this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
1396 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
7682 readers
3036 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am confused though, if you understand that the US cannot invade despite their superior military why do you think it's suicide for the EU to take military action against the limited US forces in the EU's own territory?
The US has never before pushed for EU divestment from the US. Quite the opposite it has repeatedly pushed for more EU investment in military defense, a part of which would go to US industry. It has reduced it's presence when the SU fell but it still maintained bases in Europe and while military action would not be in the table other forms of coercion would come into play if the EU demanded a complete US withdrawal from EU territory.
I am also confused about who you think Trump warned the EU against? His own America? He just wanted the EU to pay more to US industry.
Adding Canada to the EU is not adding an ally to the EU it's adding a member. It creates a security obligation which the EU cannot fulfill towards Canada. At the same time it could provoke the US to attack Canada. Of course if the US attacks Canada the EU should try and provide as much help as possible but at the moment or the near future that won't really be much.
I do believe CETA is being provisionally applied reducing tariffs even if the arbitration stuff is not (nor should it really). There is no 'economic' war to be won, the US is putting arbitrary tariffs on anyone but Russia, they will obviously be hurt more than any of the individual economies they target.
Ah man... Point by point breakdowns are usually the death knell of a discussion. It just spirals into longer and longer posts with less and less substance. For example:
Where did I say that the US can't invade? Ukraine has shown that nuclear deterrence is an extremely complicated subject. Would France actually be willing to end the world to save the Dutch? Nobody knows!
Yes exactly. Trump isn't good at this. His arguments are too small to get his fat little body off the ground. Trump, of course, says them anyways. Trump doesn't care what humans think.
What's the problem? Canada is aware of this going into it, so is the EU. It's clearly a move that bolsters economies and not the respective militaries, at least in the near term, which is what is currently under threat. Long term, economic and military partnership between the EU and canada is blah blah blah longwinded nobody cares blah
But but but... That's divestment. That's doing divestment.
Etc.
Isn't that just... miserable? All I'm doing is picking your nits, and that doesn't really further anything because at no point does it address your thesis. I'm just batting at your arguments like a fat cat who wants you to stop bonking into it with the mouse but is too lazy to actually move off the mousepad. It doesn't add anything, except incentive for this to turn into another boring internet slap fight. Honestly this feels like either we're agreeing but not realizing it, or you have no experience with the military at all but don't want to admit that (and I really do not think it's the second option!).
Okay, here, how about I say: "Current US forces in the EU are not and never have been an occupying force - they could be casually sidelined by parking a big truck in front of the gates and stopping the beer delivery" and you please try to believe me. Not even joking, like, you're right and it's 100% true, I promise, and I have not argued anything else at any point. The forces the US stations in Europe (with the possible exception of some of the air assets at German-hosted bases like Ramstein) have no significant conventional defensive ability, they're all sigint, liaison and a guard for the nukes. They could be rolled over by a determined enough girlscout troop (probably not by the boyscouts, though...).
Everyone knows that.
If you cross cancel the nukes from both sides in this hypothetical scenario (because it's no fun to speculate when the end state is "absolutely everyone dies forever") you're left with a coalition of economically and culturally extremely powerful countries that just utterly lack a response to realities like "seven carrier strike groups" or "more than a thousand F35s". Any hypothetical US occupation of the EU would obviously devolve into the exact kind of guerilla/insurgent warfare the US absolutely sucks at, but that doesn't matter if this lunatic admin decides to have ROEs that are really relaxed about things like 'civilians'. You just cannot win a war of attrition with the US right now, it's pretty doubtful even the other superpowers could (that's why they're going the election interference route...) and provoking one by attacking US tripwire bases would be suicidal.
I feel like I should point out here that I do not like this. I'm not proud about this shit, honestly I'm too busy worrying about the "my country is burning down around me and I haven't even got a bucket with which to staunch the flames" thing. But, the good news is (not for me I admit) that any significant mobilization to invade the EU will trigger a civil war in the US. To say that the idea 'is as popular as giving children syphilis' is to do a disservice to hyperbole. So I guess take heart that they'd have to roll over a great many americans (including me) before they ever get off the mainland.
...
Well, okay, these fuckers would happily do that (honestly they'd probably consider it a bonus), but the tree of moral victory is watered with the blood of martyrs. And fertilized with the paste their corpses have been ground into. And probably guided on a trellis made from what few bones weren't ground into powder.
...
Or something, idk. This is getting dumb. I just really hope there'll never be a chance for me to be proven right.
The reason the US cannot (successfully) invade is not due to nuclear deterrence but the difficulty in bringing over enough heavy equipment (MBTs, artillery) if you don't have a foothold (ports, airfields). Seven carrier groups are not going to be able to secure you that even if they amounted to more than a 1000 F-35s, which they don't.
Canada cannot join the EU legally. It will take amendment of the treaties to remove the geographical requirement and still Hungary would veto the ascension anyways. You can scoff at this and argue that we should ignore the treaties and Hungary but this will weaken the EU as an institution. It already is obviously less cohesive than a nation state.
It's also not necessary for Canada to join the EU for us to support them militarily. The issue is that we can't really do so in the near future.
EU military spending was already not going 100% to US products, therefore not all of the increased spending benefiting US companies is not divestment, it's actually investment. The US after all marketed the F-35 to EU members.
I salute your strategy of the great wall of rambling text, it truly is demoralizing at this time. I do not think the best EU can do is rely on Americans waging a civil war on it's behalf.
Apologies, lemmy is having a day. One moment while I sort this out...