[B0ycey]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/afghanistan-josep-borrell-slovenia-french-sahel-b1913012.html%3famp

EU momentum is gaining force. Upset that America didn't consult them when unilaterally leaving Afghanistan, there is a growing understanding that defence has be be autonomous. We have discussed the "EU Army" before. It makes sense. Rely on American defence means you align to their geopolitics. And currently EU have a better GDP than China. So it isn't like they can't afford it. So perhaps the EU needs to understand their potential. And being a resident in the continent I genuinely believe this will increase and sustain European security... along with global security of course given I doubt there be much US appetite in the future to enter wars alone.

So what do people think? Is it time for the EU to treat the US as an equal partner rather than be an understudy?

[Beren]

When the US finally pulls out of her, Lady Europe will make a 180° turn on her bed and spread her legs for China and Russia.

[Rugoz]

From the article:

"The situation in Afghanistan, Libya, Middle East, Sahel show that now it’s the time to act starting with the creation of a rapid European entry force able to show the will of the European Union to act as a global strategic partner."

To do what? Get into the same shit as America did? Silly.

[B0ycey]

From the article:



To do what? Get into the same shit as America did? Silly.

I don't think the EU would actually do the same silly shit America did. As it happens I don't think America would again. Or I hope not. I guess the whole point is whilst Europe relies on the US for security, they have to align with their geopolitics. Sometimes I don't think the EU and their populous understand just how much of a world leader they can be if they can sort simple things out like a fully functional large and well funded military. They certainly lead the way for ethics and social reform.

[Beren]

They just realised they really should man up and grow balls, but even the thought of a man with balls freaks them out. Europeans (the Germans, who had to be submissive to two ways during the Cold War, especially) are so used to submission that they'll rather hold a Eurovision Song Contest in honour of their new masters perhaps.

[Rugoz]

I don't think the EU would actually do the same silly shit America did. As it happens I don't think America would again. Or I hope not. I guess the whole point is whilst Europe relies on the US for security, they have to align with their geopolitics. Sometimes I don't think the EU and their populous understand just how much of a world leader they can be if they can sort simple things out like a fully functional large and well funded military. They certainly lead the way for ethics and social reform.

The article suggests geopolitical ambitions and not just autonomy. I don't think the capability to fight wars in Afghanistan or the Middle East is essential for European security. There are other ways to meddle if necessary.

If the EU becomes a global military power instead of just a regional one, I don't think it would act much differently than the US.

[B0ycey]

The article suggests geopolitical ambitions and not just autonomy. I don't think the capability to fight wars in Afghanistan or the Middle East is essential for European security. There are other ways to meddle if necessary.

If the EU becomes a global military power instead of just a regional one, I don't think it would act much differently than the US.

Don't you think the penny dropped with Afghanistan? If the most well funded Army in the world can't defeat 70,000 guys with no air cover, then that says gunboat diplomacy doesn't work.

But sure, I guess the aim is to act like the US. Or more specifically like a superpower. Bring influence to the world. But I just don't see any illegal wars happening under their watch. But that is a moot point anyway. This is about autonomy and unless the EU does this, they will be a proxy to the US rather than an equal partner.

[Beren]

If the EU becomes a global military power

Is that you're afraid of?

They just couldn't deal with any security issue anywhere on their own, for god's sake, and America will be gone in a decade or two perhaps.

[JohnRawls]

When the US finally pulls out of her, Lady Europe will make a 180° turn on her bed and spread her legs for China and Russia.

Russia is very insignificant comapred to Lady Europe as a whole while China can't really be trusted. Memes aside, this ain't going to happen in any forseable scenario unless European society as a whole undergoes some kind of fundamental change.

Europe is Americas ally because of the socio-political, culture and so on. Geopolitical interests is 2ndary i guess because otherwise our alliance would have collapsed long ago.

[Rugoz]

Don't you think the penny dropped with Afghanistan? If the most well funded Army in the world can't defeat 70,000 guys with no air cover, then that says gunboat diplomacy doesn't work.

How is that an argument for more military involvement? I mean if both are equally ineffective, there's no reason to do either.

But sure, I guess the aim is to act like the US. Or more specifically like a superpower. Bring influence to the world. But I just don't see any illegal wars happening under their watch.

Libya? That war was more or less legal (based on an UN resolution) and UK/France pushed for it more than anyone else. You could argue EU citizens overall are less interventionist, which is probably true. Still, politicians love that shit too much.

But that is a moot point anyway. This is about autonomy and unless the EU does this, they will be a proxy to the US rather than an equal partner.

I don't see the EU or my country as a "proxy" of the US. My country is more a "proxy" of the EU and I'm not at all convinced that's preferable.

[Beren]

unless European society as a whole undergoes some kind of fundamental change.

How about the world as a whole undergoing a fundamental change?

[B0ycey]

How is that an argument for more military involvement? I mean if both are equally ineffective, there's no reason to do either.

It wasn't an argument for military involvement. It was an argument that the EU has learnt.

Libya? That war was more or less legal (based on an UN resolution) and UK/France pushed for it more than anyone else. You could argue EU citizens overall are less interventionist, which is probably true. Still, politicians love that shit too much.

Well an EU army would need consensus. I suspect someone would have vetoed that war. But even so, Libya was another failure and was perhaps the first. No wonder France and Britain was so eager. The lesson hadn't be taught yet.

I don't see the EU or my country as a "proxy" of the US. My country is more a "proxy" of the EU and I'm not at all convinced that's preferable.

The EU is a proxy. Or more specifically EU nations are a proxy. So is the UK. And that was evident given the US pulled out of Afghanistan without consulting their NATO partners. And whilst EU members rely on US support, they will remain a proxy. But for some reason there is an opposition to this in some EU states and as such they may well remain a proxy. But the argument of autonomy is a factual one and if people want the EU to achieve their potential that should actually be supporting this cause. Because I have always said Macron was a president ahead of his time. People may not see it today, but if Europe wants to survive on its own, it needs to unite. And it certainly needs to unite if it wants to be taken seriously like China and America in the future.

[JohnRawls]

How about the world as a whole undergoing a fundamental change?

Even more unlikelier unless a nuclear war happens or something

[Beren]

Even more unlikelier unless a nuclear war happens or something

Or something.

[JohnRawls]

Or something.

When was the last time the world changed?

[Beren]

When was the last time the world changed?

It's permanently changing, but Aug. 31. was the last notable moment of change I guess. Sorry in case you missed it.

[JohnRawls]

It's permanently changing, but aug. 31. was the last notable moment of change I guess. Sorry in case you missed it.

I think we have different definitions of fundamental change. WW2 was more or less a fundamental change. Collapse of the SU was a fundamental change.

[Beren]

I think we have different definitions of fundamental change. WW2 was more or less a fundamental change. Collapse of the SU was a fundamental change.

How about the collapse of US dominance in the world, or Eurasia at least? I wonder if that would fit your definition. Their withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn't fundamental in and of its own, it was just a notable moment.

[JohnRawls]

How about the collapse of US dominance in the world, or Eurasia at least? I wonder if that would fit your definition. Their withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn't fundamental in and of its own, it was just a notable moment.

Collapse of the US like the SU would be a fundamental change. Just loosing a war changes nothing on a fundamental level unless it is ww2.

[Rancid]

If the US collapse expect a refugee crisis in Europe. Should be awesome.