Skip Navigation
World News @lemmy.ml
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @lemmy.ml

European Council of Foreign Relations openly talks about vassalisation of Europe by the US

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.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
168 comments

  • One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers.

    Facts aren't the issue, interpretation is.

    Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest

    No. Atlanticism is based on the idea of relying on the US as a military power, and, consequently, also relying on the US to be sane. It's been a thing since WWII in the face of the cold war, a major dividing point between France and Germany (at least under CDU governments), but generally been on the decline since Iraq as Atlanticists realised that the US is not, in fact, sane.

    If you really believe that Europe is "subjugated" I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US. Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?

    The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now

    "Focussing" doesn't mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don't have a coherent foreign policy.

    which makes Europe far less important for US now.

    The US is reliant on European industry in so many ways it's not even funny. The whole world is.

    If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.

    Not news. Already arrived, as said, beginning with Iraq and really driven home with Trump. Also, we're not relying on their protection. Again: From what aliens is the US supposed to protect us. If anything is endangered on the military side then it's resource imports, but not the continent, and even then you'd have to hit a fuckton of places at the same time for trade flow to not simply readjust, meanwhile making pretty much the whole world your enemy.

    • I live in Latinamerica and I have never seen any shit made in Europe except useless fancy shit, maybe you build some engine part or something? I wouldn't dare to say the world is dependent on European industry, though, now China, we sure are dependent to them.

    • Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.

      The interpretation is entirely correct. EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.

      If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US.

      If by trade war you mean US cannibalizing Europe by luring what business is left to prop up its own failing economy then sure.

      Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?

      What interests has US actually caved on exactly?

      “Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.

      Focusing means allocating resources towards Asia. Meanwhile, the fact that US does not have a coherent policy should itself be very worrisome for Europe. Having outsourced your security to an unstable and unreliable partner has put Europe into a rather precarious situation today.

      Also, we’re not relying on their protection.

      It's very clear that plenty of European states feel they need to have military parity with Russia. While the idea of a war with Russia is obviously insane, that doesn't change the political reality of Europe. Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.

      • EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.

        Completely Seppo-brained. Being on the left doesn't make you immune from the exceptionalism cool aid.

        Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.

        Russia can't even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus. France alone could roll over Russia but they'd have a hard time keeping up with the Poles running on pure, distilled, wrath. The only reason they're not in Moscow right now is because NATO is also a leash.

        • Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.

          Hasn't Russia been holding on to the claimed regions for almost an year now?

          • You mean hasn't Russia slowly been attritioning itself in Bakhmut for no strategic gain whatsoever.

            Not to mention that in the beginning Russia was claiming "Kyiv in three days". It claimed Kherson. It claimed Kharkiv. Prigoshin wasn't wrong when he called the whole thing a disaster in various colourful ways.

            • From what I gathered their demands for a peace deal for a very long time are basically for recognition of the new areas, without added land claims. This would imply that their war goal was just those. Am I incorrect there? Could you provide a source, if so?

              • Russia's stated goal was to "demilitarise and denazify", which never made any sense, but definitely involved capturing Kyiv (why else beeline for it?) and toppling the government. The actual goal seems to have been installation of a puppet regime a la Belarus.

                But all that became moot as they lost the war in the first couple of days, only trouble was that didn't mean that Ukraine won, or the Kremlin realised it had already lost. The rest of the war is, big picture, a slow Russian retreat while scorching the earth.

                The reason the whole thing is still going on is the party's utter disagreement when it comes to acceptable terms, and Russia's authoritarian civic giving -50% war exhaustion, but that's countered by Ukraine's -100% temporal modifier "defence against genocide" (sorry couldn't resist going Paradox after all).

                Russia's current stance "just give us what we have" would allow Putin to sell the thing as a win domestically, but we already see propaganda spins such as "sure we demilitarised them, now they're not using Ukrainian but NATO hardware" which is olympic-level mental gymnastics so my assumption is that pretty much everyone but Putin (who is being fed bad info as giving him bad news gets you demoted to defenestrated) realises where this is heading.

                I give it a year, tops, until the last Russian boot is out of Ukraine. Including Crimea.

                • So what you're saying is that, despite the main demand for peace from Russia not being met for more than an year being that of accepting their annexations, they actually have some other unstated greater war goal? Am I really incorrect in saying that from the very beginning the main Russian demands were the control of the currently annexed lands and Crimea, demands which are still unmet today? Can you provide me any sources for that? Don't see why it matters so much which side wins in the end for the sake of this argument.

                  Also I don't think "beelining for Kyiv" is such a big tell, as since you are a paradox fan you know that taking a capital is usually a good move even if you don't intend to control it.

                  • they actually have some other unstated greater war goal?

                    Yes and no. Russia did have a greater goal, and now Putin (no "they", any more) is left with the goal to stay in power.

                    Am I really incorrect in saying that from the very beginning the main Russian demands were the control of the currently annexed lands and Crimea, demands which are still unmet today? Can you provide me any sources for that?

                    Putin's speech at the beginning of the invasion. "Denazification, demilitarisation", and ahistorical ramblings about Ukraine not being a country, or Ukrainians an independent ethnicity, which at least back then played into popular myths in Russia (hence why Russia as a whole had a war goal as opposed to merely Putin). Also, lies about Ukraine shelling ethnic Russians in the Donbas IIRC Prigoshin actually called that one out specifically when he announced his... stunt. Not really sure what to call it.

                    TBH at this point in time I'm not sure if Putin survives the coming months or two, given that the sentiment among people was quite pro-Wagner, cheering them on, then booing OMON (aka Putin's goons) as they re-entered Rostov. Or whether Prigoshin stopping wasn't orchestrated by the FSB who didn't mind the change in power but would prefer to do it during the next presidential elections (March 2024) instead of having a civil war, tons of reasonable speculations along various lines. One thing's for sure there's now an abundance of ex-convicts on the streets pissed that Prigoshin stopped, and a big crack in Putin's air of power. Hard and brittle materials crack easily, you see.

                    • Yes and no. Russia did have a greater goal, and now Putin (no “they”, any more) is left with the goal to stay in power.

                      Could you please provided me with an extensive source that goes in-depth on this "greater goal". Googling has not provided me with any in-depth results.

                      • If you knew anything about Russia you'd know the popular myths about Ukraine and Crimea.

                        ...also, just watch Putin's start of the war speech. He lays it all out plain to see. It's of course bullshit from a historical or facts on the ground perspective, but it does match the Russian legend of "Ukrainians don't exist, they are confused Russians". Already back in 2000 when I was over there otherwise completely reasonable people would react with confusion and even anger to things like Ukraine mandating a certain percentage of songs on the radio being Ukrainian, to claw back against Russification policies that had been in place since the 18th century, starting with Peter I.

                        There's plenty of translations and analyses of that speech around on the internet, not hard to find. Also, talk to people from the Baltic states some time.

                        A single word for that "greater goal" would be раздолье (both "expanse" and "liberty"), pretty much the Russian version of Manifest Destiny and core to the "justification" of imperialism in Muscovite national myth. You don't seriously believe that a country came to be continent-sized without being imperialist, do you?

        • LMFAO

168 comments