The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:

But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.

But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.

Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.

  • Vampire [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Over the last decade, the EU has grown relatively less powerful than America – economically, technologically, and militarily.

    I got curious about this so I checked wolframalpha: in 2009, the EU had a bigger economy than the USA; in 2022 the USA’s was bigger by 53%

  • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We will see how it plays out long term, but it seems to me that the US is hollowing out Europe to enrich themselves in their economic war against China. If you don’t believe that, look what the US is doing to encourage manufacturers to leave Europe and move to the US, or the fact that they overcharge Europe on fossil fuels.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s precisely what’s happening, the amazing part is how many Europeans refuse to acknowledge it because they painted themselves into a situation where they’re entirely reliant on US for protection now.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If by “scathing,” you mean one-sided reporting ignoring political context and contemporary events, then yes. It’s very"scathing".

    By “scathing”, do you mean reiterating in extremist language the same thing European leaders have said over the past few months, that the EU relies to heavily on US military force?

    Cool example of propagandizing old news. Making good news bad is your style.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes. An anti-atlanticist lobby group. They’re not neutral.

        I agree with them when it comes to pushing European strategic autonomy but the reasoning they present here is bonkers. The purpose of this piece is to scare atlanticists out of atlanticism, not provide accurate analysis.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers. Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest. The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now which makes Europe far less important for US now. If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            One has to be bonkers to think that the plain facts presented here is bonkers.

            Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.

            Meanwhile, atlanticism is inherently premised on the idea of Europe being subjugated to US interest

            No. Atlanticism is based on the idea of relying on the US as a military power, and, consequently, also relying on the US to be sane. It’s been a thing since WWII in the face of the cold war, a major dividing point between France and Germany (at least under CDU governments), but generally been on the decline since Iraq as Atlanticists realised that the US is not, in fact, sane.

            If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US. Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?

            The funny part is that US is clearly refocusing on China now

            “Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.

            which makes Europe far less important for US now.

            The US is reliant on European industry in so many ways it’s not even funny. The whole world is.

            If republicans win the elections next year, which is likely, then Europe is going to discover the dangers of relying on US for protection very quickly.

            Not news. Already arrived, as said, beginning with Iraq and really driven home with Trump. Also, we’re not relying on their protection. Again: From what aliens is the US supposed to protect us. If anything is endangered on the military side then it’s resource imports, but not the continent, and even then you’d have to hit a fuckton of places at the same time for trade flow to not simply readjust, meanwhile making pretty much the whole world your enemy.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.

              The interpretation is entirely correct. EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.

              If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US.

              If by trade war you mean US cannibalizing Europe by luring what business is left to prop up its own failing economy then sure.

              Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?

              What interests has US actually caved on exactly?

              “Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.

              Focusing means allocating resources towards Asia. Meanwhile, the fact that US does not have a coherent policy should itself be very worrisome for Europe. Having outsourced your security to an unstable and unreliable partner has put Europe into a rather precarious situation today.

              Also, we’re not relying on their protection.

              It’s very clear that plenty of European states feel they need to have military parity with Russia. While the idea of a war with Russia is obviously insane, that doesn’t change the political reality of Europe. Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.

                Completely Seppo-brained. Being on the left doesn’t make you immune from the exceptionalism cool aid.

                Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.

                Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus. France alone could roll over Russia but they’d have a hard time keeping up with the Poles running on pure, distilled, wrath. The only reason they’re not in Moscow right now is because NATO is also a leash.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, but a lot of it comes from Europe not choosing to lead on any international crisis, to the point where it has intentionally designed its defense to require the US to participate.

    I look at it like this, the EU should have its own independent military from NATO given its size and wealth. Yet, it chooses to be entirely dependent on NATO and needs the US to help in any sort of projection of force.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.

    From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.

    The nations of Europe are not currently capable to defend themselves and so they have no choice but to rely on the US in a crisis

    Against who? Aliens? Who is this hypothetical enemy that can invade Europe? Capabilities aren’t exactly as they should be, it would be nasty going against a rogue US, yes, but we could still bring the whole thing to a stalemate even if it would necessitate a couple of French nukes getting dropped on carrier groups.

    …and don’t get me started on them wanking off to the dollar value of US contributions. Much of what they send should be valued negatively (in monetary terms) because it’s surplus and they’re saving on disposal costs. Meanwhile, if the EU had the US’ ammunition production capacity Ukraine would’ve run out by now.

    The US has been pussy-footing around this whole conflict, see e.g. the row about ATACMs, the UK had to send Storm Shadow (which they don’t exactly have a surplus of, to the contrary) to twist the US’ arm.


    What many analysts don’t seem to get into their head, it just doesn’t fit their framework, is that Europe as a whole is a lot more “hawkish” in this conflict than the US, leading to all kinds of misinterpretations. “But Europe is so peace-loving and warm and fuzzy” – no, motherfucker, we hate imperialism. That’s all there is to it. We have plenty of former Russian colonies in the union and with shit going down as it went, the western members finally understood that no, Russia can’t be reasoned with, or even be counted on to act in self-interest, instead of chalking the eastern member’s attitude up to PTSD.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      From another angle Germany twisted the US’ arm until they did what we wanted them to do. Atlanticism in Germany is right-wing, the SPD certainly has its faults but worshipping the US is not one of them.

      The top EU think tank very clearly disagrees with you here. It’s also pretty clear that Germany ended up being the big loser here given that it’s now in a recession. So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry. Given that this has been the stated goal of US for years now, I don’t think much twisting required here.

      Against who? Aliens?

      Europe wouldn’t have anyone to defend itself against if it didn’t keep creating enemies for itself. It was entirely possible to dismantle NATO after USSR collapsed and integrate Russia into Europe as an equal. Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia, and now Europe finds itself in a protection racket situation.

      Finally, the idea that Europe could fight US or Russia in an all out war is completely delusional. Europe lacks the industrial base to do this kind of warfare, and it also lacks access to energy. Meanwhile, if we’re talking about nukes both US and Russia have literally an order of magnitude more nukes than all of Europe combined.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing can fight the US, it’s like the richest country and half the budget goes to the military. Russia would not be much of a threat though, especially now. Also the only country dependant on Russia was Germany and now that isn’t the case so I’m not sure what you mean by “lacks access to energy”.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, I guess if that’s what Germany wanted then it certainly did a brilliant job twisting US’ arm to destroy German industry.

        The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?

        Instead, Europe chose to have an antagonistic relationship with Russia

        Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The fuck have Abrams anything to do with Germany’s industry? How is that in any way connected? Are you simply making up slogans?

          I’m talking about the result of Germany being cut off from cheap energy and US blowing up German pipelines without Germany making any protest. Meanwhile, haven’t seen any Abrams anywhere close to Ukraine, but plenty of Leopards burning there now.

          Oh my fucking sides. Заткнись ватник блядь.

          I see you have difficulties engaging with reality.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean yeah, when a bunch of industry shuts down and your country goes into a recession, demand for gas drops which leads to lower prices. 😂

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, sure. Consumption totally plummeted. Nothing is running any more, BASF Ludwigshafen is an industrial ruin. In case you didn’t notice our industry didn’t shut down, big consumers – like BASF – switched to alternative sources and now are kinda biting themselves in the ass because they’re paying more, now that gas prices are low again.

                That makes things more expensive right now. In addition the ECB continues to set quite high interest rates to battle inflation, both together stifle internal consumption, people are eating less Aspargus. And we’re talking about what 0.2% reduction over the whole of 2023, 2014 is projected to have an increase of 1.5%. Both Ifo and DIW agree on that one. The trend for the rest of the year is already positive, the projected -0.2% means that we won’t be able to completely make up for the bad start of the year by the end of the year.

                Also, this “Germany is in a recession” talk is technical. The usual definition of “two years of negative growth” is barely met, and usually doesn’t include your neighbour two doors down the street shooting themselves in the head, causing a scene. (One door if you count Kaliningrad, I know).

  • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    China has placed itself at the heart of many critical supply chains that the US and its allies depend on. It has defined itself in cultural and ideological opposition to the US and to the idea of democracy, using its new wealth to spread the techniques of authoritarian control to every continent on Earth.

    Glad you’re finally posting some truth about China’s authoritarianism, instead of your deluded nonsense about comnunism

  • bob@lemmy.havocperil.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m unsubscribing from this community. There are plenty of better world news communities on other instances. You seem to be a prolific poster on this community and I strongly disagree with everything you say and post.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a lot of words just to say “Germany hesitated about sending tanks to Ukraine therefore the US is now the colonial master of Europe.”

    Apparently that’s all it takes. Just a slight hesitation on a decision and you lose all sovereignty forever.

    Or maybe the hesitation over the tanks was a little disappointing, but not really that big a deal. Calm down people.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was a bit late by then. Germany lost it’s sovereignty right about the time the US turned up in Berlin to stop the Soviets from advancing any further.

      If Germany really had sovereignty, would it really have done so little after it’s ‘allies’ blew up Nordstream 2, causing German deindustrialisation and increasing German consumer and industrial energy insecurity?

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was a bit late by then. Germany lost it’s sovereignty right about the time the US turned up in Berlin to stop the Soviets from advancing any further.

        When exactly did the US turned up in Berlin? They didn’t. Western and soviet forces met at the river Elbe

        Furthermore with the 4+2 treaty Germany got sovereignty officially, with the opposition to the illegal invasion of Iraq 2003 Germany went fully sovereign.

        If Germany really had sovereignty, would it really have done so little after it’s ‘allies’ blew up Nordstream 2, causing German deindustrialisation and increasing German consumer and industrial energy insecurity?

        Who blew up Nordstream 2?

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When exactly did the US turned up in Berlin? They didn’t. Western and soviet forces met at the river Elbe

          Semantics. It’s like when people say ‘Washington’ even if the sharp part of the story is happening on the other side of the world.

          Furthermore with the 4+2 treaty Germany got sovereignty officially, with the opposition to the illegal invasion of Iraq 2003 Germany went fully sovereign.

          And yet, here we are, with German industry falling apart because the US dictated, ‘Sanction Russia’, and all the vassals fell in line. Then they supplemented the now-re-routed-but-still-Russian fossils with US supplies. The German ruling class sacrificed the German people for US interests in the same way as did (every) other vassal state(s).

          Who blew up Nordstream 2?

          Greatest mystery of our time.

          • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Germany industry does fine considering the circumstances. “Falling apart” is greatly exaggerated.

            Not letting Putin get Eastern Ukraine for free is in interest of german people. No sacrifice. Why would this be US interests? You’re talking propaganda