Remix.run Logo
spwa4 11 hours ago

The problem with this, historically is that the way Europe's geography works, a number of countries are just not going to fairly share in the burden of defending Europe, while other countries have the ability to tax foreign trade. Ireland is famous for this, and looking at a map, you can see why. Spain, Turkey and Denmark have historically taxed foreign trade.

Additionally a number of countries have "unfair" advantages over others. There are 2 straits that control access to the oceans. Which means Denmark and Norway control free trade routes (land routes are not "free" as in they are taxed) into Germany, Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, and of course Russia. This can't be fixed, and the UK effectively occupies Gibraltar to prevent it.

Spain (I'd say Spain and Morocco, but really ... Spain) controls sea access for all Mediterranean countries, from Italy to Georgia, Algeria to Greece. France (and Morocco) being the major exceptions to this. This can't be fixed, and is currently blocked by what is effectively an international force. Spain is not happy with this.

Turkey controls (and intends to tax) trade routes into all the black sea countries, which is most of Eastern Europe.

Oh and UK and the Netherlands, for reasons that are slightly less obvious, control free trade into Belgium.

In addition to this, most countries do not have the resources they need. Not even to survive. And even most countries that could be self-sufficient, aren't (cough Germany, really, WHY????). Really only France is somewhat close to self-sufficient. Specialization, on a country level, is a necessity in Europe, most countries do not have access to free trade routes and are utterly dependent on trade, in other words: they have to pay to survive.

Essentially the situation is simple: all European countries, except France. Spain, UK and Portugal (and, yes, Ireland) COULD get themselves into a secure position, but haven't (and so if it came to it, it would be very hard to do in a short time). All other countries probably can't do it at all. So all these countries have good reason to attack each other.

So the question with getting Europe's armies weapons is: the natural situation is that they'll try to destabilize Europe rather than stabilize it, because that is in most countries' direct economic interest. Historically, they ... you can say Europe was more peaceful than places like the areas of the ottoman empire, for example. But that should not be confused with peaceful in an absolute sense. In fact, the last 80 years or so have been remarkably peaceful, with America guaranteeing access to international trade. Well, I'm sure Russia would counter "guarantee access? You mean control access", and yes, that's been done.

Unfortunately it's very clear that America's power, especially measured relative to other countries, is waning. Meaning America is still far more powerful than, say, Turkey. But it used to be easily 100x more powerful. Now ... it looks more like 10x. Opposing Turkey will be a huge effort for the US, far more than the Iran war will be. US's deal, the Pax Americana, was that America would simply guarantee free trade routes with it's military for everyone, in fact, that's what the Iran war is really about (free trade for everyone behind Hormuz). In exchange, US gets the dollar. Many nations, most obviously Iran, but Turkey, Indonesia, China, Somalia, ... have all taken steps to tax the trade routes they control, which will over time create an untenable trade situation for a very large number of countries.

The situation for Germany in the long term is a simple choice: they can either pay, or attack. We all know what their historical choice has been, as soon as you have a somewhat prolonged economic crisis. Germany is not alone in this, in fact all of Eastern Europe is more or less in the same situation. A decent chunk of those countries are arming themselves (for example, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Finland have all given hints they're building a nuclear force)

The problem with America weakening is that the US wants free trade, because that directly benefits the US greatly, whereas most other factions want to control trade instead. Turkey, Iran, China, Indonesia, even Spain's current government if we're honest and others want to (go back to) taxing other countries. Historically they have succeeded at this, but it resulted in constant wars.

pjc50 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Rather odd nineteenth century outlook that doesn't mention the European Union.

AntiUSAbah 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We work together in europe and we are not arming ourselves to fight european partners but because of russia

spwa4 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes ... countries that can't decide to invest in their own hospitals or education are going to arm themselves to pursue wars to protect little states thousands of kilometers away they barely even trade with. I haven't even mentioned that even as part of NATO they have systematically refused to invest in the defense of the Baltic states. That is not ancient history, that's 6 months ago. Oh and they're financing this with loans. EU government debt is already a pretty heavy burden in ... essentially everywhere except Germany. So they're kicking the can down the road, and this is military investment. It's not going to improve anything about the EU. It'll either do nothing at all (that's the optimal scenario: Russia is deterred and nothing happens. The economic production rots away in some secret basement until it literally decays into dust) or it'll cause destruction. Its value is either zero or MINUS trillions. The loans, however, will need to be repaid.

I'm just thinking ahead to what will happen once these loans turn from a short-term economic boost and start dragging the economies further down.

AntiUSAbah 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. You see whats going on in Ukraine. Small countries have either partner countries or the bigger ones use them as proxies like i would assume would happen with lithuania.

There is no issue with loans.

frm88 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

even Spain's current government

Where do you get this from? Is this a remark that comes from antipathy to social democracy? Every speech by Sanchez that I have listened to over the last year has him promoting free trade, even the wiki says so:

Sánchez has been a strong advocate for finalizing the long-negotiated EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement,[170] which aims to establish one of the world's largest free trade areas.[171]

spwa4 7 hours ago | parent [-]

He is pushing really hard to renegotiate Gibraltar, and has even booked some success there (the fence is taken down). He's artifically pushing the Spanish economy in the region, and he's also sending in ships on a regular basis (no change from previous Spanish governments there) that UK has to chase away.

Why do you think that is? If you want to know: Spain's official story is they want it back because "it's inconveniently placed" (they imply they mean for the Spanish fishing industry).

frm88 7 hours ago | parent [-]

and has even booked some success there (the fence is taken down).

He negotiated that with the UK so that the whole border control thing could be ameliated that made commerce and travel more difficult than strictly necessary. I would argue that is more in the vein of enabling free trade than installing a tax.

As for the UK chasing spanish ships, do you have a link?

I mean, he is arguing for the UK to return to the EU every chance he gets and that was part of the negotiations for Gibraltar, is that what you object to?

https://spanishnewstoday.com/s%C3%A1nchez-and-starmer-seal-n...

brazzy 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Historically, they ... you can say Europe was more peaceful than places like the areas of the ottoman empire

Um... WHAT?

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

spwa4 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yep. Really. As I said, not because Europe was very peaceful (although most of these conflicts were extremely underwhelming if compared to what ended the era: WW1)