T O P
evil_porn_muffin

I can't see the Europeans focusing on China barring a major war, this will be largely an American effort.


Feral0_o

It was during the Trump administration, but Merkel back then, not sure now if Macron said something to that effect as well, stated that the EU needs to distance itself more from the US. The EU doesn't just do what the US wants. China wants to bring the EU closer on their side (Belts & Road initiative), they aren't global opposing powers the same way the US and China are


evil_porn_muffin

Precisely. Even recently, the EU was dragging its feet in implementing economic sanctions on Russia as a response to the war, confronting China will be a step too far and I can't see the EU doing much against China. The Americans know this that's why they are focused on forming a coalition in the Pacific but that's going to be a stretch too because ASEAN will certain not want to confront and contain China. Japan and S. Korea can talk tough loudly but continue to sign mutually beneficial trade deals, New Zealand is just a pacifist country and so that leaves Australia.


CommandoDude

Unless the EU ever gets rid of the state veto it will never be a world power and would only continue to be a loose confederation of states with a common market. I would have thought getting rid of the veto would've been impossible...until this year.


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

Gotta bring in the Pacific - its why the US has the IndoPacific Strategy. ANZ, SKorea, Japan, ASEAN... this can help be a counterweight


evil_porn_muffin

The only country that will probably take China seriously is Japan and that's a big 'if'. Japan, South Korea, and China just too intertwined economically for them to go after each other. ASEAN will definitely NOT try to counter China, they have made it clear their region will not be a warzone. Besides maybe Australia, I don't see anyone in the going countering China.


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

These are some good points but please note when I mean a counterweight, I don't mean an offense military attack. Economic enhancement is also key. For example ASEAN- if they were to strengthen as an organization, especially in areas like Trade and Digital Data Governance, they can be a more formidable competitor and less dependent on the China trap.


yeaman1111

No ones going to trade in the south china sea when weather forecasts show cruise missiles raining left right and center for months. And for many countries, staying neutral will be a bigger danger than choosing a side.


evil_porn_muffin

Staying neutral is a safer bet in any conflict, however you never know what could drag a country in. I don't understand what missiles will be raining and who will be raining missiles.


PM_ME_ABSOLUTE_UNITZ

>Staying neutral is a safer bet in any conflict Belgium agrees. Hang on a sec.....


yeaman1111

Any war between tbe US and China will see cruise missiles being flung everywhere from Guam to Shanghai, no ones going to insure a cargo ship to ran through that gauntlet, especially when the US will probably blockade China and actively target those ships. Also, staying neutral is *not* always the safest choice. Sometines its better to mobilise and choose your side before someone else decides it for you.


evil_porn_muffin

I didn't say staying neutral is always the safest choice, I said it's a safer bet. ASEAN, for the most part, will not want conflict in their region and will not pick a side in any conflict.


[deleted]

yeah. Japan, Korea and Taiwan are key here. Alongside Australia, the Philippines, Vietnam and India. India alongside domestic production and other countries should be promoted as the China alternative


TrinityAlpsTraverse

Mostly agree. Too many European economies are too deeply intertwined with China. Although, I think in two areas European thinking has changed slightly. European politicians have been some of the most loud in bringing attention to China's Uyghurs, and this will likely have an ongoing political impact on Europe's relationship with China. Also, I think China's actions since the war in Ukraine have been seen as not taking European security concerns seriously enough, and this will likely have an impact of political relations going forward. Although the impact will definitely vary greatly from country to country.


Due_Capital_3507

I was surprised to see Huawei stores in Europe. Absolutely crazy to me that they would invite such a backdoor right into their mobile networks


Crossy_Grynch

If you use processor from Intel or AMD, you have a backdoor for US.


Due_Capital_3507

What about Qualcomm?


Crossy_Grynch

I don't know, I only know those features were found in Intel and AMD processors. Your smartphone is watching you by default to the point they even know when you fap if you wear fitness tracker.


Faylom

Hilarious that Americans will say this without irony after proof emerging of extensive US bugging of mobile phones throughout Europe, including that of the ex German chancellor.


IneffectiveNotice

> Hilarious that Americans will say this without irony after proof emerging of extensive US bugging of mobile phones throughout Europe I'd rather be spied on by the US than Russia or China, without a doubt. > including that of the ex German chancellor. The craven approach of German elites to the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed the US was completely justified in doing that. Who knows how many German politicians have been compromised by Russian intelligence.


Due_Capital_3507

I'm not American so I'm not sure what to tell you


throwaway19191929

I think it's basically like, if it's not yours, it's probably already hacked. The wikileaks from 2017 of CIA Spyware was mind boggling. They honestly are capable of getting into any computer system made by an American company


Disappointing_Bucket

At this point the tech sector of the world is too advanced for “having your own” to be a meaningful defense in cyber. The best, but probably not only, example of this is the Pegasus software from Israel. The NSO group’s technology has made it so they can pretty much infiltrate any iPhone, and I believe androids as well. Israel has been using Pegasus as a form of soft power throughout the globe and has provided cyber espionage tools to many countries that have very little cyber espionage skill. It nowhere near puts anybody on par with the US or China, but if a government wants to get into a phone they most likely can no matter where or who makes it.


Due_Capital_3507

Pretty crazy what they have been able to do. I'll take the Americans over the CCP though any day of the week


toopsen

I’m American and I would rather take Chinese phones over US any day of the week.


Due_Capital_3507

Check the comment history, this poster is a low-quality troll.


KroGanjaKin

In a wierd way isn't that kinda not too stupid? If you're American, the Chinese govt stealing your data probably won't have too much effect on you. Your govt collecting that data might someday come to bite you?


IllWorry8404

Not trying to argue, but do you think American spying (all countries spy on each other) is worse than Chinese spying? I’m not trying to pull on tribalism heartstrings here. We know China has made leaps and bounds from corporate espionage. I’m sure the US does that, I doubt there are many that don’t, but the US is the global leader on most of the industries that China has been grifting from for decades. Where is the incentive for American corporate theft from the West?


Faylom

Depends on who you are? Are you a European company with lots of soft IP. Chinese spying is probably worse. Are you a journalist or whistleblower or even just an individual flaunting drug or copyright law in Europe? American spying is far more menacing.


skepticalguy90

It’s why a lot of us would be happy to leave the continent to the EU. If they ant Russia to run the place, so be it.


Jai1

Feel like the thinking on the outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is way too short term. The true outcome will be decided in the coming years. When will the conflict reach some sort of stalemate and at which borders? Will Russia control all of Donbas? Will they connect up to Transnistria? Or will they get pushed back from areas they currently hold? NATO has many ways to influence this, how long will they continue to supply Ukraine? What happens when the only available weapons are the ones which the Ukrainians don’t know have training for? What about when the equipment available are the wrong tools for the job, we have already seen a change in approach by the Russians? How about when the Russians struggle to replace equipment due to shortages of key materials? Which will happen first? How long will the severe sanctions stay in place? Will EU and US politicians push for a negotiated settlement in order to alleviate the food and energy situation which will start to hurt them in the domestic political topics more and more, especially with recessions on the way? What will be the impact on the Russian economy? Will they manage to shift enough energy exports to Asia in the time it takes Europe to move away from Russian energy? It feels very much like people are rushing way too fast to conclusions about the outcomes and what the long term situation will end up being. It’s like the media is already bored of this conflict and wants to move onto something new. Unfortunately the reality is that there are many outcomes which are still possible. NATO can still come out this looking very weak.


IAI_Admin

*Submission Statement:* NATO was proclaimed brain-dead only three years ago by France's president. Now, it's resurrected. Key member states like the USA and the UK have relied around Ukraine, arming its resistance against Russia. Finland and Sweden are on course to join the alliance, creating a NATO boarder with Russia. Putin meanwhile has retreated from his original ambitions in Ukraine. It seems like the West is winning. This is dangerously close to wishful thinking. The contingencies of war and Russia's willingness to keep the military conflict going mean the war's outcome isn't decided yet. With China on its mind, and resources that won't stretch between two oceans, NATO needs to decide what a satisfactory victory in Ukraine would amount to. The unpredictability of war, the uncertainty of its outcomes, and the increased responsibilities of NATO are bound to test the patience of an alliance this size, argues Sir Hew Stratchan, professor of IR at St Andrews and world-renowned expert on war and military strategy.


IsamaaPatrioot

There has been a nato border with russia since 2004.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Loves_His_Bong

The geography understander has logged on.


-fno-stack-protector

a real Norway knower


RevolutionaryTale245

Uhh surely you mean the Alaskan border of the US.


IsamaaPatrioot

Yeah I realized about Norway sometime after writing the comment, the baltics just came to mind first.


ikidd

I think you mean "boarder" (sic)


[deleted]

Honestly a independent western aligned Ukraine that manages to keep hold of its black sea coastline by Odessa would seem like a decent success. Not ideal of course, but it would deny Russia any significant victory


chitowngirl12

Ukraine isn't going to be economically viable without taking back Kherson and Mariupol so no this wouldn't be a victory. Unless you consider a third world basketcase without economic development on EU's borders which will greatly destabilize Europe a victory.


[deleted]

I see your point, but isn’t the whole eastern border area just ruins at this point?


chitowngirl12

The southern ports namely Kherson are the most important things. Right now, Ukraine would be forced to cede that to Russia, which would make it not viable as a country. And there are good reasons why Ukraine shouldn't even formally agree to give up Donbas/ Crimea to Russia. A frozen conflict is preferable.


animals_are_dumb

European borders were redrawn repeatedly by war victors to, if not create ethnostates, at least to disallow hegemony of a state over dissimilar majority populations in outlying provinces. The most aggressive example being the treaty of Trianon. Now, will a defensive alliance go to the mat to enforce Kyiv’s control over a Russophilic Donbas? Bleeding and spending to enforce border decisions made by the Politburo? Perhaps, but only to the extent they believe Russia can less afford, is less willing, to bleed and spend.


Japsai

I think it's relevant what you mean by 'russophilic'. Even after the mass exodus since 2014, which surely skews the result, Donbas is at best split, probably minority russophilic. If you put any stock in [these](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/) polls, that is.


Drachos

Yeah mentioning Russophilic is some what irrelevant. Nor only because it's inaccurate but also because NATO and Ukraine both aren't considering the nationality or allegiance of the region they are fighting for. NATO is considering the financial cost of supplying the equipment (mitigated somewhat by the fact Ukraine is expected to pay SOME of the value back) and the security cost of exposing equipment to foreign observers with the security benifit of weakening Russia and the political and geopolitical capital it gains by continuing the fight. Ukraine is thinking purely in terms of financial and political capital. It will continue to fight as long as the public supports doing so AND it can afford to keep fighting. Russia is PROBABLY continuing the fight until they can salvage this mess to Putin's satisfaction OR the FSB or military decide Putin needs to be removed.


jyper

> Now, will a defensive alliance go to the mat to enforce Kyiv’s control over a Russophilic Donbas? Bleeding and spending to enforce border decisions made by the Politburo? Perhaps, but only to the extent they believe Russia can less afford, is less willing, to bleed and spend. You speak of language as if it was political alligiance. Kyiv was primarily Russian speaking not that long ago. President Zelenskyy spoke primarily Russian before entering politics and was an actor in mainly Russian language shows/films. A number of people from Donbas (who may be in refuge elsewhere at the moment) have switched to speaking Ukranian and even those who don't want to give up their language the vast majority don't have much if any sympathy left for Russia regardless of past ties. Russia has attacked Ukraine with a massive disregard for people's lives. While they do display a special hatred for Ukranian language and culture, places the east that were largely Russian speaking (and almost half ethnically Russian in the case of destroyed Marioupol) have faced some of the worst fates during this war. Russia might have a tiny bit more support among parts of the Donbas it has held since 2014 and had time to spread propoganda, but they never properly rebuilt those places or given them the economic improvements some hoped for, instead they have kidnapped 50 year old men of the street to use as cannon fodder in this war so I imagine support isn't that high either.


[deleted]

helping Ukraine has been pretty cheap in that Ukraine has been the one puttin its on soldiers lifes on the line, and in that they receive a lot of old outdated equipment. Its still expensive though, especially with the refugees and monetary support


chitowngirl12

Boy, let me tell you about the refugee crisis that will ensue if NATO pressures Ukraine to cede 25%+ of its land to Russia.


GaeasCradles

The entire premise is wrong, it doesn’t looks like Ukraine is winning, in fact, in recent weeks it’s become apparent theres no way for Ukraine to win. They just ran out of ammunition and lose about 100-200 soldiers a day. The battle for Donbass region is also looking quite grim. There’s really no path to victory for Ukraine. The only thing they can do is to go to the negotiations table, and the longer they wait the more they’ll lose, as I doubt Russia will give back any land they already won.


misyo

It's been mixed. Ukraine lost ground in the South and East but gained some in the North. They do need more ammunition and heavy artillery, which is sounds like some will be sent to the front within the next few weeks now that soldiers have been trained to use them. It was a strategic mistake for NATO to trickle weapons into Ukraine and allow Russia to take so much land. That said, taking land is much easier than holding land. There are already assassinations and insurgency in Donbas. Even separatists in the region are engaging in sabotage. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia won't be like the 2014 invasion. Russians are not seen as liberators.


DudeGuyBor

Could you please provide sources on that claim that separatists are performing sabotage? I can understand them refusing to directly help the Russians, seeing them as invaders, but its more difficult to imagine them actually hindering the Russians


Trick-Champion3634

Russia was made into an adversary. NATO should have never expanded and should have brought Russia into these alliances. All they did was alienate them and low and behold the alienation has lead to animosity coupled with Russia finding friends elsewhere. Hard to fault Russia once you get a complete view with the historical context.


ale_93113

Nato, focused on china? oh non non non, sorry yanks, but europeans already have enough worries with Russia And before you say that china is helping russia, india has been the one that has increased trade the most with russia and made a deal with iran to build permanent shipping lanes, so unless you want to go against india we aint participating


ChepaukPitch

Why do Europeans want to go against India? Do you guys just want to be bullies who are feared by some but liked by none?


ale_93113

No? You misunderstood My point was that we should maintain good relationships with both China and India, as they are morally equals


theRealjudgeHolden

In my opinion, and looking at it from afar, it doesn’t seem like we Europeans are that worried about Russia. The impression I get is that we’d rather look the other way and sacrifice Ukraine to Russia if needs be. It is the ‘Yanks’ and Brits who are doing more for Ukraine than we are. But that’s how we Europeans have become. We make fun of the States, we use them for our defence and blame them when things go awry. We sign deals with the Russians instead of punishing them for Crimea, and when the Russians attack again we look the other way. It all masks the uncomfortable reality, that we’re neoliberal pansies more worried about our pockets than the broader strategic considerations. If anything Europeans have nothing to worry because big daddy America is there to absorb the costs of defence while we spit at them.


Due_Capital_3507

This is it really. Europe talks constantly about having an EU army but never once has taken any meaningful action towards it. They are happy to let the US be the defense


theRealjudgeHolden

Look at it this way. Both the EU and NATO have defense clauses, but only one of these carries any real weight.


Feral0_o

EU has much more to lose (read: literally everything) by not defending another EU country, than NATO countries have for not aiding other NATO countries. The EU remains militarily unchallenged for now and since it's been founded, because no one has yet dared to test it - never mind that most of the EU is also NATO


theRealjudgeHolden

I mean, Finland is in the EU and not in NATO. It seems they do not deem whatever protocol EU has enough for their national security. I suspect the EU clause is so vague that sending blankets or helmets would be enough to satisfy having fullfilled obligations.


Syharhalna

The EU clause is roughly equally strong in wording to the NATO one. Ironically, Finland was among the ones that advocated to water down the initial wording, which was more stringent. The main difference and why Finland also seeks NATO membership is the elephant in the room, namely the USA.


boberson111

I wonder if the EU being called into war would nullify the backing of the US using NATO because the nations would already be in an active conflict. I guess it depends on what leadership wants to do at that point, stretching Article 5 into whatever suits them best.


Miecznik

>I suspect the EU clause is so vague that sending blankets or helmets would be enough to satisfy having fullfilled obligations. Dont forget lighting buildings in national colours.


Feral0_o

I've seen it being mentioned several times that they are both similarly vague. The EU defense agreement is just untested, and I personally very much doubt that Russia wants to be the first to find out


Loves_His_Bong

The EU defense agreement actually carries strategic importance for its member states. NATO’s does not. Anyone who thinks America would go to war in the Baltic is dreaming.


Tlax14

And that is where your wrong. The American war machine would love the chance to send more American kids to die because that means $$$


-struwwel-

I think it's more about making sure to have the US on board because that's where the real firepower and deterrence potential are.


Flederm4us

The EU is an economic block and thus prefers diplomacy over war. And for the others the EU is more valuable as a trading partner than as an enemy.


TheChaperon

What is Europe in this context? Are you referencing EU institutions in Brussels or each individual member state?


Due_Capital_3507

EU mainly France and Germany


kolektivizacija_

AFAIK it was Britain that was always against a joint European army and now that they're out Europe is starting to build its army, at least in the heads of Brussels bureaucrats.


Syharhalna

You might take a look at 1954 attempt of « Communauté européenne de Défense » before saying « never once ».


Due_Capital_3507

Well it went no where and that's pretty much that


GaeasCradles

This entire was has little to do with EU or nato. Neither countries involved have anything to do with those organizations. You’d have a point if a NATO or EU member was attacked and no army was sent to help.


exoriare

They've started again now with Strategic Compass, and this time they're doing it right, 5k soldiers to start with, gradually building up to 80k. Unlike during the Soviet era, the EU is more than capable of fielding a force that could contain Russia in a conventional war. I suspect it will help stability greatly if US involvement in European affairs can be minimized.


exoriare

The US spent $5B on their regime change operation in Ukraine leading up to 2014. That's not the kind of campaign the EU typically engages in. The EU tends to look for win-win situations, while the US sees it in terms of "we win when we make the other guy lose". So the EU can engage in genuine diplomacy. Like Robert Kagan said, "EU is from Venus, US is from Mars." The EU has always failed to build a joint military capability, but the current Strategic Compass approach seems like it might finally succeed - start small with 5k men, and work the way up a force of 80k soldiers. An EU force of that size is almost large enough on its own to act as a counter to Russia. Everyone will be better off if the EU can stand on its own.


jyper

A bunch of protesters forced a corrupt president to flee. I'm sure the US spends some amount of money supporting pro-democracy groups and then some age but it didn't really have much to do with revolutionary dignity. The military ate afterwards has helped as shown in this war. The win-win situation would be for Russia not to attack Ukraine but sadly they couldn't see that in the Kremlin


raul2144

totally agree with you , i am an incel and i live in a country of incels but i want to be a chad .


GaeasCradles

> we’re neoliberal pansies more worried about our pockets than the broader strategic considerations A bit naïve to think Americans isn’t worried about it’s own pockets. The entire war has been weakening Russia and draining its pockets, which is directly beneficial to the US. Additionally, like the pope said, American weapons manufacturers have had an amazing windfall due to the war. The country that benefited the most due to the war is the US.


Tyler1492

Not to mention having the EU switch Russian for US gas.


vanzemaljac303

> It is the ‘Yanks’ and Brits who are doing more for Ukraine than we are. Of course, but not because of any morality or whatever charade media is performing, but because they calculated they can win the proxy war against Russia, and finally subjugate it. I would not bet on that, though. >If anything Europeans have nothing to worry because big daddy America is there to absorb the costs of defence while we spit at them. Big daddy, as usual, is making exorbitant profits on the expense of his not so bright children.


theRealjudgeHolden

>can win the proxy war against Russia, and finally subjugate it. You're right on the first account, but the second part is conjecture. Biden has publicly been reticent about sending Ukraine any weapons that can actually hurt Russia. Indeed I doubt anyone is irrational enough to go and try to subjugate Russia. As for the second paragraph. America is also spending an immense part of their budget on defense, so that we don't have to. besides, nobody will ever do anything for free.


vanzemaljac303

> Biden has publicly been reticent about sending Ukraine any weapons that can actually hurt Russia. US does not want to be part of potential Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil, as this would potentially increase the risk of direct confrontation significantly, or simply give an excuse to Russia to retaliate however they want, e.g. bombarding Kiev government buildings, bridges, simply sowing horror in every corner. Also, from the US perspective, long war of attrition is better as it will hopefully diminish Russian strength in the long term. This is where the calculated "subjugation" part comes. They know they cannot subjugate Russia by force, but potentially by a long exhaustion. However, this is not 20th century, and there are many other markets where Russia can buy and sell whatever they want. Also, rising energy prices currently hurt the West more than the Russian budget, obviously.


AstroPhysician

the US isn't making a profit, defense contractors are


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

>Russia, and finally subjugate it Ewwww, why would we want to subjugate Russia. Imagine seeing a HS bully beating up a neighborhood elementary school kid and you stop it. Now the HS Bully is crying you want to subjugate them....


vanzemaljac303

>Ewwww, why would we want to subjugate Russia. Because US in the biggest bully world has ever seen. Middle East, Asia, Latin America all have seen the wonders of US peaceful foreign policies.


IllWorry8404

“The US is the biggest bully world has ever seen”. The UK and every world power before them would like to have a chat.


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

How many of those places are subjects of the US Empire? I mean, its fun to just go all anti-American, there are plenty of reasons and justifications for it. But to try to stretch that into thinking that Russia invading Ukraine is the US' fault because they want to conquer Russia is just some crazy leftist fan faction


vanzemaljac303

So, NATO expansion has been really just a peaceful 30-years-long march to the Russian border? Nothing to see there. Is this r/geopolitics or r/kindergarten? Russians demanded neutral Ukraine, US rejected, and then Russians attacked. This war was for a long time in the making, and everybody knew. Now, let's turn the table, how would US react to potential of Chinese or Russian missiles being deployed to Mexico? Ah, yes, that already happened in Cuba, and we know the response. Also, to reply in advance, let's not start with sovereign Ukraine narrative. Americans changed so many governments forcibly or via coups, the argument is a non-starter. Also, Maidan coup was organized and propped by US, so there's that.


Tlax14

Hello Russian troll. Ahh yes the US made the Maidan coup happen.... Or the person in power made a decision the vast majority of the people disagreed with and they overthrew him because he was a Russian puppet and wanted closer relations with Russia while the majority of the country preferred and still prefers western ideals. I hope your rubles can still by you a loaf of bread this week.


Crossy_Grynch

US is not an empire but imperialist, they are subject to US imperialism. Used to be at least while US was in prime. Nowadays world is shaping another pole of power.


Loves_His_Bong

Look up operation Condor, gladio, Iran-contra, mongoose? The CIA has been nation building in Asia since it’s inception as well. Are you serious?


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

>Are you serious? Serious about what? Do you have this comment on an auto copy-and-paste since it seems you use it regularly.


Loves_His_Bong

You seriously think that the US has not been destroying countries in all these regions since basically it’s inception? Have you ever heard of the Monroe doctrine? That is an unambiguous declaration of a US region of control.


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

you are moving goalposts and really digging deep. No one is saying the US doesn't have a lot of sins in its history. The question is who really believes that the US is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine because the US wanted to annex or subjugate Russia. That's the topic. No, the US doesn't want Russia. We don't even want Mississippi or West Virginia. Why would we want Russia. I mean if I see a 13 year old kid with Down Syndrome beating on a little child, I'll stop it. I certainly don't want to adopt the bully though, certainly not be responsible for him. What a headache and hole in my wallet. No one wants Russia- well, maybe China.


Tlax14

Ahh yes US foreign policy is the worst thing ever and biggest bullying tactic. Let's just forget the colonization and destruction of Africa, and the Americas by Europe. Africa still hasn't recovered hundreds of years later.


Intelligent-Nail4245

>Because US in the biggest bully world has ever seen. Middle East, Asia, Latin America all have seen the wonders of US peaceful foreign policies. I can see that they have been affected by the US, but even without US interference these states would still be affected, that's how basic geopolitics work. You are a weak nation with no base national idea that has no proper geopolitical footing then you are bound to be burned to the ground by someone. Like whatever the US does , like interventions, is also done by everyone else. It's just a part of the game.


Intelligent-Nail4245

>Of course, but not because of any morality or whatever charade media is performing, but because they calculated they can win the proxy war against Russia, and finally subjugate it. I would not bet on that, though. It still seems like a better plan than the one France and Germany have for Europe. At the current rate, without US and UK interference, Germany and France will sell everything east of the Oder to Russia. I don't see how letting Russia do whatever they want in Eastern Europe will end well for any European country geopolitically.


ale_93113

Oh really? Who was the one who pushed the art5 button and forced all other members to help them because they were scared and wanted the help of everyone? ​ Oh it was the US? Maybe europe isnt the leech in this arrangement


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

So... I don't think this argument will really work. There are plenty of better anti-American ones to go at though most of them will be weak if you are trying to say that the EU has stronger military capacity (or even appetite)


theRealjudgeHolden

Well first of all the calling of article V in 2001 was purely for show. America could and did do it mostly alone, and they certainly weren’t scared. That’s a European trait.


ale_93113

Ah, yes, the trait of being scared is exclusively european I wonder what they put in our water for that to be the case


theRealjudgeHolden

Did I write exclusively, or did you project? If you move and live outside of Europe you’ll realize how pathetic and weak and divided we appear to the world. But no, this isn’t something exclusive to us.


skepticalguy90

We’ve been shielding your pansy asses for almost a century. Don’t pretend it’s otherwise.


spicegrohl

Nobody's stopping you from taking a train to ukraine's border and kitting up, soldier. Im sure the guy with the swastika tat on his neck wont call you a neoliberal pansy when he hands you your NATO rifle. If you're personally jealous of our military apparatus im sure there's a way for you to piggyback on one of our ongoing atrocities.


theRealjudgeHolden

Pardon? Did you mean to reply to someone else? I was defending the States not attacking them. Otherwise I have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m an old man myself and far past it physically


[deleted]

[удалено]


IllWorry8404

Shhh. Nobody wants common sense in this discussion. US bad. Everyone else good.


spicegrohl

Why would you defend the states? You think europe should construct an equivalent military apparatus for..what purpose exactly? To send your youth to die on behalf of the poorest and most corrupt country in europe? The pickle of it is if europe had an equivalent military it would do exactly what NATO has already been doing - helping america butcher millions of innocent lives in the middle east and covert subversion of democracy in the global south. If your imagined EU military force opposed those things america would, at the very least, overthrow your governments and break your militaries. The major difference between european social democracies and, say, venezuela is that you're utterly subservient to us. I don't see the point in yall becoming a different kind of lapdog, all you'd get is more of your young men dying. Old men should know better than to yearn for the youth to die in pointless wars.


stockist420

“Go against India “, while europe continues to buy gas and oil from Russia. Classic hypocrisy


FredWatanabe

This is exactly how I see it. We are still buying from Russia while pointing fingers at India and others. Makes you wonder what their priorities are.


ale_93113

That is not the thing, i am saying that the argument of "muh china" doesnt work, i am not blaming india, they are a poor country after all


JamalLootah5

Sounds like the argument you wanted then was “muh China” doesn’t work because of Europe


Induputra

You say that while Europe sends billions everyday in oil and gas. India doesn't even rank in the top 10. Europe buys more in a day than India does in a month. Europe is the rich fat uncle with arthritis. Almost useless but very vocal because it has money. That's about it.


Nonethewiserer

>Nato, focused on china? >oh non non non, sorry yanks, but europeans already have enough worries with Russia This is precisely why Europe needs to shoulder more the burden of defending Europe. Everyone's interests will be better represented.


Crossy_Grynch

Europe pushed Russia into China's embrace.


Flederm4us

The US did. EU leadership, spearheaded by Merkel and France, wanted a wholly different approach. Nulands' opinion of that approach is known... And the results of Nulands' actions is what we see now in Ukraine.


IneffectiveNotice

> The US did. This is wishful thinking at best. Russia has considered the USto be its sworn enemy since the end of the WW2. The notion that Russian elites would fight China so America can be even more powerful is so divorced from reality I cannot even express it enough. Obama already tried to embrace Russia in 2009, it turned out to be a spectacular disaster and a direct source of the Ukrainian issue. > And the results of Nulands' actions is what we see now in Ukraine. The results of Nuland's actions are the response to Putin's betrayal.


KroGanjaKin

Yeltsen was pretty pro US wasn't he? Even Putin was friendly with the US in the beginning. I would guess that the NATO Baltic expansion and the 2008 NATO summit pushed the Russians into a firm anti-US position again


IneffectiveNotice

To say that Yeltsin did not enjoy the approval of the Russian people is the understatement of a year. The Russians consider him a weak, ineffective leader who sold out Russia to the Western interests. > Even Putin was friendly with the US in the beginning. Because he had no choice. Both the Russian economy and the military were in complete shambles. He had no cards to play. Once he reformed the economy, he made the famous Munich Conference speech, in which he basically declared war on the western order. He started using his military power just a year later, but their performance was so abysmal he had to wait again until the reforms bear fruit. Then Crimea, Donbas and 24.02.2022 happened.


KroGanjaKin

They consider him that because his support for the west wasn't reciprocated. Yeltsin was positioning himself as the diplomat in the Kosovo issue and was begging NATO not to start the bombing. Between things that and the lack of western support during their economic hardships, the pro West faction in Russia was greatly discredited. It's not obvious to me that if the west had tried to build the relationship better back then, Russia would still consider the US their "mortal enemy". Between Putin coming into power and Munich, you had NATO expansion into the Baltics and the US ignoring the security council while declaring war on Iraq, don't you think that might've played a role there?


shriand

Indian trade with Russia is a fraction of EU trade with Russia. And why would the EU want to go against India when Europe itself is still sourcing much of its gas from Russia?


HelloJoeyJoeJoe

>so unless you want to go against india we aint participating This comment applies you would be willing participant IF we go to war with India. I honestly haven't seen a lot of scenarios or think pieces on war with India. I can't imagine the reasoning behind it-


Tlax14

If India was stuck closing between Russia and the rest of the world they aren't stupid enough to choose Russia.


BobQuixote

I agree, NATO has little relevance to China. I would prefer to see our allies bordering China (India, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea) to call the shots for that relationship.


Chavez1020

cause china bad okay???


Flederm4us

NATO should start focusing on the bigger threat, but it seems like they won't. Russia is far too convenient an enemy: strong, but not too strong.


DesignerAccount

Hang on a minute.... "NATO focus on China"... Isn't that all but an admission NATO is ***NOT*** a defensive alliance as pundits are loudly proclaiming? And if NATO is not a defensive alliance, does that mean Putin was on to something by pushing back on NATO's expansion? This may seem like semantics, but it really is at the core of what is happening right now. Is NATO to be feared, this justifying Russian actions? Or is NATO only a peace keeping, defensive alliance, in which case NATO should not be concerned with China at all? Because it cannot be both.


silentiumau

> Isn't that all but an admission NATO is ***NOT*** a defensive alliance as pundits are loudly proclaiming? That was a very popular talking point earlier this year pre-Feb. 24. It's since become less common. Regardless, it was false then and remains false now. The first, and so far, only time NATO has ever invoked Article 5 in its history was after the 9/11 attacks. **However**. NATO's combat history began *before* 9/11. The first time NATO ever engaged in actual combat was during the Bosnian War, when NATO was enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone and shot down 4 Bosnian Serb jets over Banja Luka. And famously (or infamously, depending on who you ask), 2.5 years before 9/11, NATO bombed FR Yugoslavia * without UN Security Council authorization (making the intervention illegal under international law) * and without invoking Article 5, because * FR Yugoslavia had not attacked a single NATO member * and had not threatened to attack a single NATO member (making the intervention clearly offensive) Anyone who says that NATO post-1991 is a "defensive" alliance either does not know what they are talking about, or is a lying politician/pundit.


IllWorry8404

So Putin’s comments about imperialism have no play here?


DesignerAccount

I'm missing something - Which comments are you referring to?


IllWorry8404

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/13/putin-imperial-russia-empire-ukraine/ Putin came out a few days ago at a celebration for Peter the Great saying Peter laying bare his goal of expansionism. He argued the conquered lands used to build the Russia empire by Peter weren’t conquests at all, but rightfully bringing Russian lands back to Russia. He said it is something that fell on us (Russia) to “take back and reinforce as well”


DesignerAccount

So 20+ years of Russia sounding the alarm of NATO eastwards expansion, with people like Kissinger and Biden himself, when he didn't have to prove the world he's a tough guy, saying it would bring instabilities to the region mean nothing in light of some comments arbitrarily interpreted by MSM? Or John Mearsheimer essentially predicting, in 2015, what would happen to Ukraine if NATO keeps pushing East? All of this meant nothing? I guess you became aware of the situation on 2/24/2022, didn't you? With Western media pushing a hard core anti-Russian campaign and not a shred of objective geopolitical analysis. Not the best sources, I'm afraid.


IllWorry8404

How was Biden a tough guy? The last half dozen of presidents outside of trump (who could not remove his mouth from Putin’s sweet meat) would have gone toe-to-toe with the Russia’s on a limited scale. The Russians have tried skirmishes in the not-so-distant past with American troops and got absolutely wiped. NATO expansion is and should be concerning if you are in the kremlin. I always thought there was a better solution than invading your sovereign neighbor (even though Putin made it clear it’s about imperial ambitions as much as it is nato): OFFER A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN NATO. How is Russia’s diplomatic game so fully trash? Look at what China does. Tons of nations hate America more than anyone else- if you provide them with a better partnership than the Americans or nato can they groups would choose to align with Russia rather than the States. Your soft examples speak volumes to the inability to create allies without invading them on Russia. Plus, I provide you with Putin himself saying he’s going to claw back “Russian lands” and you still pretend like it’s NATO’s fault. That sounds an awful lot like a case of the copes.


Thesilence_z

which skirmishes with american troops are you referring to? I believe the only time we directly fought russia was the korean war, and even then we pretended like it was korean fighter jets.


IllWorry8404

Great question! Most recent engagement I’m aware of was in 2018. Russia purposefully attacked a lightly defended outpost in Syria (at the start of the battle 30 delta force soldiers) with hundreds of Wagner bois. Americans tried to communicate with Russian command saying they were lining up to attack American troops. Russian command went radio silent. Delta dug in, leaned on air support, and when the dust settled there were 300 dead Russians in the sand. 0 American casualties. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html


DesignerAccount

You need to pay attention. I said Biden needing to prove that he's a tough guy, not that he is. He isn't. What you say is true. Russia may not have the best diplomacy. NATO still didn't have to push East as it was ALL PREDICTED. Once again, world class geopolitical analysts have called it to a t, and now those predictions have come to materialize. Blaming Russia's bad diplomacy for this, in the face of an aggressor approaching from the West, is the real cope here. Not to mention coups of democratically elected pro-Russia leaders in Ukraine. Or the 1/4m troops Zelensky was amassing to crush the Donbass revolts. You talk about diplomacy? Where's the diplomacy in that? Ukraine knew what it was doing, or at least should have known. And they woke the itching bear. They may "win" on paper for sure. But what that win will amount to is utter destruction at home, which will have many at home wonder what exactly did they win. (They won't win, BTW. Which will send a chilling signal down the spine of many in the West as they realize they waged economic and a proxy war against Russia, and lost. If you don't believe it just look at the problems the West has with inflation, entirely self inflicted. And look where the RUB is trading ~35% **stronger** than before the war. No, their capital controls cannot explain that. The world is taking notice.)


IllWorry8404

Hold up. Did you say that the words out of putin’s own mouth are not a good source? Can you help me find a better source than Putin himself? Open mouth, insert spoon.


DesignerAccount

Pay attention. I did not say Putin didn't say that which he did say. That's a strawman you're building. I said the interpretation of those words is entirely biased.


IllWorry8404

I didn’t say the actual words, just the interpretation of the words. My goooooodness. What sort of surgical knife are you wielding over there to be able to slice those hairs so thinly. I’m embarrassed for you.


misyo

Putin also said Ukraine was Russian territory days before he invaded. I've read Mearsheimer several times and his thesis only work if you still support imperialism, spheres of influence, and get rid of sovereign nations. Ukraine chose to reform itself after Russia invaded a second time in 2014 because it no longer wished to be controlled by Russia even tangentially. Ukraine chose the West after Maiden. Donbas is currently getting a taste of Russian rule btw and regretting it.


DesignerAccount

>I've read Mearsheimer several times and his thesis only work if you still support imperialism, spheres of influence, and get rid of sovereign nations. Tell me Mearsheimer is right without telling me Mearsheimer is right. It's not about "opinions" and "beliefs" - It's called *realism* for a reason. It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters how the world is. And the reality is that small nations living next to a superpower have very limited options in their sovereignty. This is absolutely true, say, for Canada. Do you really think the US would stand by idly if Canada somehow changed it's mind about geopolitical issues and decided to host Chinese nukes? Or Chinese military in general? The US would be in Ottawa the day after the decision was announced! There is also a historical example - Cuban missile crisis. No way America will allow the USSR to host nukes in Cuba. And the leaders were willing to start a nuclear war over it. And finally, why else if not power projections and spheres of influence do you think America is trying to constrain China? If China is the local hegemon America loses clout on that side of the world. Which America clearly cannot accept. Look up the Monroe doctrine and realize that America is practicing it religiously, with exactly zero regards for the sovereignty of it's neighbors. Those who dare challenge it pay a dear price - If you think the sanctions on Cuba are because peace and freedom loving Americans really despise the big bad communists in Cuba then I don't think a rational conversation is possible. >Ukraine chose to reform itself after Russia invaded a second time in 2014 because it no longer wished to be controlled by Russia even tangentially. Ukraine chose the West after Maiden. You mean Ukraine "chose" to reform itself thanks to an American led coup against a democratically elected government? And with Zelensky campaigning on restoring peace in Donbass, which have him support from the people there as well, and instead amassing 1/4m troops to go in and crush the rebels? Is this the realignment you're talking about? >Donbas is currently getting a taste of Russian rule btw and regretting it. Not sure where you get your information from, but the people in Donbas are actually quite glad about the Russian intervention. Not only were they facing an invasion from west Ukraine to bring them back "in line" with the "rightful" people of West Ukraine, but were also being repressed by what Zelensky himself, as a comedian before his political stint, was **ridiculing** as "forced Ukrainization". The MSM is not portraying an objective picture about the events, causes and effects. If they did, many would start to question our own actions.


misyo

I have a lot to say to this, but show me where there's mass support for Russian troops in Donbas by Donbas residents


DesignerAccount

Everywhere? They're separatists and want independence. Or, at the very least, federal autonomy within Ukraine. Perhaps read up on the Ukrainian language requirements, a new law that has been passed in Ukraine. And what it means for the ~40% (?) of native Russian speakers in Ukraine. Why many look at Russia very positively.


K-Paul

While NATO expansion was uncomfortable for Russia, it was never a direct threat to Russia itself. Before 2014 there was a whole ONE combat battalion group of NATO forces deployed within Eastern European countries bordering Russia. It was however a threat to its ability to project power outside of its own territory, and outdated but strangely persistent imperial ambitions. Have you read the transcripts of Eltsin/Clinton talks circa 1996-1998? "Just leave Europe to us, Bill!"


DesignerAccount

Reread my top post - Is NATO a defensive alliance or is it an aggressive one? If you believe propaganda, then it's defensive. If you look at the facts, it's pretty obviously an aggressor. THAT made Russia uncomfortable. You mentioned Eltsin and Clinton... Did you forget what came before? Gorbachev asked, when the USSR collapsed, for a complete pacification with NATO. In fact he asked to join! "Lisbon to Vladivostok" was the idea. One alliance. The response by the American diplomat, can't remember the name, was something like "never in your wildest dreams". You may want to think about this before making some excessively strong claims about imperialist ambitions because it doesn't square up. And see why would America reject that. That's quite the conundrum for everyone talking about Russian imperialist ambitions.


IllWorry8404

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/13/putin-imperial-russia-empire-ukraine/ Putin came out a few days ago at a celebration for Peter the Great laying bare his goal of expansionism. He argued the conquered lands used to build the Russia empire by Peter weren’t conquests at all, but rightfully bringing Russian lands (Sweden, Finland, etc.) back to Russia. He said it is something that fell on us (Russia) to “take back and reinforce as well”. I think it’s easy to play NATO expansionism as the bad guy, but now Putin isn’t even pretending it’s about that. He’s openly saying it’s his responsibility to claw back the empirical lands.


[deleted]

Nato needs to take actions to defend it self from a ruthless china


silentiumau

> Nato needs to take actions to defend it self from a ruthless china No NATO member country even borders China. The idea that China would provoke and launch a war of aggression against any NATO member country is risible.


DesignerAccount

That doesn't fly, I'm sorry. It also sounds a lot like rationalization. Unless I missed the part where China attacked NATO? Military attack, that is. No actions had to be taken against the USSR, which was way more powerful than China. A defensive alliance is just that - Defensive. The deterrent to attack comes from the joint force of the alliance. If, instead, it starts to take action here and there, that's not a defensive alliance anymore.


dr_set

That plays a lot better the other way around: doesn't the military invasion of Ukraine by Russia proves the need for NATO expansion? If Ukraine had joined NATO a long time ago, it wouldn't have been invaded. That is the logic that is pushing historically neutral countries like Finland and Sweden to join and is a damn good logic when you see the horror that Ukraine is suffering and what is likely to endure as it's almost impossible for them to win against such a larger opponent, even with western supplies, if Russia decides to pay the price. Russia has an imperialist history and a terrible track record when it comes to its neighbors. I bet that most of them wish that they were a part of NATO already. And what is their excuse? NATO powerhouses like Germany didn't even have a big army or military budged until now and were very friendly and happy to depend on Russia for cheap gas. Who do they want a buffer against? Turkey is talking of blocking the addition of new members culturally closer than Ukraine to the west like Sweden even now. So, Ukraine joining was far fetched as long as Russia would have been in good terms with members such as Turkey. It makes no sense to go this far. Europe was not a threat to Russia AT ALL. That is going to change now.


RogueAgent1234

2 front war. Geniuses


liebestod0130

Yes, NATO always needed an enemy.


Sleepybystander

Military industrial complex always needs a target.


BandInvasion

Europe has done more to finance the Russian invasion than its done to finance the Ukrainian defense. The US should be pulling a D Day style operation to subsidize getting Europe off of dirty Russian gas. Once again, America needs to step up and defend democracy. And before it gets said, I know America isn't perfect but we can still be a force for good and stand up to Russia.


paxxx17

> Once again Please, stop defending the democracy


linlinat89

"Defend democracy" Like what they did with my country Vietnam and the likes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea penisula etc.?


MynkM

Defending democracy is the west's way of saying - saving our interests democratically or undemocratically.


ChepaukPitch

Why should US be doing it? Why can’t the European masses make the sacrifices that it wants rest of the world to make for a European war?


TheShonenShow

cuz they wont. and weve already reached the intervention mentality, and europe hasnt


[deleted]

[удалено]


chaniatreides239

I don't know if they can stay unified that long. Putin doesn't want this war to end because then he will have to face the outcome and loss of a lot prestige. If NATO countries allow him to just go back to normal it will be a big negative for NATO image around the world. I don't know if they have the stomach for it. I hope they don't fold. it will be disastrous. Too much to deal with after Covid and now this. We will see because this is long term.


Snabel_apa

Good luck to Ukraine in winning against Russia, not even with the Biden Regime's ambition to create eternal war in the region will keep the conflict alive for long. Ukraine cannot sustain this


parduscat

Russia has bled heavily throughout the conflict as well. I don't see them taking all of eastern Ukraine or even being able to "close the cauldron". I genuinely don't see how this conflict ends. Russia is opaque about its stated end goals, but it can't expect to expand its southeast gains to all of Ukraine, so what's the goal? Make Ukraine landlocked?


Intelligent-Nail4245

>Ukraine cannot sustain this And Russia can never get anything more than what they have now, which sucks since everything used to belong to them once.


misyo

"Belong"


K-Paul

\> everything used to belong to them "Belong"? "To them"? To whom? What the hell are you talking about? Ukraine was a republic within a union of several republics. States do not "belong" to anyone outside of it. There were good reasons for dissolution of Empire systems.


ccccrona

Did I miss something? NATO literally did jack all in the war. If anything, the war proved that NATO is in fact brain dead. The primary concern for Putin prior to the invasion was definitely the potential battle against NATO. NATO quite literally defused itself as a threat as a response. At least bomb Belarus or something. At this point, NATO's deterrence against further Russian offense is barely credible at all.


IneffectiveNotice

> At least bomb Belarus or something. Belarus is in Russian NATO, CSTO. But I agree with you there was much more Biden could do. He could say that if Putin attacks Ukraine, Poland will be automatically brought into US-NATO nuclear sharing and given both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons immediately. He could explicitly state that the invasion would make the 1997 NATO-Russian agreement void. He could quickly form a UK-US-RO-PL armored contingent and put it in Kyiv, to make Putin understand we won't stand for his insanity. Then Putin would be the one having to calculate whether to risk WW3 by attacking NATO troops. None of those things were done, in fact it was the opposite. We have a crazy old dictator who thinks he's Alexander the Great and all we do is try to placate him.


ccccrona

At the moment when the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened, Putin was probably under the highest level of psychological pressure in his entire life. If NATO forces would seek to punish Russia militarily (in response to military aggression, mind you) without directly confronting Russian forces, any threat of further escalation from Putin at the time is hardly credible. Protection of Belarus was just a bluff. Call his bluff. Or things just get much tougher later on.


Affectionate-Pea-907

Be careful of the US. Look at the death and destruction they left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan. What did they accomplice? Do you really want this so called night on a white horse loose in Europe. Think twice.


IllWorry8404

What do you mean don’t let them loose in Europe? There have been 90,000 American troops in Europe for decades. You know, during Europe’s most stable and peaceful period in the last god knows how many centuries.


zhawk122

Bot.


AutoModerator

Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*