> hus forcing EU to invest in their own tech & military, thus becoming a competitor to the US products.
Not sure how you made the jump here. EU is signalling increased military spending but there isn't really much talk about tech (beyond reddit-like enthusiasm which leads nowhere); which is funny because the top referrals for this site are .. american companies themselves.
That being said, increased spending doesn't necessarily guarantee results.
Signalling? Talks about investing 800 billion in the military industry across the EU would have been unthinkable 4 months ago. Now they're proceeding at a speed that is staggering when you see how long these talks/processes normally take.
EU cloud is certainly much discussed, and more than that. Holland for instance voted and accepted a resolution last week for more digital sovereignty. This doesn't mean we'll have an AWS competitor overnight, but we're also only 3 months in.
The problem is precisely that most things have been (and continue to be) "unthinkable" "impossible" "unreal" in Europe for a long time. The unthinkable has the tendency to hit the many walls that exist in the corrupt and disfunctional European institutions. Lots of virtue signaling, lots of talk, lots of discussion, lots of failure, little action, little results. Put me in the skeptical bucket that European leader (and population) have the will power to sustain the unthinkable beyond an American election cycle.
It's unclear how this EU momentum will stand the test of time, even if the war in Ukraine were to stop quickly.
Where do these 800 bn really come from, how fast they will transform into R&D and products, how much the industrial status quo is going to change? These are hard questions that remain unanswered.
> It's unclear how this EU momentum will stand the test of time, even if the war in Ukraine were to stop quickly.
I don’t think it really is unclear. The war in Ukraine served as an initial trigger that did spark some notesble changes. But the trump administration even more so. Ask the former UdSSR and Warsaw pact states. They were sounding the alarm bells for a long time and don’t appear to be willing to take any chances going forward.
> Where do these 800 bn really come from,
Government deficit.
> how fast they will transform into R&D and products
R&D is not really the issue. While there are some notable exceptions, the European defense industry has lots of very capable system that match or exceed the capabilities of US counterparts. The problem is primarily production capacity.
And production capacity is a problem that is relatively easily solved by throwing money at it and committing to long term purchases.
The main risk is that states want to ensure that if they want to spend more, they also get proportionally more. With production capacity being a bottleneck, increased spending could lead to inflationary pricing.
I think the momentum doesn't come from the Ukraine war. It comes from the US going back on NATO article 5, declaring any promise of mutual defense dubious at best. And it comes from the US threatening NATO allies such as Canada and Denmark (to which Greenland belongs) with invasion.
When you treat your closest allies like that, you instantly become untrustworthy. And you will remain untrustworthy far longer than Trump can stay in office, be it with the current terms or some Putin-like term extensions.
Also, the 800bn are a huge bunch of money that politicians would have never gotten otherwise. Now they have it an can spend it on their military-industrial-cronies. They won't let that opportunity go to waste, even if the reason were gone.
>Talks about investing 800 billion in the military industry across the EU would have been unthinkable 4 months ago.
Okay, but if that's true then what does that say about the relationship between Europe and the United States when they could have done this the whole time and chose not to? Especially when the last 4 or so presidents have all complained about European nations neglecting to meet their NATO defense spending targets only to be politely ignored or in some cases laughed at in public by European counterparts?
I assume Europeans are willing to forgo some, maybe even most of their social benefits in exchange for increased military spending? I understand many currently enjoy fairly generous government support.
If not, then will there be an even bigger increase in taxes? How does EU plan to roll this out?
A bunch of markets trying to recreate products is going to eventually work out for some of them on the same basis that disruptive startups that just brought things into freemium succeeded.. Many things would benefit from a rewrite and succeed to capture a larger market at a lower cost than where they ended up over the years.
There's a significant amount of EU-based companies being created in the defence space. Helsing was visionary in that sense, but also paved the way for many startups to follow suite.
Europe has cutting edge domestic military tech in almost all relevant categories but don't build enough of it to matter because until recently their people and governments haven't taken defense seriously.
Europe doing so now is good for America because it reduces the risk of Americans once again dying in yet another European war.
The fewer wars America and Europe are involved with together, the better. Europe has the economic and industrial capacity to defend itself, and America certainly doesn't need Europe's help with whatever new retarded military adventurism our politicians are plotting. The reason America invoked Article 5 was to give an air of international legitimacy to the invasion of Afghanistan, and if doing something like that again isn't on the table then maybe American politicians will be slightly less likely to think that a new war will pay off politically.
We're both better off if Europe can comfortably cut America loose. Europe building up their domestic defense capabilities is essential for this and will bring about a greater chance for long term peace.
>I think Americans can thank themselves and nobody else for their people dying in wars.
Okay that's a fair point, but if we've learned our lesson from Iraq, Vietnam, etc then why would we want a war in Ukraine? Ukraine's not a NATO member and we have no obligations towards them. If Ukraine is so important to the Europeans that they want to risk escalating a regional border squabble into an apocalyptic nuclear confrontation with Russia, then they need to raise an army for it.
I don't particularly like the way that trump has been overtly signaling his desire to end NATO, but the NATO treaty never obligated America to defend non-members and the people who seem to think it does are as perplexing as trump himself.
The expectation for a European war should be similar. Europe should supply about 80% of the effort, since they're the ones directly affected. Even now, the US has supplied almost half the aid to Ukraine:
So the US pulling out of Europe could be considered a necessary correction to reach parity with the Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
>We need to go back to WW2 for you comment to have any value.
The point of having a strong military is to deter your enemies, not fight them. The US has deterred the USSR/Russia in Europe for 80 years. What did that get us? HN comments about how we've supposedly "extorted" Europe.
It's really striking the amount of anti-Americanism that comes out of Europe relative to other US allies. This has been going on for years and years before Trump. There seems to be something uniquely dysfunctional about the Atlantic relationship, relative to other ally relationships the US has.
>I think Americans can thank themselves and nobody else for their people dying in wars.
> The point of having a strong military is to deter your enemies, not fight them.
That breaks the premise for this thread which was people lost in war.
> It's really striking the amount of anti-Americanism that comes out of Europe relative to other US allies.
You broaden up the premise from lost casualties in war to the entire relationsship - I think that is multiple PhDs to figure out whether this is anti american or reasonable push back.
I can further open this up an include obvious anti trust malpractice, cultural imperialism, etc., etc. that the US in constantly pushing on the EU (and the rest of the world).
But please enlighten me on how the entire world in against the US, and how badly you are being treated - the country with the absolute biggest economic power and military power.
>That breaks the premise for this thread which was people lost in war.
lupusreal talked about the "risk of Americans once again dying in yet another European war" (emphasis mine). By making Europe part of its security umbrella, and deterring the USSR/Russia, the US shouldered that risk.
It's simple. I don't want to shoulder risk for people who despise me. Every time Europeans downvote my comments in this thread, it makes me want to shoulder risk for them less and less. And I'm a registered Democrat.
>You broaden up the premise from lost casualties in war to the entire relationsship - I think that is multiple PhDs to figure out whether this is anti american or reasonable push back.
I'm trying to tell you, as a European, why Americans like me aren't enthusiastic about the alliance. What you do with that information is your business.
I think some pushback on the issue of Greenland is perfectly justified. That represents actual aggressive behavior on the part of the US. And I think it's fair to complain about the US voting with Russia at the United Nations. We could at least abstain from voting, like China.
What I don't like is the notion that the US has a special obligation to protect Ukraine.
* Everywhere on the internet, you'll see the "fact" that the US promised to protect Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That "fact" is false. All we promised was to seek UN Security Council action. Read the memorandum for yourself if you don't believe me: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
* There are ongoing armed conflicts all over the world. The US can't police everywhere. And it's psychologically unsustainable to do volunteer police work when people despise you for it. Given our limited resources, we need to prioritize. We might as well de-prioritize the interests of relatively wealthy countries, such as Europe, since those countries should be better able to provide for themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
>obvious anti trust malpractice
You're saying that you don't like how antitrust is practiced in the US? Why is that any of your business? The US is a sovereign country. If you're going to complain about Elon Musk commenting on German elections, why is it your place to complain about how antitrust law works in the US?
For many years, Europeans have had absolutely no inhibitions in expressing their contempt for US policies in guns, healthcare, etc. Yet somehow when Americans do the same, and comment on European policies regarding e.g. immigration, Europeans flip out.
>cultural imperialism
So Europeans, of their own free will, like American music and movies. This is supposed to represent the US oppressing Europe somehow?
I think these two complaints of yours actually underscore my point about European anti-Americanism. I can't imagine a Japanese person complaining that they are oppressed due to the way antitrust is practiced in the US, or that they are oppressed because so many Japanese like to watch American movies. Out of all our "allies", it's only Europeans who are in the habit of complaining about stuff like this.
>the country with the absolute biggest economic power and military power.
I think life is generally pretty good for Americans, and we don't have a lot to complain about. But we do have limited resources, and we can't help everyone. And it's very annoying to read all of the anti-Americanism online, even for situations where we tried to do our best, and even when we're arguably one of the most benevolent superpowers in world history. At a certain point I just don't want to be involved anymore.
I don't think we will ever reach a conclusion, and it will take the next 4 years to learn whether the approach you represent is more productive than the approach I represent.
But remember: Power is rarely taken but mostly given.
>But remember: Power is rarely taken but mostly given.
I don't care about the US being a powerful country. I'm tired of being the world's police. I'm against so-called "American imperialism". I want to be Switzerland. Ally with no one, trade with everyone. Switzerland has a much healthier relationship with the rest of Europe, without toxic dependency.
That's my metric regarding whether an approach is "productive" or not. Give it 10 years until the US/Europe relationship resets to the Switzerland/Europe relationship. That's the goal.
I'd say Trump has already succeeded by this metric in terms of Europe taking responsibility for itself. That's the first step. You need to stop depending on us so you'll stop resenting us.
The comparison with Switzerland is stretching things a bit thin.
Switzerland never threatened Germany to become the 27th canton. They didn't threaten military allies with military intervention. They also do not keep permanent military bases in other countries, in practice autonomous zones where there are intermittent scandals where Swiss law protects rapists. No other counties dutifully joined any Swiss invasions in the Middle East.
Europe did not have to shoulder orders of magnitude (look it up) more refugees from these wars than the instigator of the wars. The Swiss do not regularly use their economic power to force other countries to share passenger data for all transit, they do not force far reaching intellectual property legislation of all sorts on other countries.
The Swiss, however, do a lot of other strange things. They are basically a bank with national sovereignity which economically has kept up a very strong industrial appendix with a very strong, primarily industrially focused, engineering sector. The post-WW2 history contains a lot of stones largely left unturned, and there is zero chance another coutry could occupy this particular nation state evolution niche.
>Switzerland never threatened Germany to become the 27th canton. They didn't threaten military allies with military intervention. They also do not keep permanent military bases in other countries, in practice autonomous zones where there are intermittent scandals where Swiss law protects rapists. No other counties dutifully joined any Swiss invasions in the Middle East.
>Europe did not have to shoulder orders of magnitude (look it up) more refugees from these wars than the instigator of the wars. The Swiss do not regularly use their economic power to force other countries to share passenger data for all transit, they do not force far reaching intellectual property legislation of all sorts on other countries.
Exactly. We are in violent agreement. You're doing an excellent job of explaining why the US should be more Swiss, as I've been saying.
>there is zero chance another coutry could occupy this particular nation state evolution niche.
Of course we won't do exactly what the Swiss have done, e.g. we will continue to have a major software industry. My point is we should have a more Swiss approach to foreign policy.
>You, personally, being against it means little, when your president openly threatens it.
You can discount all of my opinions due to me not being president then :-)
>And other countries, in their own sovereignty, have just as much right to retaliate with tarriffs of their own, and do trade deals amongst themselves.
I think you have a great point about the merit of America defending the defense of Europe against Russia in light of European attitudes towards America becoming clear on the internet. This wasn't really a problem during the Cold War when casual communication across the Atlantic wasn't a thing most Americans had access to, but times have changed and the general American public now perceives a lot of contempt for America coming from Europeans. Clearly they're capable of paying for their own defense, since they love to gloat about their expensive social policies so much, so let them shoulder the responsibility they have for their own defense.
Do you think us defence will become cheaper if the EU steps up more?
And do you think the US will start setting up more social policies if such happens?
You should look up social policies in the US under the cold War. I think you'd find that the US was much more aligned.
Also,it is easy to diminish the attitudes the US has against all other countries - which is not quite heartwarming either.
I would love to return to these conversations when the is influence has shrunk to the influence of Switzerland. I am not so sure the points will stand as strong anymore.
"US Defense" is a euphemism for waging foreign wars. America would be better off if Europe kicked America out of all the military bases in Europe, thereby making it more difficult for America to wage such wars.
> I don't want to shoulder risk for people who despise me
They don't despise you. They dislike your government.
> What I don't like is the notion that the US has a special obligation to protect Ukraine.
Sure, it doesn't. But you don't think that appeasing an expansionist Russia might run contrary to America's interests?
> You're saying that you don't like how antitrust is practiced in the US? Why is that any of your business?
Because how antitrust is practiced in the US has global effects. Why wouldn't it be our business?
> If you're going to complain about Elon Musk commenting on German elections, why is it your place to complain about how antitrust law works in the US?
Yeah, the influence of a random commenter on HN is comparable to the owner of one of the worlds largest social networks. Come on.
> Yet somehow when Americans do the same, and comment on European policies regarding e.g. immigration, Europeans flip out.
Generally, we tend to be better informed about American issues than vice versa, due to the global reach of US media. I'm not saying Europeans are perfectly informed, I've seen some dumb as fuck takes, but on average it certainly skews one way.
>They don't despise you. They dislike your government.
Then why are my comments in this thread being downvoted? I'm trying to share my perspective, and I get sarcastic replies like "Cry me a river."
All of my most acrimonious arguments on HN have been with Europeans talking about transatlantic relations. There just seems to be something uniquely dysfunctional about the US/Europe relationship. From my perspective, I'm sorry to say that internet Europeans come across as incredibly obnoxious and entitled.
Put it another way, I see way more "Americans are fat and stupid" comments from Europeans than other US allies. That's not about our government. That's about us as Americans.
This fact-checking tells me that anti-Americanism (again: regarding citizens, not the government) may be driven by resentment rather than data.
There seems to be some sort of tall poppy syndrome coming out of Europe which I don't want to be a part of. I interpret it as a sort of toxic collectivism. America is an individualist country which believes in celebration of success and free association. Europe wants to resent American success, while also obliging the US to help it when it needs help. I just don't want to be allied with you guys anymore, sorry. I'm happy that you're now starting to figure out things on your own, and I wish you the best.
>you don't think that appeasing an expansionist Russia might run contrary to America's interests?
For one, I don't buy this appeasement talking point. I haven't seen much hard evidence that Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine. This seems to be another European collectivism thing again, where if you question this you get excluded from the collective.
For another thing, from a realist perspective, I actually don't see why Russian expansionism is so vital to US interests. From a realist perspective, we could just be neutral and trade with whoever wins. Peace with major powers like Russia and China is very much in the US interest.
Even before Trump, Europeans would always say that the US is a selfish imperialist country. Maybe the point of Trump is to show just a bit about how the US would actually behave, if the US was the sort of country that Europe has always said it was.
>Yeah, the influence of a random commenter on HN is comparable to the owner of one of the worlds largest social networks. Come on.
Is there a principle that you're not supposed to interfere in another country's elections, or not?
Sure, you're just one commenter, but a lot of random European commenters add up.
I'm happy for you to constructively critique why you think a different antitrust policy would be better, or even say Europe should make antitrust an item in trade negotations. But it comes across as obnoxious when you act like US antitrust policies are oppressing you and we're obligated to change them for you, and this negates 80 years of NATO protection.
The US is a sovereign nation that's allowed to have its own antitrust policies, its own foreign policy, its own approach to alliances. That understanding needs to be foundational for an improved US/Europe relationship. So far I just don't think Europeans get it.
>You are literally citing material that compares as race segregated US to other countries as wholes.
Yes, the claim is that apparently low US scores have more to do with US racial composition than a problem with the US educational system. That's the point?
I hedged with "seems to have pretty good education outcomes" because I'm not sure about the racial composition of Europe for 3rd+ generation immigrations. My expectation is that mass migration to Europe is mostly just in the past couple of generations (accounted for in that thread), but I haven't looked into it.
>And luckily you are not representative of the average American.
I didn't vote for Trump. I actually think he's a terrible president. But many Americans did. If Europe wants to get along with the US, it would be useful to understand how Trump supporters think. Since I do sympathize with them in some respects, I've been trying to explain that perspective, as I understand it, to users in this thread. If you want to understand the "average American", you can't just write off a huge fraction of the American population and refer to Trump as "Agent Orange", as was done elsewhere in this thread.
You claim to have American friends from all across the political spectrum. What have you learned from your Trump-supporting friends which helped you understand their perspective? It looks to me like you had me pegged as a Trump supporter previously (ascribing views to me I did not hold), and immediately became sarcastic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43459849
Also, the US only has two parties - so a lot of people are voting because of a lack of better alternatives. This is wildly different than the EU where most countries have a much more nuanced political landscape. Eg. Germany that has 7 parties.
As such I also know that politics in US is more akin to a sports match than what I consider politics in - and this is congruent to what I hear from my US friends with the sentiment: Either you are with us or against us.
What I do have you pecked on is a complete ignorance of the US's political position globally. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that more than half listed stock globally is US - and that this is a marketplace. Ie. not only US capital.
I appreciate you don't want to be in that position. That you want to be a part of an underdog country. But you are not.
When I write "Cry me a river" that is a way to say: Deal with it. Go and understand where the US stands on the global scene.
Hopefully you can get to appreciate the benefits (English is not my first language) and manage the down sides of such an arrangement.
And hopefully you can develop some humility to the fact.
Try using Google Translate or a European equivalent? You can write in your native language and translate into English. Using a translator could help you understand my points better, as well.
>You seem completely oblivious to the fact that more than half listed stock globally is US - and that this is a marketplace. Ie. not only US capital.
Yes, I'm aware that US stocks are overvalued. I don't see the relevance to our discussion. A correction was inevitable in my opinion.
>I appreciate you don't want to be in that position. That you want to be a part of an underdog country. But you are not.
First, it's not about being an underdog. It's about having free and equal relations, free association between nations that respect each others' sovereignty.
In any case -- If you respected US sovereignty, you would respect my opinion, as a US citizen, that we need a more Swiss foreign policy.
We have no obligation to stand in our current place in the global scene. Our current place was the decision of a previous generation of politicians. We're a democracy. We're allowed to vote, and change our policy. You can't coerce us into being an empire with your words. That's absurd.
If you wish to persuade me that the pre-2016 arrangement was good for the US, you're welcome to respectfully make your case for that. You're not doing that.
Your condescending attitude is exactly the thing I'm arguing against, and exactly why I think the idea of "US-Europe shared values" is overrated.
>And hopefully you can develop some humility to the fact.
You are a foreigner commenting on US politics telling me that I, as a US citizen, need to be humble in my views of US policy. It's wild to me that Europeans will talk this way, then turn around and complain that Elon Musk is "influencing European elections".
Imagine if Elon said Europeans "need to be humble, appreciate their position, and keep buying Teslas". How would you feel?
The difference between you and I is: I recognize that Europeans have free association, and they are free to buy whatever products they want. I think it is silly to boycott the US over Ukraine, when the US has been one of Ukraine's biggest supporters. I'd say you should start by boycotting countries such as Brazil which have provided almost no support at all. The vast majority of countries have provided no support: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
But, I recognize that you're a free individual making free choices for yourself -- same as us Americans are. So, buy what you like. Boycott what you like. I may think it is silly. But it's your decision, and I respect that.
This needs to be foundational for our discussion. If we say the partnership isn't working for us, you need to respect that instead of give us a lecture on our ignorance and our need for humility. Simple.
Is think there is plenty of evidence in both mine and other commenter's on why you comments are being downnvoted (which I can not do, as you answer to my comments).
You way of debating is defensive and dismissive. So that is a hard stop from me here
You said to me: "cry me a river" and "you can develop some humility" and you're accusing me of being dismissive? I was more polite to you than you were to me. You were rude to me before I said anything even slightly mean to you. You repeatedly insulted me while I spoke respectfully to you.
I'm getting downvoted because Europeans have taken America for granted. They struggle with a relationship based on mutual respect and fairness.
I, for one, would very much like to see US be more neutral.
But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.
If you acknowledged that more openly, I think people would take more gladly to your arguments: yes, it will hurt both US and EU as the countries move away from this mutually beneficial arrangement (which helped keep US a global economic leader, and helped EU focus on society development — greatly simplified summary so obviously flawed), but I do agree with you that hopefully we end up with a nicer state of affairs in 20-30 years. I am not necessarily confident this happens though, which is also what you might be seeing play out (fear of this unknown future).
You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?
Note that people do complain about other countries doing the things you see them complain about in the US too (eg. China's state sponsorship of local companies with reduced taxes and oversight), though I understand how you, as an American, feel those towards the US more strongly. And yes, they are even more common against the US because we have more US people engaging in discourse on the same platforms (mostly US ones), so they are unsuspecting "willing" listeners. Not much sense in arguing about China when everybody agrees, and Chinese do not feel the liberty or have any desire to participate.
And that's perhaps the core point: the two cultures value these same human rights, which does mean that you need to hear the shit people dislike a lot more (and there's even the term for it in "vocal minority").
>I, for one, would very much like to see US be more neutral.
Cool.
>But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.
Europeans keep mentioning these supposed benefits in discussions online. But suspiciously, they never get very concrete.
Prior to WW1, the US had a policy of staying out of European geopolitics. Our economy did fantastic during that period.
Switzerland does fantastic by staying relatively neutral.
Currently, the US is sanctioning Russia. This has obvious economic downsides for the US. It makes the dollar less attractive as a global reserve currency.
If European countries were "vassal states" to the US, as I'm always being told, why were they buying oil from Russia rather than the USA prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? That would be an obvious economic benefit for the US that failed to materialize.
>You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?
I don't know. Perhaps you would've had a third world war already? After all, that was the idea with the US staying in Europe -- to prevent a third world war. By all means enlighten me regarding whatever you had in mind.
One point is it would probably be good for the US economy, since you would've bought more American weapons to better defend yourself.
- - -
Part of what I am trying to help Europeans understand is that their anti-American rhetoric is the very thing that undermined the American voter's idealism towards Europe.
Europeans consistently seem to believe that America benefits significantly from the current arrangement. I haven't seen much evidence at all that anyone in the US believes this. American citizens don't believe it. American leadership doesn't believe it either. Look at the recent JD Vance leak.
The last 3-4 presidents have all been asking Europe to step up and fund its own defense.
There is an astonishing mismatch between the cynicism with which the Europeans view the transatlantic relationship, and the idealism with which the Americans previously viewed it (until they realized how little Europeans like them, now that the transatlantic relationship has become the #1 topic on social media). I believe that America's shift away from Europe will become a bipartisan consensus now that the US has woken up. Trump lead the shift, but I think there is a very good chance that the Democrats keep it in place if they come back into power.
More and more Americans are thinking thoughts like: "Those Europeans are making fun of us for our lack of public healthcare. Why should our tax dollars pay to defend them, when we could be spending that money on our health at home?"
I hope you get ready for what may come when the US leaves:
>Zelensky highlighted the disparity in forces between Russia and Europe, saying that Ukraine's army consists of 110 brigades, while Russia fields 220 and plans to expand to 250 this year. In contrast, Europe, including U.S. troops stationed there, has only about 82 combat brigades, he said.
>...
>"Today, an army of 110 brigades is holding back those who have 220-230. But it's one to two," Zelensky added. The president said that while Russia's numeral advantage compared to Ukraine is two to one, in comparison to Europe, it's three to one, which is sufficient for an effective offensive.
You are venturing into what-ifs as if there is any one clear answer, with your implication being that nothing else would have changed (if US did not fund EU defense, US would have saved that money instead).
I can come up with a scenario that's more peaceful: eg. if US did not fund EU's defenses, EU would have developed their own defence industry further, and instead of buying weaponry from US, they would have equally got it from Russia, and more recently, India and China. Perhaps even India and China catch up slower as Russia has richer willing customers in EU.
This would have led to Russia having an even bigger economic interest in playing nice with EU, and would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
Ergo, no war in Ukraine.
At the same time, US companies would not have been trusted with projects with highest earning potential (government infrastructure projects, including IT): perhaps MS never gets so deep into EU institutions and companies, Amazon never gets trusted for IT infra, etc.
Now, I think the US is recognizing that this earning potential has moved to other big countries or systems (like BRICS), as these countries have increased their purchasing power — which is all fair and good — but to repeatedly claim that US did not benefit from EU's purchasing power for US products in the last 60 years is insincere.
My understanding is that the US and Europe traded quite a bit prior to WW1, including for critical stuff such as food. I don't see NATO as nearly as critical for transatlantic trade as you do.
A basic problem with your story is the US/Europe trade deficit. If the US gains such a critical trade advantage by providing security to Europe, you would expect this would come through in the EU buying lots of US exports. In fact, the US buys more EU exports, despite the EU not funding US defense the way the US funds EU defense.
>I can come up with a scenario that's more peaceful: eg. if US did not fund EU's defenses, EU would have developed their own defence industry further, and instead of buying weaponry from US, they would have equally got it from Russia, and more recently, India and China. Perhaps even India and China catch up slower as Russia has richer willing customers in EU.
So Europe would buy USSR weapons during the Cold War? How does this hypothetical go, exactly? This just sounds like a scenario where the USSR expands to cover all of Europe. The Berlin Wall never would've fallen because instead of a wall, it would be the Atlantic Ocean. And honestly, if that's the world you want to live in, I'm fine with that.
>would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
But NATO would have included a rearmed West Germany in this hypothetical? I'll bet the USSR would've feared that...
>US did not benefit from EU's purchasing power for US products in the last 60 years
Trade is always mutually beneficial. I think security benefits both parties approximately equally, in the sense of allowing that trade and prosperity to occur. But the US would've received similar trade and prosperity benefit if it had only invested in Europe's security 10% as much, and asked Europe to cover the rest.
In any case, as I stated in my comment -- whatever Europeans may believe, few in the US appear to agree much. That seems to be a core part of the issue. Europe can tell itself all it wants that "defending Europe is in America's core interest" -- but if America doesn't actually believe that, it doesn't matter, and you guys need to either defend yourselves or (much preferably) find a way to make peace with Russia.
As I stated already, I don't think "defending Europe is in America's core interest", especially not today — but it definitely was for the bigger part of the post-WW2 period.
Some things will not necessarily show up in the trade numbers: as a random example, a US company like Amazon opening up Amazon EU headquarters in Ireland will not show up as surplus for US economy as long as they reinvest that locally, but most Europeans will see it as a US company and the business contributing to its success — "simple" goes out the window very quickly with global monopolistic companies.
It's funny you focus so much on the "Cold War", when it was mostly a Cold War between... US and USSR. Again, you are making claims as if you know exactly how things would have played out if US did not decide to invest in influencing European politics and economies. Perhaps we would have seen a larger shift to socialism and communism instead (eg. in Spain, socialists have already been on the winning side of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Spanish_general_election).
Even that might not mean strong alignment with USSR, just like Yugoslavia never did even as a socialist, communist country.
I hear you on how Americans perceive the situation differently, but you are similarly not willing to hear out the European viewpoints.
Anyway, I think this has gone long enough — thank you for sharing your perspective, and even if I failed to nudge you towards better understanding the "other side" too, it's always great to hear different viewpoints.
>It's funny you focus so much on the "Cold War", when it was mostly a Cold War between... US and USSR.
The common US view is that if that Cold War was not "fought", the USSR would've taken over most or all of Europe. Non-alignment only works if there are 2 rival superpowers to play off of each other. But if you're fine with USSR hegemony in Europe, or you think that's not the outcome that would've happened -- that's a great argument for the US pulling out now. If the US doesn't reliably make things better (which is my view), it's better for us to leave.
>I hear you on how Americans perceive the situation differently, but you are similarly not willing to hear out the European viewpoints.
I think I am willing to hear Europeans out. I previously said stuff in this thread like "I'm happy for you to constructively critique..." and "If you wish to persuade me... you're welcome to respectfully make your case..." and "Of course Europe's contribution to Iraq and Afghanistan should be acknowledged." [Note that Europeans in this thread have largely not acknowledged any sort of positive contribution the US made to Europe -- which reinforces my point that we should go. What frustrates me is Europeans who complain about the US endlessly, and also want us to stay!]
>Anyway, I think this has gone long enough — thank you for sharing your perspective, and even if I failed to nudge you towards better understanding the "other side" too, it's always great to hear different viewpoints.
Appreciate you sharing your perspective as well. To be fair, I think we mostly agree with one another anyways, and my disagreements are deeper with others in this thread.
Americans do generally support Ukraine and Europe. Even most Republicans seem to oppose Trumps policy. A policy wbichseems to be based on whims and a personal appreciation for far right dictators who flatter him. But somehow we elected him so until Republicans man up and impeach him we have to suffer from him undermining our alliances and government.
Russia is the one that needs to find a way to make peace. Not only because they started it but because they're the reason there is no peace deal
> This would have led to Russia having an even bigger economic interest in playing nice with EU, and would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
Ergo, no war in Ukraine.
The Capitalist/free trade peace theory has not worked out well, compared to democratic peace theory. It failed wrt Ukraine where both Ukraine and multiple EU countries had significant trade with Russia but Russia still went to war despite knowing some of the economic damage it would cause.
Also the invasion had nothing to do with NATO.
Bricks isn't actually a thing
Of course both US and EU have benefited from trade relations quite a lot and Trump's nonsense is nonsense
> I haven't seen much hard evidence that Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine.
Hard evidence is too late. Putin (and associates) speeches and writings indicate more than enough. Why do you think that former Soviet countries boardering Russia are the most scared?
> risk of Americans once again dying in yet another European war.
How's the proposed Canada / Greenland wars fit into this? As well as ongoing support for the forever proxy war in the middle east between the US and Iran.
There have been many cases over the last decades where European interest and opinions have been quite different from US foreign policy pushes, but European countries almost always yielded to US pressure, partly due to the close relationship, but more so due to the de-facto dependence.
If Europe becomes more self-reliant and builds up more notable and integrated military capabilities, it will also mean that the we will persue different goals
and prioritise our own strategic and economic interests, which sometimes might align with the US, but plenty of times will not.
It will bring about a marked decline of how much sway the US has.
The latter is true only if America take a measured, stepped approach to pulling out of Europe. Something I, as a European, have been wanting to happen since 2003. It's insane that we let the US dictate our foreign and trade policy and they only reason we do is because of German fears of rearming.
Doing so rashly? That vastly increases the chances because it encourages Russia to do something in the 3-5 year timeframe.
>> Doing so rashly? That vastly increases the chances because it encourages Russia to do something in the 3-5 year timeframe.
Can you sit down with a map and draw out exactly *WHAT* you think Russia will be capable of doing 5 years from now? Keep in mind that:
1. We watched the best-equipped and trained brigades in Ukraine bounce off well-prepared minefields and trenchworks in summer 2023. Just like in WW1, technology is in a state where defense is easier than offense.
2. Europe has years of prep time, and unmolested industrial capacity available, to build defenses that would make the "Surovikin Line" look like a speedbump.
This is why people joke about "Schrodinger's Russia": where Russia is so weak that people make fun of it for its slow progress in conquering Ukraine, yet is also so powerful that it has 500+ million Europeans shaking in their boots at the idea that Russia is gonna blitzkrieg the whole continent or something.
They can build up a force capable of annexing the strip of land between Belarus and Kaliningrad. They have a large number of experience troops and a massive number of conscripts, their drone capacity currently dwarfs Europe and is expanding. They also have hundreds of thousands of experienced operators.
They also have one of the most capable psyop machines in the world and a massive network of spies / 5th Column in place. They are especially strong in Eastern Europe and Germany.
So there's very much a risk that they try to hybrid style "grab" there then at a time when they have sown political chaos into Europe.
We can reduce the risk of we have overwhelming force available at hand - like we currently do as allies of the US - which makes any such move literal suicide as we would obliterate them.
Also - now this is my viewpoint - by committing to re-arming now and providing everything we have to help Ukraine kick Russia out of their country - a full rout of the Russians - we vastly reduce the risk of anything like that ever happening again and we set the conditions for the eventual liberation of Belarus and demilitarisation and neutralisation of Kaliningrad.
Basically: we get sharp fangs now so we can push the best time-line.
Also: there is an unlikely but not unthinkable scenario where American, under Emperor Trump (or Musk) switch to using gunboat diplomacy and bully Europe the way the British (and other European nations) bullied others in the past. And like America itself did to its neighbours in the Victorian times. So re-arming such that we have complete independence from the US reduces their leverage.
In a good timeline having both a strong Europe and strong US on the same side puts us in a very good place wrt China / India etc in the future.
>They can build up a force capable of annexing the strip of land between Belarus and Kaliningrad.
Ok, I'll take this as a starting point. Let's assume Russia has committed to seizing everything south of Kaunas and Vilnius, and north of Suwalki. The eastern part of this patch of land is ~200km frontage with Belarus (south of the E28 Highway). Because Kaunas and Vilnius combined have populations of ~900k, I'm going to assume the Russians will aim to bypass rather than seize them, so that will involve establishing blocking positions south of both cities in order to isolate them from the desired terrain. It also involves capturing Alytus, about the same size and population as Bakhmut. I would need to dig through some doctrinal publications to figure out how the Russians would template a force package for this op, but I'll spitball it at at least an entire corps/Combined Arms Army of 2-3 divisions and a few separate brigades, maybe 60-80,000 men?
While the focus is on repulsing an attack in this southern sector, let's assume Lithuania fortifies the entire border with Belarus, which is ~350km. Minefields 1km deep with 1 AT or 1 AP mine per 6 square meters would require ~60 million mines and $5 billion USD (about 1 year of Lithuania's military budget). That's an extreme lift but not impossible if amortized over several years, even without help from other EU nations. A defensive belt built behind a minefield like that will take the Russians weeks to penetrate if properly supported by other assets. Those weeks give the rest of the EU decision space for political action as well as time for mobilization/flowing combat power into the Area of Operations.
So the real question is "why"? Why would Russia want to expend the resources to accomplish this? Figure out what Russia wants and then structure a defense that imposes an unpalatable cost on the attacker. My position is that it can be accomplished without American involvement. Finland spent the Cold War a) outside of NATO b) with no independent "security guarantees" c) without getting invaded by the Soviets (again).....because it also made itself expensive enough to invade/annex that the Soviets didn't think the cost of re-absorbing that particular bit of formerly-Russian-Imperial-territory to be worth it. Facing down a massive conventional military assault from a well-equipped and supported adversary is not impossible: the Lebanese have done it twice in the past twenty years against the Israelis. Be like Lebanon.
>by committing to re-arming now and providing everything we have to help Ukraine kick Russia out of their country - a full rout of the Russians
That's not realistic. At all. There is no reality where Ukraine forcibly ejects Russia from the land bridge that it has established with Crimea. Breaching Russia's fortifications requires more combat engineering equipment than exists in all of NATO at this point. The Ukrainian 2023 offensive was supposed to reach Tokmak in 3 days. It took them closer to 90 days to even breach the 2nd of 3 defensive lines north of the city. Let alone actually reach Melitopol and Berdiansk. No army on the planet is trained and equipped to deal with kilometer-deep defensive belts covered by artillery, UAVs, attack helicopters....AND enemy air superiority. You would need to completely collapse the Russian army and economy 1917-style, which is also not looking likely, or at least not likely to occur before Ukraine itself collapses.
At some point Europeans need to come back to reality. Until then.....Americans are no longer interested in getting tangled up in Europe's mess (even though the mess is largely our fault).
> So re-arming such that we have complete independence from the US reduces their leverage.
Which ironically is what Trump wanted Europe to do anyway: pay for your own security with your own money!
> In a good timeline having both a strong Europe and strong US on the same side puts us in a very good place wrt China / India etc in the future.
The US is returning to a Pacific focus, like the one we had 1890-1913 (ish). I think this is the correct posture for us. We don't need to be on the "same side" of Europe, just like we weren't really on any European side until Woodrow Wilson, America's worst President, ruined everything by getting us into WW1. Due to geography we are fundamentally a maritime power, and we should be focused on trans-Pacific trade with the growing economic heart of the planet: the Valerierpieris Circle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriepieris_circle ).
Hopefully my post isn't too disjointed and rambly...
Not sure how you made the jump here. EU is signalling increased military spending but there isn't really much talk about tech (beyond reddit-like enthusiasm which leads nowhere); which is funny because the top referrals for this site are .. american companies themselves.
That being said, increased spending doesn't necessarily guarantee results.