[kogus]

As an American, I am also gratified to see the EU take steps toward independence from US foreign policy. Independence doesn't mean enmity; it just means that the EU and US should both be adults in the room, reaching decisions on equal terms.

If one takes a longer view of things, the period from WW2 to now is very much an anomaly reflecting relative European weakness in the aftermath of that war's physical and moral destruction. There is no intrinsic reason that the US should take the lead on, say, policy toward Russia. Quite the opposite.

[jijijijij]

As if the US influence was built on charity for poor Europe... It's been all Red Scare and geopolitical power play. The US influence was nothing but intrinsically motivated. The only reason Germany was allowed to be rebuilt was its function as east bloc barrier.

The current US government is throwing away a world power status of unimaginable costs, which literally took almost a century to build. For better or worse, but let's not spin fairy tales about the why and when.

[dblangford]

US has historically taken the lead in policy regarding Russia to avoid nuclear proliferation in Europe. If the US umbrella is perceived as being unreliable then I think that is what will see.

[kazen44]

this is already happening. France has already stated it will extend its nuclear umbrella to the rest of the EU. the discussion about either an EU integrated army compared to nato is also back on the table after being basically politically dead for nearly 60 years.

[throw-the-towel]

But Europe did block the rapprochement with Russia in the 1990s, which the US was trying to achieve. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-documents-...

[foogazi]

> If one takes a longer view of things, the period from WW2 to now is very much an anomaly

WW2 was the anomaly- a conflict impacting all nations on earth, with Europe falling under a horrible regime

[jacquesm]

Unfortunately it looks as if lots of people have not learned the lessons from that war. This is a pity because that means lots of people died for absolutely nothing. I'll bet that half the right wing voters of today at a minimum would get their asses spanked by their grandparents if they were still alive.

[jacquesm]

I wouldn't say it was weakness rather than a sense of disgust about anything war related. Europe is tired of it, and precisely because of that may well end up in another major war.

[bix6]

That has more to do with their geography than their disgust no?

[Yoric]

I think GP means that Europe didn't intervene when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and, more generally, has done its best to limit rearmament until now. And we're going to pay for it by having a war against Russia that we might have avoided had we projected more strength.

The precedent being France and UK that were so disgusted by war after WWI (and recall that France was the historical biggest warmonger among Western nations at least since the second half of the Hundred Years War) that they didn't react to Nazi Germany annexing Austria, then invading Sudetenland, and in fact not even when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Had they reacted earlier, WWII might have been avoided.

[GlobalFrog]

Actually, it is not quite the case: the most warmongering country in Europe was the UK since the 1600s (between 16 and 18 times depending on the criterias you use, a war declaration is way less a clear cut decision than you might think). They most often declared war to France, whereas during the same time, France declared war about 13 times (mostly to Spain, Prussia and Austria). There is no single source for those numbers, because some count invasions as war declarations, and some others don't, and some count wars against coalitions as 1 and some detail the exact number of countries involved. If you want to compare that with Germany/Prussia, they declared war about 10 times during the same time. And if you want to know which country was the most declared war upon, it was France (about 20 times), whereas England/UK was declared war to only 10 times. So it would not be far fetched to argue that it was mostly England/UK that was the biggest warmonger of the past.

[hollerith]

Britain never tried to conquer all of Europe, but France did.

Also, when the Brits have a revolution (e.g., English Civil War, American Revolution) deaths never get as arbitrary and difficult-to-predict as in the French Revoution.

[Yoric]

Ah, interesting data points, thanks.

Still, let's not forget Napoleon :)

[englishrookie]

Right now, Russia's hands are conveniently tied by their incompetently fought war in Ukraine.

In the mean time, most major EU countries have increased their defense budgets. Some of the larger ones, most notably Germany, are considering to reintroduce conscription. Within about five years, the EU will be able to withstand Russia without any aid from the USA.

In fact, right now, Poland would be able to withstand the Russians on their own. Mind you, they would not be able to defeat the Russians, but they would give them a beating and repel any invasion of Poland.

[jacquesm]

I have a family member in the reservists in Poland, they are on the highest level of readiness they've ever been.

[kakacik]

This is all correct, as is parent's parent. There is(was) this sense of war being failures of others, fought elsewhere now and we got better and employed more diplomacy (ignoring Yugoslavia which was a civil war to begin with).

It made us look weak internationally compared what could have been, and it made us weak. All that military money went into social programs and heavy lean to the left. It sort of works if you have other's umbrella shielding you, which now is questionable (but is it really, I think its more a projection how further can things go in future).

For Russia Europe never ceased to be a battlefield - eastern part of battlefield itself, western part as prize to win or conquer. Past 2+ decades of quite overt subversion, sowing chaos and discord via both radical left and right (which is hilarious, seeing 'patriots' parroting russian propaganda against their own country or ethnicity), sometimes outright attacks and assassinations.

Secret services kept reporting all this even publicly but were mostly ignored by politicians. Weak long term politicians like Merkel allowed this with open arms, hoping in vain that pure business is enough to keep psychopathic wolves happy. Well what a failure that was (yes I hate her as does most of eastern EU, leftist populist and nothing more which grinded strongest European economy to a halt).

Correction is being done, it will take decades but course is set regardless of what next elections in US brings.

As for geography - its only relevant doe to the fact we are connected by land to russia. Of course any country which has huge ocean between them and russians is much safer from them. The rest can either defend themselves or are an easy prey.

[jacquesm]

Indeed, that is exactly what I meant.

[paganel]

I’m Romanian, write this comment from Bucharest, a lot closer to Donbass than both France and UK. If those guys are “disgusted” about Russia then it’s their choice, but they shouldn’t re-create the Crimean War and battle the Russians on our (Romania’s) soil, with the destruction that would accompany such a war. If anything, I’d rather actively choose Russia’s side on this against the West, at least Russia is the devil we know. I’m not alone here in Eastern Europe when it comes to this ideological choice, just look at what people vote (when they’re allowed to do that freely, that is, just look at the Călin Georgescu case).

[jacquesm]

This is a delusional position.

> If anything, I’d rather actively choose Russia’s side on this against the West

Based on your comment history, you have already done so. You've been carrying water for Russia on HN for the longest time.

> at least Russia is the devil we know

Apparently, you don't know. You think you know. Romania could be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe, but it is this mentality that stops that from happening. Russia is a terrible country towards its citizens and you wouldn't even be a citizen of Russia, you'd be a citizen of a resource for Russia, someone to be exploited or to be sent to fight Russia's wars for it. Note that this is exactly what is happening and if Ukraine should become occupied you can expect that the next wave would be Ukrainians against Eastern Europe. That is what you are hoping for here.

> I’m not alone here in Eastern Europe when it comes to this ideological choice, just look at what people vote (when they’re allowed to do that freely, that is, just look at the Călin Georgescu case).

Yes, look at that case, and think about it a bit longer: you've been actively recruited as a fifth column member in the army of a hostile nation. If war does break out (which by trying to avoid the destruction you are actually increasing the chances of it!) you might be found to be aiding the enemy, think long and hard about the consequences of such choices.

[paganel]

> Based on your comment history, you have already done so. You've been carrying water for Russia on HN for the longest time.

I'm talking physically, for better or for worse that is still not the case. I don't want to see Romanian men (which would include me) leaving their (our, in fact) bones on the Ukrainian steppe up to the Volga, once was enough.

> Apparently, you don't know. You think you know. Romania could be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe,

Yes, I do know, and yes, and I am completely and utterly annoyed by Westerners lecturing us on our geo-strategic future.

[mongol]

This surprises me. Is that how you see it, that countries like UK and France may choose to battle Russia on your soil? What would forego that in your scenario?

[jacquesm]

He would like to roll over to see Romania rejoin the new Russian empire. Click on username then comments and be amazed.

[paganel]

Geography itself, as they aren’t going to battle the Russians in Lorraine or in Belgium/Netherlands, just opposite the UK.

[ta20240528]

Damn, are you sure you're an American? :)