3 ms·

EU politicians are just too dependent on keeping the status quo of the last decade. The status quo is how they got to their position so they have no incentive t

EU politicians are just too dependent on keeping the status quo of the last decade. The status quo is how they got to their position so they have no incentive to change anything (Starmer, Merz, Marcon, Von der Lyen. Yuck). By the time they finally get the shove they need to rapidly decouple, e.g. when America invades The Hague* to rescue Netanyahu from war crimes charges, it will be when they're already on the edge of the proverbial cliff. *: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

ta20240528 11mo ago
The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan. Now they are invading continental Europe? As I said, still licking the car battery.
- YC9834689 11mo ago
  Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
  - mcv 11mo ago
    The EU put together has the second largest military in the world. > And their leadership is so docile and complacent That is the real issue.
  - ta20240528 11mo ago
    "Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense" Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes. For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine. And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands... And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent. Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
  - nebula8804 11mo ago
    >And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same. I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
    - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
      My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that. No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
      - ta20240528 11mo ago
        I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff. Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC. What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do? - break him out? how? - openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in? - blow up civilians? What?
- jack_tripper 11mo ago
  >The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years. Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
  - lossolo 11mo ago
    > US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
    - Loughla 11mo ago
      What were the goals for Afghanistan?
      - lukan 11mo ago
        Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban. Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
        freehorse 11mo ago
        Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
- throawayonthe 11mo ago
  i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)
wiseowise 11mo ago
Only invasion, or a real threat of invasion, from Russia, US or China can shook Europe into real change.
- mcv 11mo ago
  Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. China is too far away. The US? Half of Europe might actually side with them.
  - vanviegen 11mo ago
    > Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. Yes, it does. Sentiment in politics and the population seems to have shifted significantly. And Trump being Trump seems to be helping Europe realize the necessity of this. I'll count that as one useful thing he has accomplished.
    - mcv 11mo ago
      Yes, but they're still not actually doing all that much. I mean, sure long term military investment, and some support for Poland, but it's too little, too divided, and they're standing at the sidelines while Trump proposes to sell Ukraine to Russia.
  - wiseowise 11mo ago
    > Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. There’s no actual threat of Western Europe invasion from Russia. Russia is a gas station operated by racketeers, they’ll bite off as much as they can and threaten with guns and nukes, they don’t have capability to meaningfully invade Western Europe.
    - mcv 11mo ago
      Not western Europe, no. Not yet at least. But Russia does threaten eastern Europe. The Baltics in particular are high on Putin's wish list. And if he invades there, and the EU and NATO is slow to respond, that could easily be the end of NATO. Of course Russia can't attack western Europe right away, but he can weaken it by taking a bit at a time from eastern Europe. And Ukraine is part of that. Europe should really be stepping up there, but they keep telling themselves that Russia can't invade western Europe, so it's not that urgent.
athrowaway3z 11mo ago
The EU has - just like the US - a generation of boomer senators and presidents in (voting) power for more than 2 decades at this point. In the coming decade, that will change. Hopefully for the better.
- vanviegen 11mo ago
  Well, at least in the Netherlands, that's not true. Our elected representatives have been rather.. volatile over the past decade. I liked the boomers better.
  - expedition32 11mo ago
    The Netherlands just elected the youngest prime minister ever. He and his hot Argentinian husbando is going to make Trump look very old and disgusting if he ever comes visiting again.
    - antimirov 11mo ago
      Wait a moment, Rob Jetten isn't the Prime Minister yet, and it's not guaranteed he will be, just like Wilders didn't get that position.

ta20240528 11mo ago

The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan. Now they are invading continental Europe? As I said, still licking the car battery.

YC9834689 11mo ago
Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
- mcv 11mo ago
  The EU put together has the second largest military in the world. > And their leadership is so docile and complacent That is the real issue.
- ta20240528 11mo ago
  "Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense" Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes. For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine. And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
dghlsakjg 11mo ago
In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands... And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent. Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
- nebula8804 11mo ago
  >And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters. That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same. I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that. No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
    - ta20240528 11mo ago
      I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff. Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC. What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do? - break him out? how? - openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in? - blow up civilians? What?
jack_tripper 11mo ago
>The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years. Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
- lossolo 11mo ago
  > US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
  - Loughla 11mo ago
    What were the goals for Afghanistan?
    - lukan 11mo ago
      Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban. Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
      - freehorse 11mo ago
        Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
throawayonthe 11mo ago
i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)

wiseowise 11mo ago

Only invasion, or a real threat of invasion, from Russia, US or China can shook Europe into real change.

mcv 11mo ago
Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. China is too far away. The US? Half of Europe might actually side with them.
- vanviegen 11mo ago
  > Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. Yes, it does. Sentiment in politics and the population seems to have shifted significantly. And Trump being Trump seems to be helping Europe realize the necessity of this. I'll count that as one useful thing he has accomplished.
  - mcv 11mo ago
    Yes, but they're still not actually doing all that much. I mean, sure long term military investment, and some support for Poland, but it's too little, too divided, and they're standing at the sidelines while Trump proposes to sell Ukraine to Russia.
- wiseowise 11mo ago
  > Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. There’s no actual threat of Western Europe invasion from Russia. Russia is a gas station operated by racketeers, they’ll bite off as much as they can and threaten with guns and nukes, they don’t have capability to meaningfully invade Western Europe.
  - mcv 11mo ago
    Not western Europe, no. Not yet at least. But Russia does threaten eastern Europe. The Baltics in particular are high on Putin's wish list. And if he invades there, and the EU and NATO is slow to respond, that could easily be the end of NATO. Of course Russia can't attack western Europe right away, but he can weaken it by taking a bit at a time from eastern Europe. And Ukraine is part of that. Europe should really be stepping up there, but they keep telling themselves that Russia can't invade western Europe, so it's not that urgent.

athrowaway3z 11mo ago

The EU has - just like the US - a generation of boomer senators and presidents in (voting) power for more than 2 decades at this point. In the coming decade, that will change. Hopefully for the better.

vanviegen 11mo ago
Well, at least in the Netherlands, that's not true. Our elected representatives have been rather.. volatile over the past decade. I liked the boomers better.
- expedition32 11mo ago
  The Netherlands just elected the youngest prime minister ever. He and his hot Argentinian husbando is going to make Trump look very old and disgusting if he ever comes visiting again.
  - antimirov 11mo ago
    Wait a moment, Rob Jetten isn't the Prime Minister yet, and it's not guaranteed he will be, just like Wilders didn't get that position.