They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor.
Here you have it, it's no secret:
Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday.
Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe.
They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?).
They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.
So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally.
Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
However I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality.
I suggest ignoring "geopolitics", and considering to what extent your input matters even in local political matters. If you find that such impact is minimal locally, then from a political consideration, it is a waste of your time to spend energy on "Russian threat" or any other geopolitical narrative (many dating to 19th century.) You should focus on your local issues.
Geopolitical policy is opaque to uninitiated and uninformed. It is not clear to me why the elite make a show of discussing geopolitics for the public at large. Join CFR in a meaningful capacity and you may get a whif of what actually are the dynamics and issues that drive international relations.
This is hopelessly naive, imho. The information asymmetry is off the charts, and a rational "analyst/reader" (the role you want to play) of geopolitics should be aware of this fact, and its implications. You simply have no idea what is really going on. You don't have the data and it is naive to assume what is printed in a handful of outlets by an equally limited number of promoted authors are the "geopolitical facts".
So, yes geopolitics certainly "matter" but that was not the point.
Russia is a threat to democracy and an enemy of Europe, directly competing with China.
Cyber warfare and nation destabilizing by propaganda campaigns however? That is way cheaper, and the Russians have quite a history of such actions with the KGB. The side benefit is that, in contrast to a Russian airplane dumping Russian bombs on a city, the Russian government can easily deny that they are responsible for a group of hackers or an oligarch's "donation" to a far right party.
Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that.
Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression.
No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).
Everything else in your comment is also factually wrong or even a deliberate lie just like the ones you spread in your other replies here.
Yeah and stop d one in armenia.
You’re literally describing the value of the security guarantee.
> Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe
Those poor schmucks not in Western Europe can just be thrown under the bus like the last 2 times, right? :-)
This laziness will probably bite us in the ass at some point. Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World. You cannot build a superpower-sized army in a few months, and direct threats are only increasing (as well as Russia we now have Turkey, Lybia, Egypt, Algeria, Serbia - they could all go rogue at short notice and literally start firing shots at the continent).
It was Obama who started pushing for the 2% policy and got NATO countries to agree to ramp spending up to that before 2024[1].
Before that there's been decades of the US trying to push Europe to take defense spending more seriously.
Trump's had more juvenile rhetoric on the issue, but he fundamentally wasn't saying anything to NATO or enacting any policies that Obama pursuing before him.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/europe-begin...
Biden will likely mark a return to the old haggling, but in 4 years' time the US might get another strongman and we'd be at risk again. Democracy will always need an arsenal, and it's not a given anymore that the US really want to be that arsenal.
You don't have to project power to distant places only directly via supercarriers and local military bases, various subversions can get you pretty far.
It will never happen. There has been - on paper - a Franco-German brigade for decades, it’s never deployed anywhere. Meanwhile supposed arch-rivals UK and France have been doing joint operations all over the place and this is only set to increase.
Besides it was all triggered by Trump saying some NATO countries were failing to meet their commitments, and no one knows what Biden thinks about it
The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum.
Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of muscular military engagement, is spending more than six percent of its much larger GDP on military.
Due to its regular shadow operations in other countries, Russia has a ready supply of veteran soldiers who could be drawn on in a hostile engagement. European nations could have used the ‘NATO’ Afghanistan invasion as an opportunity to develop a similar pool, but made only token efforts.
Germany is even worse than Denmark. It is laughable for Merkel to make these comments. She has been in power for fifteen years. All through that time, Germany has been amongst the worst NATO members against it’s treaty obligations.
Beyond the realities of military capability, there are the political problems. The European group have no history of coordinated executive action. Structurally, they are in a weaker position to coordinate a war even than the US was in its articles of confederation era.
That "treaty" was pushed to European nations, mafia style, and voted in by right-wing parties and politicians (sometimes right-wing to the point of dictatorship), in the Cold War era, as protection against USSR.
It's still pushed now through diplomatic pressure, profitable handouts to vote in favor, etc., not because those nations really want it.
[1] One can of course speculate what would have happened if the cold war would have turned hot. Would ostensibly neutral Finland have been left alone, or would both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have nuked it just to be sure. Or would the massive nuclear strikes on the nearby Murmansk and Leningrad areas have caused such massive fallout that it would have been a moot point anyway?
What makes you think that ? I often read those sorts of reactions from Eastern Europeans (yes, yes, I know Poland is in « Central Europe ») but that's just giving us intentions we don't have. One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry.
Speaking from a French perspective, we'd be completely comfortable sending people fight for the sake of Poland, Romania or any EU member without too much of a second thought. We already send people to Africa all the time.
Most recently Macron's overtures towards Russia, so much so that even the Financial Times [1] felt the need the to blame it in one of its opinion pieces, and that is saying something (they generally are pretty neutral to "liberal" European leaders like Macron, even more so when they happen to be former investment bankers).
> One other trope is framing the desire for a European Army as a master plan to sell more French weaponry.
That does indeed happen and it's an active concern, one of the scandals that is about to erupt here in Romania is of the Romanian Army buying military stuff without following proper procurement procedures directly from an US company (via some Swiss and Israeli intermediaries/shell companies, depending on how you look at them). The French are fuming because apparently they were in contention for that contract, too.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/168243c2-bac4-404c-843a-ca1f61196...
But yes, I agree (partly) with your assessment, there doesn't seem to be a lot of willingness in the Western nations to support Eastern Europe militarily (or sometimes, to even acknowledge they have a military). However, when it comes to it, they may not have a choice: an occupied Poland puts the enemy within striking distance of Berlin, so defending Poland is of strategic importance. The same applies (to a lesser extent) to Finland and the Baltic states, losing them means losing control of the Baltic Sea.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work out for Romania, from a purely West-European point of view I would draw that line across Slovakia/Hungary rather than further to the east, however as things as are now, Hungary and the former Yugoslavian nations would be a liability, so Romania may be essential to defending Italy and Austria.
That being said, I very much hope the above remains idle speculation.
The Russia GDP is less than 10% of the GDP of EU, or the same size as the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries.
Its population is shrinking rapidly due to low birth rates and very high death rates.
Its ruled by a totalitarian dictator that regularly tries to murder his opponents.
It seeks by all means to stir up unrest in its surroundings by misinformation.
Its one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
All of these are good reasons why the EU should rapidly invest in its own defense force. Putin will step-down one way or another the next 20 years and then it may get ugly, nobody knows who are waiting in the wings...
But if not for Russia, why does Europe need a military? To get strategic independence from the US? In that case, where is the money? Why the howling about Trump wanting to reduce the US contribution?
And how is the command going to work?
These are rhetorical questions. I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
Why does the US need a military? Canada? Mexico?
Its a global world, EU as one of the biggest blocks needs its own military for many reasons. Its time to cut the reliance of the US, but remain very close allies.
If defense spending is done right, purchased locally by local companies, a lot of the money circles back into the economy.
I guess Turkey is the obvious other candidate. Not so many nukes, of course, but invaded a now EU member in 1974. Plays games with the edges of Greek airspace every week or so? Officially still in NATO but who knows what that means.
> I think Merkel is insincere, and playing to a domestic audience.
Yes.
If you want peace, prepare for war. In 1939 we weren't prepared for war, that didn't turn out so well.
Economically, Russia is a midget compared to the EU. They do have lots of nukes, though.
You are not alone. That's why some EU countries prefer to buy US millitary equipment(often at inflated prices), support US's interests in the region and beyond(i.e Iraq invasion), accept US's interferences and be done with it. The EU army project is too risky politically and strategically. Things may change if US becomes too erratic(i.e think of a super Trump presidency)
This is a list of military spending by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
If you count only France and Germany they spend already more than Russia. The European Union together spend more money in defense that any other country in the world except the USA (and around the same that China).
So, what's the reason for demanding more spending?
Recently, there was a decision to increase spending at the European level, but the project was to spend it in local industry instead of buying the weapons to the Americans. The pentagon reacted really offended (1).
This "you should spend more in defense" is not about defense, it's about money, and where that money goes.
I think a better question that why the Europeans don't spend more in "defense", it's: why the Americans spend so much?
(1) - https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/pentagon-nato-warn-europ...
If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!
If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.
The non-proliferation cause it's another way of saying "we are the only one that should have nuclear capability". It doesn't look like to me that the USA is interested in a world without nuclear weapons (1), only in a world where the others don't have nuclear weapons.
>>"If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!"
If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead of "business", why being against spending the money in European military industry?
I notice that you don't address the question that Europe already spend more than Russia.
I think you forgot your links in your answer.
(1) - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-i...
> only in a world where the others don't
> have nuclear weapons
> If the problem is freeloading and defense, instead
> of "business", why being against spending the money
> in European military industry?
On this theme - there was an interesting Foreign Policy paper arguing that the F35 program serves as a US version of the belt-and-roads initiative. Still, it must be half-decent or countries would not buy it. e.g. Australia is licensing its recent sub design from France. But, it is buying the F-35, despite the lock-in problems. Israel produces an astonishing amount of its own tech but, likewise, is buying the F-35.
> I notice that you don't address the question
> that Europe already spend more than Russia.
My themes in the original comment was the notion of the European military on two grounds. (1) If military goals were important, nations would/should have been lifting their weight in NATO. (2) There are obstacles to creating a command structure for a European military, which is a very weak federation.
> Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them
Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.
The US is absolutely right to be upset that it's NATO partners isn't fulfilling their part of the deal and instead rely on US tax payers for their defense.
>> The European group have no history of coordinated executive action.
Yeah, perhaps they should start working on a coordinated executive action(i.e an EU army) or...just accept US protection for a "fee". It's been a good trade so far anyway. The only issue is that recently US started to double guess its past agreements.
It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe...
Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to anyone (and in no great shape to be a threat, even if they wanted), except immediate neighbors they have disputes with for centuries, and which, more often than not, are themselves armed and weaponized by NATO as proxies against it.
Haven't we entered an age where 'non-eyeToEye-threats' can do enormous damage, even if by error (e.g. nuclear bombing the US)?
European countries can stand up to what is obviously unacceptable (industrial espionage conducted by US military intelligence). But Denmark in the later years have chosen not to.
It depends on the theatre. At sea, probably, in a nuclear exchange France has sufficient deterrent capability. But in a land war, tank on tank the way God meant it to be, France’s 200 tanks are no match for Russia’s thousands.
Remember purchasing power parity. Russia may be poorer than France, but it’s stuff costs a lot less too.
France has no A10s and S500 allows Russia to deny airspace to it anyway.
Tanks are not used for that anymore, they are used as little fortresses in cities, but fighting on a open field..well you have seen what happened in the first and second iraq war.
Tanks are deathtraps in cities. Attackers trap them with obstacles and then attack with RPGs. See the footage on YouTube in Chechnya or Syria.
In the open battlefield as in Iraq 1 (especially) and 2 they were very effective although of course airpower is the key factor.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Op...
>In the open battlefield as in Iraq 1 (especially) and 2 they were very effective
That was artillery and aircraft's, mostly NOT Tank VS Tank.
> https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Op...
To quote from this book, about regarding how badly they faired in Chechnya (as mentioned above):
> High casualties, massive collateral damage, and heavy losses in vehicles and equipment all point to the apparent folly of using tanks in the urban fight. This chapter will discuss the 1995 battle for Grozny and examine why the Russian armor did not achieve the desired results.
So... the argument is that "Russians don't know how to use tanks". I don't find this argument particularly persuasive.
It's true that up-armourmed Abrams in Fallujah proved effective against RPG-7s (as mentioned in your link). But the RPG-29 was used in Syria successfully against them, and (more often) by Hezbollah against the Merkava tanks.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-rpg-threat-to-mode...
Additionally, Rafales are more than a strong contender to Russia's Su35. A dozen Reapers too, for good measure.
France isn't the world's fifth military power and one of the biggest seller of weapons for no reason.
The USSR beat the much better Nazi tanks through sheer numbers, at some point the numbers advantage overcomes the quality advantage.
The Germans thought so highly of the T-34 that they thought of cloning it, but came to the conclusion that designing a new tank to counter it was in the end a more feasible idea. This process eventually resulted in the Panther, often thought to be the best tank of the entire war. Although in practice it was beset by reliability issues, and of course it was too little too late in general by then.
Getting back to the original topic, the lesson seems that for tank vs tank combat, large numbers of good enough tanks win the day. Now, the T-72 did disastrously poorly in the Gulf war, but OTOH apparently 'domestic' USSR T-72's have better armor to begin with than the export versions used in Iraq, and further upgraded ones with more armor and modern sensors might be a much harder nut to crack.
On its homeland. France has limited excess ability to project power to e.g. Lithuania. Or Greenland.
About 10,000 troops abroad to Russia's nearly 50,000. (Though an advantage in carriers.)
No. Nuclear deterrents work against nuclear threats. But a lot of modern warfare is by proxy. Subnuclear force is what matters.
More tangibly: Russia starts constructing a base on Greenland. Does France risk nuclear exchange to challenge it? For that matter, would America? Of course not.
Sanctions, blockading the construction site and threatening to build similarly near Russian assets would be the game. Each of these, individually, is within Paris' capacity. (Except, maybe, sanctions.) But collectively, no.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20150625/russia-rehearsed-takeover-o...
Remember, Ukrainians were literally "brothers"; if it happened to them, is any weak neighbor really safe?
I can't see what would possibly lead to a Russian invasion of Denmark.
Seriously? I'm sure the fact that Ukrainians could see contrast with next-door Poland had nothing to do with Maidan... no, it was CIA, definitely.
The overthrow of the government was effected by armed militias, with a heavy far-right presence (e.g., pictures of Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who ethnically cleansed Poles from Western Ukraine during WWII). The US government had a hand in picking the successor government - there's even audio of the behind-the-scenes discussions. There was obviously popular support in Western Ukraine for Maidan, but there was also a lot of foreign involvement and the seizure of power itself was violent and unconstitutional.
From Crimea being part of Russia for centuries, having 60% russian ethnicity population, Ukraine government being toppled by nationalists and neo-nazis with US support, etc...
Denmark, no clue. But Greenland? The Arctic Circle is of increasing geopolitical importance and competition between Russia and America.
Not by choice, Russians still think the collapse of USSR a tragic mistake, and Putin’s rhetoric ties directly back to it.
Russian “defence” spending is skyrocketing, Russia is holding frequent manoeuvres righ in NATO borders, keeps flying bombers ever-so-slightly into NATO country airspace’s... and most of all, Russia shows it is more than happy to apply brute force to achieve political goals. In Ukraine, Georgia, who’s next?
Denmark, Poland and Sweden, not to mention the Baltic states, are rightly concerned about Russia’s posturing. If it’s not meant to be intimidating and creating a low-level Cold War, then it’s a very odd way of showing neighbourly love.
I’m sure comparisons to American imperialism will follow, and maybe justifiably so. But crucially, US does not invade European countries, voila the pertinent difference.
This is wrong, it barely keeps up with inflation: https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/r...
This is a whopping 9% of the yearly defense spending of the US.
People may think whatever they want about what happened to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but to called that an annexation (or an invasion, as many have) is disingenuous as best.
It's no secret (in fact, it's on public record) that it was the USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" in power in Kiev. While presented as "spreading democracy and freedom", in the backdrop Western companies (with strong government ties) were making deals to take control of the natural resources in both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Most importantly, those deals envisioned to take away the control (or even access) Russia (and the local population, for that matter) have/had over these resources. If anyone annexed anything, it was rather the USA than Russia. The key on all that is to observe which side was the one taking all the initiatives, and which side was basically just responding to what the other side did.
This fear mongering about Russian expansion simply doesn't match reality. If anyone has been expanding the last decade or so, it is NATO, not Russia. In reality, it probably should not surprise anyone. It's a well proven tactic to simply accuse your victims of being the one showing aggression, while in reality that is just resistance to your own (illegal) aggression. Just ask some of the older Poles. They still remember what Germany did.
I don't know where you think the "green men" militia came from, but I know for certain that they were Russian military (and no, not on vacation). And let's not forget that a Buk system was provided directly from Russia that then downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 283 crew and passengers. Dutch authorities and international investigators have uncovered and documented every single minute of this crime, from the arrival of the BUK system to its hasty departure afterwards, and identified the Russian officers involved in it by name and picture.
These are the facts.
Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending.
Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself.
As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2.
Don't take my word for it. You will see.
All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.
There is a reason why countries like the US and Russia go at great length in arguing that what they do is not violating international law in cases when they are actually breaking it.
Moreover, even those states who occasionally break it most of the time conform with international law and resort to treaties and conflict resolution mechanisms associated with them. It's not as if Russia (or the US, for what it matters) ratify no international agreements at all or always break them or completely ignore international agreements.
Overall, your position is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of international relations. Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power, and for most part even those that break treaties, agreements, and habitual rules of conduct only do so as an exception to the rule. I can assure you that Russia cares a great deal about being recognized as a rational and reliable actor rather than as a mad rogue state.
What you say about the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) is clearly just your personal opinion, so let's ignore that.
Any specific existing treaty that forgives or wipes away a war crime? Or many. Despite the tens of thousands (conservatively) of dead civilians resulting from direct US military action, the US has not even been accused of a single instance of a war crime. Why do you think that is? Well I'll tell you, as someone who's been elbow deep into this for quite a few years of my life: international law is an esoteric, negotiable concept, it's a guideline, and it relies on consent and the power to apply your view. Kind of like the rules of conduct in a company. You don't slap your CEO even if they deserve it, and you don't go to an HR that is controlled by them. In the same vein, international relations is the "science" of agreeing on an outcome the stronger party wants and the weaker one can live with. International law is there as a framework but there's no accepted "Supreme Judge, Jury, and Executioner" who just presses charges, delivers a verdict, and carries out the sentence in the name of the victim or the planet, and everyone has to abide.
A strong enough player is untouchable, they can break a treaty and it's up to the others to decide the action... or let it slide. Who do you think has the power or guts to gather the necessary evidence and the international support to investigate the US for war crimes? And if it went through, who has the power to impose any kind of measures against the US? What kind of retaliation can they expect afterwards? Do you really think there are no perks to being the wold's biggest superpower?
Armchair international politics is a lot more fun than the real thing, I'll tell you that.
> Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power
There is some give and take but for some it's literally what they do for a living. The US has openly pressured the EU to do things for decades, from supporting sanctions they didn't agree with, to changing Galileo frequencies to something that the US could more easily jam. And they've been doing it on every continent under threat of war, sanctions, or interference. It wasn't as a favor between friends, and it certainly wasn't in the spirit of cooperation and all those international treaties.
> the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) [...] so let's ignore that
A bit of reading comprehension goes a long way. That was exactly my point, that there are no good or bad, no moral and immoral/amoral countries. They do what they need to do to stay on top of the pile. Don't ignore something because you can't parse it. It's clearly the best way to form an uninformed opinion and then state it firmly, assuming you have an iron clad case.
However, you're still under a false impression. You're just looking at a few global superpowers and former superpowers such as Russia, China, and the US. However, the UN has 193 member states and there are countless bilateral treaties that entangle countries in a positive way.
> There is some give and take but for some it's literally what they do for a living.
That's not true, as I've said, your view of international relations is unrealistic. You're thinking way too much in black and white terms. As I've mentioned earlier, even the countries who occasionally break international law normally adhere to it and consult their experts about it and try to avoid breaking it. Your remark is especially ironic in the context of a thread about Denmark. There are more countries than the US, China, and Russia. Most of these countries work quite well with each other on the basis of international law. For every case that you believe demonstrates arbitrary power abuse, you can find another case in which international treaties, conflict resolution mechanisms by UN, and diplomatic channels have worked.
You're generalizing from very few hand-picked nations, which are known to have particular geostrategical goals that other countries do not have. Denmark is not waging illegal wars or annexing regions of other countries, for instance. Most countries don't do these kind of things.
> That was exactly my point, that there are no good or bad, no moral and immoral/amoral countries. They do what they need to do to stay on top of the pile.
You did not understand this point. I'm saying that countries cannot be moral actors because they are not uniform entities. Countries are not actors at all. If at all, you can talk about particular governments this way, but these change all the time. Or, you could say that certain geostrategical goals seem to influence a government's actions, but that involve a lot of interpretation and background knowledge. You need to assign moral properties to decision makers, or perhaps governments. So it only appears as if we agree on this point.
Of course, there are immoral actions of governments, though. Russia's annexation of the Crimea is a prime example of one. So are US drone strikes, Guantanamo, and the false pretenses for the 2nd Golf War.
If your suggestion is that governments cannot be held accountable for their actions, then I have to say I'm baffled and have no idea what made you adopt this outlandish view. They are being held accountable all the time, as well as individual members of governments if it is clear they are responsible for a certain decision.
Sometimes people use the country name as a shortcut and if it's clear that they mean the governments and other institutions during a certain time period, then that's alright. But talking about countries in general as if they were uniform actors is always nonsense.
> Don't ignore something because you can't parse it. It's clearly the best way to form an uninformed opinion and then state it firmly, assuming you have an iron clad case.
You seem to be talking about yourself here. Psychologists call this projection. As I've said, there does not seem to be any substantial disagreement between us - now that you've changed your mind about international law, or at least chose to change the subject to a more general topic. Yes, a few countries such as the US and Russia sometimes break international law, presumably because they think they can afford it in light of too tame opposition. If that's your big geopolitical insight, so be it.
No, their argument is "The US has done bad things, so Russia should do bad things too, and it is UNFAIR to react to that." The rest is just pseudo-intellectual justification for that position.
It's far more basic than that. Enforcement of domestic laws is based on the monopoly on violence the government carries. In international law, the two parties do not acknowledge each other's monopoly on violence. They are extremely unlikely to just roll over and accept the punishment.
Enforcing international law is just war with added steps and a more morally palatable justification. Sometimes nations capitulate before war breaks out (typically because the punishment is less severe than war, or because their odds of winning are low), but it doesn't change that they're surrendering to violence.
> Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law.
International law is largely broken. It's predicated on the idea that the combined military power of the rest of the world can overpower the "guilty" country. Nuclear weaponry means that in the event of international law enforcement that threatens the existence of a country, they have just as much ability to make the rest of the world uninhabitable as the alliance of nations does to destroy theirs. We can't meaningfully enforce international law against nuclear capable countries. This is why economy-ruining sanctions are only enforced on nations that lack nuclear armaments. Hypothetically, if Cuba had nuclear missiles, do you really think our embargo of them would have lasted this long?
It's just a further division of the world into have's and have nots.
It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow.
Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the first to mention it. Even more that most of these people appear to come from countries that probably are the biggest violators of international laws, by historical track record.
I'm not even going to argue with you, for you rather obviously take personal convictions over actual knowledge. Good luck with that.
Here is a fact for you: the forces/interest behind most of this will come back to roost one day. Maybe rather sooner than you think. One thing I'm pretty sure of: you're not going to like. Don't say that nobody tried to warn you, when it turns out that the joke was always on you.
You're just plain wrong in both of your posts.
[1] https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_cri...
However, what I am doing is calling you out .. I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it.
Either way, the moment you mentioned international law in relation to this issue, and even had to nerve to declare that the truth of your convictions are factually undeniable, you yourself were the one who pretty much shoved all-in and closed the door for any meaningful discussion. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror first, if you want to blame someone for being called out for that.
I have a pretty decent track record of being rather respectful (definitely beyond and above average) towards to opinions of other. Just maybe not for people who talk like you. You can take your (abuse of) political correctness and ..
EDIT: I see what you are trying, but you still don't get it (regarding international law). Good luck and goodbye.
On a side note, there is no respect in your posts at all. On the contrary, after two ad-hominem attacks you even make up a completely new topic of "political correctness" that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far.
> I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it.
Right... have a good one!
- Ukraine was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military
- Georgia was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military
Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines.
That's something all capable militaries do on a regular basis. "Accidentally", of course. The US does this, Russia does it, China does it and so on. While it's of course not nice, it's disingenuous to use it in any kind of argument.
South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast in the Georgian SSR. When the USSR disintegrated, Georgia and South Ossetia fought a war, which ended up with a truce that lasted until the Georgian invasion in 2008.
Some would say Denmark is already in this unthinkable situation so the poor people of Denmark can only hope that one day, some green patriotic Russians will land on danish soil to save them.
>> USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians"
Let's not talk about questionable "politicians" supported by Putin. They are all either dictators or wanna be soviet/communist, oligarchs or the worst shady thing you could possible imagine.
Until Russia realises that nobody wants (except Russia) the Soviet era back these small countries have no choice but support U.S's interests. The way Russia is doing business & diplomacy is just ugly(albeit efficient at times).
But it wants the Soviet Union back.
>> and is not a threat to anyone
Ukraine would not agree with that. Russia took Crimea and is supporting a civil war in eastern Ukraine. This may not be much for you but
>> except immediate neighbors
Yeah except the immediate neighbours and then the neighbours of the neighbours. Think of the Soviet Union era...
Speaking of neighbours Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania and few others are pretty close to Russia. I guess they are on your list of doomed neighbours anyway.
If there were, they would collectively take a much much harder stance with Russia. This is why Eastern Europe is so much more pro-USA than Western Europe.
Crimea was part of Russia for centuries, it has 60%+ citizens of Russian ethnicity, and it had its government toppled and neo-nazis and nationalists come to power in a NATO proxy power play.
It would be like Mexico having an area (say Baja California) with 60% WASP Americans, that has been historically part of the US, and having Mexico's government toppled with the help of a foreign superpower and used against the US.
Would the US annex Baja California then?
Then again, the US have already annexed Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc, from Mexico, so there's that...
Of course, the US government supports affiliated NGOs as it does elsewhere in the world (and as everyone does), but "power play" means something else.
*supported as in created, instructed and financed.
However, in case of Germany you linked evidence that goes directly against your argument:
>German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
Given the context of the thread, this quote reads like the Germans want to build their own army to spite the US. For example, because the US spied on them.
---
As far as Denmark goes, their feelings regarding the US are probably genuine, but I very much doubt that the Danes see Russia as an existential threat.
The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. If you read between the lines you find that the main security benefit of US/NATO is keeping Europeans from fighting each other rather than defending them from some external threat.
I that sense, I completely agree that US and NATO are the cornerstone of European security. And that's why industrial espionage against them is a bad idea. It makes European countries suspicious of the US and suspicious of each other. The resulting fragmentation leads to insecurity and then we are back to 1939 eyeing each other as our next meal.
As long as that army doesn't exist those EU countries still rely heavily on the US for security, and therefore the dynamic the GP is proposing might exist today.
Technically, Russia did occupy the Danish Island of Bornholm following the German occupation.
The gave it up in 1946, but still it spent almost a year under soviet occupation.
On topic, I think we just like Americans and buying planes from the US was more or less a forgone conclusion :)
Besides nobody has ever been fired for buying the most advanced plane from the US -- hopefully we only need them because they are cool, hehe, so what does it matter if they can fly?
Source? She said that two years ago [1] but on Tuesday her defense minister sounded much less enthusiastic about it [2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/merkel-joins-m...
[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/german-minister-to-macron-eu...
African population is going to quadruple by 2100.
In the case of the F35 it especially make no sense, AT ALL. The selection process for a new fighter jet was so heavily skewed in favor of the F35 that other manufacturers didn't even want to bid. At no point did anyone seriously believe that any other plane was even an option.
It's my belief that letting the NSA do their spying is a move done to ensure that our own politicians cannot be held responsible for informing the US about internal affairs. As you say, they show a complete apathy towards the situation.
The current generation of politicians has an unhealthy positive view of surveillance in general, while attempting to keep the press and public out from anything they deem to be "confidential government decisions".
I imagine part of the mission is counter-intelligence. Verifying Danish negotiators aren't leaking sensitive information to e.g. Russia or China. In those cases, the NSA is probing for information the politicians do not have.
If for example russia wanted greenland, I dont feel confident that any other of our allies would put soldiers on the ground to defend it.
But something like NATO but just for Europa..that would be a good idea.
The last times they worried, Germany was 10% of the world economy and growing fast and Europe itself was probably 50% of the world economy (probably more considering all the territories). Now Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down.
A really?
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article210474071/Waf...
Would you be happy if DEVGRU/Sealteam6..whatever they call them now, consist of KKK Members?
>Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down.
That 3% cannot be true, Germany is at least 1/3 the European economy, and you know since i live in Europe...i worry about Germany.
True but Germany is really famous for it, and it looks like they just don't get it under control, example? The most elite Fighting-force (KSK) has a big Nazi Problem...for years now.
>So which country would you want to take the lead.
Non of them, hence my idea to make a pact like Nato and not a European Army.
Your info is out of date by a decade or more, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
> In 2017, according to the CIA's World Factbook, the GWP was around US $80.27 trillion in nominal terms and totaled approximately 127.8 trillion international dollars in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
> German GDP: $3,780 trillion, $4.454 trillion PPP.
So, Germany is 4% of the world GDP in nominal terms and 3.4% in PPP terms. And that was back in 2017, developing countries are growing faster, so Germany's share probably went down.
Regarding Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
> EU GDP: $18.292 trillion, $18.377 trillion GDP.
So Europe is 22% of the world GDP in nominal terms and 14% in PPP terms. And it's definitely going down as a share of the world economy.
Germany also is only only about 20% of EU GDP in nominal terms and 24% in PPP terms. This part is also going down.
You're conflating the EU with Europe. Europe has quite a few economies outside the EU: UK, Russia, Switzerland, Norway, etc. Germany is probably 12-15% of the European economy, or maybe less.
The German economy is the fourth-largest in the world and accounted for one quarter (24.7%) of the European Union’s GDP in 2019. The second biggest in the EU (now France) is one third smaller. 3,449.050 (Germany) 2,425.708 (France)
https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/germany-market-overv...
>So, Germany is 4% of the world GDP in nominal terms and 3.4% in PPP terms.
That's not important in terms of the EU
>You're conflating the EU with Europe. Europe has quite a few economies outside the EU: UK, Russia, Switzerland, Norway, etc. Germany is probably 12-15% of the European economy, or maybe less.
No i don't because i live in one of that Non EU but European/Schengen country's..again nothing todo with a EU-Army
>And it's definitely going down as a share of the world economy.
Again it's not about the World but the EU and the Schengen-Space
In any case, fear of Germany is overblown in 2020. I'd definitely want a EU army with a major German contribution. Don't be a general fighting the previous war ;-)
True, but the biggest payer has the biggest voice.
https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/705...
Germany pays more then double as much then France.
We just don't have public figures in the EU who can do what an American president can do.
Trump might not be able to command the loyalty of NATO if it came down to it. But we would listen to Bush, Clinton or Obama, I don't see a figure in the EU who can address the world in this way.
When Bush said we were going into Afghanistan (right or wrong) we did it.
Who in the EU can speak on behalf of the free world?
I'm european, and I've heard we have an EU president -- but I have no clue who that is, or what it means.
I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.
Why can't we just talk and discuss with each other like normal human beings? Why do we have to result to all this deceiving, tricking, spying each other?
Why can't we just act... nice?
Guess I'm just too naive for this world.
An under-utilized protest mechanism exists in the fact that citizenships can change. Most modern republics allow for this.
>It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted
It cannot happen until and unless citizens inform themselves, and most of all: strive to remain informed.
The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard.
I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.