The Euro-American Split (I): Dread Possibility

Although I agree with the conclusion that the necessity of NATO is to be questioned, some of the observations made are purely in the eye of the beholder. E.g.<p>&gt; Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.<p>From a European perspective, the &quot;growing security burden&quot; is largely an American self-serving assertion. Standing on the other side of the pond, one could also read the situation as &quot;the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony&quot;.

I can understand the economical argument. If the US wants to disengage from NATO and Europe it can do so orderly. But the way this handled makes the retreat from Afghanistan look exemplary in comparison.<p>In addition. Extorting a country that is victim of military aggression. Going to bed with a bloodthirsty dictator. That has nothing to do with the defense-spending arguments. That is just amoral, to put it lightly.

Might be less of a problem if America hadn’t bankrupted itself militarily with 20 years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that it didn’t need to be in.

Since Trump&#x27;s inauguration the new talking point on all social media is that &quot;the EU is freeloading on the US&quot;.<p>This is patently false. Whenever the EU starts its own defense initiatives, the US interferes immediately:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.euractiv.com&#x2F;section&#x2F;defence&#x2F;news&#x2F;eu-fends-off-us-attack-in-spat-over-the-blocs-military-reforms&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.euractiv.com&#x2F;section&#x2F;defence&#x2F;news&#x2F;eu-fends-off-u...</a><p>For a proper European deterrence the EU would needs its own nuclear force and an independent foreign policy. Which the US would attempt to shut down very quickly.<p>What the US really wants is for the EU to buy US hardware with kill switches and manufacture shells for US directed proxy wars. Perhaps also supply EU soldiers in Ukraine that function as a tripwire for the continuation of Nuland&#x27;s pet conflict.<p>The status quo is that the EU is happy with its abusive vassal relationship, pays slightly less for defense and lets the US reap benefits from a sovereign foreign policy and a dollar that is propped up by its military might.<p>Be careful what you ask for!

this article is better than i expected since most English articles about geopolitics are filled with ideologically driven whining.<p>i like how it referenced Planck&#x27;s principle<p>&gt; Cultures do not change when people replace their old ideas with new ones; cultures change when people with new ideas replace the people with old ones.<p>I want to add something, here, &#x27;people with new ideas&#x27;, is not trump, trump is a man without any ideas, the one with new ideas is JD Vance

This bullshit can look reasonable, but the US has undercut the European Defense initiatives and industry at every turn during the last 30 years, using their geopolitical reach and tools like Echelon for industrial spying to win military procurement programs, and their special relationship with the UK to veto any EU-wide initiative towards defense.<p>The US goals have been for decades to force the EU to buy US military hardware and to make sure the EU can&#x27;t become an independent military power. They kept Europe on a leash, kept it tame, and now they complain that &quot;we depend on us&quot;.<p>Make no mistake, the second the EU becomes militarily independant and strong, they will complain as loudly. Look first for Trump applying pressure because we don&#x27;t buy American weapons, and then him or his cult casting the EU into their geopolitical adversary.

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump&#x27;s America.<p>(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)<p>And while we&#x27;re at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective *Liberal Democracy*. So, to be part,<p>1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.<p>2. No &quot;Illiberal Democracies&quot;: say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.<p>3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.<p>Not one more *new* military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.<p>Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!<p>Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.<p>US and&#x2F;or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance&#x27;s full criteria as every other member.<p>Same applies for prospective new members.<p>Not interested? Bye, your problem.