[adastra22]

There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened. So mission accomplished?

And before anyone says it’s because of nukes or superpower protection or whatever, there has been plenty of wars on the periphery of the EU during this time. The balkans, Cyprus, Egypt, etc.

[FirmwareBurner]

>There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened.

I meant how did that ensure peace between Ukraine, Russia and EU? It clearly didn't even though EU was buying shit tonnes of gas from Russia, and Russia was buying shit tonne of aerospace parts and stuff from Ukraine. War still happened.

[..edited out the Yugoslavia argument..]

All the proof shows "peace through trade" does not work. The only thing that works is "peace through strength", which then you can use to enforce and defend your own favorable trade policies for you and your close allies, which has been the US's MO since 1945.

[seszett]

> I meant between Ukraine, RUssia and EU.

> Yugoslav wars started in 1991 and ended in 2001. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Are these wars not "European" enough?

Well, Ukraine, Russia and the former Yugoslavian republics that had wars are not part of the EU, or were not at the moment they had their wars. And even though all neighbouring countries trade with the EU, their economies are much less interdependent than those of the EU countries because of the lack of free trade and freedom of movement.

So this supports the idea that the EU does prevent wars rather than invalidating it.

[FirmwareBurner]

>So this supports the idea that the EU does prevent wars rather than invalidating it.

Yes, it was all the EU economy. The 40 or so US military bases occupying the EU had nothing to do with ensuring peace on the continent.

[seszett]

I didn't caricature your words, so please don't do it with me.

Of course the US plays a part. But they don't have bases everywhere so it's not that obvious why it would explain why France and Luxembourg get along fine but Serbia and Kosovo don't, is it? Or Turkey and Greece, which both host US bases.

[FirmwareBurner]

>it would explain why France and Luxembourg

The discussion wasn't about getting along fine but about economic ties preventing wars, since Russia and Germany were also "getting along fine" till 1940 when they suddenly weren't.

And Luxemburg has nothing that would prevent France form invading them if they wanted to, economic ties or not. Economic ties might even be a negative for your protection since economic ties have to be negotiated but if you invade the other party you own their assets and economy and don't need to negociate any ties anymore.

The only thing prevents war is a strong military force.

[gambiting]

>>The only thing prevents war is a strong military force.

Why hasn't France invaded Luxemburg then? They would be met with close to zero resistance and no other EU state would attack them militarily for it. You must be able to see that there are other factors preventing war other than military force?

[motorest]

> I meant how did that ensure peace between Ukraine, Russia and EU?

There lies the source of your confusion. The EU was designed to prevent wars within Europe, not between outside members. Do you think that NATO bombing Kadafi represents a failure of the EU's mission?

[adastra22]

Neither Russia nor Ukraine are part of the EU. That’s my point?

[ekianjo]

> There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened. So mission accomplished?

thats a weird way to justify the logic. so one arbitrary datapoint is enough? the EU has been relocated to a second tier in terms of economic importance and they have no credibility when it comes to geopolitics. does that sound like mission accomplished?