Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Admiral Yi]

A heavily armed Europe has never been a problem before?

A heavily armed Germany has been a problem once.  A heavily armed Europe has been a problem to *itself* many many many many times.

How exactly do you think a heavily armed Europe will use that military to work against US interests?

[Sheilbh]

It is very bad for America and we will rue this day.

Because if the Europeans re-arm and build this big military industrial complex with a well funded and powerful professional army...well...they are eventually going to use to advance their interests. Interests that may not align with ours.

The other side of this is the Elbridge Colby which I'm not sure is wrong.

His argument has always been that the US is no longer powerful enough - or rather, other powers are now sufficiently strong, that it cannot be the security guarantor of Europe, trying to impose an order of Europe's near neighbourhood (particularly the Middle East) and support allies in the Pacific and confront China. He argues that China is a threat to the US in a way that Russia isn't, so the US focus should be on the Pacific and it should be rapidly moving resources from the Atlantic to face the Pacific.

I'm not sure that's wrong - and I'm not sure that's just going to be a Trump thing. Part of me thinks Biden might be the last post-war and unipolar era President who has that strong conviction that the US can be projecting power equally in both direction and upholding both an Atlantic and a Pacific order.

If that's the case someone's going to fill the void in Europe and it's near neighbourhood - I suspect the Europeans would be a more friendly option from a US pov than anyone else.

[Jacob]

A well armed Europe might refuse to embargo China if China and the US enter a more direct conflict, something they'd be less likely to do if still dependent on the US for security.

A well armed Europe might end up on the opposite side of a Middle Eastern conflict centred around Israel. Maybe not in direct conflict with the US, but potentially supplying weapons and trading with the enemies of the US.

A confident Europe with strategic autonomy may decide that the US' strategy of containment and isolation against Iran is not worthwhile.

Europe might fight a war with Russia, which apparently is an American ally.

I think a direct conflict is unlikely (but not off the table), but that a heavily armed Europe may well end up opposing and undermining American strategic and economic objectives to a much greater degree once the dependence on the American military is gone;  basically in terms of relationship it could be much closer to the US-China relationship than the previous US-European relationship. This is even more likely if the fundamental values of Europe and the US continue to diverge.

[Jacob]

The other side of this is the Elbridge Colby which I'm not sure is wrong.

His argument has always been that the US is no longer powerful enough - or rather, other powers are now sufficiently strong, that it cannot be the security guarantor of Europe, trying to impose an order of Europe's near neighbourhood (particularly the Middle East) and support allies in the Pacific and confront China. He argues that China is a threat to the US in a way that Russia isn't, so the US focus should be on the Pacific and it should be rapidly moving resources from the Atlantic to face the Pacific.

I'm not sure that's wrong - and I'm not sure that's just going to be a Trump thing. Part of me thinks Biden might be the last post-war and unipolar era President who has that strong conviction that the US can be projecting power equally in both direction and upholding both an Atlantic and a Pacific order.

If that's the case someone's going to fill the void in Europe and it's near neighbourhood - I suspect the Europeans would be a more friendly option from a US pov than anyone else.

A world in which Europe was militarily strong enough to hold down its own corner of the world with confidence, and project some power; in which the US still stood as staunch ally of Europe should the fight happen there; and in which Europe similarly stood ready to support the US in the Pacific would probably have been the ideal solution to that I think. True, it was a challenging and perhaps frustratingly slow process to get there so maybe it was unachievable.

On the flipside, the way things are happening it seems unlikely that the US will support European interests in Europe (it's currently actively undermining them by supporting fascist parties and Orbanists, and by insisting on Ukrainian surrender) and conversely that Europe will be even remotely interested in supporting US interests in the Pacific.

[Sheilbh]

Although Europe is economically very interlinked with the US - which has only increased since Russia's invasion particularly on energy. For example, a huge part of Europe's capacity to replace Russian gas for example, has been buying American LNG. So if we can't take that either it's not fully clear where we're getting our energy from (absent a far more extractive/imperial policy in the Middle East). Similarly the UK, France and Germany tried to keep the Iran deal going - even looking at setting up alternative payments systems. They found they couldn't because US sanctions would basically hit them and their financial sectors - China and BRICS have seriously tried to build a non-dollar, non-US payment system to avoid this risk.

Europe needs to build up its own security for its own good. But I think there are constraints on what is possible even in that scenario. We are resource poor, for example. But also the idea that Europe could adopt a position of viewing America and Russia as an adversary - presumably while pinning all our hopes on turning China from its "no limits" friendship with Russia, strikes me as incredibly implausible. Especially if you add in, as some here seem to, also taking a hostile posture towards Turkiye. It's wonderland stuff.

There was a piece I read and found really interesting from a Singaporean analyst (as ever bracingly realist and honest take) who basically said the strategy that makes sense for Europe if it feels America is an opponent is to reconcile with Russia and build closer ties with China. Obviously that fucks Ukraine (and any argument about values). If the priority is Ukraine and confronting Russia then I think that means working with the Americans and Chinese as best we can to try to sway them from Russia (again, not great from a values perspective).

[Sheilbh]

A world in which Europe was militarily strong enough to hold down its own corner of the world with confidence, and project some power; in which the US still stood as staunch ally of Europe should the fight happen there; and in which Europe similarly stood ready to support the US in the Pacific would probably have been the ideal solution to that I think. True, it was a challenging and perhaps frustratingly slow process to get there so maybe it was unachievable.

On the flipside, the way things are happening it seems unlikely that the US will support European interests in Europe (it's currently actively undermining them by supporting fascist parties and Orbanists, and by insisting on Ukrainian surrender) and conversely that Europe will be even remotely interested in supporting US interests in the Pacific.

Agree with all of this - it's why I've always thought Europe needed to be doing stuff in the Pacific. Not just to show the Americans we weren't just freeloading and expecting them to take our security concerns as a priority, but also understood other concerns/interests they had and that we cared about them. It's the issue with common European defence at a global level - bluntly lots of Western countries did not have the same view of the world/security risks as Poland did which is why Poland would never be interested in European defence and would instead invest in the Atlantic alliance (which is still what they're doing - they're really pushing to keep the US engaged).

But also because I think Japan, Australia, South Korea etc are allies of Europe too. I actually think part of Europe's response to Trump should precisely be deepening those relationships (and with Canada). Those countries have all contributed to Ukraine's defence (again I think because of the point above - to show Europe they get our security concerns in the hope we'll get theirs) and - for example the UK, Japan and Italy are jointly developing their next generation fighters. I think we should be doubling down on those relationships of basically middle powers of what used to be the "West".

[HVC]

Although Europe is economically very interlinked with the US - which has only increased since Russia's invasion particularly on energy. For example, a huge part of Europe's capacity to replace Russian gas for example, has been buying American LNG. So if we can't take that either it's not fully clear where we're getting our energy from (absent a far more extractive/imperial policy in the Middle East).

Invest in a Canadian pipeline east

[Jacob]

Although Europe is economically very interlinked with the US - which has only increased since Russia's invasion particularly on energy. For example, a huge part of Europe's capacity to replace Russian gas for example, has been buying American LNG. So if we can't take that either it's not fully clear where we're getting our energy from (absent a far more extractive/imperial policy in the Middle East). Similarly the UK, France and Germany tried to keep the Iran deal going - even looking at setting up alternative payments systems. They found they couldn't because US sanctions would basically hit them and their financial sectors - China and BRICS have seriously tried to build a non-dollar, non-US payment system to avoid this risk.

All fair, though it seems the non-dollar, non-US payment system seems more likely to be viable if Europe decides to join as well.

Europe needs to build up its own security for its own good. But I think there are constraints on what is possible even in that scenario. We are resource poor, for example. But also the idea that Europe could adopt a position of viewing America and Russia as an adversary - presumably while pinning all our hopes on turning China from its "no limits" friendship with Russia, strikes me as incredibly implausible. Especially if you add in, as some here seem to, also taking a hostile posture towards Turkiye. It's wonderland stuff.

I see any "China pivot" to be less about Europe proactively pursuing alignment with China and more about China filling the cracks left by US as it turns on Europe.

I guess we'll see how durable the new Russia-US realignment is. It seems to me that if the US maintains its hostile posture towards China and China and Russia remains tight, it won't be sustainable in the long term.

But I suppose with the current brain-thrust in the White House it's not impossible that they abandon their Pacific allies in favour of some sort of "US, China, and Russia as the big powers who divide the world into spheres of influence" frenemies framework.

There was a piece I read and found really interesting from a Singaporean analyst (as ever bracingly realist and honest take) who basically said the strategy that makes sense for Europe if it feels America is an opponent is to reconcile with Russia and build closer ties with China. Obviously that fucks Ukraine (and any argument about values). If the priority is Ukraine and confronting Russia then I think that means working with the Americans and Chinese as best we can to try to sway them from Russia (again, not great from a values perspective).

As far as it goes that makes sense, but IMO the challenge is not Europe reconciling with Russia, but Russia reconciling with Europe. I don't Russia will accept any conciliation that does not put Europe as a set of subject states. Even if Europe decided that values meant nothing and was willing to give up most of the former Warsaw Pact countries to Russia I don't think that'd be sufficient.

From my point of view Russia is the hostile enemy. The US is only a potential adversary because it currently seems intent on supporting Russia's attacks on Europe (and undermining Europe directly with support for fascists, of course). So aligning with Russia to oppose the US seems completely far-fetched. On the other hand, aligning with China seems much more plausible as there aren't as many points of friction outside of values ones.

[Jacob]

Agree with all of this - it's why I've always thought Europe needed to be doing stuff in the Pacific. Not just to show the Americans we weren't just freeloading and expecting them to take our security concerns as a priority, but also understood other concerns/interests they had and that we cared about them. It's the issue with common European defence at a global level - bluntly lots of Western countries did not have the same view of the world/security risks as Poland did which is why Poland would never be interested in European defence and would instead invest in the Atlantic alliance (which is still what they're doing - they're really pushing to keep the US engaged).

As HVC says, Canada has plenty of resources. That said, the relationship would require some infrastructure investment and is predicated on Trump's territorial ambitions being hot air and rhetoric rather than something that actually gets carried out.

But also because I think Japan, Australia, South Korea etc are allies of Europe too. I actually think part of Europe's response to Trump should precisely be deepening those relationships (and with Canada). Those countries have all contributed to Ukraine's defence (again I think because of the point above - to show Europe they get our security concerns in the hope we'll get theirs) and - for example the UK, Japan and Italy are jointly developing their next generation fighters. I think we should be doubling down on those relationships of basically middle powers of what used to be the "West".

Yeah, I think that's definitely the core of the play - the rest of the West, minus the US, getting our houses in order and standing on our own feet (collectively). The question, of course, is how hostile the US will be to that construction (and vice versa).

[Zoupa]

If they are less likely to fight, then they are less likely they are to want to pay for the means to fight.

Any data to back up that assertion?

[Zoupa]

Yeah, I think that's definitely the core of the play - the rest of the West, minus the US, getting our houses in order and standing on our own feet (collectively). The question, of course, is how hostile the US will be to that construction (and vice versa).

The response I've seen from US officials so far has been "No, not like that". I'm not sure what they expected honestly. After turning off ATACMS, HIMARS and F-16s in Ukraine, did they really expect european nations to still place orders for american weapon systems? It's non-sensical. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Grey Fox]

Like HVC said the terminally online have bought their own hype and the meme that only Americans have agency has become their gospel.

[viper37]

I don't know, it seems a lot of Americans are overjoyed at the idea of not spending to defend Europe, despite their treaties.  You included.

It is very bad for America and we will rue this day.

Because if the Europeans re-arm and build this big military industrial complex with a well funded and powerful professional army...well...they are eventually going to use to advance their interests. Interests that may not align with ours.

Yi and Raz seems to think Europeans are freeloading.

A sentiment shared by close to 50% of the voters in this election.
I can't wait for Japan to rearm though.  It went very well the last time.

[viper37]

No, I think he's obliquely saying he's' unconcerned that there's a risk Europe could be a rival.

Nope.  I'm saying the probability of Europe declaring war on the US is essentially nil.  And that the probability of Europe declaring war on some country other than the US but still not in the US interest approaches zero.  Israel?

It was essentially nil in the 19th century.

But anyway.  Russia and China are dismantling your empire as we speak.  Americans will live poorer in the near future and a recession is coming.

[Admiral Yi]

But anyway.  Russia and China are dismantling your empire as we speak.  Americans will live poorer in the near future and a recession is coming.

The original English name of the kiwifruit was Chinese gooseberry.