4 ms·

Without America to rely on, EU gearing up to be a global power in its own right

45 points by saubeidl 8mo ago

twoodfin 8mo ago
I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.
- matthewdgreen 8mo ago
  It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
  - ta9000 8mo ago
    As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ericmcer 8mo ago
      The military is a huge jobs program though, it does provide a way out if you are low income. Some of my good friends had bad childhoods and 4 years in the military (navy, marines) did work out a lot of their issues, pay for their college and get them on some kind of path. It would be way better if we had jobs programs that built infrastructure and improved public works, but I don't know if converting from `military` -> `direct handouts` would be an improvement.
      - ta9000 8mo ago
        Military and defense contractors are two separate things. Both are jobs programs, the latter for upper middle class white people in flyover states.
    - jghn 8mo ago
      > I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young. Me too, but that's not how things would play out.
    - GenerWork 8mo ago
      I agree 100%. I find it odd how many people will claim to be against the MIC and promote a drop in military spending, yet they act how Europeans spending money with European defense companies rather than American ones is a terrible thing. I suppose they think that we'll just spend less money and nothing will happen otherwise?
    - seanmcdirmid 7mo ago
      That money isn’t going to hang around for us to spend on other things though, we are just going to be poorer for it because our economic influence and reach are deteriorating at the same rate as our overall leadership clout.
- pjc50 8mo ago
  Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation? It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire. That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
  - saubeidl 8mo ago
    An intricate plan designed to further US interests, wrecked by an ignoramus who didn't understand it.
  - Taikonerd 8mo ago
    I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
    - pjc50 8mo ago
      Sure, but that rationale went away in the early 1990s and they stayed for thirty years longer than that.
      - Taikonerd 8mo ago
        True. Institutions like that have a lot of momentum, and they sometimes outlive their original rationale. But on the other hand, Russian aggression is back in the headlines these days...
      - expedition32 8mo ago
        Aircraft carriers cannot replace military bases. That is why they stayed. The US can support all of its military operations in Africa and the Middle East from its vast cold war era infrastructure in Europe.
- brodouevencode 8mo ago
  They are not in a position to do that successfully
  - greggoB 8mo ago
    Care to expand?
    - brodouevencode 8mo ago
      The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
      - greggoB 8mo ago
        I'm not so sure - everyone goes on about the EU's relative lack of GDP growth as though it's a death sentence, which is obvious hyperbole. In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
  - jwhitlark 8mo ago
    Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
  No I disagree. The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US. What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US. Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.
foxyv 8mo ago
I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.
black_13 8mo ago
[dead]
shaboinkin 8mo ago
https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267 https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267 4:27 “The time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO, but this commitment comes with a clear and long standing expectation, that Europe and Canada take more responsibly for their own security, and I believe that is only fair.” -Mark Rutte
- waffleiron 8mo ago
  Notably Mark Rutte in the role of Secretary General of NATO, no longer as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

45 points by saubeidl 8mo ago

I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.

matthewdgreen 8mo ago
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
- ta9000 8mo ago
  As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmcer 8mo ago
    The military is a huge jobs program though, it does provide a way out if you are low income. Some of my good friends had bad childhoods and 4 years in the military (navy, marines) did work out a lot of their issues, pay for their college and get them on some kind of path. It would be way better if we had jobs programs that built infrastructure and improved public works, but I don't know if converting from `military` -> `direct handouts` would be an improvement.
    - ta9000 8mo ago
      Military and defense contractors are two separate things. Both are jobs programs, the latter for upper middle class white people in flyover states.
  - jghn 8mo ago
    > I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young. Me too, but that's not how things would play out.
  - GenerWork 8mo ago
    I agree 100%. I find it odd how many people will claim to be against the MIC and promote a drop in military spending, yet they act how Europeans spending money with European defense companies rather than American ones is a terrible thing. I suppose they think that we'll just spend less money and nothing will happen otherwise?
  - seanmcdirmid 7mo ago
    That money isn’t going to hang around for us to spend on other things though, we are just going to be poorer for it because our economic influence and reach are deteriorating at the same rate as our overall leadership clout.
pjc50 8mo ago
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation? It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire. That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
- saubeidl 8mo ago
  An intricate plan designed to further US interests, wrecked by an ignoramus who didn't understand it.
- Taikonerd 8mo ago
  I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
  - pjc50 8mo ago
    Sure, but that rationale went away in the early 1990s and they stayed for thirty years longer than that.
    - Taikonerd 8mo ago
      True. Institutions like that have a lot of momentum, and they sometimes outlive their original rationale. But on the other hand, Russian aggression is back in the headlines these days...
    - expedition32 8mo ago
      Aircraft carriers cannot replace military bases. That is why they stayed. The US can support all of its military operations in Africa and the Middle East from its vast cold war era infrastructure in Europe.
brodouevencode 8mo ago
They are not in a position to do that successfully
- greggoB 8mo ago
  Care to expand?
  - brodouevencode 8mo ago
    The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
    - greggoB 8mo ago
      I'm not so sure - everyone goes on about the EU's relative lack of GDP growth as though it's a death sentence, which is obvious hyperbole. In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
- jwhitlark 8mo ago
  Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
No I disagree. The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US. What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US. Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.

foxyv 8mo ago

I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.

black_13 8mo ago

[dead]

shaboinkin 8mo ago

https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267 https://youtu.be/NFw7ZifqhTg?si=IujBLjIsaQysNHmp&t=267 4:27 “The time when we conveniently let the United States carry the burden for our security is over. The US is absolutely committed to NATO, but this commitment comes with a clear and long standing expectation, that Europe and Canada take more responsibly for their own security, and I believe that is only fair.” -Mark Rutte

waffleiron 8mo ago
Notably Mark Rutte in the role of Secretary General of NATO, no longer as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.