Comment by roysting
12 hours ago
I am not sure if you meant to say what you said.
By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. I think it is what they are attempting to do at the moment, "stop pretending to be sovereign" and actually BE sovereign. At least that seems to be the claimed attempt.
If anyone is not sure why I would say that Europe is not sovereign, I will answer that question if you ask, but considering the current state of things and even just this discussion about data sovereignty and other related topics about using and deploying European technologies; I suspect most, if not all have a sense that Europe is in fact not sovereign... and that's without even pointing out huge elephants in the room like the 275 US military installations across Europe, and not even to touch on the fact that NATO is really just ** pulls curtain back ** SURPRISE! ... America, Europe Division.
275 US military installations across Europe that are not prepared or equipped to fight a conflict against the nation's military that host them.
US abducted the leader of a sovereign in a night without having any military installations in his country. Sovereignty is very brittle in this context. I am sure an unprepared installation can still be useful if need be. But in any case no need in sight. Europe is not sovereign because it’s not a nation, it’s a loose union with very limited actual integration outside the integration required to facilitate easier trading from strong industrial economies to their poor neighbours. There is nothing to be concerned about in this space for the US until someone in Europe (France or Germany) actually becomes more dangerous to Europe than the US.
I don't think GP was implying anything about US military fighting against Europe? Just that having another country's military all up inside your country is weird from a sovereignty perspective.
The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win? Maybe. But how many millions dead Americans? US lost in Afghanistan and there they just fought terrorists.
The US (like any country) struggles in asymmetrical/guerilla warfare. It always devolves to the famous statement by a US officer during the Vietnam war that “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.”
If the gloves were off then the equation would be different. A fight with the rest of NATO would be conventional warfare where the US has a giant advantage.
USA would eventually loose, because it generally looses wars in the long term.
But Europeans would suffer more while Americans would consider themselves the real victims.
>The rest of NATO has more soldiers than US. Would US win?
what are you even talking about? nowhere is anybody on any side even hinting that the problem with NATO is it stops the EU from having a war with the US.
the problem with NATO is that it shares a burden and some feel they don't want to pay their obligations and some feel their share is too much, and then it was based around invasion of the territories of western and then middle europe, and ukraine came along and it's a serious threat to middle europe but its not covered by NATO.
> By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign.
The ideology that claims no one except the biggest military is sovereign ... is fascism.