It has been a de facto vassal since 1945 and clearly demonstrated to the entire world during the Suez Canal crisis, when the US in no uncertain terms ordered France and the UK to back down or else, which they did.
Indeed, if anything we are more independent now that what we were back then. Thanks also to Trump who showed everybody that the US might not always be a reliable partner.
Are you sure? Policy on Ukraine makes us look like stuck pigs. Our pipeline has been blown up & China driven away. BRICS are gonna eat our lunch (fair) in Africa, South America and Asia, and we are gonna have no recourse and Nephew Sam is headbutting cats to death that he's belted to a post while giving us funny looks
Be real, you already ate Africa's lunch, BRICS (aka China and a bit of Russia) are going to sift through the pile of shit you left behind.
Yeah no. There's a difference between resource extraction in the 1800's and resource extraction today. Europe may have tapped into like 2% of Africa's natural resources despite being there for centuries and just straight up enslaving the place. Russia and China are offering the carrot well Europe only gave out the stick for centuries.
Yeah no. China and Russia couldn't give two shits about Africa or Africans. Neither country wants any of them as immigrants, and they're only doing what they're doing for influences and resources.
They're not altruistic, otherwise they'd stop treating their citizens like children who need to be micromanaged and occasionally abused.
Yup. But they're doing it through money and not enslaving millions of people to work in a mine or they get their hands cut off.
Slavery existed in Africa, perpetuated by both Africans but especially Arabs, before Europeans did this. However, europeans did specifically venture to end slavery in Africa, something which you will never admit. Please read about the Berlin Conference, for instance. One of the main goals of this conference was to "end slavery by African and Islamic powers".
lol "China isn't doing what Belgium did" doesn't mean China wants African immigrants. Like your argument is irrelevant.
If no country ever is altruistic, then obvuously China had something to gain by letting poor african nations borrow their money, which is clearly influence.
"America bad, so China and Russia not bad" is a shit argument
I mean for now it is different. China is offering better loans than the west, that’s why African nations are taking them. Often 0%. If the us or eu want to compete they have to offer better loans
China isn’t debt trapping countries, they are literally offering better deals. If China is debt trapping countries, is the US double debt trapping them?
Homie the west gives these exact same loans. Massive loans. Only difference, China is offering 0% loans. So, african nations will take these loans. If the us and eu want to compete, they will have to offer competitive loans.
I'm done with you people. You have no concept of financial literacy.
YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK LOANS. No interest doesn't mean "risk free". You're still responsible for paying that principal back under some sort of penalty, hence it not being a grant, due to the necessity of paying it back.
Do you think these countries just don't pay china back?
You should take a look at their economies.
If anything happens to their economies, they cannot pay back some or the all of the loan, which leads to potential negative consequences.
To think China just gives loans out of the goodness of their hearts, and not to gain influence (whether diplomatic or financial) just reveals your naivety.
China doesn't earn anything due to lack of interest, but they still risk not getting that money back, and to pretend like China would just take the loss and there will be 0 changes is just sad.
Indeed, if anything we are more independent now that what we were back then.
You will be more independent when you are able to independently defend yourself, which is not happening anytime soon.
No Western European youth want to go fight and die for Poland or the Baltic states if they get invaded. The US will have to do that, and everyone knows it.
So independent states aren't independent unless they can hypothetically "defend themselves independently"?
Who came up with that criteria ?
Except you're simplifying the definition to be "if your country is influenced by another militarily", which is the whole damn NATO alliance.
You're setting up goalposts to just further your opinion, not stating the facts.
Poland is a sovereign state that makes their own decisions, have their own military, and full control over their legal territory beyond allowing nations to station troops, and embassies. Same with the baltic states.
Depending on one specific characteristic, one that ignores things like a military alliance with integration of forces (Which makes independence and spending as if you're not a part of a military alliance that can bring more value than you can afford) doesn't make a nation a vassal state.
Except these countries have the ability to reject their participation in doing so. You omit that deliberately and pretend "the US points guns at everyone's heads, and gets all that it wants"
So independent states aren't independent unless they can hypothetically "defend themselves independently"?
Who came up with that criteria ?
Human history and common sense. Why do you think states can exist independently from each other in the first place? The EU can only exist so harmoniously because it has the US as a guarantor for its common interests (and now Russia as a common enemy).
All nation-states are fundamentally in natural conflict with one another over the world's limited resources. This is nature. This is how human civilization works, and has always worked. If your state cannot defend its stuff, then it will be taken by another state with the means to take it, since that state has an obligation to serve the interests of its constituents.
In all of human history, only a modern European could even be confused about this - because their governments have outsourced this conflict to the US. In exchange, the US gains proportional influence over European affairs. It's not a "gun to the head" situation, it's a "if you piss us off, you'll have start paying for your own militaries again to ensure your sovereignty."
Military alliances as you describe them also do not preclude unequal relationships. If nation A has a billion military power units and nation B has 10, and they enter an "alliance", that alliance does not distribute power (and therefore sovereignty) equally. Nation A gets to tell Nation B what to do so long as Nation B's proportional military contribution does not change. Again, this is a tradeoff for both: Nation B is less of a soverign nation, but it gets to 1 billion military units of money, whatever that's worth. Nation A gets some sovereignty over Nation B, but they have to pay for their huge army to maintain that relationship.
Why do you think states can exist independently from each other in the first place?
Because it is mutually beneficial for this to be the case.
You have not read one lick of history.
The EU can only exist so harmoniously because it has the US as a guarantor for its common interests (and now Russia as a common enemy).
Incorrect.
All nation-states are fundamentally in natural conflict with one another over the world's limited resources. This is nature. This is how human civilization works, and has always worked. If your state cannot defend its stuff, then it will be taken by another state with the means to take it, since that state has an obligation to serve the interests of its constituents.
Actually, this is objectively incorrect and proves you have never studied history. There are countless states in the past that have not been militarily able to defend themselves against a smaller neighbour in a 1:1 war but have nonetheless been able to exist for a long time. The main reason the west stopped colonization was because it turns out it is often more beneficial to trade. This is why liberalism has outdone facism and protectionist communism over the last century, in case you hasn't noticed.
But of course, for a person who has not studied history or economics it is very convenient to defer to "common sense".
1.3 million active soldiers and thousands of tanks and planes would curbstomp russia
They don't have thousands of tanks or thousands of planes. Not even close. Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK have less than 1200 combined and their air forces are, well they're not much better. They also have 1.3 million soldiers on paper, in reality they could probably deploy 1/3 of that at any given time.
I would say without any US help, it would be a pretty close fight with a slight advantage towards Europe but then again, having an army which speaks 8 different languages, drastically different doctrine and industrial capabilities is a lot harder to fight with than when everyone speaks one language.
Yeah, all Russian soldiers suck and can't stop the mighty west and their invincible super weapons like the Leo 2 tank or the Bradley's or the...storm shadows...or the Baykter drones........
Russia's not fighting the west, they're fighting their much smaller much poorer neighbour.
Small detail of course :)
Sure dude, they're just fighting the second largest European country with unlimited Western intelligence, who got mobilized 1.8 million men for them, got the third largest military budget handed over to them by the West, got so much ammo that the West is literally running out to give and have to dip into their strategic stock piles, have tens of thousands NATO volunteers, have gotten everything from Leo 2 tanks to Bradleys and Storm Shadows given to them and who oh yeah, have their entire economy subsidized by the West to keep them fighting Russia.
But sure bud, they're defiantly not fighting the West, they're only fighting Ukraine with a military budget higher than their GDP am I right?
Yeah because 1 year of aid totally matches up to decades of military spending plus soviet weapon stockpiles.
tens of thousands NATO volunteers
just lol
I guess since russia knows it can go toe to toe with the entire west surely they'll be making their move soon right? Soon we'll all be singing that r*tarded anthem
Yeah because 1 year of aid totally matches up to decades of military spending plus soviet weapon stockpiles.
Wait, I thought the hundreds of Bradleys and Storm Shadows and NATO training coupled with 200 billion dollars would surely beat the stupid, out dated Soviet style of war!
tens of thousands NATO volunteers just lol
I guess since russia knows it can go toe to toe with the entire west surely they'll be making their move soon right? Soon we'll all be singing that r*tarded anthem
You must be forgetting about a little thing called nukes.
By all means keep telling yourself that russia is going up against the entirety of the west's arsenal, I guess that makes their little quagmire a bit more palatable for you.
Dude, you take out the US from the "West" and Russia would be in Warsaw by now as Germany prepares their defenses. I love how people act like "the West" is some great power when in reality, it's pretty much the Lady America and Her Euro Gemstones lol
At the end of the day, none of this shit matters since Russia has enough nukes to destroy the world and so this America.
And yet... You ignore the fact that all of that is aid given to Ukraine, and not these nations directly fighting against Russia.
But keep playing stupid... Unless you're actually stupid enough to argue "russia rolled through Ukraine", while pretending like Russia hasn't been running out of shit as well.
And yet... You ignore the fact that all of that is aid given to Ukraine, and not these nations directly fighting against Russia.
Damn, it's almost like it's a proxy war and direct war would lead to nukes.
But keep playing stupid... Unless you're actually stupid enough to argue "russia rolled through Ukraine", while pretending like Russia hasn't been running out of shit as well.
Russia running out of shit since the second month of the war lol. Not like the US president didn't straight admit to running out of 155 mm shells to give. That totally didn't happen lol
Are you actually suggesting Europe would struggle against Russia in conventional warfare? I’d think Russia has shown how utterly incompetent its military apparatus is. There is no way in hell that Russia could seriously threaten a European army.
re you actually suggesting Europe would struggle against Russia in conventional warfare? I’d think Russia has shown how utterly incompetent its military apparatus is. There is no way in hell that Russia could seriously threaten a European army.
Not in the long term. But in the short term, the lack of US support leaves gaps that are a problem.
Are you actually suggesting Europe would struggle against Russia in conventional warfare?
I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it as a matter of fact. What country has Europe fought that has gotten even 1/10 the support that Ukraine has gotten in the last half century? I'll wait.
I’d think Russia has shown how utterly incompetent its military apparatus is.
I think it shows us that the Russian learn from their mistakes and like most of their modern wars, suck at the start, learn from their mistakes and then get their shit together to actually fight back.
There is no way in hell that Russia could seriously threaten a European army.
With out the US, there isn't a single European nation who doesn't get rolled by Russia in like 2 months. Now if you put all of the EU together than that's a different ball game but 1 on 1? Russia rolls everybody. Except maybe Turkey who they would have a harder time with.
How can one be so ignorant to widely available hard facts? Russia rolls not even 40 million pop Ukraine but would roll over all of Europe? A Clown if I ever saw one
How can one be so ignorant to widely available hard facts? Russia rolls not even 40 million pop Ukraine but would roll over all of Europe?
Damn, it's almost like they're fighting a country with an army of 1.8 million and whose gotten about 200 billion dollars worth of finical and military support in a single year. Most of which has come from the States. No America, Ukraine get's rolled in a few months.
Dude you take out America and it doesn't matter how much support an EU country get's, they're gonna get rolled in a few months right up until Russia reaches Poland.
Russia GDP 2 billion 160 million population 1.3 million active military personnel (2023)
EU GDP 14.5 billion 450 million population 1.9 million active military personnel (2019)
Yeah. Russians speak one language, the EU speaks 20, have drastically different militaries, rarely use the same heavy equipment and have different battle doctrines.
We could literally pay every single Russian soldier to switch sides. It's not even a contest.
Then why didn't Ukraine? They got 200 billion dollars and about 70 billion in cash. Why didn't they just pay the initial 200k soldiers that invaded like 50k each to switch sides? Oh that's not how that works and almost never has? Oh ok.
And support every single of ours with 7 times the amount a Russian soldier gets.
I don't think you get how militaries work bud.
Add some more advanced tech on top and being in the defensive position. Not even Putin would send his soldiers into this.
If it was an all out war, than Russia would probably only get stopped by the time they reached Poland and Swiss/Alps.
It's just something which is not going to happen. And even in theory absolutely impossible to win for Russia. Take your propaganda somewhere else.
It's not an impossible win for Russia, it's just a 70/30 split between who would win between Russia vs Europe.
What European state needed and requested that much support in the last half century ?
France straight up asked America for more bombs because they ran out when bombing Libya lol
I'll wait.
France lol
LOL Russia couldn't roll through Ukraine in 17 months, yet you think they can roll through other nations.
Mans must have ignored the 200 billion dollars, creating the logistical supply chain to equip, feed and recruit 1.8 million men, the tens of thousands of NATO volunteers fighting in Ukraine, the hundreds of tanks, IFV's, APC's, AA pieces and drones given to them for free, the unlimited intelligence they get or the fact that they were straight up getting prepared for 8 years by the West for this war lol.
But no dude, you're right, Ukraine is currently fighting Russia with 150% of their GDP lol
Imagine being in Summer 2023 and arguing "Russia rolls everyone 1v1" when they've been losing ground since April 2022.
Not everyone. India will give em some trouble, America would straight up win, China has an 80% chance of winning but everyone else? Yeah they would roll. But go ahead, name me one other country with a military budget of over 200 billion dollars. I'll wait.
France straight up asked America for more bombs because they ran out when bombing Libya lol
The AMOUNT AND EFFORT OF MILITARY GOODS WE GAVE TO UKRAINE SO FAR?
Just adding back the context and point you purposefully omitted.
"France, lol"
The AMOUNT AND EFFORT OF MILITARY GOODS WE GAVE TO UKRAINE SO FAR? LOL
Mans must have ignored the 200 billion dollars, creating the logistical supply chain to equip, feed and recruit 1.8 million men, the tens of thousands of NATO volunteers fighting in Ukraine, the hundreds of tanks, IFV's, APC's, AA pieces and drones given to them for free, the unlimited intelligence they get or the fact that they were straight up getting prepared for 8 years by the West for this war lol.
Yet you're ignoring the fact that THEY ARE STILL IN A STALEMATE WITH UKRAINE, a nation that literally needed training to use our weapons. That is not the equivalent of a full scale war between NATO and Russia, and your attempt to pretend like it is makes you look foolish.
"Hurr Durr 2398% GDP military spending"
Like what's your point? No one is saying "If ukraine didn't have Western supplies, they'd defeat Russia." No one would agree with that. My point is, 1v1 doesn't mean "in a neutral situation". This is the real world. Alliances exist. Diplomacy exists. You think nations don't ask for help? You think Russia realistically would invade one NATO country at a time? We're not talking about hypothetical geostrategy sandbox games. This is the real world.
"Russia Rolls everyone 1v1"
"India will give em trouble"
"America will straight up win"
"china has an 80% chance in winning"
Thanks for contradicting yourself.
"Name me a country that has as much money as my arbitrary limit."
No need, since you're just going to jump around the fact that Russia cannot take on whoever they want without major risk of losing. Hence the rehashed justification of NATO's existence, which Sweden and Finland both understood.
Thankfully theres 22 other EU members, and most of those tanks are lightyears ahead from what the russians have. Same goes for jets.
Dude all of them combined don't have as much tanks as Russia who remember, just lost 2000 of them. We've also seen the best EU tank go up against a well place mine field and artillery and spoiler alert, the mines and the artillery won.
That's just laughable take dude. With out the US, the EU would run out off missiles in like a month just like what happened when France bombed Libya. They straight up ran out of ammo in half a month and had to ask America for more. The qualitive take is also false because Russia has just spent the last year and half fighting an actual well trained and extremely well funded army well the last major war any European country took part in was against dudes with AK's and home made IEDs.
If you give it like a a few years for the European economies to invest more heavily into their military industry and be less reliant on the US than sure, they'll have a much easier time then but rn? It's a very slight advantage if even that.
Yes, european armies actually exist. 1.3 million active soldiers and thousands of tanks and planes would curbstomp russia.
Not a single European country has thousands of tanks and all their tanks combined barely break 1000, which is 1/3rd of what Russia had in active service. Russia has 4000 aircraft. The Uk has 900, Russia has 12k tanks, the UK has 200, as an example of how ridiculously outgunned Europe is without the USA.
This is so stupid. The main reason why Europe relies on the us at all is nukes. And even considering those, France has plenty. There is no need for the USA to defend Europe with its military. Nuclear warfare makes that obsolete. If the USA would have worse relations with Europe, you can bet your anus that the European Union would have a way bigger stockpile of nuclear warheads.
If anything, the usa „defends“ Europe via economic relations. Sanctions are the way we do warfare between world powers, not military might.
Nuclear deterrent only matters insofar as countries behave rationally under the presumption of mutually assured destruction. In the event of a deranged aggressor such as Putin, many European countries are realizing it might be useful to have non-nuclear alternative defenses to military aggression. As a German, you are of course well aware that this is why your army is going to be rebuilt over the next decade.
Besides, Europe doesn't need nukes from America. Europe has nukes. What America has that Europe needs is the industry, infrastructure, logistics, and technology, upon which they have been largely dependent for the last eighty years.
I stand by what I said, the primary protective factor is americas economical strength. Europe and the USA combined have a lot of leverage on the world stage via sanctions. Yes, Europe does rely on the USA for other things aswell but these are not irreplaceable.
And yes, Germany and other European countries are increasing its military spending. But it’s not comparable to the spending of the USA. And I believe it’s primary use will be for proxy warfare and other operations in African / Middle Eastern areas just like the us military is primarily used.
I don’t believe we will ever face conventional Warfare against another nuclear power. If we do, shit is so fucked that Europe will be a wasteland anyways
No Western European youth wants to go fight and die for Poland or the Baltic states if they get invaded.
You're comparing apples and oranges. In general, nobody wants to die if they get the choice, and that is not different for people's attitude towards fighting for their national army. People of Poznan would rather not die either, and if you ask them if they would die for Lublin, most of them would say no too. But that hardly matters as military services doesn't mean 100% certain death, and people can and do assent to military service, much like they accept the risk to be killed in a traffic accident to go their job.
To boot, military conflicts are first and foremost fought by professional militaries, so at the point where an EU-wide draft needs to be instituted, the marauding army is large enough to be a threat to the entire EU. European NATO members already have 1,5 million professional soldiers who already considered mortal risk before their career choice, it's going to be WW3 before those need to be supplemented with fresh, unprepared recruits. And by then the urgency of the situation will be entirely clear for everyone, making opinions from 5 year ago completely outdated.
The people who like repeating this are actively contributing to making this a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. So stop being a demotivator until you have a better alternative.
There is a reason why Dutch ASML complies with the US export restrictions to China and why every European bank complies with FATCA, even if it costs them lots of money.
That is what vassals do.
By that reasoning the entire world is the EU's vassal, as most of the world adheres to EU standards for their production, to safeguard their export potential to the EU single market.
You omit the fact that France and the UK worked covertly with Israel in that, and avoided getting the US involved because they knew there's be a disagreement. You also omit the fact that the US didn't want the soviets to supply or aid the Egyptians and potentially escalate the conflict, which was a genuine risk.
France and Britain made their own decisions in doing it. If they were really a vassal, I doubt they'd be able to make such a move without the US knowing until it's already happened.
Puerto Rico is a de facto vassal. The UK and France are sovereign nations that's been aligned with the US diplomatically since 1917 at the latest.
They deserve it. For all the flaws of USA,this is one time they would be right from their outlook. With China becoming the dominant competitor the US will shift more forces to Pacific and the EU should be able to defend themselves.
I mean seriously if you need US to defend you against Russia which was economically crippled and will now be militarily crippled for the next few years or even a decade after the war ends,you might as well let the US control your military and budget for it to be more effective.
I mean it's pretty easy to see the hypocrisy in Europeans mocking the US for their military budget and then needing help against someone like Russia. If it was only the EU sending aid and intel I wouldn't be surprised if half of Ukraine was already gone by the first few months.
Putin has already outright threatened Poland and other EU countries. Let's not pretend like Russia wouldn't invade once again if they saw no resistance. Ukraine is defending the freedom of the EU as well, European politicians understand this.
Russia won't be doing any more such shit, it has no capacity to be able to attack a nato nation. Plus it is going through a serious demographic collapse, this was last opportunity for them to do something. Chinese have literally started illegaly infiltrating far East russia for even takeover in next what 50-60 years.
Yes and what did I state that makes you think otherwise?
not all Europe even agrees giving military aid to Ukraine?
Not all=Austria,Hungary and some city states who don't have military equipment themselves lmao
The 2 main heavyweights which are France and Germany along with UK who's a major non EU but still European country are all sending heavy aid.
Nations sending military aid to Ukraine:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=DKK%207%20billion%20(%E2%82%AC940,purchase%20of%20non%2Dlethal%20equipment.
EU nations:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_main_map.svg
Literally just 2 countries and maybe some city states which are irrelevant and depend on EU aid themselves. Even if it was more still wouldn't matter when there's a united EU fund for military aid to Ukraine
I mean seriously if you need US to defend you against Russia which was economically crippled and will now be militarily crippled for the next few years or even a decade after the war ends,
I think you're severely underestimating what Russia is and is doing compared to say what America did in the Middle East. It's a lot harder to fight a country which has drafted 1.8 million people, has shifted their economy completely towards the war effort, has gotten 200 billion dollars, unlimited intelligence and thousands of pieces of heavy equipment when compared to a starved out Iraq or the Taliban.
They're economy has shown to be extremely resilient since they're selling oil and not hand bags and they now have the only army in the world whose actually fought a modern war against a Western backed nation. They're not "crippled" economically or militarily.
you might as well let the US control your military and budget for it to be more effective.
Dude the US army sucks. Like really badly. They never pass an audit, billions of dollars just go "missing" every single year, they're 1/3 in their last 4 wars against faaar weaker enemies, they have no idea how to control a population outside of Israeli style occupation and they're puppet states fall apart as soon as they leave because shocker, throwing money at attracts the most corrupt people out there to take as much of your money as possible before leaving.
I mean it's pretty easy to see the hypocrisy in Europeans mocking the US for their military budget and then needing help against someone like Russia.
The US lost their last 3 wars, abandoned Afghanistan after forcing them to release 5,000 Taliban veterans and their army got a 50 billion dollar raise. As half their population would go broke if they had a broken arm. That's pretty mockable and right fully so. And to be clear, if they all put their strength together, they would give Russia an extremely hard time but why do that when they could just have the dumbass with more guns than brains do the fighting instead?
If it was only the EU sending aid and intel I wouldn't be surprised if half of Ukraine was already gone by the first few months.
Yeah, instead it's all of Europe and America sending aid and Ukraine can't break through the first line of Russian defense's after 2 months of trying.
US army might suck or whatever but the US military doesn't. Their largest strength has always been their Navy and airforce which they use to bomb countries into submission (which includes civilians of course).
The US lost their last 3 wars,
I don't know about this one. They lost Vietnam and Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure Iraq was literally the definition of how to win a war.
Yeah, instead it's all of Europe and America sending aid and Ukraine can't break through the first line of Russian defense's after 2 months of trying.
I mean Russia still has a strong military. Just not to the extent that we thought.
I doubt any other European country with the exception of Poland and not including F35s could win conventionally against Russia 1v1.
Not to mention while Russia has exhausted a lot of its armour it isn't really putting the same effort as Ukraine into the war because it may destabilize the country and ruin the economy since they don't get foreign aid as much and maybe even ignite civil wars in some parts.
Ukraine current outnumbers Russia in personnels by like 3 times if I'm not wrong.
If Russia enters partial or full mobilisation and war economy then we may see.
"US army might suck or whatever but the US military doesn't. Their largest strength has always been their Navy and airforce which they use to bomb countries into submission (which includes civilians of course)."
Sure but you suggested that the US military take over the EU's military budgets. The same US military who couldn't pass an audit to save their lives and where billions of dollars just "disappears" into nothing.
"I don't know about this one. They lost Vietnam and Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure Iraq was literally the definition of how to win a war."
Vietnam they lost, Iraq 1 they won, Afghanistan they lost and Iraq 2 they lost since Iraq is now an Iranian puppet state in all but name. So that's 1 in 3 out of their last 4. And all it cost was 12 trillion dollars lol
I mean Russia still has a strong military. Just not to the extent that we thought.
Russia didn't Iraq Ukraine because Ukraine was getting ready for 8 years and Russia thought they would be hailed as liberators. They then got a metric shit ton of support, mobilized 1.8 million people and Russia finally realized they were in an actual war and not an "Special Military Operation" or whatever they called it. No other country in Europe could beat Ukraine with the amount of support it's getting.
I doubt any other European country with the exception of Poland and not including F35s could win conventionally against Russia 1v1.
Dude, I have no idea why people here like to act like Poland is some strong country. They're not, they're just dumb enough to spend a metric shit ton of money on equipment they can't afford to field for more than a week. Like look at their GDP and then look at how much it costs to run an f35 or costs to fire off a Patriot missile system. The only countries who could run something like that are ones that have more money than god like the Saudis, the US, Japan or Germany. Everywhere else would be better off sticking to artillery.
Not to mention while Russia has exhausted a lot of its armour it isn't really putting the same effort as Ukraine into the war because it may destabilize the country and ruin the economy since they don't get foreign aid as much and maybe even ignite civil wars in some parts. Ukraine current outnumbers Russia in personnels by like 3 times if I'm not wrong. If Russia enters partial or full mobilisation and war economy then we may see.
That's all true. Although we don't know exactly the number of causalities that Ukraine has so it could range from 2 to 3 times the amount of soldiers Russia has.
Sure but you suggested that the US military take over the EU's military budgets. The same US military who couldn't pass an audit to save their lives and where billions of dollars just "disappears" into nothing.
Yes because while the US wastes a lot of money it's nothing compared to the UK and Germany.
I mean the UK has a $60 billion budget,what do they have to show for it?France is the only one that actually has something to show.
Iraq 2 they lost since Iraq is now an Iranian puppet state in all but name.
That's not how it works. They invaded to get rid of Saddam.
Using that logic the US won the Vietnam war since now Vietnam is anti China and the general public is more pro US.
Dude, I have no idea why people here like to act like Poland is some strong country.
Because they're the only one that have something to show for what they spend.
And after their orders from South Korea arrive they absolutely will be the strongest army in EU.
Like look at their GDP
$800 billion GDP isn't that small for their population.
Everywhere else would be better off sticking to artillery.
Which is what they're doing. They only have like 32 F35 on orders with a very small airforce. Meanwhile they've ordered thousands of tanks and Howitzers+Artillery.
They know they can't compare to Russian airforce hence they're going the Soviet tactic of air defense. If some ancient S300 can force Russian airforce to limit themselves in Ukraine then modern Patriots can do a much better job(although they're still worse than S400 I'd say).
Their defense budget is only 4% of their economy. They have $166 billion in reserves and they get a ton of aid every year. They received £90 billion from EU funds just in 2014-2021.
So you're highly underestimating Poland although I agree some people act like Poland could've pushed Russia back to Moscow or something.
The UK has a smaller defense budget because they pretty much use the military as a jobs program and know where every penny is going. The US created such a massive monster that the only thing both sides could agree on is how much hundreds of billions of dollars to give it. Billions of which just disappear. That wouldn't be allowed in any EU country. Not to mention that the US has a tendancy to go waaaay over budget on their military projects, unlike the UK and France.
The goal wasn't to just overthrow Saddam, it was to overthrow Saddam and create a stable US puppet state well losing as little as possible. 20 years laters, a few trillion down the drain, thousands of dead US soldiers as well as tens of thousands more injured or suffering from severe PTSD and you turn Iraq into an Iranian puppet state after getting rid of the biggest anti Iranian guy in the region. That's a pretty big L any way you look at it.
What? They don't have anything to show for what they spent except for a few some expensive gear that became over sized paper weights as soon as they run out of missiles or they break down because the up keep alone costs them a metric shit ton of money.
800 billion for 45 million people is solid, the problem is that most of their budget is already allocated for the people. They can't afford to spend a few billion dollars to run a single patriot system or the billions dollars to run their dozens of f35s for for more than a week. Russia will just spam Lancet or Shahed drones at them until they run out of missiles and then line up their artillery and destroy anything that moves.
The problem is that they keep buying expensive gear from everyone else instead of investing in their own military industry. Like let's say they get a 1000 howitzers, artillery pieces and tanks. How many shells do you think they make to fire those things at? I'll tell you, they make about 30 to 40k a year. That's what Russia fires in like 2 days. Even a 166 billion dollars would only last them a single year of total war against Russia.
Poland is strong because it's in the EU and NATO, it's not strong in it self like say Turkey or Germany or Korea is. They won't be until they make their own gear and streamline the process.
Minor criticism, the US failed to achieve its objectives in most of the wars you've mentioned but in general (discounting Vietnam as its own thing and frankly ancient) these were failures to achieve diplomatic goals not military goals. The US military didn't withdraw from the recent wars due to a lack of ability/material or because it was forced out. Nor was it the one who first advanced the invasions politically as good/priority ideas. These were diplomatic failures rather than military ones. Sure it's not wrong to say the military still failed to achieve the goals set out for it but that seems like a shallow argument for appraising their effectiveness when the goals were generally impossible as proposed and the military even within the assigned problem space was still arguably successful at the tasks it was given that were actually military tasks.
No they were most defiantly military failures. The militaries job was to subdue the insurgents, the Taliban and the North Vietnamese by destroying any one of their potential bases of operations and soldiers. Instead, they just created more Vietkong, Taliban and insurgents until they controlled basically nothing outside of a like a few major cities.
Diplomacy was/is a part of war and if the military said "look, it's like playing whack-a-mole with these fuckers, the people hate us, our government here is corrupt af and we have no chance of winning since we don't if Billy Buttfuck is just a farmer or an insurgent. Let's just make a deal, cut our losses and go home." the US government would have made a deal a long time ago. Hell the Taliban literally offered conditional surrenders like 10 times, only for the US to respond by bombing their leaders and strengthening their resolve.
It's like winning a basketball game for every quarter and in the last minute, when you sub out your starters, the other team comes back and scores 10 for the win. You still lost that game.
It puts sovereign countries' militaries under a command and logistics infrastructure that's modeled after the American one, and dominated by American leadership, all the way up to dictating to treaty members the size of their military budgets.
I mean it's pretty easy to see the hypocrisy in Europeans mocking the US for their military budget and then needing help against someone like Russia.
Can you actually show where the EU called for "American help" on Russia instead of just casually declaring it a thing?
It was first and foremost the US that pushed for sanctions and involvement in the conflict, to that end it even pressured countries like India.
Blaming the world stabilizing presence is a hoot. Watch what happens to your shipping lanes, territorial integrity, and paramilitary coups without the threat of Americas big stick.
They see it as Russian invasion for territory while the politicians don't really care.
Most of the EU clearly didn't care enough specially the Eastern European one's specially when they have been training Ukrainian troops for quite awhile meaning they knew what was coming.
You might feel like it's unfair but you're in the minority with the view point,for the average European and their choice of politicians,they pretty much got what they asked for with their incompetence to make a decision. Specially Germany in particular who had 7 years to make a decision but instead closed down nuclear reactors to shoot itself in the foot.
The merkel administration was shockingly reactionary those couple of times for its regular policy seemingly being pragmatic and emotionless.
On a whim, Merkel pushed mass acceptance of refugees and closure of the nuclear Program while being head of the conservatives. Both points that were completely against everything her party stood for.
The current collation seems like a direct continuation, as they are supposedly more left but enact mostly right wing shaped reforms and laws or left wing reforms that are so watered down, they feel like „hey Wendi’s something, look“ but everyone with a brain knows that it’s nothing.
Something that bothers me though is that people seem to run into the arms of the far right wing Nationalists for things to change to the better when all they will do is fuck Germany in the ass like ukip fucked the UK with Brexit, except they want to leave nato, leave EU, leave Euro zone.
Completely isolate Germany, essentially make it a puppet of another nation such as Russia or China (AfD leader is fluent in Chinese.
Says the moron who knows f all about Europe. Europe can defend itself. France and England possess nuclear weapons. Germany, France and Sweden are playing a major role in the export market for military hardware. European soldiers are trained very well.
We don’t need the USA to defend us. You stupid clown think Ukraine is part of Nato? Europe isn’t under attack, Ukraine is.
Plus the US military is very inefficient and ineffective.
We also never asked them for help, Ukraine did.
Just shut up since you are evidently completely uninformed or relying on some shitty Russian propaganda
And you think they're gonna use it to save Eastern Europe against Russia?
As a German you'll probably have first hand experience what happened the last time.
Germany, France and Sweden are playing a major role in the export market for military hardware.
Major role means nothing. The most advanced equipment in the hands of European nations is the F35. Your FCAS is not coming till 2040 and by then the US will have NGAD.
We don’t need the USA to defend us. You stupid clown think Ukraine is part of Nato? Europe isn’t under attack, Ukraine is.
And you think Russia would've only attacked Ukraine?They would've rolled over the Baltic States and then went into the rest of Eastern Europe.
Plus the US military is very inefficient and ineffective.
Is that why France needed the US help against a tiny military like that of Libya?In comparison the US decimated Iraq which was the 5th largest army although utterly corrupt.
We also never asked them for help, Ukraine did.
I bet you would've had Russia rolled over inside Eastern Europe.
Just shut up since you are evidently completely uninformed or relying on some shitty Russian propaganda
Russian propoganda is defending their greatest adversary's position apparently.
Don't forget it's because of the US that your country wasn't raped and labour camped into assimilation by the Soviet union and the rest of Eastern Europe albeit for their own gain.
Your whole worthless opinion is based on your fantasy land where Russia would invade nato countries. They wouldn’t dare.
And we don’t have any defensive alliance with Ukraine, so all aid is optional. We aren’t delusional to the point where we think we must act as the world police at all costs. We make no such claims and have no such obligations.
Plus the Raffale can compete with the f35. German vehicles regularly beat their American counterparts in competitions. The Abrams uses a German gun. And why do we need a stealth jet when no potential invader has stealth tech? Why should we rush the development of stealth tech when we don’t plan on invading someone?
About Frances colonial affairs: no clue, don’t care. It’s their affair not Europes.
But America merely destabilized the middle east, fucked off and all their achievements were promptly nullified. Same as with Vietnam. And even NK was no US victory.
Plus it’s funny how you fcking loser need to go back to ww2 (while demonstrating no knowledge of the details there) to somehow try to „own“ me.
Snort some more curry, you‘re better at doing that than at trying to shit talk Europe with elementary school student knowledge.
Also how‘s the Indian leopard 2 clone doing? Is it operational by now?
If you don't know what you're talking about why open your mouth at all?
And why do we need a stealth jet when no potential invader has stealth tech? Why should we rush the development of stealth tech when we don’t plan on invading someone?
Did any of the US adversary had stealth tech?You don't create weapons to be equivalent to your enemies,you create it to have an advantage.
Your whole worthless opinion is based on your fantasy land where Russia would invade nato countries. They wouldn’t dare.
And your opinion is based on that they won't when that has been their goal since the times of the Soviets. Maybe not western Europe but Eastern Europe has always been Russia's backyard until the formation of NATO.
And NATO is 90% USA. Don't kid yourself, everything from the bombers to the most potent equipment and air defence is American.
Also how‘s the Indian leopard 2 clone doing? Is it operational by now?
I don't think anybody is looking to clone Leopards when they're getting wrecked by $30,000 drones. 30-40 already lost in Ukraine pretty hilarious.
Snort some more curry, you‘re better at doing that than at trying to shit talk Europe with elementary school student knowledge.
Was that supposed to be an insult?Curry is delicious and much better than whatever food you Germanics or as the Romans said "Barbarians" since the time of Rome have been able to create.
You might as well go back to genociding Jews since that's your greatest achievement.
Also by the way how's the Swastika and Aryan thing you stole from India doing?
I don't care much about how the rest of the world sees Europe. Because the rest of the world is neither Europe, nor as much democratic as Europe. I know what diplomacy is. I know exactly how much we depend and do what the US wants us to. It's not much. It's as much as any other country that depends in US (pretty much all of them).
Democracy is not the metric that should be used to measure countries. Saudi Arabia isn't Democratic at all but every single country kneels at their foot. Don't be a Seppo.
Not every country depends on the US. The US itself depends on other countries more. Without manufacturing and oil from other countries, the US economy will be in ruin in days. On the other hand, the US only cares about Europe to keep its old Cold War rival in check but has no reason to keep getting involved in the European Peninsula.
Do you think they are involved because of "Democracy"? Yeah, tell that to the tons of Democracies they ruined through CIA coups.
The US has a lot of oil, probably enough for self-sutainability. It does have interests in oil abroad but mostly from the private companies that lobby government, because that's capitalism for you - private companies have an influence in governance, rarely positive. But at least it's better than religion or nationalistic pride having an influence in government. At least the purpose is economic and not racial, cultural or delusional...
At the same time the US has enough manufacturing, or at least the potential to go back being the industrial powerhouse it was in the second half of last century.
There are 16T reasons why the US cares about the EU, and much more for the entirety of non-Russian Europe. But you keep following yourself.
The US has a lot of oil, probably enough for self-sutainability.
It hasn't, the only reason the US is a net fossil exporter right now is because of the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking which allows for the exploitation of shale oil deposits, aka the "shale revolution".
This has been going on since the 2010s, but it's not only doing immeasurable environmental damage, it's also the equivalent of scratching out the bottom of an empty barrel by pumping it full with chemicals.
Once those are through the US will be put in the very awkward situation of having to get on good terms with OPEC+, which in recent years has been steadily building closer ties with BRISCS and the SCO.
It's either that or the US needs to get itself direct access to one of those places where there are still sizeable proven reserves, all the way on top of that list are countries like Venezuela, Iran, Lybia, Syria, and even Ukraine plays a role in this.
You mean to tell me that the US government is allowing oil exports with less than 3 decades of reserves? That seems like a really bad energy policy. In case you are not following, I'm being sarcastic (although not to the detriment of this conversation, I really appreciate the discussion especially from someone citing sources and doing more than the average joe (not biden) like me here who just writes based on opinion and maybe also the odd misconception).
I don't really think this is the case. I think the US has their energy strategy laid out for the next 50 years and it will probably involve near 90% renewables (and whatever nuclear they manage without blowing up public opinion, because it's cheaper and actually profitable for investors and not just the population... It's how US works, it's gotta be profitable otherwise adoption takes a while). I think China is doing the same if that helps swallow that pill. And I don't think climate deniers really stand a chance against this strategy, not because of positivism but because of a pessimistic view on the macroeconomics and macropolitics of fossil fuels.
But it's perfectly in line with US economic policy and it's unrealistic demand for perpetual forever growth.
Because from the US perspective, the problem is not that they are using too much too fast, they argue the problem is that countries like Venezuela/Iran/and so on, are not exploiting their deposits fast enough.
That's also why they think the US should own these resources, as they would do such a better job of opening them up for the global economy.
Basically just the continuation of the Seven Sisters oil cartels and how they went about their business.
Case in point; What we nowadays know as British Petroleum aka BP, originally started out as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and was supposed to exploit the massive Iranian oil resources for the US&UK.
I think the US has their energy strategy laid out for the next 50 years and it will probably involve near 90% renewables (and whatever nuclear they manage without blowing up public opinion, because it's cheaper and actually profitable for investors and not just the population...
The US is very well aware that fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas, will remain supremely relevant for decades to come. Least of all because the US military will not run on purely electric for the foreseeable future, no military will.
There is also the much bigger dependence on fossil fuels, aka hydrocarbons, as manufacturing resources; https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf
Neither renewables nor nuclear solve anything about that, the only thing they can solve is electricity generation. But we can't make fertilizers or meds out of renewables or nuclear, we are using the hydrocarbons in oil/gas for a whole lot of that.
It's also why the EU has no sanctions on Russian fertilizers, of which Russia is the largest exporter on the planet.
It's how US works, it's gotta be profitable otherwise adoption takes a while
That's how most places work, it's not that special to the US. What's special with the US is the extreme short-sightedness with which such profit is often pursued.
I think China is doing the same if that helps swallow that pill.
China and the US couldn't be more opposite in their policy approaches if they tried, it's the peak extreme of long-term versus short-term.
While in the US it's celebrated that they finally get some PV going, after lagging behind for literally decades, and get their first one new reactor going in 40 years.
As it turns out; Nuclear power is actually quite unprofitable for electricity generation compared to PV/wind.
On the hydrocarbon side, China is situated quite favorably compared to the US.
BRISCS, SCO and OPEC+ have been cozying up hard in recent years. Particularly the SCO has been making huge progress by getting IranandSaudi Arabia in the same military/economic club.
It's something most people in the West never even heard about, but the SCO got started in the early 2000s as a response to the US going crusading all over the MENA region.
For many years it existed in mostly irrelevance a bit similar to BRISCS, but the conflict in Ukraine has turned that around massively. By now it's on a pretty predictable road to becoming a new economic and military power block willing, and probably capable, to compete with Western-backed US hegemony.
Not to mention we might also run out of nuclear resources themselves, at least self-mined, because Africa seems to be unfriending us at this stage like... Well Russia).
FYI; The EU also does not have any sanctions on Russian nuclear, too reliant.
The US has a lot of oil, probably enough for self-sutainability. It does have interests in oil abroad but mostly from the private companies that lobby government, because that's capitalism for you - private companies have an influence in governance, rarely positive. But at least it's better than religion or nationalistic pride having an influence in government. At least the purpose is economic and not racial, cultural or delusional...
At the same time the US has enough manufacturing, or at least the potential to go back being the industrial powerhouse it was in the second half of last century.
There are 16T reasons why the US cares about the EU, and much more for the entirety of non-Russian Europe. But you keep following yourself.
Wedge driving propaganda. The current world order is based off of Europe letting the US handle international security in exchange for them not colonizing/expanding. It's been that way for like 80 years and is now LESS like that than before, AND unlike Russia and China the US doesn't try to expand its borders, trade your resources and if you're a democracy and all that stuff you'll probably be fine and maybe even defended by the US. But the deal is we told them not use their weapons to take resources and we'll ensure everyone trades it instead.
Say that to the Democracies ruined by the US in South America.
Better yet, I'll tell you once instance where the US supported a military regime agaisnt a democratically elected PM and supported a genocide by said military regime in a little country called Bangladesh.
Didn't ask for that. The US world peace deal is to keep goods trading to prevent empires from rising, NOT to prop up democracies- which the US has a lukewarm preference for. If your democratically elected leader wants to create a monopoly on a scarce resource in his region he's going to have a bad time, but your country won't get absorbed by another country, you won't get colonized, and you won't get genocided; it's leadership will just change. Not a great world, but far better than the past and likely future alternatives. People aren't going to forget the technology that makes bad things possible and we haven't magically evolved since the bad old days.
The US world peace deal is to keep goods trading to prevent empires from rising NOT to prop up democracies- which the US has a lukewarm preference for.
What makes the "Empire of Liberty" allegedly so benevolent is exactly that "propping up of democracies", at least by its own definition.
Just like "preventing empires from rising" is not that benevolent thing you imply it to be, what the US is mostly preventing from rising is competition to its own empire.
I'm not saying the US is militarily supporting the formation of democracies around the world- though I think it's fair to say their soft power leans that way.
The US stopped Europeans from colonizing and creating new Empires by enforcing free trade on the world. The US isn't actually an empire, go ahead and tell me when the last time the greatest military power in the history of the world expanded its borders. The US is unnaturally good, China's sea claims and Russia's invasions of its neighbors is par for the course of human history as is nuclear proliferation which is unnaturally suppressed.
Not it's only this sub, I kind of see this going on pretty much everywhere it talks european politics.
I think Trump, really hurted US perception worldwide but mostly in Europe...
Overall this isn't much different then what is already said in french medias since the 60's, but it seems to have spread to other european nations.
It's not as much anti-americain than realising that the US gov shouldn't be followed blindly because EU and US interest are not always aligned, even if overall they usualy are.
There's a difference between "Against US Hedgemony" and "Rapid fire posts from users who spend their live posting Anti-US/West/NATO propaganda." This is a far cry from what this sub was before the mod hijacking.
Countdown until it spirals into a full circle jerk ala the Sino or NCD subreddits.
This is a far cry from what this sub was before the mod hijacking.
When was that "hijacking" supposed to be? During the blackout?
What exactly do you imagine to have changed since then? I've been here since day 1, and I didn't notice any changes since the blackout.
But you also seem to imagine "rapid fire anti-US propaganda" into anything that ain't unapologetically pro-US, so maybe it's just a problem with your personal perception.
I'm a single guy and this whole argument was yours to begin with, not mine.
You are complaining how allegedly everything here is "rapid fire anti-US propaganda", on a submission that has actually zero value judgment on the US.
To that end, you even invented a conspiracy theory about how this sub was allegedly taken over by some anti-US mod group.
Countdown until it spirals into a full circle jerk ala the Sino or NCD subreddits.
r/Sino is like it is because r/China is "occupied" by a bunch of Westerners cosplaying as Chinese people to such a degree that it's more the "China hate sub" than a sub about China.
Case in point; This is the most upvoted submission of all time over there.
If you can look at that and go; "Yup that's totally all Chinese people over there, they all hate their own leader and country and love posting nudes of their women in public" then you have a very special idea of what Chinese people are actually like.
Dude I've seen people here straight up advocate for the great replacement anything "Immigrant does X bad thing!" post comes up and they're not taken down. I've also seen great write ups on German and French politics as well as honest discussions about the war in Ukraine.
Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq, at least publicly, the government kinda had to because it had millions of Germans out in the streets protesting against that war.
But that didn't stop the German government from still helping the US with doing something that's a blatant violation of the German Grundgesetz and the UN charter; Wage an illegal war of aggression.
The support went so far that the German government even deployed the Bundeswehr to guard US bases, so the US could free up more of its own troops for the Iraq invasion.
It's why it can be speculated that Germany actually was among the coalition of the willing that helped invade Iraq, as that coalition also included;
Mr Powell said. "There are 15 other nations who for one reason or another do not yet wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition."
Yet for many years Germany let itself get chastized by the US for allegedly opposing the war when the German government did practically nothing like that. Not a single sanction was had, no overflight rights were denied, not a single punitive measure against the US.
This dynamic would repeat itself all over again only ~10 years later with Snowden blowing the whistle on the NSA mass surveillance, which also put a rather inconvenient spotlight on the BND's collaboration with the NSA/CIA because the BND is acting as the interface for the NSA to plug into DE-CIX, which for the longest time used to be the largest Internet Exchange Point on the planet.
But even after that global outrage; No sanctions, no Americans forced to leave the country, no change in anything, the whole thing was just burrowed and forgotten like it never even happened.
By now we are all the way back to "Bestest partners we always were!", at least the politicians and journalists who are members of the plentiful pro-US/NATO think tanks in Germany.
It's what even most Germans think to this day, this stark contrast between perception and reality is the direct result of living in the post-truth era as the new normal.
In the long term, super nations will be required not to be come a plaything of the big boys as we have seen after 1945. You had the choice between serving the USA, USSR or be free but out of the loop.
I’d rather see the EU united in one country rather than the splintering shit show we have now where suckers like orban and Duda take everyone else hostage with their bullshit.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
cambeiu@reddit
Huh?
It has been a de facto vassal since 1945 and clearly demonstrated to the entire world during the Suez Canal crisis, when the US in no uncertain terms ordered France and the UK to back down or else, which they did.
saschaleib@reddit
Indeed, if anything we are more independent now that what we were back then. Thanks also to Trump who showed everybody that the US might not always be a reliable partner.
LiquidDoorknob@reddit
Are you sure? Policy on Ukraine makes us look like stuck pigs. Our pipeline has been blown up & China driven away. BRICS are gonna eat our lunch (fair) in Africa, South America and Asia, and we are gonna have no recourse and Nephew Sam is headbutting cats to death that he's belted to a post while giving us funny looks
Banzer_Frang@reddit
Be real, you already ate Africa's lunch, BRICS (aka China and a bit of Russia) are going to sift through the pile of shit you left behind.
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yeah no. There's a difference between resource extraction in the 1800's and resource extraction today. Europe may have tapped into like 2% of Africa's natural resources despite being there for centuries and just straight up enslaving the place. Russia and China are offering the carrot well Europe only gave out the stick for centuries.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
Yeah no. China and Russia couldn't give two shits about Africa or Africans. Neither country wants any of them as immigrants, and they're only doing what they're doing for influences and resources.
They're not altruistic, otherwise they'd stop treating their citizens like children who need to be micromanaged and occasionally abused.
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yes they do. Well as far as to spread influence over them that is which tbf, is the position of just about every single country ever.
Yup. But they're doing it through money and not enslaving millions of people to work in a mine or they get their hands cut off.
No country ever is. Well no great power ever is.
Dude America straight up doesn't have health care and the most violent police force in the world lol
gramcounter@reddit
Slavery existed in Africa, perpetuated by both Africans but especially Arabs, before Europeans did this. However, europeans did specifically venture to end slavery in Africa, something which you will never admit. Please read about the Berlin Conference, for instance. One of the main goals of this conference was to "end slavery by African and Islamic powers".
NoStatistician9767@reddit
They don't.
lol "China isn't doing what Belgium did" doesn't mean China wants African immigrants. Like your argument is irrelevant.
If no country ever is altruistic, then obvuously China had something to gain by letting poor african nations borrow their money, which is clearly influence.
"America bad, so China and Russia not bad" is a shit argument
Banzer_Frang@reddit
Lol, "it's different this time, hoonnneeest."
ttylyl@reddit
I mean for now it is different. China is offering better loans than the west, that’s why African nations are taking them. Often 0%. If the us or eu want to compete they have to offer better loans
dedicated-pedestrian@reddit
Still, there's strings attached that aren't financial. Er, even if China is currently having a hell of a time enforcing their debt traps.
ttylyl@reddit
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/the-myth-of-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-in-africa
China isn’t debt trapping countries, they are literally offering better deals. If China is debt trapping countries, is the US double debt trapping them?
NoStatistician9767@reddit
"they're offering better deals by not having interest"
They're making the deal attractive, but they're knowingly giving loans to poor countries that earn tens of billions at most annually.
ttylyl@reddit
Homie the west gives these exact same loans. Massive loans. Only difference, China is offering 0% loans. So, african nations will take these loans. If the us and eu want to compete, they will have to offer competitive loans.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
Homie, 0% interest still means you pay the principal back. The loan recipient is a poor nation that doesn't make significant revenue.
Stop ignoring the fact that some of these nations can default, and when they do, there's typically an added cost that you'd now need to pay.
Again, it's not a grant
ttylyl@reddit
It’s not a grant it’s a zero percent loan. That is far better than what the west is offering.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
I'm done with you people. You have no concept of financial literacy.
YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK LOANS. No interest doesn't mean "risk free". You're still responsible for paying that principal back under some sort of penalty, hence it not being a grant, due to the necessity of paying it back.
Do you think these countries just don't pay china back?
You should take a look at their economies.
If anything happens to their economies, they cannot pay back some or the all of the loan, which leads to potential negative consequences.
To think China just gives loans out of the goodness of their hearts, and not to gain influence (whether diplomatic or financial) just reveals your naivety.
China doesn't earn anything due to lack of interest, but they still risk not getting that money back, and to pretend like China would just take the loss and there will be 0 changes is just sad.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
You do get that they'd have to pay back those loans, right?
Right?
ttylyl@reddit
That’s how a loan works yes.
If America wants African nations to take their loans instead of China, they will have to offer competitive loans.
00x0xx@reddit
Not really. The bulk of Africa's resources and potential are still untapped.
LiquidDoorknob@reddit
Of course! Why is our lunch even there?
stoned-doctor@reddit
Africa, Asia and South America - i.e. the continents where BRICS countries are located.
Aggrekomonster@reddit
If you don’t eat enough fibre, you too, could be shitting BRICS
LiquidDoorknob@reddit
You're a sharp lad :D
cambeiu@reddit
You will be more independent when you are able to independently defend yourself, which is not happening anytime soon.
No Western European youth want to go fight and die for Poland or the Baltic states if they get invaded. The US will have to do that, and everyone knows it.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
So independent states aren't independent unless they can hypothetically "defend themselves independently"?
Who came up with that criteria ?
Except you're simplifying the definition to be "if your country is influenced by another militarily", which is the whole damn NATO alliance.
You're setting up goalposts to just further your opinion, not stating the facts.
Poland is a sovereign state that makes their own decisions, have their own military, and full control over their legal territory beyond allowing nations to station troops, and embassies. Same with the baltic states.
Depending on one specific characteristic, one that ignores things like a military alliance with integration of forces (Which makes independence and spending as if you're not a part of a military alliance that can bring more value than you can afford) doesn't make a nation a vassal state.
Except these countries have the ability to reject their participation in doing so. You omit that deliberately and pretend "the US points guns at everyone's heads, and gets all that it wants"
MasterBeeble@reddit
Who came up with that criteria ?
Human history and common sense. Why do you think states can exist independently from each other in the first place? The EU can only exist so harmoniously because it has the US as a guarantor for its common interests (and now Russia as a common enemy).
All nation-states are fundamentally in natural conflict with one another over the world's limited resources. This is nature. This is how human civilization works, and has always worked. If your state cannot defend its stuff, then it will be taken by another state with the means to take it, since that state has an obligation to serve the interests of its constituents.
In all of human history, only a modern European could even be confused about this - because their governments have outsourced this conflict to the US. In exchange, the US gains proportional influence over European affairs. It's not a "gun to the head" situation, it's a "if you piss us off, you'll have start paying for your own militaries again to ensure your sovereignty."
Military alliances as you describe them also do not preclude unequal relationships. If nation A has a billion military power units and nation B has 10, and they enter an "alliance", that alliance does not distribute power (and therefore sovereignty) equally. Nation A gets to tell Nation B what to do so long as Nation B's proportional military contribution does not change. Again, this is a tradeoff for both: Nation B is less of a soverign nation, but it gets to 1 billion military units of money, whatever that's worth. Nation A gets some sovereignty over Nation B, but they have to pay for their huge army to maintain that relationship.
gramcounter@reddit
Because it is mutually beneficial for this to be the case.
You have not read one lick of history.
Incorrect.
Actually, this is objectively incorrect and proves you have never studied history. There are countless states in the past that have not been militarily able to defend themselves against a smaller neighbour in a 1:1 war but have nonetheless been able to exist for a long time. The main reason the west stopped colonization was because it turns out it is often more beneficial to trade. This is why liberalism has outdone facism and protectionist communism over the last century, in case you hasn't noticed.
But of course, for a person who has not studied history or economics it is very convenient to defer to "common sense".
IndeterminateYogurt@reddit
Yes, european armies actually exist. 1.3 million active soldiers and thousands of tanks and planes would curbstomp russia.
BS, theres western european units all over those countries as we speak. If they get attacked, we'll defend them.
FallenCrownz@reddit
They don't have thousands of tanks or thousands of planes. Not even close. Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK have less than 1200 combined and their air forces are, well they're not much better. They also have 1.3 million soldiers on paper, in reality they could probably deploy 1/3 of that at any given time.
I would say without any US help, it would be a pretty close fight with a slight advantage towards Europe but then again, having an army which speaks 8 different languages, drastically different doctrine and industrial capabilities is a lot harder to fight with than when everyone speaks one language.
JackBower69@reddit
You fail to take into account that the average European soldier doesn't have fetal alcohol syndrome.
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yeah, all Russian soldiers suck and can't stop the mighty west and their invincible super weapons like the Leo 2 tank or the Bradley's or the...storm shadows...or the Baykter drones........
JackBower69@reddit
Russia's not fighting the west, they're fighting their much smaller much poorer neighbour.
Small detail of course :)
FallenCrownz@reddit
Sure dude, they're just fighting the second largest European country with unlimited Western intelligence, who got mobilized 1.8 million men for them, got the third largest military budget handed over to them by the West, got so much ammo that the West is literally running out to give and have to dip into their strategic stock piles, have tens of thousands NATO volunteers, have gotten everything from Leo 2 tanks to Bradleys and Storm Shadows given to them and who oh yeah, have their entire economy subsidized by the West to keep them fighting Russia.
But sure bud, they're defiantly not fighting the West, they're only fighting Ukraine with a military budget higher than their GDP am I right?
JackBower69@reddit
Yeah because 1 year of aid totally matches up to decades of military spending plus soviet weapon stockpiles.
just lol
I guess since russia knows it can go toe to toe with the entire west surely they'll be making their move soon right? Soon we'll all be singing that r*tarded anthem
FallenCrownz@reddit
Wait, I thought the hundreds of Bradleys and Storm Shadows and NATO training coupled with 200 billion dollars would surely beat the stupid, out dated Soviet style of war!
You must be forgetting about a little thing called nukes.
JackBower69@reddit
By all means keep telling yourself that russia is going up against the entirety of the west's arsenal, I guess that makes their little quagmire a bit more palatable for you.
Kyiv in 3 millennia!
FallenCrownz@reddit
Dude, you take out the US from the "West" and Russia would be in Warsaw by now as Germany prepares their defenses. I love how people act like "the West" is some great power when in reality, it's pretty much the Lady America and Her Euro Gemstones lol
At the end of the day, none of this shit matters since Russia has enough nukes to destroy the world and so this America.
gramcounter@reddit
2 years later and you're more wrong than ever. You should man up and apologize for being a net drain on humanity.
JackBower69@reddit
3 days to ~~Kyiv~~ Warsaw comrades!!
https://imgur.com/orEWwZi
FallenCrownz@reddit
Damn, you people really only got the one joke huh? lol
NoStatistician9767@reddit
And yet... You ignore the fact that all of that is aid given to Ukraine, and not these nations directly fighting against Russia.
But keep playing stupid... Unless you're actually stupid enough to argue "russia rolled through Ukraine", while pretending like Russia hasn't been running out of shit as well.
Jesus, you're delusional
FallenCrownz@reddit
Damn, it's almost like it's a proxy war and direct war would lead to nukes.
Russia running out of shit since the second month of the war lol. Not like the US president didn't straight admit to running out of 155 mm shells to give. That totally didn't happen lol
Mean
NoStatistician9767@reddit
Damn, it's almost like your entire point is moot then. You're arguing to argue.
So When you say "NATO countries are running low on ammo for Ukraine" and i respond with "So does russia", your response is " Well so did America".
Do you even keep track of what you say? Or do you just say shit and not think about it?
Mr_McFeelie@reddit
Are you actually suggesting Europe would struggle against Russia in conventional warfare? I’d think Russia has shown how utterly incompetent its military apparatus is. There is no way in hell that Russia could seriously threaten a European army.
silverionmox@reddit
Not in the long term. But in the short term, the lack of US support leaves gaps that are a problem.
FallenCrownz@reddit
I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it as a matter of fact. What country has Europe fought that has gotten even 1/10 the support that Ukraine has gotten in the last half century? I'll wait.
I think it shows us that the Russian learn from their mistakes and like most of their modern wars, suck at the start, learn from their mistakes and then get their shit together to actually fight back.
With out the US, there isn't a single European nation who doesn't get rolled by Russia in like 2 months. Now if you put all of the EU together than that's a different ball game but 1 on 1? Russia rolls everybody. Except maybe Turkey who they would have a harder time with.
hypewhatever@reddit
How can one be so ignorant to widely available hard facts? Russia rolls not even 40 million pop Ukraine but would roll over all of Europe? A Clown if I ever saw one
FallenCrownz@reddit
Damn, it's almost like they're fighting a country with an army of 1.8 million and whose gotten about 200 billion dollars worth of finical and military support in a single year. Most of which has come from the States. No America, Ukraine get's rolled in a few months.
Must be looking at a mirror.
hypewhatever@reddit
And a random actually EU country would get less support? And no direct help from other EU countries? Okay Okay
FallenCrownz@reddit
Dude you take out America and it doesn't matter how much support an EU country get's, they're gonna get rolled in a few months right up until Russia reaches Poland.
hypewhatever@reddit
🤣 sorry couldn't help myself
Russia GDP 2 billion 160 million population 1.3 million active military personnel (2023)
EU GDP 14.5 billion 450 million population 1.9 million active military personnel (2019)
We could literally pay every single Russian soldier to switch sides. It's not even a contest.
And support every single of ours with 7 times the amount a Russian soldier gets.
Add some more advanced tech on top and being in the defensive position. Not even Putin would send his soldiers into this.
It's just something which is not going to happen. And even in theory absolutely important to win for Russia. Take your propaganda somewhere else.
Relevant-Low-7923@reddit
How many artillery shell reserves do European countries have?
hypewhatever@reddit
Enough to clear up what's left after long range missile and airforce strikes.
Europe is not as limited in its options as Ukraine. It would be a different war
Relevant-Low-7923@reddit
But many stealth fighters does Europe have to make it through anti-air systems?
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yeah. Russians speak one language, the EU speaks 20, have drastically different militaries, rarely use the same heavy equipment and have different battle doctrines.
Then why didn't Ukraine? They got 200 billion dollars and about 70 billion in cash. Why didn't they just pay the initial 200k soldiers that invaded like 50k each to switch sides? Oh that's not how that works and almost never has? Oh ok.
I don't think you get how militaries work bud.
If it was an all out war, than Russia would probably only get stopped by the time they reached Poland and Swiss/Alps.
It's not an impossible win for Russia, it's just a 70/30 split between who would win between Russia vs Europe.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
What European state needed and requested that much support in the last half century ?
I'll wait.
LOL Russia couldn't roll through Ukraine in 17 months, yet you think they can roll through other nations.
Imagine being in Summer 2023 and arguing "Russia rolls everyone 1v1" when they've been losing ground since April 2022.
FallenCrownz@reddit
France straight up asked America for more bombs because they ran out when bombing Libya lol
France lol
Mans must have ignored the 200 billion dollars, creating the logistical supply chain to equip, feed and recruit 1.8 million men, the tens of thousands of NATO volunteers fighting in Ukraine, the hundreds of tanks, IFV's, APC's, AA pieces and drones given to them for free, the unlimited intelligence they get or the fact that they were straight up getting prepared for 8 years by the West for this war lol.
But no dude, you're right, Ukraine is currently fighting Russia with 150% of their GDP lol
Not everyone. India will give em some trouble, America would straight up win, China has an 80% chance of winning but everyone else? Yeah they would roll. But go ahead, name me one other country with a military budget of over 200 billion dollars. I'll wait.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
The AMOUNT AND EFFORT OF MILITARY GOODS WE GAVE TO UKRAINE SO FAR?
Just adding back the context and point you purposefully omitted.
The AMOUNT AND EFFORT OF MILITARY GOODS WE GAVE TO UKRAINE SO FAR? LOL
Yet you're ignoring the fact that THEY ARE STILL IN A STALEMATE WITH UKRAINE, a nation that literally needed training to use our weapons. That is not the equivalent of a full scale war between NATO and Russia, and your attempt to pretend like it is makes you look foolish.
"Hurr Durr 2398% GDP military spending"
Like what's your point? No one is saying "If ukraine didn't have Western supplies, they'd defeat Russia." No one would agree with that. My point is, 1v1 doesn't mean "in a neutral situation". This is the real world. Alliances exist. Diplomacy exists. You think nations don't ask for help? You think Russia realistically would invade one NATO country at a time? We're not talking about hypothetical geostrategy sandbox games. This is the real world.
"Russia Rolls everyone 1v1"
"India will give em trouble" "America will straight up win" "china has an 80% chance in winning"
Thanks for contradicting yourself.
"Name me a country that has as much money as my arbitrary limit."
No need, since you're just going to jump around the fact that Russia cannot take on whoever they want without major risk of losing. Hence the rehashed justification of NATO's existence, which Sweden and Finland both understood.
silverionmox@reddit
That's true for any army. 1/3 on the battlefield, 1/3 to relieve and refresh those in action, 1/3 in training.
IndeterminateYogurt@reddit
Thankfully theres 22 other EU members, and most of those tanks are lightyears ahead from what the russians have. Same goes for jets.
The combined armies of the EU would kick Russia's tooth in in a matter of weeks. They're both quantitative and qualitative superior.
FallenCrownz@reddit
Dude all of them combined don't have as much tanks as Russia who remember, just lost 2000 of them. We've also seen the best EU tank go up against a well place mine field and artillery and spoiler alert, the mines and the artillery won.
That's just laughable take dude. With out the US, the EU would run out off missiles in like a month just like what happened when France bombed Libya. They straight up ran out of ammo in half a month and had to ask America for more. The qualitive take is also false because Russia has just spent the last year and half fighting an actual well trained and extremely well funded army well the last major war any European country took part in was against dudes with AK's and home made IEDs.
If you give it like a a few years for the European economies to invest more heavily into their military industry and be less reliant on the US than sure, they'll have a much easier time then but rn? It's a very slight advantage if even that.
IndeterminateYogurt@reddit
In 91 the ratver well equipped iraqi army got fucked by a western coalition half their size. Doubt the russians are better trained and equipped.
tryrunningfromheaven@reddit
How are the Russian army in 2023 less trained and equipped than the Iraqi army back then? That is an absurd take
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
You’ll do it because you have US backing which is the point of this post.
NoStatistician9767@reddit
Do you not understand what a military alliance is? It's not the US specifically, but all member nations being involved. That's the whole point.
If you think NATO is just the US controlling all the other states, then you have a simplistic and biased view.
They'll do it because that's the agreement in the treaty 31 nations signed...
Hodentrommler@reddit
NATO defence doctrine for EU in case of Russia attacking is literally "hold on until the US arrives"
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
Not a single European country has thousands of tanks and all their tanks combined barely break 1000, which is 1/3rd of what Russia had in active service. Russia has 4000 aircraft. The Uk has 900, Russia has 12k tanks, the UK has 200, as an example of how ridiculously outgunned Europe is without the USA.
IndeterminateYogurt@reddit
Thanks for pointing out that 1 of 27 EU countries has 1/4 of russias planes, at much higher quality, alone.
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
Much higher quality lol. According to the US the British military can't even defend its own borders.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365
Doubt their planes are even in working condition, most are probably cannibalized.
And we all know the abysmal, rotten state of the Bundeswehr lol, that leaves us with just France.
Unless you buy into reddits fetishization of Poland?
Europe ain't s'hit without the US.
why_i_bother@reddit
Yeah, EU can't defend it's borders, try it Russians wink wink
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
Not without the US.
why_i_bother@reddit
Prove it, you can't.
Sucks to be Eastoid, eh.
onespiker@reddit
The guy is a Somalian who emigrated to Sweden but hates the west. Loves dictators like Russia, iran, Syria and Chinese leaders.
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
I already did, not my fault you are illiterate.
why_i_bother@reddit
Yea, Russia would tide over EU in 3 days, lmao.
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
No you are right, Germany is going to stop them with their 30 functioning tanks lol.
AmputatorBot@reddit
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365
^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)
Mr_McFeelie@reddit
This is so stupid. The main reason why Europe relies on the us at all is nukes. And even considering those, France has plenty. There is no need for the USA to defend Europe with its military. Nuclear warfare makes that obsolete. If the USA would have worse relations with Europe, you can bet your anus that the European Union would have a way bigger stockpile of nuclear warheads.
If anything, the usa „defends“ Europe via economic relations. Sanctions are the way we do warfare between world powers, not military might.
silverionmox@reddit
No. Logistics. We even had to call in the USA to bomb Libya, and Libya couldn't even fight back.
MasterBeeble@reddit
Nuclear deterrent only matters insofar as countries behave rationally under the presumption of mutually assured destruction. In the event of a deranged aggressor such as Putin, many European countries are realizing it might be useful to have non-nuclear alternative defenses to military aggression. As a German, you are of course well aware that this is why your army is going to be rebuilt over the next decade.
Besides, Europe doesn't need nukes from America. Europe has nukes. What America has that Europe needs is the industry, infrastructure, logistics, and technology, upon which they have been largely dependent for the last eighty years.
Mr_McFeelie@reddit
I stand by what I said, the primary protective factor is americas economical strength. Europe and the USA combined have a lot of leverage on the world stage via sanctions. Yes, Europe does rely on the USA for other things aswell but these are not irreplaceable.
And yes, Germany and other European countries are increasing its military spending. But it’s not comparable to the spending of the USA. And I believe it’s primary use will be for proxy warfare and other operations in African / Middle Eastern areas just like the us military is primarily used. I don’t believe we will ever face conventional Warfare against another nuclear power. If we do, shit is so fucked that Europe will be a wasteland anyways
silverionmox@reddit
You're comparing apples and oranges. In general, nobody wants to die if they get the choice, and that is not different for people's attitude towards fighting for their national army. People of Poznan would rather not die either, and if you ask them if they would die for Lublin, most of them would say no too. But that hardly matters as military services doesn't mean 100% certain death, and people can and do assent to military service, much like they accept the risk to be killed in a traffic accident to go their job.
To boot, military conflicts are first and foremost fought by professional militaries, so at the point where an EU-wide draft needs to be instituted, the marauding army is large enough to be a threat to the entire EU. European NATO members already have 1,5 million professional soldiers who already considered mortal risk before their career choice, it's going to be WW3 before those need to be supplemented with fresh, unprepared recruits. And by then the urgency of the situation will be entirely clear for everyone, making opinions from 5 year ago completely outdated.
The people who like repeating this are actively contributing to making this a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. So stop being a demotivator until you have a better alternative.
By that reasoning the entire world is the EU's vassal, as most of the world adheres to EU standards for their production, to safeguard their export potential to the EU single market.
Jlocke98@reddit
There are even countries without an extradition treaty to America that still follow FACTA
TSMKFail@reddit
r/shitamericanssay
Joddodd@reddit
Remind me, what is the only country has invoked article 5 in NATOs history?
MaticTheProto@reddit
Sure buddy. You have no damn clue, just admit it
lifeisallihave@reddit
Why would you want the Call of Duty heroes to go fight anywhere on the planet?
NoStatistician9767@reddit
Having close allies doesn't make you a vassal...
You omit the fact that France and the UK worked covertly with Israel in that, and avoided getting the US involved because they knew there's be a disagreement. You also omit the fact that the US didn't want the soviets to supply or aid the Egyptians and potentially escalate the conflict, which was a genuine risk.
France and Britain made their own decisions in doing it. If they were really a vassal, I doubt they'd be able to make such a move without the US knowing until it's already happened.
Puerto Rico is a de facto vassal. The UK and France are sovereign nations that's been aligned with the US diplomatically since 1917 at the latest.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
If Puerto Rico is de facto anything then it's a de facto colony.
MaticTheProto@reddit
Lol
EdHake@reddit
France only obliged once Uk withdraw without warning or concertation... that being it lead to France getting the bomb and leaving NATO command.
But yeah with the exception of France, that is actively figthing that situation and made fun of for doing so, the rest of europe is just US lap dog.
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yeah and the Soviet's straight up threatened to Nuke Paris and London lol
Really was an "It's my time now old man" moment in history
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
They deserve it. For all the flaws of USA,this is one time they would be right from their outlook. With China becoming the dominant competitor the US will shift more forces to Pacific and the EU should be able to defend themselves.
I mean seriously if you need US to defend you against Russia which was economically crippled and will now be militarily crippled for the next few years or even a decade after the war ends,you might as well let the US control your military and budget for it to be more effective.
I mean it's pretty easy to see the hypocrisy in Europeans mocking the US for their military budget and then needing help against someone like Russia. If it was only the EU sending aid and intel I wouldn't be surprised if half of Ukraine was already gone by the first few months.
Ok_Database4367@reddit
You do realise that Ukraine is not EU, and that not all Europe even agrees giving military aid to Ukraine?
RevolutionarySoil11@reddit
Putin has already outright threatened Poland and other EU countries. Let's not pretend like Russia wouldn't invade once again if they saw no resistance. Ukraine is defending the freedom of the EU as well, European politicians understand this.
010423@reddit
Odd days russia can't defeat Ukraine.
Even days russia will invade eastern Europe.
Russia won't be doing any more such shit, it has no capacity to be able to attack a nato nation. Plus it is going through a serious demographic collapse, this was last opportunity for them to do something. Chinese have literally started illegaly infiltrating far East russia for even takeover in next what 50-60 years.
Artur_Mills@reddit
Source?
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
Yes and what did I state that makes you think otherwise?
Not all=Austria,Hungary and some city states who don't have military equipment themselves lmao
The 2 main heavyweights which are France and Germany along with UK who's a major non EU but still European country are all sending heavy aid.
Nations sending military aid to Ukraine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=DKK%207%20billion%20(%E2%82%AC940,purchase%20of%20non%2Dlethal%20equipment.
EU nations: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_main_map.svg
Literally just 2 countries and maybe some city states which are irrelevant and depend on EU aid themselves. Even if it was more still wouldn't matter when there's a united EU fund for military aid to Ukraine
FallenCrownz@reddit
I think you're severely underestimating what Russia is and is doing compared to say what America did in the Middle East. It's a lot harder to fight a country which has drafted 1.8 million people, has shifted their economy completely towards the war effort, has gotten 200 billion dollars, unlimited intelligence and thousands of pieces of heavy equipment when compared to a starved out Iraq or the Taliban.
They're economy has shown to be extremely resilient since they're selling oil and not hand bags and they now have the only army in the world whose actually fought a modern war against a Western backed nation. They're not "crippled" economically or militarily.
Dude the US army sucks. Like really badly. They never pass an audit, billions of dollars just go "missing" every single year, they're 1/3 in their last 4 wars against faaar weaker enemies, they have no idea how to control a population outside of Israeli style occupation and they're puppet states fall apart as soon as they leave because shocker, throwing money at attracts the most corrupt people out there to take as much of your money as possible before leaving.
The US lost their last 3 wars, abandoned Afghanistan after forcing them to release 5,000 Taliban veterans and their army got a 50 billion dollar raise. As half their population would go broke if they had a broken arm. That's pretty mockable and right fully so. And to be clear, if they all put their strength together, they would give Russia an extremely hard time but why do that when they could just have the dumbass with more guns than brains do the fighting instead?
Yeah, instead it's all of Europe and America sending aid and Ukraine can't break through the first line of Russian defense's after 2 months of trying.
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
US army might suck or whatever but the US military doesn't. Their largest strength has always been their Navy and airforce which they use to bomb countries into submission (which includes civilians of course).
I don't know about this one. They lost Vietnam and Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure Iraq was literally the definition of how to win a war.
I mean Russia still has a strong military. Just not to the extent that we thought.
I doubt any other European country with the exception of Poland and not including F35s could win conventionally against Russia 1v1.
Not to mention while Russia has exhausted a lot of its armour it isn't really putting the same effort as Ukraine into the war because it may destabilize the country and ruin the economy since they don't get foreign aid as much and maybe even ignite civil wars in some parts.
Ukraine current outnumbers Russia in personnels by like 3 times if I'm not wrong.
If Russia enters partial or full mobilisation and war economy then we may see.
FallenCrownz@reddit
"US army might suck or whatever but the US military doesn't. Their largest strength has always been their Navy and airforce which they use to bomb countries into submission (which includes civilians of course)."
Sure but you suggested that the US military take over the EU's military budgets. The same US military who couldn't pass an audit to save their lives and where billions of dollars just "disappears" into nothing.
"I don't know about this one. They lost Vietnam and Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure Iraq was literally the definition of how to win a war."
Vietnam they lost, Iraq 1 they won, Afghanistan they lost and Iraq 2 they lost since Iraq is now an Iranian puppet state in all but name. So that's 1 in 3 out of their last 4. And all it cost was 12 trillion dollars lol
Russia didn't Iraq Ukraine because Ukraine was getting ready for 8 years and Russia thought they would be hailed as liberators. They then got a metric shit ton of support, mobilized 1.8 million people and Russia finally realized they were in an actual war and not an "Special Military Operation" or whatever they called it. No other country in Europe could beat Ukraine with the amount of support it's getting.
Dude, I have no idea why people here like to act like Poland is some strong country. They're not, they're just dumb enough to spend a metric shit ton of money on equipment they can't afford to field for more than a week. Like look at their GDP and then look at how much it costs to run an f35 or costs to fire off a Patriot missile system. The only countries who could run something like that are ones that have more money than god like the Saudis, the US, Japan or Germany. Everywhere else would be better off sticking to artillery.
That's all true. Although we don't know exactly the number of causalities that Ukraine has so it could range from 2 to 3 times the amount of soldiers Russia has.
AncientBanjo31@reddit
Russia couldn’t Iraq Ukraine bc it lacked the most basic piece of intelligence of their literal closest neighbor. Quite the line.
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
Yes because while the US wastes a lot of money it's nothing compared to the UK and Germany.
I mean the UK has a $60 billion budget,what do they have to show for it?France is the only one that actually has something to show.
That's not how it works. They invaded to get rid of Saddam.
Using that logic the US won the Vietnam war since now Vietnam is anti China and the general public is more pro US.
Because they're the only one that have something to show for what they spend.
And after their orders from South Korea arrive they absolutely will be the strongest army in EU.
$800 billion GDP isn't that small for their population.
Which is what they're doing. They only have like 32 F35 on orders with a very small airforce. Meanwhile they've ordered thousands of tanks and Howitzers+Artillery.
They know they can't compare to Russian airforce hence they're going the Soviet tactic of air defense. If some ancient S300 can force Russian airforce to limit themselves in Ukraine then modern Patriots can do a much better job(although they're still worse than S400 I'd say).
Their defense budget is only 4% of their economy. They have $166 billion in reserves and they get a ton of aid every year. They received £90 billion from EU funds just in 2014-2021.
So you're highly underestimating Poland although I agree some people act like Poland could've pushed Russia back to Moscow or something.
FallenCrownz@reddit
The UK has a smaller defense budget because they pretty much use the military as a jobs program and know where every penny is going. The US created such a massive monster that the only thing both sides could agree on is how much hundreds of billions of dollars to give it. Billions of which just disappear. That wouldn't be allowed in any EU country. Not to mention that the US has a tendancy to go waaaay over budget on their military projects, unlike the UK and France.
The goal wasn't to just overthrow Saddam, it was to overthrow Saddam and create a stable US puppet state well losing as little as possible. 20 years laters, a few trillion down the drain, thousands of dead US soldiers as well as tens of thousands more injured or suffering from severe PTSD and you turn Iraq into an Iranian puppet state after getting rid of the biggest anti Iranian guy in the region. That's a pretty big L any way you look at it.
What? They don't have anything to show for what they spent except for a few some expensive gear that became over sized paper weights as soon as they run out of missiles or they break down because the up keep alone costs them a metric shit ton of money.
800 billion for 45 million people is solid, the problem is that most of their budget is already allocated for the people. They can't afford to spend a few billion dollars to run a single patriot system or the billions dollars to run their dozens of f35s for for more than a week. Russia will just spam Lancet or Shahed drones at them until they run out of missiles and then line up their artillery and destroy anything that moves.
The problem is that they keep buying expensive gear from everyone else instead of investing in their own military industry. Like let's say they get a 1000 howitzers, artillery pieces and tanks. How many shells do you think they make to fire those things at? I'll tell you, they make about 30 to 40k a year. That's what Russia fires in like 2 days. Even a 166 billion dollars would only last them a single year of total war against Russia.
Poland is strong because it's in the EU and NATO, it's not strong in it self like say Turkey or Germany or Korea is. They won't be until they make their own gear and streamline the process.
36293736391926363@reddit
Minor criticism, the US failed to achieve its objectives in most of the wars you've mentioned but in general (discounting Vietnam as its own thing and frankly ancient) these were failures to achieve diplomatic goals not military goals. The US military didn't withdraw from the recent wars due to a lack of ability/material or because it was forced out. Nor was it the one who first advanced the invasions politically as good/priority ideas. These were diplomatic failures rather than military ones. Sure it's not wrong to say the military still failed to achieve the goals set out for it but that seems like a shallow argument for appraising their effectiveness when the goals were generally impossible as proposed and the military even within the assigned problem space was still arguably successful at the tasks it was given that were actually military tasks.
FallenCrownz@reddit
No they were most defiantly military failures. The militaries job was to subdue the insurgents, the Taliban and the North Vietnamese by destroying any one of their potential bases of operations and soldiers. Instead, they just created more Vietkong, Taliban and insurgents until they controlled basically nothing outside of a like a few major cities.
Diplomacy was/is a part of war and if the military said "look, it's like playing whack-a-mole with these fuckers, the people hate us, our government here is corrupt af and we have no chance of winning since we don't if Billy Buttfuck is just a farmer or an insurgent. Let's just make a deal, cut our losses and go home." the US government would have made a deal a long time ago. Hell the Taliban literally offered conditional surrenders like 10 times, only for the US to respond by bombing their leaders and strengthening their resolve.
It's like winning a basketball game for every quarter and in the last minute, when you sub out your starters, the other team comes back and scores 10 for the win. You still lost that game.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
You are about a decade too late with that "prediction".
What do you think NATO is?
It puts sovereign countries' militaries under a command and logistics infrastructure that's modeled after the American one, and dominated by American leadership, all the way up to dictating to treaty members the size of their military budgets.
Can you actually show where the EU called for "American help" on Russia instead of just casually declaring it a thing?
It was first and foremost the US that pushed for sanctions and involvement in the conflict, to that end it even pressured countries like India.
Just like it was American officials who helped throw Ukraine into civil war in the first place, while the EU and Russia were trying to avert exactly that.
It's what "Fucking the EU" looks like in practice.
Gitmfap@reddit
Blaming the world stabilizing presence is a hoot. Watch what happens to your shipping lanes, territorial integrity, and paramilitary coups without the threat of Americas big stick.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Saying this to an Indian person is an absolutely bonkers thing to say.
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
And you think the average European knows that?
They see it as Russian invasion for territory while the politicians don't really care.
Most of the EU clearly didn't care enough specially the Eastern European one's specially when they have been training Ukrainian troops for quite awhile meaning they knew what was coming.
You might feel like it's unfair but you're in the minority with the view point,for the average European and their choice of politicians,they pretty much got what they asked for with their incompetence to make a decision. Specially Germany in particular who had 7 years to make a decision but instead closed down nuclear reactors to shoot itself in the foot.
snowylion@reddit
It's interesting how Modern Europeans are starting to think like 18th century Asians regarding geopolitics. Ossified, Inward, self obsessed.
It tends to not turn out well.
Individual-Focus-542@reddit
The merkel administration was shockingly reactionary those couple of times for its regular policy seemingly being pragmatic and emotionless.
On a whim, Merkel pushed mass acceptance of refugees and closure of the nuclear Program while being head of the conservatives. Both points that were completely against everything her party stood for.
The current collation seems like a direct continuation, as they are supposedly more left but enact mostly right wing shaped reforms and laws or left wing reforms that are so watered down, they feel like „hey Wendi’s something, look“ but everyone with a brain knows that it’s nothing.
Something that bothers me though is that people seem to run into the arms of the far right wing Nationalists for things to change to the better when all they will do is fuck Germany in the ass like ukip fucked the UK with Brexit, except they want to leave nato, leave EU, leave Euro zone.
Completely isolate Germany, essentially make it a puppet of another nation such as Russia or China (AfD leader is fluent in Chinese.
MaticTheProto@reddit
Dear mr. Curry eater, you have no clue what you are talking about
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
Dear SS offspring,if you have nothing to contribute go back to your chamber
MaticTheProto@reddit
Says the moron who knows f all about Europe. Europe can defend itself. France and England possess nuclear weapons. Germany, France and Sweden are playing a major role in the export market for military hardware. European soldiers are trained very well.
We don’t need the USA to defend us. You stupid clown think Ukraine is part of Nato? Europe isn’t under attack, Ukraine is.
Plus the US military is very inefficient and ineffective.
We also never asked them for help, Ukraine did.
Just shut up since you are evidently completely uninformed or relying on some shitty Russian propaganda
supermatt234@reddit
That reeks of insecurity towards the greatest USA
MaticTheProto@reddit
How so? Everything which I stated is true. Why is everyone here some russia humping loser
supermatt234@reddit
I don't think russis is really strong. I just think USA is wildly more powerful and stronger than EU to force it do what it wants.
MaticTheProto@reddit
What’s your point there? Sorry for not invading countries under false claims anymore ig?
Sorry for not needlessly increasing military spending since the cold war?
supermatt234@reddit
Tell me why isn't germany isn't going against US sanctions to get cheaper energy? Instead your country have to buy Russian oil through India
MaticTheProto@reddit
What exactly are you suggesting here? I don’t see how US sanctions are relevant there.
supermatt234@reddit
I would say if germany were a totally independent power, it could buy russian oil at a huge russian loss like china does.
MaticTheProto@reddit
That… would literally go against anyones interest and would completely disregard current eu- russian relations.
We aren’t China and aren’t trying to act as some pseudo ally of russia
supermatt234@reddit
So, you are telling germany is beholden to both EU and US and not totally powerful by itself?
MaticTheProto@reddit
Germany, by design, is beholden as much to the eu as any other eu member
supermatt234@reddit
Exactly as powerful as hungary
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
And you think they're gonna use it to save Eastern Europe against Russia?
As a German you'll probably have first hand experience what happened the last time.
Major role means nothing. The most advanced equipment in the hands of European nations is the F35. Your FCAS is not coming till 2040 and by then the US will have NGAD.
And you think Russia would've only attacked Ukraine?They would've rolled over the Baltic States and then went into the rest of Eastern Europe.
Is that why France needed the US help against a tiny military like that of Libya?In comparison the US decimated Iraq which was the 5th largest army although utterly corrupt.
I bet you would've had Russia rolled over inside Eastern Europe.
Russian propoganda is defending their greatest adversary's position apparently.
Don't forget it's because of the US that your country wasn't raped and labour camped into assimilation by the Soviet union and the rest of Eastern Europe albeit for their own gain.
MaticTheProto@reddit
Your whole worthless opinion is based on your fantasy land where Russia would invade nato countries. They wouldn’t dare.
And we don’t have any defensive alliance with Ukraine, so all aid is optional. We aren’t delusional to the point where we think we must act as the world police at all costs. We make no such claims and have no such obligations.
Plus the Raffale can compete with the f35. German vehicles regularly beat their American counterparts in competitions. The Abrams uses a German gun. And why do we need a stealth jet when no potential invader has stealth tech? Why should we rush the development of stealth tech when we don’t plan on invading someone?
About Frances colonial affairs: no clue, don’t care. It’s their affair not Europes.
But America merely destabilized the middle east, fucked off and all their achievements were promptly nullified. Same as with Vietnam. And even NK was no US victory.
Plus it’s funny how you fcking loser need to go back to ww2 (while demonstrating no knowledge of the details there) to somehow try to „own“ me.
Snort some more curry, you‘re better at doing that than at trying to shit talk Europe with elementary school student knowledge.
Also how‘s the Indian leopard 2 clone doing? Is it operational by now?
RavenTheOmniscient@reddit
If you don't know what you're talking about why open your mouth at all?
Did any of the US adversary had stealth tech?You don't create weapons to be equivalent to your enemies,you create it to have an advantage.
And your opinion is based on that they won't when that has been their goal since the times of the Soviets. Maybe not western Europe but Eastern Europe has always been Russia's backyard until the formation of NATO.
And NATO is 90% USA. Don't kid yourself, everything from the bombers to the most potent equipment and air defence is American.
I don't think anybody is looking to clone Leopards when they're getting wrecked by $30,000 drones. 30-40 already lost in Ukraine pretty hilarious.
Was that supposed to be an insult?Curry is delicious and much better than whatever food you Germanics or as the Romans said "Barbarians" since the time of Rome have been able to create.
You might as well go back to genociding Jews since that's your greatest achievement.
Also by the way how's the Swastika and Aryan thing you stole from India doing?
MaticTheProto@reddit
Okay now you’re just talking out of your ass entirely
cloud_t@reddit
Not a vassal. An ally. The UK might indeed becoming more dependant on US now that it has steered away from EU.
x-XAR-x@reddit
Nope. Maybe you don't see it as an European but the rest of the world sees you as such.
You can't see your own face but others can and that face is plastered with the USian flag.
cloud_t@reddit
I don't care much about how the rest of the world sees Europe. Because the rest of the world is neither Europe, nor as much democratic as Europe. I know what diplomacy is. I know exactly how much we depend and do what the US wants us to. It's not much. It's as much as any other country that depends in US (pretty much all of them).
x-XAR-x@reddit
Democracy is not the metric that should be used to measure countries. Saudi Arabia isn't Democratic at all but every single country kneels at their foot. Don't be a Seppo.
Not every country depends on the US. The US itself depends on other countries more. Without manufacturing and oil from other countries, the US economy will be in ruin in days. On the other hand, the US only cares about Europe to keep its old Cold War rival in check but has no reason to keep getting involved in the European Peninsula.
Do you think they are involved because of "Democracy"? Yeah, tell that to the tons of Democracies they ruined through CIA coups.
cloud_t@reddit
It should be. It may not be for you.
Dafuq is a Seppo?
The US has a lot of oil, probably enough for self-sutainability. It does have interests in oil abroad but mostly from the private companies that lobby government, because that's capitalism for you - private companies have an influence in governance, rarely positive. But at least it's better than religion or nationalistic pride having an influence in government. At least the purpose is economic and not racial, cultural or delusional...
At the same time the US has enough manufacturing, or at least the potential to go back being the industrial powerhouse it was in the second half of last century.
There are 16T reasons why the US cares about the EU, and much more for the entirety of non-Russian Europe. But you keep following yourself.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
It hasn't, the only reason the US is a net fossil exporter right now is because of the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking which allows for the exploitation of shale oil deposits, aka the "shale revolution".
This has been going on since the 2010s, but it's not only doing immeasurable environmental damage, it's also the equivalent of scratching out the bottom of an empty barrel by pumping it full with chemicals.
And the barrel is empty, proven US oil reserves have only 11 years of production in reserve, with natural gas it's 13.5 years.
Once those are through the US will be put in the very awkward situation of having to get on good terms with OPEC+, which in recent years has been steadily building closer ties with BRISCS and the SCO.
It's either that or the US needs to get itself direct access to one of those places where there are still sizeable proven reserves, all the way on top of that list are countries like Venezuela, Iran, Lybia, Syria, and even Ukraine plays a role in this.
cloud_t@reddit
You mean to tell me that the US government is allowing oil exports with less than 3 decades of reserves? That seems like a really bad energy policy. In case you are not following, I'm being sarcastic (although not to the detriment of this conversation, I really appreciate the discussion especially from someone citing sources and doing more than the average joe (not biden) like me here who just writes based on opinion and maybe also the odd misconception).
I don't really think this is the case. I think the US has their energy strategy laid out for the next 50 years and it will probably involve near 90% renewables (and whatever nuclear they manage without blowing up public opinion, because it's cheaper and actually profitable for investors and not just the population... It's how US works, it's gotta be profitable otherwise adoption takes a while). I think China is doing the same if that helps swallow that pill. And I don't think climate deniers really stand a chance against this strategy, not because of positivism but because of a pessimistic view on the macroeconomics and macropolitics of fossil fuels.
x-XAR-x@reddit
Lolllll.... No body believes in your USian Exceptionalism or as the whole world calls it - USian stupidly.
cloud_t@reddit
Are you following me? lol fucking troll farms...
x-XAR-x@reddit
Sure, believe in that without critical thinking and go back to r/worlds
Check my profile, Westerner!
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
But it's perfectly in line with US economic policy and it's unrealistic demand for perpetual forever growth.
Because from the US perspective, the problem is not that they are using too much too fast, they argue the problem is that countries like Venezuela/Iran/and so on, are not exploiting their deposits fast enough.
That's also why they think the US should own these resources, as they would do such a better job of opening them up for the global economy.
Basically just the continuation of the Seven Sisters oil cartels and how they went about their business.
Case in point; What we nowadays know as British Petroleum aka BP, originally started out as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and was supposed to exploit the massive Iranian oil resources for the US&UK.
The US is very well aware that fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas, will remain supremely relevant for decades to come. Least of all because the US military will not run on purely electric for the foreseeable future, no military will.
There is also the much bigger dependence on fossil fuels, aka hydrocarbons, as manufacturing resources; https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf
Neither renewables nor nuclear solve anything about that, the only thing they can solve is electricity generation. But we can't make fertilizers or meds out of renewables or nuclear, we are using the hydrocarbons in oil/gas for a whole lot of that.
It's also why the EU has no sanctions on Russian fertilizers, of which Russia is the largest exporter on the planet.
That's how most places work, it's not that special to the US. What's special with the US is the extreme short-sightedness with which such profit is often pursued.
China and the US couldn't be more opposite in their policy approaches if they tried, it's the peak extreme of long-term versus short-term.
It's why China is already building dozens of new nuclear reactors, even experimental thorium designs, leading the global charge in nuclear power production.
While in the US it's celebrated that they finally get some PV going, after lagging behind for literally decades, and get their first one new reactor going in 40 years.
As it turns out; Nuclear power is actually quite unprofitable for electricity generation compared to PV/wind.
On the hydrocarbon side, China is situated quite favorably compared to the US.
BRISCS, SCO and OPEC+ have been cozying up hard in recent years. Particularly the SCO has been making huge progress by getting Iran and Saudi Arabia in the same military/economic club.
It's something most people in the West never even heard about, but the SCO got started in the early 2000s as a response to the US going crusading all over the MENA region.
For many years it existed in mostly irrelevance a bit similar to BRISCS, but the conflict in Ukraine has turned that around massively. By now it's on a pretty predictable road to becoming a new economic and military power block willing, and probably capable, to compete with Western-backed US hegemony.
FYI; The EU also does not have any sanctions on Russian nuclear, too reliant.
Yes, even France is reliant on Russia for that, where do you think they get rid of all their nuclear waste?
cloud_t@reddit
It should be. It may not be for you.
Dafuq is a Seppo?
The US has a lot of oil, probably enough for self-sutainability. It does have interests in oil abroad but mostly from the private companies that lobby government, because that's capitalism for you - private companies have an influence in governance, rarely positive. But at least it's better than religion or nationalistic pride having an influence in government. At least the purpose is economic and not racial, cultural or delusional...
At the same time the US has enough manufacturing, or at least the potential to go back being the industrial powerhouse it was in the second half of last century.
There are 16T reasons why the US cares about the EU, and much more for the entirety of non-Russian Europe. But you keep following yourself.
x-XAR-x@reddit
Ok, USian..
x-XAR-x@reddit
Ohh.. So butthurt
destroyersaiyan@reddit
Wasn't it for a long time?
TheDelig@reddit
Oh how the turn tables
Ronaldo_Frumpalini@reddit
Wedge driving propaganda. The current world order is based off of Europe letting the US handle international security in exchange for them not colonizing/expanding. It's been that way for like 80 years and is now LESS like that than before, AND unlike Russia and China the US doesn't try to expand its borders, trade your resources and if you're a democracy and all that stuff you'll probably be fine and maybe even defended by the US. But the deal is we told them not use their weapons to take resources and we'll ensure everyone trades it instead.
x-XAR-x@reddit
Say that to the Democracies ruined by the US in South America.
Better yet, I'll tell you once instance where the US supported a military regime agaisnt a democratically elected PM and supported a genocide by said military regime in a little country called Bangladesh.
Ronaldo_Frumpalini@reddit
Didn't ask for that. The US world peace deal is to keep goods trading to prevent empires from rising, NOT to prop up democracies- which the US has a lukewarm preference for. If your democratically elected leader wants to create a monopoly on a scarce resource in his region he's going to have a bad time, but your country won't get absorbed by another country, you won't get colonized, and you won't get genocided; it's leadership will just change. Not a great world, but far better than the past and likely future alternatives. People aren't going to forget the technology that makes bad things possible and we haven't magically evolved since the bad old days.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
What makes the "Empire of Liberty" allegedly so benevolent is exactly that "propping up of democracies", at least by its own definition.
Just like "preventing empires from rising" is not that benevolent thing you imply it to be, what the US is mostly preventing from rising is competition to its own empire.
Ronaldo_Frumpalini@reddit
I'm not saying the US is militarily supporting the formation of democracies around the world- though I think it's fair to say their soft power leans that way.
The US stopped Europeans from colonizing and creating new Empires by enforcing free trade on the world. The US isn't actually an empire, go ahead and tell me when the last time the greatest military power in the history of the world expanded its borders. The US is unnaturally good, China's sea claims and Russia's invasions of its neighbors is par for the course of human history as is nuclear proliferation which is unnaturally suppressed.
Brustty@reddit
Man, this is just the anti US propaganda sub these days.
EdHake@reddit
Not it's only this sub, I kind of see this going on pretty much everywhere it talks european politics.
I think Trump, really hurted US perception worldwide but mostly in Europe...
Overall this isn't much different then what is already said in french medias since the 60's, but it seems to have spread to other european nations.
It's not as much anti-americain than realising that the US gov shouldn't be followed blindly because EU and US interest are not always aligned, even if overall they usualy are.
Brustty@reddit
There's a difference between "Against US Hedgemony" and "Rapid fire posts from users who spend their live posting Anti-US/West/NATO propaganda." This is a far cry from what this sub was before the mod hijacking.
Countdown until it spirals into a full circle jerk ala the Sino or NCD subreddits.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
When was that "hijacking" supposed to be? During the blackout?
What exactly do you imagine to have changed since then? I've been here since day 1, and I didn't notice any changes since the blackout.
But you also seem to imagine "rapid fire anti-US propaganda" into anything that ain't unapologetically pro-US, so maybe it's just a problem with your personal perception.
Brustty@reddit
You guys need to get a better argument than building up some strawman argument about me being vehemently pro-US.
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
I'm a single guy and this whole argument was yours to begin with, not mine.
You are complaining how allegedly everything here is "rapid fire anti-US propaganda", on a submission that has actually zero value judgment on the US.
To that end, you even invented a conspiracy theory about how this sub was allegedly taken over by some anti-US mod group.
r/Sino is like it is because r/China is "occupied" by a bunch of Westerners cosplaying as Chinese people to such a degree that it's more the "China hate sub" than a sub about China.
Case in point; This is the most upvoted submission of all time over there.
The second most upvoted is an NSFW submission with nudes from Chinese girls, a little bit of that good old yellow fever for Anglo Redditors.
If you can look at that and go; "Yup that's totally all Chinese people over there, they all hate their own leader and country and love posting nudes of their women in public" then you have a very special idea of what Chinese people are actually like.
Brustty@reddit
What's up with you unhinged rant about the China subreddit? Lol. You don't like your sub so West bad.
sneakpeekbot@reddit
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Sino using the top posts of the year!
#1: Democracy logic: | 63 comments
#2: Bullseye | 58 comments
#3: How China help Africa vs. how America help Africa | 80 comments
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub
FallenCrownz@reddit
Dude I've seen people here straight up advocate for the great replacement anything "Immigrant does X bad thing!" post comes up and they're not taken down. I've also seen great write ups on German and French politics as well as honest discussions about the war in Ukraine.
You take the good the with the bad.
Brustty@reddit
Saying the Great Replacement is being discussed isn't a credit to the subreddit.
ev_forklift@reddit
That's pretty much all of Reddit at this point
FallenCrownz@reddit
Yeah, how dare people call out the US for...
*points around at everything*
yeaaaah
Brustty@reddit
Weak strawman
onespiker@reddit
He is someone pushing said strawman so its to be expected.
MomDoesntGetMe@reddit
Seriously, it’s exhausting.
lankypiano@reddit
"Becoming"
Became, after WWII.
ev_forklift@reddit
But even then, we chose to rebuild them instead of completely dominating them like we could have
x-XAR-x@reddit
That was to stop the people from turning Communist, not out of USian goodwill.
ev_forklift@reddit
two things can be true at once, and it doesn't change what I said
Ziz23@reddit
Would be better to strengthen our grip now than wait for things to devolve into a 3rd war they drag us into.
MaticTheProto@reddit
Who is this „our“?
MasterBeeble@reddit
Is this "our" in the room with us right now? Is it you and me?
x-XAR-x@reddit
Our?
Are you talking as Mexican, Laotian, Mongolian or Azerbaijani, Ethiopian??
I don't understand who you're identifying with when you say "our".
claytonianprime@reddit
Was this think tank funded by enemies of a strong west?
x-XAR-x@reddit
People I don't like are x
MaticTheProto@reddit
So from what I‘m gathering here, most of the commenters hate Europe, never watch the news and snort glue on a daily basis.
Europe isn’t a US vassal. No more then the USA are a Chinese Vassal
supermatt234@reddit
Give a recent example of Germany going against US intrests
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq, at least publicly, the government kinda had to because it had millions of Germans out in the streets protesting against that war.
But that didn't stop the German government from still helping the US with doing something that's a blatant violation of the German Grundgesetz and the UN charter; Wage an illegal war of aggression.
BND agents led the charge in Iraq itself, while in Germany authorities were using force to clear out German protesters that were trying to block US bases.
The support went so far that the German government even deployed the Bundeswehr to guard US bases, so the US could free up more of its own troops for the Iraq invasion.
It's why it can be speculated that Germany actually was among the coalition of the willing that helped invade Iraq, as that coalition also included;
Yet for many years Germany let itself get chastized by the US for allegedly opposing the war when the German government did practically nothing like that. Not a single sanction was had, no overflight rights were denied, not a single punitive measure against the US.
This dynamic would repeat itself all over again only ~10 years later with Snowden blowing the whistle on the NSA mass surveillance, which also put a rather inconvenient spotlight on the BND's collaboration with the NSA/CIA because the BND is acting as the interface for the NSA to plug into DE-CIX, which for the longest time used to be the largest Internet Exchange Point on the planet.
It came out that the US was listening in even on the chancellor's personal phone, and then it came out how that's actually totally legal for the US to do so because the US gave itself that right in Germany, and many other countries, already a while ago.
But even after that global outrage; No sanctions, no Americans forced to leave the country, no change in anything, the whole thing was just burrowed and forgotten like it never even happened.
By now we are all the way back to "Bestest partners we always were!", at least the politicians and journalists who are members of the plentiful pro-US/NATO think tanks in Germany.
supermatt234@reddit
I actually had thought that Germany was not part of the Iraq war. 🤔
Nethlem@reddit (OP)
It's what even most Germans think to this day, this stark contrast between perception and reality is the direct result of living in the post-truth era as the new normal.
MaticTheProto@reddit
We started asking for 8€ processing fees like they do when traveling here. Very recent
supermatt234@reddit
Really, that's your example, an 8 euro fees on visiting your country?
DesolatumDeus@reddit
You said recent example, not good example. You got yourself to blame on this one lol
MaticTheProto@reddit
Bruh I‘m no expert on EU/US relations. This is just the most recent thing. Plus you asked for an example, I gave one. So shush :)
supermatt234@reddit
You live in germany? I would say recent as in from 2010.
Atomkrieg2024@reddit
Europe has been lapdogs for the USA since 1945 lol. This is just saying the sky is blue. It's nothing new.
throwawayeastbay@reddit
Think Tank comes up with most lukewarm take of all time, is asked to leave the function.
PlutosGrasp@reddit
It’s really not.
Stamford16A1@reddit
...says organisation that wants all European countries to be subservient to EU hegemony.
Individual-Focus-542@reddit
In the long term, super nations will be required not to be come a plaything of the big boys as we have seen after 1945. You had the choice between serving the USA, USSR or be free but out of the loop.
I’d rather see the EU united in one country rather than the splintering shit show we have now where suckers like orban and Duda take everyone else hostage with their bullshit.
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
lol never going to happen. There’s a reason Europe has so many small countries you can’t be put near one another without some tensions brewing.
AutoModerator@reddit
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a Discord, feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, multireddit
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.