[tick_tock_tick]

The whole point is the USA has been complaining that the EU was/is reducing itself to a vassal. No matter what the USA said or did before they didn't seem to care that they had no power anymore because the USA was there to take care of them.

The EU can't realign itself with China because that would destroy the last fragile bits of the EU economy that are left. They are already having issues with the excess supply lands on their shores even since the USA started tariffs with China. They can't deal with this long term.

[tsimionescu]

No, the USA does not, in any way, and has never wanted or even accepted EU countries being independent. They wanted the EU to spend more on US weaponry, and maybe on their own - but would have vehemently opposed any attempt by any EU country to buy Russian, Chinese, Iranian or any such weaponry. They want the EU to stop regulating American companies, but they certainly don't want EU companies being too successful in the USA. They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.

[solidsnack9000]

They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.

This is really ridiculous. There are many successful EU vendors of defense technology to the US military. Safran, Schmidt & Bender, Heckler & Koch, Saab, Glock, Fabrique National -- there is a long list. The USA has built real partnerships in these areas.

One amusing example is the C7 and C8. These are AR-15 (M16) variants made by Colt Canada and adopted by the militaries of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway; and used by special forces in the UK.

Where are you getting your information from, that the US wouldn't allow wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market?

[solidsnack9000]

The EU would also have opposed it if the US bought Russian, Chinese or Iranian weaponry.

The EU does seem to willing to reduce itself to a Chinese vassal. That would not improve the situation.

[tsimionescu]

The right play is to maintain relationships (including arms trading) with multiple major powers - as Canada's PM very deftly pointed out at Davos. Getting closer to China doesn't mean exchanging one master for another - it can and should be a way to increase the alternatives available, without going all the way in the other direction.

> The EU would also have opposed it if the US bought Russian, Chinese or Iranian weaponry.

This is such an implausible counter-factual that I can't even begin to imagine what would have actually happened. Still, I doubt any more than some "public letters" would have been issued, whereas I'm sure that the opposite would have resulted in actual economic pressure from the USA against the EU/NATO country that would have dared, under any administration.

[solidsnack9000]

I mean, you offered a basically similar, implausible counterfactual. I think we can agree that it is at least parties that the EU would have opposed purchases of Chinese, Russian or Iranian weapons by the USA and vice versa -- but Russia and Iran have been sanctioned for long periods of time (Iran, basically continuously) by both the EU and the USA, and Russia is the main territorial threat to the EU, so maybe only China is really an interesting possibility here.

Arms trading with China is probably not a good idea at all.

[tim333]

I don't see much sign of the EU becoming a Chinese vassal as in relying on it for defence in return for being told what to do. Trading with China is not the same thing.

[tim333]

I'm not sure that's how it is. Sure NATO countries aren't keen on any of the members being reliant on weapons from potential NATO enemies, for example Turkey buying Russian S-400s but it doesn't mean the countries aren't mostly independent.

Likewise NATO countries aren't keen if one of their members gets a leader who rolls out the red carpet to the Russians and threatens to invade other NATO states. It's not like all the members have to do what the US likes.

Here's a Danish vassal MEP saying "Mr Trump, fuck off" https://youtu.be/hASG-hQgk-4

I see the Turks have now changed their mind on the S-400s and I hope the red carpet for Putin folk change at some point too.

[schubidubiduba]

No. The US wants the EU to be a vassal, this should be obvious. Why would they want an EU that is more capable of acting against US interests?

The US wants EU to be a vassal, but got tired of paying the protection money for that. Now they are trying, and failing, to keep the EU under their control despite bringing less to the table every day.

[johnsmith1840]

Or more obviously the US views China as an existential threat that is about to pop.

US has numerous public docs stating China is prepping for war and has WW2 levels of production. US knows it will be out manufactured in this conflict.

So the US needs:

1. Fully focus on China without distractions. 2. Allies able to handle their own security or help in the fight. 3. Weaken the smaller axis forces as much as possible now before the big event occurs.

Through this lens it alls lines up pretty nicely. Every single world event including US poking europe all work towards these goals.

As of now:

1. EU is finally spending on spending 2. Nato has expanded (sweden) 3. Russia is weakened 4. Iran is weakened 5. Oil production is secure (venuzuela, US internal, middle east) 6. East asia is also spending more on military and heavily aligning with the west (more bases in phillipines)

To me this is going about as smoothly as anyone would expect the buildup to WW3 would go. And it's all going pretty well for western forces. The west is now stronger than it has ever been and getting stronger and the axis forces are all weaker and getting weaker.

Words matter much less than action.

[solidsnack9000]

It does not make sense that the US would pay the "protection money" for a vassal. The vassals pay the protection money!

One clue that this discussion of vassals is not right at all.