 2y ago
> One reason this model may fail is the UK and France Another reason is a bi-polar American president that can withdraw from NATO tomorrow effectively leaving Europe on its own. Europe has no other choice, they need to spend more on defense if they want to keep the war at bay.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
No, the worst thing for European security would be to not have enough military strength to stop Putin if he decides he wants Poland (as prominent Russians have said they should take, after Ukraine). And then East Germany, and Chechia, and Slovakia, and Hungary. And then who knows if he would decide he is done? Not being able to defend yourself is strictly worse for security than being able to defend yourself. I don't know how you can think otherwise.

soramimo 2y ago

The main need for this comes from the rise of China. Specifically, its rise in economic power and military capabilities make is so that 1) the US is no longer able to deter both Russia and China combined, but needs to prioritize China (its main geopolitical rival) and 2) Russia can openly engage in armed conflict without the fear of Western sanctions, as China will keep Russia's economy afloat (mainly via purchase of energy). With Trump back in the White House there is an additional motivation for EU countries to up their military spending; at best the US is now viewed as a less reliable ally (that may or may not help in the face of conflict), at worst the US will align itself with autocratic regimes to divide up the world in their respective spheres of influence and actively undermine the EU. So if you accept the premise that democracy (and the liberal, rule-based world order) is worthwhile defending, increased military spending of EU countries is in fact a "good thing" (as in, better than the alternative of submitting to imperialistic authoritarian neighbors).

NalNezumi 2y ago
I agree that increased military spending in Europe is a good thing.. for Europeans but net negative for the world. Also it's a pretty daft take to think that this sudden armament of Europe is going to help the "contain China" cause. Why would anyone in East/South East Asia now trust USA when they see economics as zero-sum game with military intimidation towards allies as a valid strategy for getting their way. China is doing the latter without the former, and most Asian nations has more to lose economically siding with US to begin with. Pivot to China have been the long running goal since Obama but why it took long time is because of dynamics like this. Just to on a whim in less than 2 month destroying all that. I can't imagine how this can be spun as a win, even with outlined goals of yours. Yeah good luck containing China when all their neighbors are now not sure about American commitment anymore. If I'm a Asian politician I'd probably just start nuke development and declare neutrality and ride this one out. Global free trade, which have benefitted all of Asia (including China) is not something US is supporting anymore anyway