Europe Fears It Can't Catch Up in Great Power Competition (msn.com) 264
European leaders have spent years warning that the continent risked falling behind the U.S., China and Russia in the global contest for economic, technological and military dominance, and officials now believe they have reached that point.
The mood darkened over the summer when Europe found itself on the sidelines as Washington and Beijing negotiated a reset of global trade rules, and turned bleak this month when the White House presented a Ukraine cease-fire plan without consulting European capitals. In July, the EU accepted a trade deal allowing the U.S. to impose 15% tariffs without retaliation.
President Trump ignored European calls to pressure Moscow before meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, telling reporters "this is not to do with Europe, Europe's not telling me what to do." Germany has eased its debt brake to pour $580 billion into a decade-long rearmament program, and the EU has set a 2030 rearmament goal -- defense spending across the region is set to exceed $560 billion this year, double what it was a decade ago. "Battle lines for a new world order, based on power, are being drawn right now," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in September. "A new Europe must emerge."
The mood darkened over the summer when Europe found itself on the sidelines as Washington and Beijing negotiated a reset of global trade rules, and turned bleak this month when the White House presented a Ukraine cease-fire plan without consulting European capitals. In July, the EU accepted a trade deal allowing the U.S. to impose 15% tariffs without retaliation.
President Trump ignored European calls to pressure Moscow before meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, telling reporters "this is not to do with Europe, Europe's not telling me what to do." Germany has eased its debt brake to pour $580 billion into a decade-long rearmament program, and the EU has set a 2030 rearmament goal -- defense spending across the region is set to exceed $560 billion this year, double what it was a decade ago. "Battle lines for a new world order, based on power, are being drawn right now," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in September. "A new Europe must emerge."
Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At the end of WWII Europe was given safety guarantees called the US Nuclear Umbrella that did not require them to keep huge armies.
Although, during the Cold War most European nations did have significant armies but after the fall of the Soviet Union they quickly started to spent their money on more profitable subjects.
Then this criminal Putin came to power but heh, we have a NATO chapter 5 and like in WWII the US will come to our rescue, one of the reasons most co
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:4, Informative)
Just to maybe jog your memory a bit: Mr OBAMA was the first that told the lazy ass free riding Euros that they need to start paying their way. Not Mr Trump.
https://www.france24.com/en/20... [france24.com]
Mr Trump was merely "classless" enough to HOLD EU economies to their promises of years before. HOW GAUCHE!
Thought you might have forgotten that bit.
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Interesting)
Joe Biden when speaking to the Senate in 1995 about American getting involved in Bosnia; This part is at 12:58 but really the whole thing is really compelling, Biden makes a very enthusiastic case for America's role as you describe (and really it also lines up to Ukraine today in my opinion, particularly since Europe is uniting around it and we should be supporting them for the effort.)
https://www.c-span.org/clip/se... [c-span.org]
What is the message we send to the world if we stand by and we say we will let it continue to happen here in this place but it is not in our interest? We do not fear that it will spread? I am not here to tell you that, if we do not act, it will spread and cause a war in Europe--tomorrow or next year. But I am here to tell you that within the decade, it will cause the spread of war like a cancer, and the collapse of the Western alliance. What is so important about the Western alliance? NATO for NATO's sake so that we can beat our breast?
What I am about to say is going to cause me great difficulty if I am reelected and come back here as the ranking member or chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But Europe cannot stay united without the United States. There is no moral center in Europe.
When in the last two centuries have the French, or the British, or the Germans, or the Belgians, or the Italians moved in a way to unify that continent to stand up to this kind of genocide? When have they done it? The only reason anything is happening now is because the United States of America finally--finally--is understanding her role.
Re: (Score:3)
We *can't fucking afford to buy everyone lunch any more*.
You know I don't disagree but two things are also true; 1. I have been hearing this for *my entire life* and the date or the number or the metric keeps moving forward so for the debt chicken little's, get your facts together it's wearing thin, particularly because...
2. Those same people who cry about the debt my whole life continue to elect the same people who just run it up even more. Or the last two times leave office with a huge mess that the now Democrat president has to spend to clean up (Obama in 200
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Those who cannot remember history (Score:2)
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Insightful)
What is not said enough about this post-WWII security arrangement in which the US plays a large role in transatlantic defense, is that this is not simply just a "cost" that the US absorbs. The US has profited ENORMOUSLY off of this arrangement, in multiple ways.
First of all, much of the defense spending goes back into the American economy. Second, the US gets to sell weapons to its allies around the world. Third, the US gets tremendous soft power and influence to shape foreign governments' policies in ways that are friendly to US interests. Those things, put together, are why the US has maintained its dominant role in global geopolitics and economy since WWII.
And Trump/MAGA are incapable of understanding this. They are only interested in the short term reward of extortion for their own personal gain and ego. They've already killed the goose that lays the golden egg.
America's economic and military allies have realized that the US is no longer a reliable partner. This is not just about Europe feeling resentful that they have to pay for their own defense. It is a grim understanding that US idiocracy has destroyed all trust. That loss of trust is NOT coming back--not for many generations. That's why there is so much diplomatic manuvering going on between Western non-US countries to strengthen existing ties. By then, the consequences of the myopically self-centered isolationist beliefs of US conservatives will have relegated the US to a bit player on the world stage, incapable of influencing global politics, as other countries (e.g. China) fill in the power vacuum.
The reason why the US has so willingly invested so much into NATO and into defense in general, is because they have, by far, reaped the greatest rewards.
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Insightful)
I mostly agree with you, but I think it might be unfair to the average American voter. Imagine that you live in West Virginia or Missouri, and you're struggling to get by, as many people are. Your wages haven't kept pace with inflation. You can't afford a house, and the price of houses seems to be rising faster than wages. Big companies have left your town to setup shop overseas, and your neighbors are out of work. Your health insurance sucks and is anything but universal. One big illness could wipe you out. When your wife had a kid, she got 6 weeks(!) of maternity leave, and had to be back at work.
Then you look at the US armed forces... there are 13(?) aircraft carriers that outmatch everything else on the ocean. Stealth bombers that look like spaceships. NASA launching huge rockets at enormous expense to go land people on the moon, when they already did that 45 years ago. A huge nuclear arsenal. This is all to be the world's police, and to provide a security umbrella to Europe.
And then you look at Europe, with their two years of maternity leave, and worker protections, and way more paid holidays, and universal healthcare, and they all like to look down their noses at Americans, while they benefit from a massive security umbrella that the US provides, which frees up the funds to spend on social programs.
Everyone thinks the MAGA crowd are traditional conservatives. Sure, there are some, but the core group of voters used to be democrats. They were union workers, laborers. They saw their savior in Bernie Sanders, and when the dems wouldn't let him run, they decided to follow the other populist voice. Is Trump lying to them? Absolutely.
I don't relate to MAGA at all. But I get it. The security arrangement might have been good for the US in general, but it hasn't been good for the average American worker. That's why we're here.
And there are going to be austerity measures coming to all of Europe. Those social programs are going to shrink. Right at a time when everyone's arming themselves to the teeth. How do you think that's going to play out?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>"And then you look at Europe, with their two years of maternity leave, and worker protections, and way more paid holidays, and universal healthcare, and they all like to look down their noses at Americans, while they benefit from a massive security umbrella that the US provides, which frees up the funds to spend on social programs."
While simultaneously NOT PAYING THEIR AGREED OBLIGATIONS TO NATO, leaving the USA to absorb that as well. I will now get downvoted by reminding people that it was Trump that
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump "succeeded" in increasing European defense spending by repeatedly caving to Russia and destroying US credibility.
Very much a pyrric victory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump "succeeded" in increasing European defense spending by repeatedly caving to Russia and destroying US credibility.
I don't pretend to know what Trump's goal was, but he did succeed in getting Europe to take the active role in the Ukraine conflict. They are taking care of it now.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such obligation to NATO. The obligation is about the percentage of GDP spend on defense overall. The money doesn't go to NATO. Donnie boy either never understood this or simply kept lying about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the treaty is to keep up their own military/defenses and they were not doing so (and for a long time and getting worse). Member states were expected to pay at least 2% of their GDP into defense/readiness, annually. "Donnie" wanted to make sure that the countries were ready and able to defend themselves and come to the aid of other member states, instead of immediately relying on other member's resources when it is too late. That is not an unreasonable expectation.
There are also direct contributio
Re: (Score:3)
The NATO operating budget is but peanuts and I am not aware that any member ever missed their dues on those.
The GDP targets were politically set goals. I don't have an issue with Donnie hammering on those, I just wished he would have made clear that this was about overall defense spending.
Of course by abandoning Ukraine he now gives EU countries plenty of motivation to play catch up and to spend more on defense.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I don't have an issue with Donnie hammering on those, I just wished he would have made clear that this was about overall defense spending."
He is often unclear, unfortunately.
>"Of course by abandoning Ukraine he now gives EU[...]"
I am not aware of him ever vetoing any support legislation, or threatening to do so (I could be wrong on that). He was confident he could work out a deal and quickly. Apparently Putin is not so cooperative.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
During the Biden admin the US passed several support packages. None during the current administration. The support now falls squarely on Europe alone.
https://www.kielinstitut.de/to... [kielinstitut.de]
There also has been a bipartisan sanction bill ready in the senate for months now but it won't move unless he gives the go ahead.
The current DimWit "peace plan" obviously originated in the Kremlin and Witkoff couldn't act more like a Russian agent if he tried.
https://slate.com/news-and-pol... [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>"So a very tiny amount. Europe pays the vast majority..."
Europe is not a country. And not all of Europe is in NATO. Even the concept of "Europe" isn't perfectly well-defined.... some would say Russia is also in Europe. The NATO protection is, primarily, of European nations. Yes, it helps everywhere else, too, to keep NATO's "enemies" in check. But the USA is 1 of 32 members and yet pays more than five times 1/32nd.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump pointed out that most countries didn't meet their obligations, and most of those countries ignored him. It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets.
In 2014 only 3 nato members met the 2% target (USA, UK, Greece):
https://www.nato.int/content/d... [nato.int]
Re: (Score:2)
>"It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets."
Keep in mind the big invasion didn't occur until 2022, years after Trump left office the first time (which is when he was calling for them to live up to their obligations). Of course, Putin was already hostile before that and had already invaded during Oboma admin, but that apparently didn't motivate them.
Re: (Score:3)
The big invasion didn't occur until 2022 because in 2021 it became apparent to putin that there was no other way to contain the dissatisfaction of his populace with the rotting economy, but war powers.
Also, let's not forget that trump is viewed as an asset by Moscow. There's enough evidence of that, from the "Tramp - nash" campaign run by Moscow since 2015 to the campaign against supporting Ukraine that trump's been running ever since Zelensky refused to give him dirt on Biden, to the last leaked phone call
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Informative)
You're not wrong, but the blame is perhaps misdirected, because domestic affairs are not necessarily downstream effects of foreign economic and military policy.
My personal opinion is that the US military industrial complex has less to do with the depressed economic conditions of rural America than the corporate oligarchs who have exploited outsourced cheap foreign labor to extract more profit.
In the aftermath of WWII, there were many industry towns that experienced massive economic growth because of government investment into technologies that sought to maintain a strategic advantage in a postwar, US-dominated global economy. To maintain energy security, places like West Virginia mined more coal and Texas pumped more oil. Domestic manufacturing experienced a boom. But in peactime, increasing globalization of the labor market drove the outsourcing of labor as described above, and killed these towns. A generation of Americans who believed they were entitled to good jobs with minimal education were left in the dust.
Even now, with renewable energy initiatives, these same people still want to risk their lives and health to mine coal. They are stuck in a past that no longer exists.
And when you compare against Europe, you can see that a lot of the grievances that so many Americans (very much rightfully) have--fair labor practices, less wealth inequality, more worker rights, a living wage--are policies that those same Americans have consistently voted against by electing representatives that are bought by corporations. That's not just a failure of accountability, it's a failure of education and resistance against propaganda.
That austerity is coming to Europe is actually more of a symptom of the worldwide cancer of the capitalist class that relentlessly continues to seek ways to extract profit from the working class. They see social programs--money that hardworking taxpayers have paid--as their next target to raid, and drunk off their success in the US, are seeking to do the same elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Soviet Union existed it tempered capitalism's worst excesses. The Communist threat was enough to ensure that Western leaders were compelled to spread enough wealth around to the working class as to not give them ideas.
As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed America was off to the races towards the next gilded age.
Europe with its strong trade unions kept this more in check, but with an aging demographics it is now outcompeted.
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine that you live in West Virginia or Missouri, and you're struggling to get by, as many people are. Your wages haven't kept pace with inflation.
Imagine that you live in Manhattan or San Francisco, and you're struggling to get by, as many people are. Your wages haven't kept pace with inflation. You can't afford a house, and the price of houses are rising far faster than wages.
I think we need to be clear. Our problems aren't caused by some group of "untermenschen" in the sticks who don't know any better. They actually do understand that their interests are being ignored.
The problem is it doesn't matter what they think and they know that as well. So a good percentage of them participate in politics the same way they do any sport, as fans. The largest percentage of eligible voters doesn't vote. Donald Trump got votes from barely a third of those eligible. But that is even more true of the other people elected to public office. The members of the "majority" in the House probably got votes from about 15% of the eligible voters. Almost all of the levers that used to exist for people to exercise self-government are either broken or rusted shut by disuse.
Re: (Score:3)
are why the US has maintained its dominant role in global geopolitics and economy since WWII.
Most Americans would rather have $100 in their pocket than a dominant role in global geopolitics.
Re: (Score:2)
The two are not mutually exclusive and it is not a zero-sum game. In fact, the two things--greater domestic wealth for the working class, and a strong foreign policy--historically have been demonstrably causally correlated. Again, as I have alluded to in my previous post, the postwar American economy was extremely prosperous. The pressure to maintain military superiority against the emergent superpower of the USSR resulted in an expansion of domestic infrastructure and technological research. The idea o
Re: (Score:2)
the two things--greater domestic wealth for the working class, and a strong foreign policy--historically have been demonstrably causally correlated. Again, as I have alluded to in my previous post, the postwar American economy was extremely prosperous
Someone might counterargue that building bombs that do nothing but explode (or worse, destroy assets) is not a benefit to the economy, and that the 90s had an economic boom as the world returned to peace, and anyway government spending doesn't matter (economically) if it's on bombs or on anything else.
It would be interesting if you looked up how much benefit was from war spending and how much was from other effects. I think you will find there is not actually a correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, the two things--greater domestic wealth for the working class, and a strong foreign policy--historically have been demonstrably causally correlated
Demonstrated by who?
the postwar (World War II presumably) American economy was extremely prosperous.
The US was the "dominant economic power" by default.That was almost unavoidable given that the United States was the only major economy undamaged by the war. What was avoidable was that the wealth the economy was creating was spread quite widely to a large number of people. That was a direct result of the labor, civil rights and women's movements that opened opportunities. And of their ability to use their collective power to counter the power of corporations bent on monopoly control of
Re: (Score:2)
because most Americans are shortsighted and stupid.
More likely because most/many Americans aren't blinded by emotional propaganda and can see their own interests more clearly than you. They actually notice that while the United States has been the world's "only super power", their lives have not gotten any better and in many ways worse.
Sometimes reality bleeds through despite the efforts of the propagandists to blow smoke and obscure it.
Lets not forget about the US $ dominance (Score:2)
Pax Americana means that the world standardized around the US dollar as the most important (arguably only) reserve currency.
This gave the US enormous economic clout and the ability to issue USD denominated debt at very low interest.
As the trust in America's leadership erodes so does the trust in the US dollar. This can be seen by the enormous appreciation of the gold price since Trump was sworn in. Central banks around the world have been acquiring gold to diversify their reserve holding away from the US do
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Awesome. I'm with you - the US should;d get out of Europe today.
Europeans wish America would fuck off. You keep saying you should, POTUS says he will yet here you are still hanging around like a spare prick at a wedding.
Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score:5, Insightful)
For the US, Europe has always been the buffer zone between them and the Soviet Union, that theater on which that war that luckily didn't grow hot would happen.
Let's not pretend it has ever been otherwise.
Claiming that you're protecting your shield and getting angry that your hands have gone too little and weak to carry it is funny, but pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's completely serious.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate the average American's sentiment who want Europe to pay for its own defense. However, there's a lot of American history in the 20th century and before which brought us to this point deliberately. After being drawn into two huge world wars, started by member states of a continent that had continually been at war with themselves, the United States came up with a plan to prevent it from happening again. They invited everyone into an alliance structure where anyone could trade with anyone else, and the US would guarantee free navigation of the oceans so they didn't need big navies, and would provide security guarantees so that the countries of Europe didn't feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth. This arrangement is expensive for the US, but not so expensive as a world war 3. And it worked to prevent WW3 for many decades. Now that the generations who fought those wars are gone, we've forgotten the lessons, and I'm afraid we're doomed to repeat them. European have not evolved. Their geographic and political reality encourages wars among their own states. And as much as the US wants to stay out of it, they invariably get dragged back in every time.
Well, as the EU becomes buffer states of Russia, will the US need to help? It is apparent that the EU and its citizens believe that the US is a backwater country, full of fat stupid people who are the most evil humans on th planet. We are treated every day to EU supremacy, where any topic about Rooshia or China gets turned into our fault or a whataboutism within a few posts.
You will come a buffer state, and you will be happier, because the US will leave you alone. You won!, You are no longer under the h
Re: (Score:2)
How much of WWII did the US pay for? Anyone know?
Re: (Score:2)
Do we count every favorable trade deal? Just the materiel? The deployments to save British armies from destruction in remote deserts?
Either way, the contribution in general to the survival and independence of Western Europe was immense.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how different the U.S would be today if every penny of it had going into domestic social spending, high speed trains and the like.
Re: Those who cannot remember history (Score:2)
Hmm. And America pressured europe to buy all its weapons and technology from America. Sometimes they were even caught bribing the governments.
Re: Those who cannot remember history (Score:2)
Re: Those who cannot remember history (Score:2)
This is probably the first succinct justification for the EU (and even NATO) that I've ever read.
As a non-European, it never made any sense to me that these structures needed to exist after the fall of communism in the East Bloc.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're saying the EU can't regulate its way to world dominance?
No!
Say it isn't so!
Re: (Score:2)
the United States came up with a plan to prevent it from happening again. They invited everyone into an alliance structure where anyone could trade with anyone else
That's bullshit and just about sums up your typical American's lack of knowledge of both history and the world outside of the USA. The ALLIES came up with a plan and formed NATO which is defence only organisation NOT a trade organisation you dumb fuck. The rest of your post is just as bullshit as that.
Re:yes and... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way to peace is to stop fucking antagonizing near-peer countries like Russia and China.
I'm sorry but this is bullshit, Russia has zero reasons to fear unprovoked invasion from NATO, that's cope. Those "formally neutral" countries lobbies and voted to join NATO because just like the USSR Russia still liked fucking with it's neighbors in the 90's and 2000's. The Baltics are feeling pretty good right now, they're not getting invaded despite sharing a border.
They're (Putin and his oligarchs) mad because all these nations have gone towards the EU just like they started invading Ukraine with paramilitary right after Euromaidan, Ukraine wanted to join the EU trade group instead of their bloc.
This is absolutely unjustified Russian aggression against a neighboring country. Russia can go back to respecting Ukraines borders like they agreed to in 1994 and then we can talk about who's antagonizing who here.
Re:yes and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. People have a very short memory, and viewing current affairs through such a limited lens makes one susceptible to disinformation.
The whole reason why Eastern European countries and former republics of the USSR have consistently turned toward the EU after the collapse of the Soviet Union is because the people could see how decades of Russian corruption left them with nothing. They were fed up with being satellite states without any right to self-determination, kept poor and servile while the Russian elite flourished.
That said, the EU is certainly not without its flaws. But as a model for shared governance and security, every member country (except for the UK) understands that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Prior to Trump's ascendancy, Brexit was the most successful disinformation campaign we have seen coming from Russia since the Cold War, and we continue to see the stoking of populist propaganda from nations that seek to break Western alliances, because it has worked so well and for such little investment.
Re: yes and... (Score:2)
They were fed up with being satellite states without any right to self-determination, kept poor and servile while the Russian elite flourished.
That's not entirely correct. In late USSR, almost all satellites were welfare queens, and usually were just as well off economically as the Russian Soviet federation. The only exceptions were Belarus, which was a net donor into the central budget and Ukraine which just broke even.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but this is bullshit, Russia has zero reasons to fear unprovoked invasion from NATO
Just as Ukraine had no reason to fear an unprovoked invasion from Russia. Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Panama all had no reason to fear an unprovoked attack either. The problem is who gets to decide what is a provocation.
The other problem is that this is not some moral debate. It is a war that is being decided by blood and iron. It appears Russia has won and frankly there is nothing we can do about it. There is no evidence that delaying the outcome will get Ukraine a better deal no matter how m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ofc the brits were the common foe, that doesn't mean russia didn't support the us to become a good counterweight to them, which made perfect strategic sense, and both countries had good relations for well over a century. russia provided open and strong diplomatic and political support all the way and during the civil war sent 2 fleets, which didn't engage in combat but did deter french and british interference.
btw, if they hadn't done all that you would possibly still be a colony, you ungrateful and ignoran
Re: (Score:2)
China certainly is a peer of the United States and surpasses the EU.
Usually the term used is near peer [war.gov].
Re: yes and... (Score:2)
Ukraine has already inflicted almost 1.2 million casualties to the Russian army in the war.
There is no basis for such claim besides Ukraine's own propaganda machine. Both countries treat their own casualty numbers as a state secret. Independent sources claim much lower casualty numbers.
That is half of the Russian casualties during their war of aggression in Afghanistan.
Where are you finding these crazy "facts" about the war in Afghanistan? Soviet (not Russian) casualties in Afghanistan were about 15,000 ki
Re: (Score:2)
Trump only knows bully tactics, but as with TACO tariffs, his assumption that the bullied will never fight back is sometimes wrong.
It appears Trump just puts that into his calculations. First of who to bully. And then how much he can extract in return for stopping.
Europe has itself to blame for this (Score:4, Informative)
After the 'fall of the wall', Europe, particularly Germany, believed that war on European soil was unimaginable, and that Russia would turn into an at least semi-democratic state, with economic ties motivating political reforms. So they stopped spending on defense, started buying Russian energy, and generally positioned themselves to their current position. (I visualize an ostrich, head in the sand, ass exposed to the air!) Here, I'm using "Europe" both to mean the collective political institutions, i.e. the European Union, and as a shorthand for the actions for the individual sovereign nations that occupy the European continent. One could say 'painting all European countries with the same brush" is unfair, but from where I sit on my side of the pond, there is significant commonality of strategic thought across the continent. Trump came along in his first term and in his transactional way, said "Europe has to pay for its own defense,' denigrating both political and strategic/military aspects of collective defense. Europe treated Trump as 'a bad dream that will go away,' and when that proved to be wrong, they're left holding the empty bag. (This is NOT to agree with Trump's approach for international/strategic/defense affairs, but particularly on NATO defense spending, he did have a point.)
Now Europe has to play catch-up. It has to spend significant resources in defense, not the least of those resources are adding large numbers of people to its military. It has to wean itself completely from Russian energy. It has to rebuild defensive alliances that are not dependent on the primacy of the US. It has to figure out how to reconcile NATO and EU as actors in the strategic space.
"A new Europe must emerge" I would agree, but (a) I don't see a clear consensus within the European countries for what that 'new Europe' should look like (look at the gains of right wing politicians, not just in Hungary and Slovakia, but in Netherlands, France, and even UK.) (b) it's not clear that Putin will allow Europe the time to figure this out. A first step HAS to be figuring out how to re-integrate the UK into European strategic discussions, without entangling UK in European social and economic nets.
Re:Europe has itself to blame for this (Score:4, Insightful)
Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.
One of the most insane things is how after Russia's surprisingly poor military performance in the Georgian war, the Merkel government was disturbed not that Russia invaded Georgia, but at the level of disarray in the Russian army, and sought a deliberate policy of improving the Russian military. They perceived Russia as a bulkwark against e.g. Islamic extremism, and as a potential strategic partner. They supported for example Rheinmetal building a modern training facility in Russia and sent trainers to work with the Russian military.
With Georgia I could understand (though adamantly disagreed) how some dismissed it as a "local conflict" because it could be spun as "Georgia attacking an innocent separatist state and Russia just keeping their alliances". But after 2014 there was no viable spin that could disguise Russia's imperial project. Yet so many kept sticking their fingers in their years going, "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and pretending like we could keep living as we were before. It was delusional and maddening.
The EU has three times Russia's population and an order of magnitude larger of an economy. In any normal world, Russia should be terrified of angering Europe, not the other way around. But our petty differences, our shortsightedness, our adamant refusal to believe deterrence is needed, much less to pay to actually deter or even understand what that means... we set ourselves up for this.
And I say this to in no way excuse the US's behavior. The US was doing the same thing as us (distance just rendered Russia less of a US trading partner) and every single president wanted to do a "reset" of relations with Russia, which Russia repeatedly used to weaken western defenses in Europe. And it's one thing for the US to say to Europe "You need to pay more for defense" (which is unarguable), even to set realistic deadlines for getting defense spending up, but it's an entirely different thing to just come in and abandon an ally right in the middle of their deepest security crisis since World War II. It's hard to describe to Americans how betrayed most Europeans feel at America right now. The US organized and built the world order it desired (even the formation of the EU was strongly promoted by the US), and then just ripped it out from under our feet when it we're under attack.
A friend once described Europe in the past decades as having been "a kept woman" to America. And indeed, life can be comfortable as a kept woman, and both sides can benefit. America built bases all over Europe to project global power; got access to European militaries for their endeavours, got reliable European military supply chains, etc and yet remained firmly in control of NATO policy; maintained itself as the world's reserve currency; were in a position that Europe could never stop them from doing things Europeans disliked (for example, from invading Iraq); and on and on - while Europe decided that letting the US dominate was worth being able to focus on ourselves. But a kept woman has no real freedom, no real security, and your entire life can come crashing down if you cross them or they no longer want you.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, roughly half the population of the US shares the view that Trump has been an appalling reset, both domestically and internationally. I do note, though, that other nations have undergone significant political changes, as is their right. DeGaulle tossing the Americans out of France is the best example (a neighbor talks about being in the US Army at that time and moving rapidly from Orleans to Kaiserslautern.) I'm sure there are others in post WWII Europe. Europeans should not be surprised if th
Re: (Score:2)
It's always bothered me how so many people outside the US feel entitled to tell the US how its voters should behave.
I tend to be more dumbfounded by the ones who apparently understand some of the US Constitution, but seemingly have no idea how their own government works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to tour the American graveyards in Europe sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Watching Band of Brothers and Masters of the Air may also be of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.
If you're talking about the cold-war era, then obviously. You didn't think they actually wanted to be puppet governments for the Kremlin did you? Literally the only one that was comfortable with the idea was Belarus, probably because to this day the guy running it at the time is still running it, and he has a major boner for Putler. Meanwhile, everybody else, including notoriously neutral states like Finland and Denmark, have since joined NATO. I doubt a single one of them actually wanted to be part of the
Re: (Score:2)
Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.
To be fair they were against the entire world. At the time there was a generalised policy idea pushed by American economists that by enriching a nation it will naturally tend towards a stable democracy. The people most shouting against this were among the poorest and they were dismissed on similar grounds.
Buying Russian gas, investing in Russia, and China, and the middle east, all of this was seen as a way to enrich the people. With riches comes education, with education comes resistance against autocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Europe has itself to blame for this (Score:2)
One of the most insane things is how after Russia's surprisingly poor military performance in the Georgian war
I really don't understand how posters on the Internet forums are still coming up with this claim. Russians routed Georgian army out of South Osetia in 2-3 days, and then Georgia was left without any military. Georgian soldiers were seen stealing civilian vehicles to escape out of the conflict zone.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has three times Russia's population and an order of magnitude larger of an economy. In any normal world, Russia should be terrified of angering Europe, not the other way around.
That is plainly wrong. Russia has a over 5000 nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them to targets in any country in the EU. In any normal world, the EU would be trying to make nice with Russia. This may be a weakness of the US "nuclear umbrella", it emboldens stupidity. Trump clearly has betrayed Europe in the sense that they have counted on the US to back them up.
Re: (Score:2)
After the 'fall of the wall', Europe, particularly Germany, believed that war on European soil was unimaginable, and that Russia would turn into an at least semi-democratic state, with economic ties motivating political reforms. So they stopped spending on defense, started buying Russian energy, and generally positioned themselves to their current position. (I visualize an ostrich, head in the sand, ass exposed to the air!)
It sounds like you believe that the Russian practice of setting up buffer states was a US lie.
Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and errrrm East Germany. They might have a different opinion on Russian peacefulness, and for at least some of us, there was a reason that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was set up.
Europe is pretty clear - they don't like us. Maybe Europe should consider rejuvenating the Warsaw pact, or more accurately the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mu
Re: (Score:2)
You're attributing to me, that which I'm attributing to political leaders after the fall of the Soviet Union. I thought Russia might be able to change its spots, but their actions starting in the late 200x showed otherwise.
Let me repeat Pug Ismay's characterization of NATO: "US in, Germany down, Russia out" NATO succeeded for a long time, but it's not clear to me now NATO is working. Hungary & Turkey have at various times been the primary impediment to NATO consensus on various missions.
Re: (Score:2)
After the 'fall of the wall', Europe, particularly Germany, believed that war on European soil was unimaginable, and that Russia would turn into an at least semi-democratic state, with economic ties motivating political reforms. So they stopped spending on defense, started buying Russian energy, and generally positioned themselves to their current position.
they actually profiteered quite a bit from the ussr collapsing, specially with yeltsin. they took over very lucrative privatizations on massive scale, pretty much free access to natural resources and energy security, they got a massive market for consumer products, cashed in old debt from the ussr and expanded their political influence to great extent, not to mention the lucrative grift of rampant corruption underlying each of those aspects. putin managed to throw a wrench into most of that, which is proba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After the 'fall of the wall', Europe, particularly Germany, believed that war on European soil was unimaginable, and that Russia would turn into an at least semi-democratic state, with economic ties motivating political reforms. So they stopped spending on defense, started buying Russian energy, and generally positioned themselves to their current position.
You left out the little matter of the war in Ukraine. Absent that war and the sanctions associated with it, Germany would still be prospering from its economic ties to Russia. As would Europe as a whole. The assumption was that Russia would crumble under the pressure of the war. Instead its Europe.
Now, they can't let Russia win, but they lack the ability to prevent it. Their only real hope is for Ukraine to be able to fight on indefinitely with the United States able to provide sufficient support for the
Re: (Score:3)
Continental Europe without UK is strategically much poorer. If Putin moves to the Rhine (the old 'WWIII" scenarios I remember from my time in the US Army, as well as from books written by Brits like Sir John Hackett), UK still has the English Channel as a defensive barrier to Russian occupation. Eurocrats who think the UK should come begging for forgiveness (whether in Britain or on the Continent) put their moral position ahead of their strategic imperative.
(And for the record, I'm in the US and would hav
Re: (Score:2)
What "moral position" is that? That the UK somehow owes something to the rest of Europe?
I'm pretty sure that Germany's position it's lots worse than attributable to the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, frankly, given the choice between UK as an ally, and the EU countries, I'd probably go for the UK. UK punches well above its weight in defense technology, and has a well trained, but diminished army. RAF and RN are also quite valuable, even for European continental defense.
But if Continental Europe really does think they can go it alone, all I can say is "Good luck, you'll need it!" To repeat an old story: "The French admiral was complaining at a NATO meeting. 'Why do we have to speak English all
Seriously? (Score:3)
They are just now coming to this conclusion? What have they been doing since the Berlin Wall fell?
Re: (Score:2)
- Creating common currency (Remember that EU is not a single country)
- Border-free travel thanks to the Schengen area
- Keeping peace in EU (Europe used to have a lot of wars)
- Creating single market inside EU (benefits which Britannia noticed after brexit)
- Connecting the EU into the same electricity network.
- Common charger (Just adding this, because I like charging my devices with the same USB-C charger)
Ukraine (Score:2, Offtopic)
Looks like cheeto is siding with Russia now https://www.telegraph.co.uk/wo... [telegraph.co.uk]
So, fans of MAGA, do you remember when Reagan gave his Evil Empire speech?
Russia? Really? (Score:3)
>>European leaders have spent years warning that the continent risked falling behind the U.S., China and Russia in the global contest for economic, technological and military dominance
US and China? Sure, Europe is lagging behind them. But Russia? Economically they have nothing going for them but oil, and militarily they needed help from North Fucking Korea with an invasion that should have taken 2 weeks but has dragged on for over 3 years with no end in sight. It's a paper tiger.
Re: (Score:2)
Economically they have nothing going for them but oil, and militarily they needed help from North Fucking Korea with an invasion that should have taken 2 weeks but has dragged on for over 3 years with no end in sight. It's a paper tiger.
Yeah, I came here to say this.
Re: (Score:3)
But in the context of "global contest for economic, technological and military dominance", their economy is 65% of California's (and behind Italy's), they have no money for R&D, and their military has wrecked itself for at least a generation on the dual shoals of corruption and a war of aggression against a determined defender.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Russia? Really? (Score:2)
They have nukes left over from the Soviet days that may or may not still work.
Soviet nukes should be the least concern. Post-Soviet Russia is also armed with new families of moden recently manufactured ICBMs such as Topol, Yars, Bulava, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
That dependency has dropped in the past years from 11 million tons to less than million tons. It is not that Euope depends on it, some countries just prefer to buy cheap oil.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: you really need to read better news (Score:2)
The reason the war has taken so long is that with drone warfare,
No, drones became more important after 2023. Up to the summer of 2023, this looked like a positional trench war with lots of artillery duels, to extent that both sides were running out artillery shells and the entire NATA didn't have a sufficient quantity of artillery shells to send to Ukraine.
The real reason this war took so long is that Russia did not suppress Ukrainian air force and air defenses in the first few weeks like USA and allies did
garbage (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys have been saying this for at least a century now. That's what, over a third of this country's existence? Give it a rest already.
Comparing the powers (Score:5, Interesting)
China: Controls it's people but is wary of them so tries to keep them happy.
Europe: Values it's people so tries to keep them happy.
Russia: People are a resource to manipulate and use.
USA: People exist to provide resources to make corporations and the rich more profitable.
In that light:
China: Their power continues to grow steady.
Europe: Has realise the USA is no longer there for them and is actively trying to improve.
Russia: Has over played its hand and is paying the price, a reduced power.
USA: Becoming increasing inward focused and chaotic is giving away power rapidly.
That is just how it looks to me, not being from any of the those powers. I'm sure others will see it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe: Values it's people so tries to keep them happy.
That's the funniest thing I am likely to read all week.
Re: (Score:3)
economic, technological and military dominance (Score:2)
...are three different things
From what I've read, their technological problems is that there are too many rules and their economic problem is that labor laws restrict flexibility
Re: (Score:2)
But they are related.
Economic dominance allows you to fund the research that gives you technological dominance. Technological dominance allows you to produce next-generation munitions that give you military dominance. Military dominance means you can't be easily bullied to take away your economic dominance.
Economics: Guns or Butter (Score:2)
Guns map to: Tanks, Heavy Artillery, Capital Ships, Fighters and Bombers, Thermonuclear Weapons
Butter maps to: Things which citizens of the EU have come to expect given their high tax rate. Think universal health care, and a generous social safety net.
Now. the USA has focused on GUNS and has a shitty social safety net and expensive private healthcare.
The EU has forcused on BUTTER and has no army capable fighting a real war without the support of the United States.
This is a bad situation all around be becau
Compare Economic sizes (Score:3)
This war can and should be the end of the Russian military machine. The Russian economy is grossly over extended. Many of it's most talented citizens are leaving and it is not spending the money to educate more. If that economy dies, then the US and the Europeans can spend less on war and more on growing our economies.
Yes, we can say the EU should be shouldering more of the burden and that's perhaps right, though it is in both of our interests for the Russian military to crumble. But the EU doesn't have the expertise and the plants to build what needs to be built quickly. They could get there in say maybe 5-10 years but what good would that be? If Russia doesn't take over Ukraine and it joins Nato and the EU, I suspect that in a few years we'll be buying drone based weapons from them and we'll all be in a better place. The EU nations have increased their military budgets and I don't think that will change. In absolute dollars the EU funding will probably swamp the Russian military in a few years.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Forget about the Epstein files. Release his latest MRI results. They don't give you a cognitive assessment and MRI if you're healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
The MRI could be the same. A good way to tell if you've got some kind of dementia coming up is to see if the brain shrinking is more than expected.
i.e., it's entirely plausible these were routine screening. Whether they were or not, is unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: President Trump ... (Score:2)
As if USA did not have presidents with obvious signs of progressing dementia in the past. Biden, FDR, Reagan, and probably others.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're advocating for American-style "Flawed democracy" where those with the means can privatize the profits and socialize the losses?
Giving free reign to a select few individuals will have consequences.Not only that, the lucky ones who got in and got out while the "getting was good" will be virtually untouchable in a criminal court due to the way American law is structured while the citizens will get stuck with the bill.
Actions ALWAYS have consequences. Sometimes it's better to let the idea stay vetoed
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans will absolutely get what they deserve here.