The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:
But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.
But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.
Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.
The nations of Europe are not currently capable to defend themselves and so they have no choice but to rely on the US in a crisis
Against who? Aliens? Who is this hypothetical enemy that can invade Europe? Capabilities aren’t exactly as they should be, it would be nasty going against a rogue US, yes, but we could still bring the whole thing to a stalemate even if it would necessitate a couple of French nukes getting dropped on carrier groups.
…and don’t get me started on them wanking off to the dollar value of US contributions. Much of what they send should be valued negatively (in monetary terms) because it’s surplus and they’re saving on disposal costs. Meanwhile, if the EU had the US’ ammunition production capacity Ukraine would’ve run out by now.
The US has been pussy-footing around this whole conflict, see e.g. the row about ATACMs, the UK had to send Storm Shadow (which they don’t exactly have a surplus of, to the contrary) to twist the US’ arm.
What many analysts don’t seem to get into their head, it just doesn’t fit their framework, is that Europe as a whole is a lot more “hawkish” in this conflict than the US, leading to all kinds of misinterpretations. “But Europe is so peace-loving and warm and fuzzy” – no, motherfucker, we hate imperialism. That’s all there is to it. We have plenty of former Russian colonies in the union and with shit going down as it went, the western members finally understood that no, Russia can’t be reasoned with, or even be counted on to act in self-interest, instead of chalking the eastern member’s attitude up to PTSD.
From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.
The top EU think tank very clearly disagrees with you here. It’s also pretty clear that Germany ended up being the big loser here given that it’s now in a recession. So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry. Given that this has been the stated goal of US for years now, I don’t think much twisting required here.
Against who? Aliens?
Europe wouldn’t have anyone to defend itself against if it didn’t keep creating enemies for itself. It was entirely possible to dismantle NATO after USSR collapsed and integrate Russia into Europe as an equal. Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia, and now Europe finds itself in a protection racket situation.
Finally, the idea that Europe could fight US or Russia in an all out war is completely delusional. Europe lacks the industrial base to do this kind of warfare, and it also lacks access to energy. Meanwhile, if we’re talking about nukes both US and Russia have literally an order of magnitude more nukes than all of Europe combined.
So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry.
The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?
Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia
Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.
The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?
I’m talking about the result of Germany being cut off from cheap energy and US blowing up German pipelines without Germany making any protest. Meanwhile, haven’t seen any Abrams anywhere close to Ukraine, but plenty of Leopards burning there now.
Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.
I see you have difficulties engaging with reality.
I mean yeah, when a bunch of industry shuts down and your country goes into a recession, demand for gas drops which leads to lower prices. 😂
Yeah, sure. Consumption totally plummeted. Nothing is running any more, BASF Ludwigshafen is an industrial ruin. In case you didn’t notice our industry didn’t shut down, big consumers – like BASF – switched to alternative sources and now are kinda biting themselves in the ass because they’re paying more, now that gas prices are low again.
That makes things more expensive right now. In addition the ECB continues to set quite high interest rates to battle inflation, both together stifle internal consumption, people are eating less Aspargus. And we’re talking about what 0.2% reduction over the whole of 2023, 2014 is projected to have an increase of 1.5%. Both Ifo and DIW agree on that one. The trend for the rest of the year is already positive, the projected -0.2% means that we won’t be able to completely make up for the bad start of the year by the end of the year.
Also, this “Germany is in a recession” talk is technical. The usual definition of “two years of negative growth” is barely met, and usually doesn’t include your neighbour two doors down the street shooting themselves in the head, causing a scene. (One door if you count Kaliningrad, I know).
You’re right, everything is going great. We’ll just see where you are by next year.
Nothing can fight the US, it’s like the richest country and half the budget goes to the military. Russia would not be much of a threat though, especially now. Also the only country dependant on Russia was Germany and now that isn’t the case so I’m not sure what you mean by “lacks access to energy”.
Nothing can fight the US, it’s like the richest country and half the budget goes to the military.
About 50% of the United State’s discretionary federal budget is spent on defense on average. Discretionary spending is in contrast to Mandatory spending which covers legally mandated programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
In FY2022, the discretionary budget was $1.7 trillion, of which $751 billion was for defense. The mandatory budget was $4.1 trillion, and the total federal budget was $6.3 trillion. In FY2022, defense represented 11.9% of the total federal budget. An equivalent amount was spent on Medicare in the same year ($747 billion).
The United States spends roughly the same amount (in US$) on defense as the next 9 countries combined. This represents 3.4% of the US GDP. By percentage of GDP, the US ranks 14th in the world, lower than (for instance) Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, and Russia.
The US is the richest country by GDP comparison, but this idea that it spends half its annual budget on the military is false - the real amount is about 13% on average. Social program spending far outweighs military spending in the US.
I like your fancy numbers magic man
@FluffyPotato Unless nukes are involved. Then it won’t matter how much we spend on the military.
I’d be surprised if local gopniks hadn’t sold off Russia’s nukes for cheap vodka at this point and Russia is too embarrassed to admit it. Also Poland alone would occupy Russia with the sheer power of angry polish man the moment they announce they got no nukes.
lol
Yeah, but a lot of it comes from Europe not choosing to lead on any international crisis, to the point where it has intentionally designed its defense to require the US to participate.
I look at it like this, the EU should have its own independent military from NATO given its size and wealth. Yet, it chooses to be entirely dependent on NATO and needs the US to help in any sort of projection of force.
Which is a huge misunderstanding of how Europe works. It’s not federal like the US and would require all countries to agree to a centralised army. Many countries are rightly concerned about the concept and what it would mean for their own sovereign armed forces so won’t approve the idea.
Or it is federal in the same way the Holy Roman Empire was.
And the concern that European politicians seem to have is that an EU army would require the EU to define military policy rather than just follow US military policy. It isn’t that the EU couldn’t be made to gain greater competencies in military and diplomatic areas, it is that the various EU nations are happier letting the US define that instead.
What are you talking about? Every country in Europe already has its own military and the EU has a defensive clause it the pact.
Every country in Europe already has its own military
And each American state has its own military as well that is controlled by the different governors.
and the EU has a defensive clause it the pact
And the base for that defense pact is NATO headquarters. This is also only defense only, which makes cases where the EU needs to respond to threats on its frontier difficult because there is no organizing entity to handle this issue. And if the defense pact was the reason for inter-EU defense, it is going to be through the lens of NATO, which gives the US a pretty big say on EU defense.
It really is a matter of European countries keeping to the defense spending requirements they have already committed to under NATO. A lot of Europeans I talk to claim that it is wasteful, and that money is better spent on foreign aide. But meanwhile, the US still foots the bill for their defense. This is an intense able situation - the US cannot put the entire world on ots back. Multilaterlaism has to mean cooperation from the rest of the world to ensure safety.
But it is more than that. A lot of EU nations don’t have a military of a size capable of more than just basic infantry. This has been a problem for NATO as the US has created a lot of the logistics and specialty platforms required to fight a modern war that a lot of other nations don’t pay into.
The EU is already seeing the merging of several military units because it is cheaper to develop them at scale. At that point, why not just have all of the EU create and manage the joint arms at a level where it makes more sense?
Becoming a vassal of the US is the direct consequences of that choice.
That’s a lot of words just to say “Germany hesitated about sending tanks to Ukraine therefore the US is now the colonial master of Europe.”
Apparently that’s all it takes. Just a slight hesitation on a decision and you lose all sovereignty forever.
Or maybe the hesitation over the tanks was a little disappointing, but not really that big a deal. Calm down people.
😂
If by “scathing,” you mean one-sided reporting ignoring political context and contemporary events, then yes. It’s very"scathing".
By “scathing”, do you mean reiterating in extremist language the same thing European leaders have said over the past few months, that the EU relies to heavily on US military force?
Cool example of propagandizing old news. Making good news bad is your style.
You do know what ECFR is right?
Yes. An anti-atlanticist lobby group. They’re not neutral.
I agree with them when it comes to pushing European strategic autonomy but the reasoning they present here is bonkers. The purpose of this piece is to scare atlanticists out of atlanticism, not provide accurate analysis.
One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers. Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest. The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now which makes Europe far less important for US now. If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.
One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers.
Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.
Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest
No. Atlanticism is based on the idea of relying on the US as a military power, and, consequently, also relying on the US to be sane. It’s been a thing since WWII in the face of the cold war, a major dividing point between France and Germany (at least under CDU governments), but generally been on the decline since Iraq as Atlanticists realised that the US is not, in fact, sane.
If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US. Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?
The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now
“Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.
which makes Europe far less important for US now.
The US is reliant on European industry in so many ways it’s not even funny. The whole world is.
If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.
Not news. Already arrived, as said, beginning with Iraq and really driven home with Trump. Also, we’re not relying on their protection. Again: From what aliens is the US supposed to protect us. If anything is endangered on the military side then it’s resource imports, but not the continent, and even then you’d have to hit a fuckton of places at the same time for trade flow to not simply readjust, meanwhile making pretty much the whole world your enemy.
Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.
The interpretation is entirely correct. EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.
If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US.
If by trade war you mean US cannibalizing Europe by luring what business is left to prop up its own failing economy then sure.
Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?
What interests has US actually caved on exactly?
“Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.
Focusing means allocating resources towards Asia. Meanwhile, the fact that US does not have a coherent policy should itself be very worrisome for Europe. Having outsourced your security to an unstable and unreliable partner has put Europe into a rather precarious situation today.
Also, we’re not relying on their protection.
It’s very clear that plenty of European states feel they need to have military parity with Russia. While the idea of a war with Russia is obviously insane, that doesn’t change the political reality of Europe. Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.
EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.
Completely Seppo-brained. Being on the left doesn’t make you immune from the exceptionalism cool aid.
Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.
Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus. France alone could roll over Russia but they’d have a hard time keeping up with the Poles running on pure, distilled, wrath. The only reason they’re not in Moscow right now is because NATO is also a leash.
LMFAO
Yes. Did you need a primer?
No, but you obviously do.
You’re incorrect again! But at least you’re consistent.
😂
And yet countries, given free choice, came running to NATO. Curious 🤔
given free choice
I don’t remember any referendum to join NATO here.
When was there a time when Poland became a democracy where a referendum to join NATO would not have passed?
I don’t know, nobody ever asked, that’s my point.
And my point is that a referendum would very likely be pro NATO. You’re arguing as if there is this large anti-NATO group in Poland. Hell, Poland even participated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Poland didn’t need to; the country could have stuck to Afghanistan only.
So did Russia
Again we really dont know, nobody asked. Have you never wondered why they didn’t asked?
And btw. those wars were very unpopular in Poland and also their legality was, lightly said, dubious.
Have you never wondered why they didn’t asked?
Most referendums are done as a way to let politicians not have to take ownership of policies that may hurt themselves. Brexit pushed Britain’s membership off of the sitting PM, but it has also been used for marijuana legalization and the passage of new taxes in conservative states where the legislature can’t be seen to raise taxes. Poland joining NATO was never unpopular enough to force politicians to have to push joining to the public the same way that EU treaties are unpopular enough that several nations are forced to require a vote to approve EU treaties.
And btw. those wars were very unpopular in Poland
And has a party fallen from that? I know the legality is dubious, but were there actual consequences from participating?
We did had referendum for EU which was massively popular (75% voted “for”) but still there was serious fear that the frequention would make it invalid. It didn’t ultimately, 58% went to vote, but Poland generally have very low election participations because our political class is just like the USA, various wings of the neoliberal party. Which make this arguments of yours invalid. They didn’t asked about NATO because they feared it would fail, while joining the US empire was mandatory.
And has a party fallen from that? I know the legality is dubious, but were there actual consequences from participating?
Of course not, it was uniform across all the wings of our neoliberal party, that’s how you can recognize it’s effectively just one party and the country is just an undemocratic vassal of USA since it can ignore its own law and nothing happens. Non govt circles pointed that out of course, only to be ignored. But the political opposition (another very telling symptom which happens all the time in Poland!) didn’t say anything - the original invaders was the socialdemocratic party, but then both liberals and conservatives supported it after both parties won the election. Which is yet another interesting thing - back then every major party got to rule in very short time one after another - when the voters seeked for any alternative - and never found it since their policies are nearly the same.
Now, now, let’s not let facts get in the face of the narrative here.
Over the last decade, the EU has grown relatively less powerful than America – economically, technologically, and militarily.
I got curious about this so I checked wolframalpha: in 2009, the EU had a bigger economy than the USA; in 2022 the USA’s was bigger by 53%
Yeah, US has been finding ways to kneecap EU for a while, and what we’re seeing today is just the latest.
We will see how it plays out long term, but it seems to me that the US is hollowing out Europe to enrich themselves in their economic war against China. If you don’t believe that, look what the US is doing to encourage manufacturers to leave Europe and move to the US, or the fact that they overcharge Europe on fossil fuels.
I think that’s precisely what’s happening, the amazing part is how many Europeans refuse to acknowledge it because they painted themselves into a situation where they’re entirely reliant on US for protection now.
Because that’s not true. UK and France combined could take most militaries.
China has placed itself at the heart of many critical supply chains that the US and its allies depend on. It has defined itself in cultural and ideological opposition to the US and to the idea of democracy, using its new wealth to spread the techniques of authoritarian control to every continent on Earth.
Glad you’re finally posting some truth about China’s authoritarianism, instead of your deluded nonsense about comnunism
Ah yes, providing an alternative to US exploitation of the world is AuThoRitaRiaN! 🤡
Are you saying the Chinese government is not authoritarian?
Literally, every government is fundamentally authoritarian because it holds the monopoly on violence by virtue of controlling the police and military forces of the country. It’s a nonsensical terms that illiterate people use because they think it sounds scary.
No, that’s political power, and they are voted into power and out again
Authoritarianism comes in three flavours:
bossism (autocratic party dictatorships); i.e. China
juntas (oligarchic military dictatorships); i.e. Sudan
and. strongman (autocratic military dictatorships) i.e. Russia
None of these examples use democracy…
No, that’s political power, and they are voted into power and out again
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them. The power stays with the class that’s actually in charge which is the capital owning class. And there are numerous studies showing this to be the case. Here’s what one long term study of US politics has to say:
Meanwhile, the fact that you keep claiming that China is a dictatorship just further exposes your ignorance on the subject you’re attempting to debate. This is wilful ignorance because you have been provided with numerous western sources demonstrating that this claim is false. Yet, you continue to repeat it.
And of course, the system that Russia resembles the most is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, it’s what your own state media says:
You are shamefully ignorant of the subject you’re attempting to debate. Spend some time educating yourself instead of trolling here.
A lot of western people still believe that they are free, because they dont recognize their prison from history books.
I didn’t claim China was a dictatorship, it’s a market autocracy. Do keep up.
And I’m not American so not sure why you keep quoting random text from who knows where about them
It’s not an autocracy, it’s a democracy as anybody who actually knows the first thing about China understands. It’s also demonstrably the fact because the government of China consistently works in the interest of the people of China. This is reflected by things such as massive poverty alleviation, infrastructure building, and so on. This is why the government of China has far higher approval than any western country. However, it’s not a western style parliamentary democracy. It’s a common mistake that uneducated westerners make to equate democracy with their own failed implementation of the concept.
And I’m not American so not sure why you keep quoting random text from who knows where about them
Well then answer, do you think that America is a and. strongman (autocratic military dictatorships)?
Also, is your own country a strongman autocratic dictatorship given that it has made protesting illegal, and it’s torturing journalists?
I’d rather have no exploitation. Alternative exploitation isn’t really better.
Except it’s not actually alternative exploitation. I can see why westerners can’t imagine relations between countries that aren’t exploitative given the history of the west though.
China is absolutely exploiting quite a few African nations and it’s neighbors in the south China Sea. Also I’m not sure what the west is but I’m pretty sure my country doesn’t qualify.
Weird, the actual data doesn’t support your assertions. Chinese Investment In Africa Has Had ‘Significant And Persistently Positive’ Long-Term Effects Despite Controversy.
Literally the strategy the US has been using for imperialism in south America since they found out about bananas. Once the locals are dependant on China financially they can take what they want.
I’m unsubscribing from this community. There are plenty of better world news communities on other instances. You seem to be a prolific poster on this community and I strongly disagree with everything you say and post.
Bye!
