| |
| ▲ | vmbm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I am all for Europe establishing a bit more autonomy in regards to energy and defense, but let's not forgot there is a very real reason things are the way the are. Europe had a long history of warfare and the post-WWII was specifically designed to try and reign that in. And as the U.S. is finding out, you can have a largely pacifist population, but it only takes one motivated individual to seize the reigns of power and kick off ill advised military adventures. So I think there is a rather convincing argument to be made that sometimes it is better to just not have those capabilities in the first place. | |
| ▲ | thelastgallon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That America is incredibly generous with resources in a conflict has no possible bearing on the security of their continent? America is generous with Americans money being funneled to the defense companies! This is all 100% middle class money, with the wealthy paying zero or negative taxes. | |
| ▲ | platevoltage a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Americans want to be the world's police until it's time to do something righteous. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | Do they, though? They seem to very consistently vote against foreign entanglements, before their own leaders betray them, pressed into action by foreign allies advocating their own narrow regional interests (Europe on Russia, Israel on Iran, etc). Not clear to me why some working mum in Idaho is obliged to pay for Hungary's security when even the Hungarians refuse to do so, but hey, enjoy this meme while it lasts. The US won't remain the world's policeman for too much longer, and we're all in for a much darker world without them. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy a day ago | parent [-] | | The USA has put itself im this position by their own motivations, and has consistently profited from it. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | Uh huh, sure, America profits handsomely from paying trillions of dollars to defend its deadbeat dependencies because... uh... something something capitalism? The unnecessary expense of trillions of dollars being, of course, just so famously and fabulously profitable. I assume this is the same strand of 4D-chess-level thinking that posits that landlords like keeping rental properties vacant because they somehow make more money that way. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is 4D-chess thinking, is believing that the USA is giving handouts to the world and that you would be somehow even richer if it wouldn't. It's an age old epic: tell the privileged that "actually, you're being exploited of your hard work and innate intelligence". It let's you sleep at night. | | |
| ▲ | troad 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US considers it in their strategic interest to maintain peace around the world. We are vicarious beneficiaries of that logic. The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vicarious beneficiaries in that we have access to affordable food we can eat. People like you see conspiracies where there is actually nothing but fortuitous alignments of interest. Like all conspiracy theories, it's merely ignorance of the basic incentives that make the world work, leading to hare-brained theories that sound dramatic but make no sense, couched in an air of being super special in your ability to see how the world 'really' works, unlike all those normie sheep. Yadda yadda. Juvenile and boring. But hey, the US is almost certainly going to retreat from the world after the unpopular missteps of the current administration, so we'll get to see with our own eyes whether that produces a more or less peaceful world. Won't that be a fun and costly experiment. |
| |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | BTW the USA just got caught stealing money from NATO destined to Ukraine to refill their own stock for the Iran war. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | oblio a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You do realize that Russia is and will continue being an enemy of the US, right? Even now it's providing Iran with intel to kill US soldiers. Russia is primarily a threat to Europe, but not only. And what do you imagine will happen if Russia gets the gang back together? Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics, most of Eastern Europe. Do you think Soviet Union 2.0, now with more fascism, will be friendlier to the US? I know Americans love to pretend they live on another planet, but now we have global trade, ICBMs and many more interesting ways to hurt humans on the other side of the world. We're no longer living in the 1800s. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | All of this is framed in the way Europeans like to talk about power, which is as though it's a question of attitudes and feelings. It's much cheaper to pretend that beautiful laws against war can stop bullies, than it is to actually fund any kind of defense. Europe is in love with trying to substitute metaphysical sorcery for actual power, which Europe lacks and seems structurally incapable of building. Do I expect Russia to be 'friendly' to the US? No, not particularly. Can Russia successfully project military force into the US? Of course not, this is a country with an economy comparable to Benelux and an army incapable of even reaching the Dniester. It has extremely limited means for global competition. The Chinese don't live in fear of whether Benelux is 'friendly' to them or not, and if the Beneluxers went insane and started trying to invade their neighbours, I'm sure China would treat it much the same way as Europe treats every war in Africa or Asia. Much 'concern', many pleas to follow international law. The US is protected from Russia by geography and prowess. It just doesn't matter how Russia feels about the US, any more than it matters how Benelux feels about China. The US has been extraordinarily generous to Europe in shouldering a conflict that doesn't affect them at all. Do I want Russia to take over Eastern Europe? I think I was pretty clear on this point before, I support Ukraine. Its cause is just. But the only people who can ensure Europe's security are Europeans, and all these constant fits about how America 'hates' Europe because it won't raise the allowance this week are ludicrous. The question isn't why the US won't raise the allowance, the question is why America is paying Europe an allowance at all. Europe is not the world's disability pensioner, Europe just doesn't want to pay for its own defense and would much prefer it became the world's problem. That's why someone living in Dallas is supposed to live in fear of invasion by a declining kleptocracy from the other side of the Earth - it helps Europeans save on defense spending. If Europe wants to defend its interests from regional bullies like Russia, it needs to build some power of its own. Europe's allies are in complete support of Europe getting its act together. | | |
| ▲ | oblio 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The Chinese don't live in fear of whether Benelux is 'friendly' to them or not, and if the Beneluxers went insane and started trying to invade their neighbours, I'm sure China would treat it much the same way as Europe treats every war in Africa or Asia. Much 'concern', many pleas to follow international law. This is absurdly reductionist. Population matters (140 million vs 30 million). Location matters. Size matters. Industrial-military base matters. Legacy matters (there is a reason teams with a winning pedigree tend to win in tight spots). Nukes matter. The US can't handle Iran. It couldn't handle Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. All of a sudden Russia is a total pushover handled through "prowess". This kind of hubris is exactly why the American empire will end sometime this century. And before you say it doesn't matter, look up what happens to global reserve currencies when they're no longer global reserve currencies. Go look up what happens with debt repayments in that case. The American lifestyle will suffer some harsh adjustments at all levels, probably in a few decades, at most. And FYI, Europe has already tripled its defense spending. I hope none of it gets spent on US tech of any kind. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | “American empire will end sometime this century “ - at the rate things are going American empire has a good chance to end this decade :). | | |
| ▲ | troad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, sure. Don't complain when the independence of countries like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia is unceremoniously snuffed out the next day. But I'm sure Europe will rise to the occasion. I'm sure the same European countries that gave us the phrase "Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?" will be ready to send their sons to die for Narva. I'm sure all this defense talk has produced European militaries capable of fighting a prolonged conflict. I'm sure all these societies that are not even willing to tolerate the increased cost of not buying Russian gas and oil, let alone financial support for Ukraine - I'm sure they'll be cheering the enormous expense of a direct shooting war with Russia. The deep irony of all of this is that we're all actually agreed. The American empire will end, with NATO as its clear military dimension also ending, and you'll be on your own, as you've always wanted. Have fun. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do think that the Baltics are Russia’s next target IF they ever conquer Ukraine. So far this is not happening. And just because NATO will not be there does not mean Russia will be able to conquer the Baltics. Baltics by themselves may be able to check Russia’s armed forces. Also Germany has a vested interest in keeping the Russians out of the Baltics as well -nobody wants Russia to be their neighbor. What you wrote would make sense if Russian army would not be so woefully incompetent. Every day more Russians die in the Ukraine is a good day for European security. | | |
| ▲ | troad 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree. The question is whether Europe is going to be capable of maintaining that level of defensive action on its own. I hope the answer is yes. Sadly, I'm left extremely sceptical from observing European politics. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | BTW - after 4 years of war Russia got around 30,000 sq km [0] - this is less than the smallest Baltic state Estonia. So I think the Baltics will be fine by themselves - because of the crass Russian military incompetence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories_o... | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | troad 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With extensive US logistical support, yes. We're talking about a scenario where that factor is absent. That's not to diminish the bravery of the Ukrainian people. They're heroes. But bravery doesn't suffice without materiel. I'm not convinced the rest of Europe has good supplies of either. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Could even be this year. | |
| ▲ | oblio 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wanted to be nice :-p |
| |
| ▲ | troad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> All of a sudden Russia is a total pushover handled through "prowess". It is you who are being absurdly reductionist when you contort 'Russia is not capable of threatening the US' into 'the US can't successfully mount a land invasion of Russia', or whatever strawman you're trying to build here. The US has no need or interest in invading Russia. It has no need or interest in defending Ukraine, for that matter, but they've done so because they're doing a grand and noble thing. It is wild that Europeans expect and demand that the US funds the cost of the Ukraine war, which is happening in Europe, while Europe itself is not even willing to agree to stop buying Russian gas and oil. The original point stands - Russia is not capable of being a threat to the US, and in as far as Russia is capable of being a threat to Europe, this is primarily a European issue, not a global one. At the very least, Europe should shoulder the lion's share of defending its own continent, rather than demanding everyone else does it for them for free. >> This kind of hubris is exactly why the American empire will end sometime this century. >> The American lifestyle will suffer some harsh adjustments at all levels, probably in a few decades, at most. Cool. Since I've been pretty open about the fact I'm not American, I don't see what any of this has to do with me. And I certainly don't see what any of this has to do with international security. Seems like you're just venting some hatred for Americans. It's quite telling how every time someone takes the US side on anything online, Europeans bring out the greatest hits parade of anti-American tropes, fresh off 2004-era Reddit. Maybe the Americans could invest in their own social net if they weren't spending trillions of dollars to defend you. Cutting US military spending in half, much of which could come from vacating the US presence in Europe, would give the US hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on their own country. Their own society. Their own healthcare. And maybe when Europe realises it can't pay for its absurdly dysfunctional welfare systems and its own security, it will have the same hard choices to make that the rest of the world have been making since the dawn of time! Big changes are coming for European lifestyles, much bigger than anything coming for the US. What does the US security presence in Europe actually get the US? Mollycoddled adult children, complaining on the online platforms that the US built, using the global economy the US protects, from homes that the US defends, about how icky those Americans are. >> And FYI, Europe has already tripled its defense spending. I hope none of it gets spent on US tech of any kind. Yes yes, we've all heard much talking about the Zeitenwende. Talking is what Europe does best, after all. Maybe German soldiers can stop running around with broomsticks instead of guns now? [0] So Europe is fine and dandy now, right? No need to NATO to continue, judging from all the fighting words coming out of folks like Kaja Kallas? This is such an incoherent, Internet-pilled perspective. "The US empire is bad and should end, but also the Americans must stay and protect me on the other side of the world forever, but also I don't need them at all and I am actually perfectly capable of defending myself, thank you very much, but also them leaving is a huge betrayal and must be prevented at all costs -" Good God, which is it? Either the US overseas presence is good and should continue to protect Europe, or it's bad and the Americans can go home and you'll take care of yourself. Ironically, I think we're actually agreed on your future prediction. The US 'empire', to use your words, will end soon. Problem solved, Yankee go home, you kids have fun. I sincerely hope Europe doesn't get itself invaded, but that will really be a matter for Europe to figure out. [0] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/german-sold... |
|
|
|
|
