4 ms·

I wouldn't frame EU activity as decoupling from the United States, though the irony of "decoupling" from the US and cozying up to China is super cringe* despite

by ericmay 9mo ago

I wouldn't frame EU activity as decoupling from the United States, though the irony of "decoupling" from the US and cozying up to China is super cringe* despite our bombastic and rude American president. * Instead the EU is engaging in increasingly protectionist activity to build more domestic industry. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm also more on the protectionist side given the current state of global affairs and the need for the US to decouple from China - or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed? At least that's what is parroted on the Internet. :) * Just a quick note, there's a lot of uproar on the Internet over Greenland. Deservedly. But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. These are the kinds of push-pull engagements that are continually failed to take into account by most commentaries and in most discussions. Again it's centered around what the EU will do, or what China will do, and so forth and the analysis never makes it past this, despite the most important activities happening downstream from initial activities. * I'm an Ukraine hawk - US should have went straight to war with Russia over the invasion - being overly simplistic here but just to illustrate my hawkish-ness. But the EU is sitting here telling us it's this huge problem that Russia is invading Ukraine, yet they're happy to increase cooperation and trading with China who is providing support to Russia for their invasion? Of course, these things are all part of a negotiating mix. Maybe increasing trade will help China stop helping Russia's war against Ukraine, but if we wanted to stop analysis at the very first thing we see as everyone seems to want to do with respect to the EU or China, we could just look at that activity and say, well, maybe we shouldn't help the EU here and if they really think Ukraine is a problem they should take these other actions instead, whatever they may be.

blibble 9mo ago
> Instead the EU is engaging in increasingly protectionist activity to build more domestic industry. yes, this is why it was created, it's why it exists! I have absolutely no problem with the US deciding to re-balance its economy using tariffs, that is its sovereign right but I have a problem with it using them as a tool of coercion against its "allies" to achieve foreign policy objectives and not to mention the direct threats of annexation > But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. if you assume the decoupling has completed, then the rest of the west would by definition be capable of defending itself without being subject to coercion/blackmail (there's also the the two nuclear powers treaty bound to defend it)
palata 9mo ago
> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. You're saying "I had sex with my best friend's wife and now he doesn't want to see me anymore. This is stupid: if he doesn't want to be my friend, then there is no incentive for me to not have sex with his wife. He should still be my friend". If you go like this in real life, I wonder how many friends you have :-).
- ericmay 9mo ago
  I don't think that's a good analogy. But if you want to stick with it, in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends, and don't intend to be because you both made each other really mad, and by having sex with the wife she gives you a lot of good stuff that you want and you're not really concerned with your former friend's feelings.
  - palata 9mo ago
    > in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends You think that the Europeans bought defense systems that depend on the US without thinking they were allies?
    - ericmay 9mo ago
      We are still allies. I think your comment here is just speaking to the limitation of your analogy.
      - palata 9mo ago
        On the contrary, I think it explains our disconnect. If you consider that it's perfectly fine for an ally to threaten to invade ("allies are not friends"), then it may be difficult for you to understand the reaction of people who strongly disagree (and consider that "allies are friends"). IMO, when a country threatens to invade another country, it becomes an enemy. Back to Europe, I don't remember hearing that China threatened Europe militarily. Russia does, and the US as well. So I am not completely surprised when people in Europe say that they would rather buy Chinese products than American products. First because they haven't feared of a Chinese invasion in the last weeks, and second because China does not behave like an enemy. Rather a partner with divergent interests. When China threatens Taiwan, Europe may disagree, but they don't feel like Chinese people may kill European people in the next few days. The US behaves like an enemy, like Russia. Are you surprised that Europeans don't want to buy Russian products? Economically, it's not good for Russia and it's not good for Europe. Just like tensions with the US are good for neither of them.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. > But the EU is sitting here telling us it's this huge problem that Russia is invading Ukraine, yet they're happy to increase cooperation and trading with China who is providing support to Russia for their invasion? No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. > Maybe increasing trade will help China stop helping Russia's war against Ukraine Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. > we could just look at that activity and say, well, maybe we shouldn't help the EU here and if they really think Ukraine is a problem they should take these other actions instead, whatever they may be. We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics.
- ericmay 9mo ago
  > I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. Let's not be delusional. There is absolutely no debating this. > No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. > Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that China is assisting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine and further trading with China only furthers that war and Russia's aims. > We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics. The source of the shift didn't start there, nor will it really end there. But we are helping the EU immensely even when we're having a conflict about somewhere else. You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.
donkeybeer 9mo ago
The USA would take Greenland anyways, the current USA doesn't understand or care about the concept of "friends", being or not being a friend is irrelevant.
ben_w 9mo ago
> or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed? Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. > But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". If the US wishes to leave that mutual defence pace (hence "two or three nuclear powers"), this is a big shift, much more than "we are sad about this", it would require a change in US law to leave, but still well short of "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Decoupling does not by itself force the US out of this treaty. If the US invades despite being party to this treaty, it is a traitor. I am not certain, but I suspect that the US military will take exception to be ordered to betray their allies, and may coup instead. If the US invades Greenland but only after leaving this treaty, which would currently be illegal under US law, Greenland still has two nuclear powers defending it.
- ericmay 9mo ago
  > Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Agreed, which is why the United States is decoupling from China and pivoting militarily away from Europe. If war is coming with China we won't be able to help much in Europe, and with European militaries outside of probably the UK and to some extent France and Poland needing massive overhaul, it's of the utmost importance that European military spending increase and training if Europe is to defend itself from Russia. My point is that it's the hypocrisy that I at least find grating. > The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.

by ericmay 9mo ago

blibble 9mo ago

> Instead the EU is engaging in increasingly protectionist activity to build more domestic industry. yes, this is why it was created, it's why it exists! I have absolutely no problem with the US deciding to re-balance its economy using tariffs, that is its sovereign right but I have a problem with it using them as a tool of coercion against its "allies" to achieve foreign policy objectives and not to mention the direct threats of annexation > But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. if you assume the decoupling has completed, then the rest of the west would by definition be capable of defending itself without being subject to coercion/blackmail (there's also the the two nuclear powers treaty bound to defend it)

palata 9mo ago

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. You're saying "I had sex with my best friend's wife and now he doesn't want to see me anymore. This is stupid: if he doesn't want to be my friend, then there is no incentive for me to not have sex with his wife. He should still be my friend". If you go like this in real life, I wonder how many friends you have :-).

ericmay 9mo ago
I don't think that's a good analogy. But if you want to stick with it, in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends, and don't intend to be because you both made each other really mad, and by having sex with the wife she gives you a lot of good stuff that you want and you're not really concerned with your former friend's feelings.
- palata 9mo ago
  > in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends You think that the Europeans bought defense systems that depend on the US without thinking they were allies?
  - ericmay 9mo ago
    We are still allies. I think your comment here is just speaking to the limitation of your analogy.
    - palata 9mo ago
      On the contrary, I think it explains our disconnect. If you consider that it's perfectly fine for an ally to threaten to invade ("allies are not friends"), then it may be difficult for you to understand the reaction of people who strongly disagree (and consider that "allies are friends"). IMO, when a country threatens to invade another country, it becomes an enemy. Back to Europe, I don't remember hearing that China threatened Europe militarily. Russia does, and the US as well. So I am not completely surprised when people in Europe say that they would rather buy Chinese products than American products. First because they haven't feared of a Chinese invasion in the last weeks, and second because China does not behave like an enemy. Rather a partner with divergent interests. When China threatens Taiwan, Europe may disagree, but they don't feel like Chinese people may kill European people in the next few days. The US behaves like an enemy, like Russia. Are you surprised that Europeans don't want to buy Russian products? Economically, it's not good for Russia and it's not good for Europe. Just like tensions with the US are good for neither of them.

dragonwriter 9mo ago

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. > But the EU is sitting here telling us it's this huge problem that Russia is invading Ukraine, yet they're happy to increase cooperation and trading with China who is providing support to Russia for their invasion? No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. > Maybe increasing trade will help China stop helping Russia's war against Ukraine Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. > we could just look at that activity and say, well, maybe we shouldn't help the EU here and if they really think Ukraine is a problem they should take these other actions instead, whatever they may be. We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics.

ericmay 9mo ago
> I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland. If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. Let's not be delusional. There is absolutely no debating this. > No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first. To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. > Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at. Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that China is assisting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine and further trading with China only furthers that war and Russia's aims. > We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics. The source of the shift didn't start there, nor will it really end there. But we are helping the EU immensely even when we're having a conflict about somewhere else. You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.

donkeybeer 9mo ago

The USA would take Greenland anyways, the current USA doesn't understand or care about the concept of "friends", being or not being a friend is irrelevant.

ben_w 9mo ago

> or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed? Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. > But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland. The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". If the US wishes to leave that mutual defence pace (hence "two or three nuclear powers"), this is a big shift, much more than "we are sad about this", it would require a change in US law to leave, but still well short of "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Decoupling does not by itself force the US out of this treaty. If the US invades despite being party to this treaty, it is a traitor. I am not certain, but I suspect that the US military will take exception to be ordered to betray their allies, and may coup instead. If the US invades Greenland but only after leaving this treaty, which would currently be illegal under US law, Greenland still has two nuclear powers defending it.

ericmay 9mo ago
> Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things. Agreed, which is why the United States is decoupling from China and pivoting militarily away from Europe. If war is coming with China we won't be able to help much in Europe, and with European militaries outside of probably the UK and to some extent France and Poland needing massive overhaul, it's of the utmost importance that European military spending increase and training if Europe is to defend itself from Russia. My point is that it's the hypocrisy that I at least find grating. > The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers". Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.