7 ms·

No, Europe is a de facto vassal state to US since WW2. What Europe didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was the US agenda differs from Europe agenda

by tored 2y ago

No, Europe is a de facto vassal state to US since WW2. What Europe didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was the US agenda differs from Europe agenda , always has. But now they start to wake up facing this reality.

fransje26 2y ago
> What Europe didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was the US agenda differs from Europe agenda , always has. France would disagree with the "didn't understand" part. They have been continuously ridiculed for holding that view, until very, very recently.
- tored 2y ago
  Agree, France is somewhat of an exception. I remember during the Chirac presidency how viciously France was attacked by the other European countries, especially my own Sweden, for doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. Jump forward today and France is seen as a protector of Europe, especially in Sweden, because of its nuclear arsenal.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    > doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. That was not the most glorious moment of Chirac's presidency, no.. However, as someone involved in numerical simulations, the argument that it was needed to calibrate their numerical models does hold (some..) water.. But Chirac did partly redeem himself by refusing to invade Iraq on bogus US claims of WMDs..
    - elproxy 2y ago
      In fairness, he did so in part because this was going to go against Total's interests (see Oil, Power and War for that part of the story), but yeah, it was still the right stance to have and history proved him right.
      - fransje26 2y ago
        As opposed to invading in order to support the interests of Halliburton? Tough choice.. Let's also not forget the absolutely absurd intervention of Colin Powell at the UN Security Council, holding up a vial containing the ultimate "proof" of WMD. Good thing he didn't drop it.. /s
leokennis 2y ago
I think Europe was of the understanding that the "ongoing deal" was mutually beneficial. The US paid by far the most for defense and so had by far the most influence and power in the world, and the peace (at least in the Western world) that US defense brought made sure both the US and the EU could freely trade and benefit financially. What now changed is that apparently the US thinks it does not need this hegemony anymore (by forcing the EU to become a competing military power), or that they can replace the role the EU played with some other combination of countries. Or alternatively, the US is just looking for some "splendid isolation". To European spectators, the above seems ridiculous. But who knows, maybe Trump is correct... Either way, the US had a good thing going and is now abandoning that. Not strange that Europe is surprised by that move.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >The US paid by far the most for defense and so had by far the most influence and power in the world That's the thing, Americans have become very skeptical of our own influence and power, for good reason. Look what we did to the Middle East. Look at the shenanigans we were funding with USAID. There isn't actually a constituency for this imperialism stuff in the US. US voters don't like it. In any case -- if we had so much influence, why were previous presidents like Bush and Obama unsuccessful in influencing the EU to fund its own defense? >forcing the EU to become a competing military power It's not about competition, it's about Europe taking responsibility for itself. You want a global cop? How about you do it yourself for a bit? It's a terrible job. Maybe you should take a turn at it.
  - ojl 2y ago
    > unsuccessful in influencing the EU to fund its own defense We did cut down too much on our defence, especially after the Cold war (not all European countries though, like Finland). But, many European countries have bought plenty of expensive US military equipment like fighter aircraft, helicopters, anti aircraft systems, etc. It’s not like those were a gift.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
oytis 2y ago
What's a "de facto vassal state"? That's a pretty vague notion, one could fill it with any meaning. What Trump has shown is that Europe is not as dependent as to follow US politics whatever it is.
- tored 2y ago
  Germany is still occupied by US without a formal peace treaty, hence de facto.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    The occupation of Germany ended with the two plus four treaty coming into force in 1991. It is not occupied, and there is a formal treaty.
    - tored 2y ago
      That is the unification treaty. If you accept that as a peace treaty then you need to at least accept that Germany, and as a consequence Europe, was vassal state until 1991. Thus the idea that Europe were equal partners with US is false.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > That is the unification treaty. Yes, among other things. It is the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany", and thing it finally settles is WW2 and the subsequent temporary arrangements. > If you accept that as a peace treaty The ~1955 treaties between the respective occupying powers and West and East Germany separately, which ended most of the powers of occupation but could not formally end the Potsdam arrangement because the Western allies weren't going to formalize the situation with East Germany and the USSR wasn't going to do the same for West Germany, effectively (but not completely formally) ended the occupation and were essentially peace treaties (but obviously neither addressed the whole of Germany or the whole of the belligerents against Germany in WW2.) Between 1955 and reunification, each of the Germanies was technically occupied as a consequence of the Cold War. But West Germany was generally treated as as much of an equal partner as other major Western nations with the US. I only pointed to the 1991 treaty because it is simple and irrefutable and the most straightforward, uncomplicated way to rebut your originally clearly-wrong claim that Germany was currently occupied without any peace treaty.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Europe is a de facto vassal state to US since WW2 OP's point is this nonsense rhetoric doesn't make sense with European frustration with American retrenchment.
tim333 2y ago
>A "vassal state" is a state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, similar to a vassal in the feudal system, often involving tribute payments Europe is not like that - we don't pay taxes to the US to defend us. The US kindly did so free of charge for many years which is a different thing, more of an alliance I guess. Now the US is kind of switching allegiances we are having to recalculate.
- rimeice 2y ago
  The “tax” is enabling total American dominance economically and politically, not to mention huge leverage over all of Europe's military with vendor lock in.
  - seec 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't understand how those people use reason (or maybe they don't). If you look at the biggest/richest companies, it's all about US tech industry and associated, even though we have fronted a lot of the research and education. And we ask them to pay taxes fairly they complain, and they don't want to open their stuff, they even work hard on malicious compliance. It's a pretty bad deal.

by tored 2y ago

fransje26 2y ago

> What Europe didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was the US agenda differs from Europe agenda , always has. France would disagree with the "didn't understand" part. They have been continuously ridiculed for holding that view, until very, very recently.

tored 2y ago
Agree, France is somewhat of an exception. I remember during the Chirac presidency how viciously France was attacked by the other European countries, especially my own Sweden, for doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. Jump forward today and France is seen as a protector of Europe, especially in Sweden, because of its nuclear arsenal.
- fransje26 2y ago
  > doing nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. That was not the most glorious moment of Chirac's presidency, no.. However, as someone involved in numerical simulations, the argument that it was needed to calibrate their numerical models does hold (some..) water.. But Chirac did partly redeem himself by refusing to invade Iraq on bogus US claims of WMDs..
  - elproxy 2y ago
    In fairness, he did so in part because this was going to go against Total's interests (see Oil, Power and War for that part of the story), but yeah, it was still the right stance to have and history proved him right.
    - fransje26 2y ago
      As opposed to invading in order to support the interests of Halliburton? Tough choice.. Let's also not forget the absolutely absurd intervention of Colin Powell at the UN Security Council, holding up a vial containing the ultimate "proof" of WMD. Good thing he didn't drop it.. /s

leokennis 2y ago

I think Europe was of the understanding that the "ongoing deal" was mutually beneficial. The US paid by far the most for defense and so had by far the most influence and power in the world, and the peace (at least in the Western world) that US defense brought made sure both the US and the EU could freely trade and benefit financially. What now changed is that apparently the US thinks it does not need this hegemony anymore (by forcing the EU to become a competing military power), or that they can replace the role the EU played with some other combination of countries. Or alternatively, the US is just looking for some "splendid isolation". To European spectators, the above seems ridiculous. But who knows, maybe Trump is correct... Either way, the US had a good thing going and is now abandoning that. Not strange that Europe is surprised by that move.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
>The US paid by far the most for defense and so had by far the most influence and power in the world That's the thing, Americans have become very skeptical of our own influence and power, for good reason. Look what we did to the Middle East. Look at the shenanigans we were funding with USAID. There isn't actually a constituency for this imperialism stuff in the US. US voters don't like it. In any case -- if we had so much influence, why were previous presidents like Bush and Obama unsuccessful in influencing the EU to fund its own defense? >forcing the EU to become a competing military power It's not about competition, it's about Europe taking responsibility for itself. You want a global cop? How about you do it yourself for a bit? It's a terrible job. Maybe you should take a turn at it.
- ojl 2y ago
  > unsuccessful in influencing the EU to fund its own defense We did cut down too much on our defence, especially after the Cold war (not all European countries though, like Finland). But, many European countries have bought plenty of expensive US military equipment like fighter aircraft, helicopters, anti aircraft systems, etc. It’s not like those were a gift.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

oytis 2y ago

What's a "de facto vassal state"? That's a pretty vague notion, one could fill it with any meaning. What Trump has shown is that Europe is not as dependent as to follow US politics whatever it is.

tored 2y ago
Germany is still occupied by US without a formal peace treaty, hence de facto.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  The occupation of Germany ended with the two plus four treaty coming into force in 1991. It is not occupied, and there is a formal treaty.
  - tored 2y ago
    That is the unification treaty. If you accept that as a peace treaty then you need to at least accept that Germany, and as a consequence Europe, was vassal state until 1991. Thus the idea that Europe were equal partners with US is false.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > That is the unification treaty. Yes, among other things. It is the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany", and thing it finally settles is WW2 and the subsequent temporary arrangements. > If you accept that as a peace treaty The ~1955 treaties between the respective occupying powers and West and East Germany separately, which ended most of the powers of occupation but could not formally end the Potsdam arrangement because the Western allies weren't going to formalize the situation with East Germany and the USSR wasn't going to do the same for West Germany, effectively (but not completely formally) ended the occupation and were essentially peace treaties (but obviously neither addressed the whole of Germany or the whole of the belligerents against Germany in WW2.) Between 1955 and reunification, each of the Germanies was technically occupied as a consequence of the Cold War. But West Germany was generally treated as as much of an equal partner as other major Western nations with the US. I only pointed to the 1991 treaty because it is simple and irrefutable and the most straightforward, uncomplicated way to rebut your originally clearly-wrong claim that Germany was currently occupied without any peace treaty.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Europe is a de facto vassal state to US since WW2 OP's point is this nonsense rhetoric doesn't make sense with European frustration with American retrenchment.

tim333 2y ago

>A "vassal state" is a state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, similar to a vassal in the feudal system, often involving tribute payments Europe is not like that - we don't pay taxes to the US to defend us. The US kindly did so free of charge for many years which is a different thing, more of an alliance I guess. Now the US is kind of switching allegiances we are having to recalculate.

rimeice 2y ago
The “tax” is enabling total American dominance economically and politically, not to mention huge leverage over all of Europe's military with vendor lock in.
- seec 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't understand how those people use reason (or maybe they don't). If you look at the biggest/richest companies, it's all about US tech industry and associated, even though we have fronted a lot of the research and education. And we ask them to pay taxes fairly they complain, and they don't want to open their stuff, they even work hard on malicious compliance. It's a pretty bad deal.