4 ms·

European countries are de facto vassals of the US. Not because they have to be, not because it benefits them, but because this is what the politicians and their

European countries are de facto vassals of the US. Not because they have to be, not because it benefits them, but because this is what the politicians and their voters want. Instead of taking care of Ukraine themselves, and providing security guarantees to Ukraine themselves, they expect the US to do it. Instead of supplying Ukraine itself, they need the US to do it. And all of this against an opponent, Russia, that is on paper almost entirely insignificant. As things stand today, European countries cannot survive independently with US support, making them effectively vassals. And what is worse is, most of the political elite in Europe hate the Americans that they have made themselves completely dependent on. I don't really like this status quo, as a European I think this is pathetic and embarrassing that we are entirely dependent on US without any need for us being dependent on them. But I don't get the elites that complain about the status quo on one hand, and on the other hand refuse to do anything to change it.

flumpcakes 9mo ago
> entirely dependent on US It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it. It may seem one sided, but the EU has a lot more to gain if there was a hard split between them and the US. It will be significantly more painful for the EU, for a long time, but ultimately it would be the undoing of the US as hegemon. Unfortunately Russia would take advantage and begin an invasion into the EU, so an EU/US split is unfavourable. Ultimately it is the security of NATO that the EU really needs the US for. And that is what it pays for in the dependency it has on the US.
- flanked-evergl 9mo ago
  I'm very conservative and in principle really aligned with Republicans in the US, but this is rotten deal. The end result is in practice worse for everyone, because the American voters do not understand why they should be underwriting out security, and their security underwriting in practice is not very reliable or good from our point of view. It has not deterred Russia, it has not countered China, and I don't think it's going to last, because American voters don't understand what they are getting for it, and neither do I. Europe will be much better off if we can guarantee our own security. I'm not suggesting for something dumb like withdrawing from NATO without first having the next thing in place, but we need to be in a position where Putin (and his eventual successor) does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate, which is precisely what Putin thinks. We can and should be in a position where we push Russia around as much as China and India allows, and we dictate terms to them instead of cowering while they dictate terms to us. We should be in a position where if we say we are going to incorporate Ukraine into a defensive alliance that the Russians praise us and bow out of fear that we will take more of their things, instead of the reverse.
  - flumpcakes 9mo ago
    I'm not sure how you get Europe to that position. Do you have any thoughts? Usually the more conservative people in Europe seem to be pro-Russia at the moment.
    - flanked-evergl 9mo ago
      I think the conservative support for Russia in Europe is mostly reactionary, but whatever the cause may be, it's deeply misguided. Russia is an existential threat, and it has always been this. The West thought that if we treated it as if it was just another western country then it would become one, but that worked out really poorly for us. As things stand now, Russia and Europe cannot coexist as equals, either we have to dominate Russia, or it will dominate us. I'm a national conservative, I like sovereignty and I like self-determination, and I like peace — and I also like that other nations have those things — and none of that can exist if Russia is in a dominant position. So it has to be subdued. As to how, I don't have any real practical answers to that question. I think in part the problem is Europeans have become too nihilistic in a sense. In my experience most Europeans think that we have a duty to the rest of the world to become irrelevant, I can understand why, imperialism and colonialism was wrong, but we can be relevant and not be imperial or colonialist. Personally, I am betting and invested in a Christian revival, but I understand that it is probably not a very realistic thing in Europe as it stands today.
  - mlrtime 9mo ago
    >does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate Good luck with that, I don't think it will ever happen. You'd need to first stop being dependent on for Energy.
    - twixfel 9mo ago
      Americans repeating Kremlin talking points is just odd and sad. Russian energy in Europe is being phased out by 2027. Not only will it "ever happen", it's imminent.
- mlrtime 9mo ago
  >It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it. Yes, you get it. And the American tax payers also don't want to fund EU lack of spending on military. We are all in agreement.
  - flumpcakes 9mo ago
    I meant the EU doesn't want to spend the money on it's own R&D. It would rather give American companies hundreds of billions. It's the US preference that the EU doesn't spend too much, it doesn't want to compete. See nuclear deterrence.
tokai 9mo ago
US hasn't provided anything, except some intel, the last year. Maybe you should get up to speed with reality.
- petcat 9mo ago
  Did the Europeans build all those Patriot missile systems themselves? They bought them from USA right?
- flanked-evergl 9mo ago
  US provides credible deterrence because the US can more or less take on all NATO adversaries at the same time, while Europe alone cannot really take on even one NATO adversary on its own. US also shown willingness to use forc, which European nations have not shown it. In negotiations with Ukraine, one of the major sticking points is that Ukraine wants security guarantees and peacekeeping forces on the ground, and European nations have themselves said this won't work without a US backstop, which US is not going to provide. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5336095/europe-military-leaders-ukraine-russia-peacekeeping https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5336095/europe-military... > Russia has said it will not accept any troops from NATO countries being based on Ukrainian soil. And Trump has given no sign the U.S. will guarantee reserve firepower in case of any breaches of a truce. Starmer says the plan won't work without that U.S. "backstop." If US hasn't provided anything, and Europe is willing to stand on its own, then this would not be the case, there would be no need for a US backstop. Basically, my theory is this: If Europe didn't need the US, then the US would not have to be involved at all with Ukraine negotiations, and the war would have been stopped years ago. Instead, we have European nations lamenting that the US is not doing more, and that US is not willing to provide security assistence and guaruntees to Ukraine. I think it should be irrelevant what the US wants to do or does not want to do with Ukraine.
  - timeon 9mo ago
    > Instead, we have European nations lamenting that the US is not doing more It is not about what US is not doing but about threats Trump/Vence made.

flumpcakes 9mo ago

> entirely dependent on US It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it. It may seem one sided, but the EU has a lot more to gain if there was a hard split between them and the US. It will be significantly more painful for the EU, for a long time, but ultimately it would be the undoing of the US as hegemon. Unfortunately Russia would take advantage and begin an invasion into the EU, so an EU/US split is unfavourable. Ultimately it is the security of NATO that the EU really needs the US for. And that is what it pays for in the dependency it has on the US.

flanked-evergl 9mo ago
I'm very conservative and in principle really aligned with Republicans in the US, but this is rotten deal. The end result is in practice worse for everyone, because the American voters do not understand why they should be underwriting out security, and their security underwriting in practice is not very reliable or good from our point of view. It has not deterred Russia, it has not countered China, and I don't think it's going to last, because American voters don't understand what they are getting for it, and neither do I. Europe will be much better off if we can guarantee our own security. I'm not suggesting for something dumb like withdrawing from NATO without first having the next thing in place, but we need to be in a position where Putin (and his eventual successor) does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate, which is precisely what Putin thinks. We can and should be in a position where we push Russia around as much as China and India allows, and we dictate terms to them instead of cowering while they dictate terms to us. We should be in a position where if we say we are going to incorporate Ukraine into a defensive alliance that the Russians praise us and bow out of fear that we will take more of their things, instead of the reverse.
- flumpcakes 9mo ago
  I'm not sure how you get Europe to that position. Do you have any thoughts? Usually the more conservative people in Europe seem to be pro-Russia at the moment.
  - flanked-evergl 9mo ago
    I think the conservative support for Russia in Europe is mostly reactionary, but whatever the cause may be, it's deeply misguided. Russia is an existential threat, and it has always been this. The West thought that if we treated it as if it was just another western country then it would become one, but that worked out really poorly for us. As things stand now, Russia and Europe cannot coexist as equals, either we have to dominate Russia, or it will dominate us. I'm a national conservative, I like sovereignty and I like self-determination, and I like peace — and I also like that other nations have those things — and none of that can exist if Russia is in a dominant position. So it has to be subdued. As to how, I don't have any real practical answers to that question. I think in part the problem is Europeans have become too nihilistic in a sense. In my experience most Europeans think that we have a duty to the rest of the world to become irrelevant, I can understand why, imperialism and colonialism was wrong, but we can be relevant and not be imperial or colonialist. Personally, I am betting and invested in a Christian revival, but I understand that it is probably not a very realistic thing in Europe as it stands today.
- mlrtime 9mo ago
  >does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate Good luck with that, I don't think it will ever happen. You'd need to first stop being dependent on for Energy.
  - twixfel 9mo ago
    Americans repeating Kremlin talking points is just odd and sad. Russian energy in Europe is being phased out by 2027. Not only will it "ever happen", it's imminent.
mlrtime 9mo ago
>It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it. Yes, you get it. And the American tax payers also don't want to fund EU lack of spending on military. We are all in agreement.
- flumpcakes 9mo ago
  I meant the EU doesn't want to spend the money on it's own R&D. It would rather give American companies hundreds of billions. It's the US preference that the EU doesn't spend too much, it doesn't want to compete. See nuclear deterrence.

tokai 9mo ago

US hasn't provided anything, except some intel, the last year. Maybe you should get up to speed with reality.

petcat 9mo ago
Did the Europeans build all those Patriot missile systems themselves? They bought them from USA right?
flanked-evergl 9mo ago
US provides credible deterrence because the US can more or less take on all NATO adversaries at the same time, while Europe alone cannot really take on even one NATO adversary on its own. US also shown willingness to use forc, which European nations have not shown it. In negotiations with Ukraine, one of the major sticking points is that Ukraine wants security guarantees and peacekeeping forces on the ground, and European nations have themselves said this won't work without a US backstop, which US is not going to provide. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5336095/europe-military-leaders-ukraine-russia-peacekeeping https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5336095/europe-military... > Russia has said it will not accept any troops from NATO countries being based on Ukrainian soil. And Trump has given no sign the U.S. will guarantee reserve firepower in case of any breaches of a truce. Starmer says the plan won't work without that U.S. "backstop." If US hasn't provided anything, and Europe is willing to stand on its own, then this would not be the case, there would be no need for a US backstop. Basically, my theory is this: If Europe didn't need the US, then the US would not have to be involved at all with Ukraine negotiations, and the war would have been stopped years ago. Instead, we have European nations lamenting that the US is not doing more, and that US is not willing to provide security assistence and guaruntees to Ukraine. I think it should be irrelevant what the US wants to do or does not want to do with Ukraine.
- timeon 9mo ago
  > Instead, we have European nations lamenting that the US is not doing more It is not about what US is not doing but about threats Trump/Vence made.