Hacker News Reader

Comment by flumpcakes | Hacker News Reader

> entirely dependent on US

It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it.

It may seem one sided, but the EU has a lot more to gain if there was a hard split between them and the US. It will be significantly more painful for the EU, for a long time, but ultimately it would be the undoing of the US as hegemon. Unfortunately Russia would take advantage and begin an invasion into the EU, so an EU/US split is unfavourable.

Ultimately it is the security of NATO that the EU really needs the US for. And that is what it pays for in the dependency it has on the US.

View on HN

>It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it.

Yes, you get it. And the American tax payers also don't want to fund EU lack of spending on military. We are all in agreement.

I meant the EU doesn't want to spend the money on it's own R&D. It would rather give American companies hundreds of billions.

It's the US preference that the EU doesn't spend too much, it doesn't want to compete. See nuclear deterrence.

I'm very conservative and in principle really aligned with Republicans in the US, but this is rotten deal. The end result is in practice worse for everyone, because the American voters do not understand why they should be underwriting out security, and their security underwriting in practice is not very reliable or good from our point of view. It has not deterred Russia, it has not countered China, and I don't think it's going to last, because American voters don't understand what they are getting for it, and neither do I.

Europe will be much better off if we can guarantee our own security. I'm not suggesting for something dumb like withdrawing from NATO without first having the next thing in place, but we need to be in a position where Putin (and his eventual successor) does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate, which is precisely what Putin thinks.

We can and should be in a position where we push Russia around as much as China and India allows, and we dictate terms to them instead of cowering while they dictate terms to us. We should be in a position where if we say we are going to incorporate Ukraine into a defensive alliance that the Russians praise us and bow out of fear that we will take more of their things, instead of the reverse.

I'm not sure how you get Europe to that position. Do you have any thoughts? Usually the more conservative people in Europe seem to be pro-Russia at the moment.

I think the conservative support for Russia in Europe is mostly reactionary, but whatever the cause may be, it's deeply misguided. Russia is an existential threat, and it has always been this. The West thought that if we treated it as if it was just another western country then it would become one, but that worked out really poorly for us.

As things stand now, Russia and Europe cannot coexist as equals, either we have to dominate Russia, or it will dominate us. I'm a national conservative, I like sovereignty and I like self-determination, and I like peace — and I also like that other nations have those things — and none of that can exist if Russia is in a dominant position. So it has to be subdued.

As to how, I don't have any real practical answers to that question. I think in part the problem is Europeans have become too nihilistic in a sense. In my experience most Europeans think that we have a duty to the rest of the world to become irrelevant, I can understand why, imperialism and colonialism was wrong, but we can be relevant and not be imperial or colonialist. Personally, I am betting and invested in a Christian revival, but I understand that it is probably not a very realistic thing in Europe as it stands today.

>does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate

Good luck with that, I don't think it will ever happen. You'd need to first stop being dependent on for Energy.

Americans repeating Kremlin talking points is just odd and sad. Russian energy in Europe is being phased out by 2027. Not only will it "ever happen", it's imminent.

!remind me in 2 years :)

Whatever dependence Europe has on external energy is entirely a choice, and it's a choice that can be changed, and if we change our choice it can actually be done relatively quickly.

I would also say whatever dependence Europe has on even US is a choice and can be changed relatively quickly, it's just that I really want Europeans to want to change this. I think if Europe really is determined, we can impose a no-fly zone on Ukraine and Crimea within one year and deter Russia to the point where Russia becomes irrelevant, but the determination is not there at all levels. In part because it will hurt economically, but it's some pain we have to take, I think. The pain will be temporary, it won't be that bad, we can get over it, and it will be worth it in the end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com