The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:
But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.
But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.
Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.
The nations of Europe are not currently capable to defend themselves and so they have no choice but to rely on the US in a crisis
Against who? Aliens? Who is this hypothetical enemy that can invade Europe? Capabilities aren’t exactly as they should be, it would be nasty going against a rogue US, yes, but we could still bring the whole thing to a stalemate even if it would necessitate a couple of French nukes getting dropped on carrier groups.
…and don’t get me started on them wanking off to the dollar value of US contributions. Much of what they send should be valued negatively (in monetary terms) because it’s surplus and they’re saving on disposal costs. Meanwhile, if the EU had the US’ ammunition production capacity Ukraine would’ve run out by now.
The US has been pussy-footing around this whole conflict, see e.g. the row about ATACMs, the UK had to send Storm Shadow (which they don’t exactly have a surplus of, to the contrary) to twist the US’ arm.
What many analysts don’t seem to get into their head, it just doesn’t fit their framework, is that Europe as a whole is a lot more “hawkish” in this conflict than the US, leading to all kinds of misinterpretations. “But Europe is so peace-loving and warm and fuzzy” – no, motherfucker, we hate imperialism. That’s all there is to it. We have plenty of former Russian colonies in the union and with shit going down as it went, the western members finally understood that no, Russia can’t be reasoned with, or even be counted on to act in self-interest, instead of chalking the eastern member’s attitude up to PTSD.
From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.
The top EU think tank very clearly disagrees with you here. It’s also pretty clear that Germany ended up being the big loser here given that it’s now in a recession. So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry. Given that this has been the stated goal of US for years now, I don’t think much twisting required here.
Against who? Aliens?
Europe wouldn’t have anyone to defend itself against if it didn’t keep creating enemies for itself. It was entirely possible to dismantle NATO after USSR collapsed and integrate Russia into Europe as an equal. Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia, and now Europe finds itself in a protection racket situation.
Finally, the idea that Europe could fight US or Russia in an all out war is completely delusional. Europe lacks the industrial base to do this kind of warfare, and it also lacks access to energy. Meanwhile, if we’re talking about nukes both US and Russia have literally an order of magnitude more nukes than all of Europe combined.
So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry.
The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?
Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia
Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.
The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?
I’m talking about the result of Germany being cut off from cheap energy and US blowing up German pipelines without Germany making any protest. Meanwhile, haven’t seen any Abrams anywhere close to Ukraine, but plenty of Leopards burning there now.
Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.
I see you have difficulties engaging with reality.
Nothing can fight the US, it’s like the richest country and half the budget goes to the military. Russia would not be much of a threat though, especially now. Also the only country dependant on Russia was Germany and now that isn’t the case so I’m not sure what you mean by “lacks access to energy”.
Nothing can fight the US, it’s like the richest country and half the budget goes to the military.
About 50% of the United State’s discretionary federal budget is spent on defense on average. Discretionary spending is in contrast to Mandatory spending which covers legally mandated programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
In FY2022, the discretionary budget was $1.7 trillion, of which $751 billion was for defense. The mandatory budget was $4.1 trillion, and the total federal budget was $6.3 trillion. In FY2022, defense represented 11.9% of the total federal budget. An equivalent amount was spent on Medicare in the same year ($747 billion).
The United States spends roughly the same amount (in US$) on defense as the next 9 countries combined. This represents 3.4% of the US GDP. By percentage of GDP, the US ranks 14th in the world, lower than (for instance) Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, and Russia.
The US is the richest country by GDP comparison, but this idea that it spends half its annual budget on the military is false - the real amount is about 13% on average. Social program spending far outweighs military spending in the US.
@FluffyPotato Unless nukes are involved. Then it won’t matter how much we spend on the military.
Yeah, but a lot of it comes from Europe not choosing to lead on any international crisis, to the point where it has intentionally designed its defense to require the US to participate.
I look at it like this, the EU should have its own independent military from NATO given its size and wealth. Yet, it chooses to be entirely dependent on NATO and needs the US to help in any sort of projection of force.
Or it is federal in the same way the Holy Roman Empire was.
And the concern that European politicians seem to have is that an EU army would require the EU to define military policy rather than just follow US military policy. It isn’t that the EU couldn’t be made to gain greater competencies in military and diplomatic areas, it is that the various EU nations are happier letting the US define that instead.
What are you talking about? Every country in Europe already has its own military and the EU has a defensive clause it the pact.
Every country in Europe already has its own military
And each American state has its own military as well that is controlled by the different governors.
and the EU has a defensive clause it the pact
And the base for that defense pact is NATO headquarters. This is also only defense only, which makes cases where the EU needs to respond to threats on its frontier difficult because there is no organizing entity to handle this issue. And if the defense pact was the reason for inter-EU defense, it is going to be through the lens of NATO, which gives the US a pretty big say on EU defense.
It really is a matter of European countries keeping to the defense spending requirements they have already committed to under NATO. A lot of Europeans I talk to claim that it is wasteful, and that money is better spent on foreign aide. But meanwhile, the US still foots the bill for their defense. This is an intense able situation - the US cannot put the entire world on ots back. Multilaterlaism has to mean cooperation from the rest of the world to ensure safety.
But it is more than that. A lot of EU nations don’t have a military of a size capable of more than just basic infantry. This has been a problem for NATO as the US has created a lot of the logistics and specialty platforms required to fight a modern war that a lot of other nations don’t pay into.
The EU is already seeing the merging of several military units because it is cheaper to develop them at scale. At that point, why not just have all of the EU create and manage the joint arms at a level where it makes more sense?
That’s a lot of words just to say “Germany hesitated about sending tanks to Ukraine therefore the US is now the colonial master of Europe.”
Apparently that’s all it takes. Just a slight hesitation on a decision and you lose all sovereignty forever.
Or maybe the hesitation over the tanks was a little disappointing, but not really that big a deal. Calm down people.
It was a bit late by then. Germany lost it’s sovereignty right about the time the US turned up in Berlin to stop the Soviets from advancing any further.
If Germany really had sovereignty, would it really have done so little after it’s ‘allies’ blew up Nordstream 2, causing German deindustrialisation and increasing German consumer and industrial energy insecurity?
It was a bit late by then. Germany lost it’s sovereignty right about the time the US turned up in Berlin to stop the Soviets from advancing any further.
When exactly did the US turned up in Berlin? They didn’t. Western and soviet forces met at the river Elbe
Furthermore with the 4+2 treaty Germany got sovereignty officially, with the opposition to the illegal invasion of Iraq 2003 Germany went fully sovereign.
If Germany really had sovereignty, would it really have done so little after it’s ‘allies’ blew up Nordstream 2, causing German deindustrialisation and increasing German consumer and industrial energy insecurity?
Who blew up Nordstream 2?
When exactly did the US turned up in Berlin? They didn’t. Western and soviet forces met at the river Elbe
Semantics. It’s like when people say ‘Washington’ even if the sharp part of the story is happening on the other side of the world.
Furthermore with the 4+2 treaty Germany got sovereignty officially, with the opposition to the illegal invasion of Iraq 2003 Germany went fully sovereign.
And yet, here we are, with German industry falling apart because the US dictated, ‘Sanction Russia’, and all the vassals fell in line. Then they supplemented the now-re-routed-but-still-Russian fossils with US supplies. The German ruling class sacrificed the German people for US interests in the same way as did (every) other vassal state(s).
Who blew up Nordstream 2?
Greatest mystery of our time.
We will see how it plays out long term, but it seems to me that the US is hollowing out Europe to enrich themselves in their economic war against China. If you don’t believe that, look what the US is doing to encourage manufacturers to leave Europe and move to the US, or the fact that they overcharge Europe on fossil fuels.
If by “scathing,” you mean one-sided reporting ignoring political context and contemporary events, then yes. It’s very"scathing".
By “scathing”, do you mean reiterating in extremist language the same thing European leaders have said over the past few months, that the EU relies to heavily on US military force?
Cool example of propagandizing old news. Making good news bad is your style.
Yes. An anti-atlanticist lobby group. They’re not neutral.
I agree with them when it comes to pushing European strategic autonomy but the reasoning they present here is bonkers. The purpose of this piece is to scare atlanticists out of atlanticism, not provide accurate analysis.
One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers. Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest. The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now which makes Europe far less important for US now. If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.
