Would it be possible for the EU to defend themselves in the hypothetical scenario in which Nato ceases to exist?
Would it be possible for the EU to defend themselves in the hypothetical scenario in which Nato ceases to exist?
Would it be possible for the EU to defend themselves in the hypothetical scenario in which Nato ceases to exist?
From what? Even in their dysfunctional states, their militaries are still formidable, just not "US" formidable. Especially because Ukraine has shown that the EU is capable to pivot their military strategy quite quickly.
It is a large political and economic block composed of (roughly) 450million people. So yes probably.
vs US they would lose
vs everything else in the world (N000ks aside) they would win
>vs US they would lose
No the frick they wouldn't, even if the UK was an ally it would be just as or even more difficult than the US invading mainland China from Taiwan.
In a theoretical US vs EU scenario I really don't think it'd be that clear cut that the US would win, it would be an immensely costly and bloody war, even if the US won it would be the tightest victory ever sustained, and would likely cripple the US in doing so along the lines of how the UK lost 50% of its economic capacity to fight WW2, even then I'm not certain the US would be able to win against Germany, France, Italy, Poland and the rest all at once.
Would be an easier conclusion with US + UK vs EU.
>Would be an easier conclusion with US + UK vs EU.
There is a 99% chance that Poland and the Baltics would happily switch sides and ally with US and the UK in that case.
Eastern Europe really doesn't have much love for the shenanigans of continental Europe.
Norway too probably.
I think the entire of Europe vs US. The USA would lose it lacks a staging point and is too stretched, the Bases it has already inside Europe would be instantly swarmed and overwhelmed. Carrying out a Falklands style invasion x100000 isn't feasible.
If it was US and the UK vs The rest of Europe then Europe would lose. Its literally WW2 on easy mode this way.
>US vs Europe rapidly devolves into the entire Europe abandoning Europe and siding with the US
This is just WW2 again.
The US would be able to cut off shipping to and from Europe as well as blowing huge chunks out of the infrastructure at will until the EU eventually gives in because whatever the burgers want isn't worth destroying their economy. An actual land invasion would be pretty out of the question, with maybe the exception of the US being able to take the UK and use it as a staging post for easier sieging of Europe. Of course, this is a pretty preposterous setting and idea to begin with, so if we have the US demanding something untennable like the blood sacrifice of everyone's first borns or something while also being so moronic as to insist upon it to the level of destroying themself as a nation, I could see the US mil getting quagmired in the middle of the invasion of Europe, even if European casualties would be equally as high.
>Blows up shipping
>Drags China into conflict
Yeh, nah that isn't going to happen.
>Lands on UK
>With the entire of Europe's Navy and Airforce primed
That wouldn't happen either the UK is a very easily defended nation
>the usa can just hold the EU at ransom until their economy is to hurt to take it anymore
>hold the worlds largest economy at ransom and expect there to be no negative outcomes for yourself
this war will not happen because not only are the economies and people very intertwined. But a lot of military production uses parts made on the other side of the ocean and both sides have monopolies on very items in the global supply chain.
From what? Estonia alone could conquer Moscow at this point.
EU(+UK) vs USA where USA is the attacker would be interesting challenge though.
Without nukes the US would lose easily
Kek we’d roll Europe faster than Iraq. We’ve been preparing for a hot war in Europe since before your father was born.
Plus with NATO gibs cut, who the frick would prop the euros military?
>Kek we’d roll Europe faster than Iraq.
Goof. You'd think that the Iraq and Afghan wars would show that American power is not infinite? Sure 1v1 USA could crush most states in a battle. But over time? Supplying them far overseas? Against resistance movements? USA could absolutely not invade Europe and defeat them militarily. They're too much of a peer, and would keep fighting.
We spend 10x more on NATO (in USD equivalent) than the next biggest contributor (UK).
We could roll Europe and make them a vassal state if we so choose.
Whatever dumpster country you’re from, is literally designed to be a massive military base for the US.
In your opinion
But in my opinion I'm literally
Literally not losing a fricking inch of soil to steve Ortiz
Not a fricking blade of grass
I will tie a bomb to myself and swim to a goblin ship and blow myself up
That's how strongly I feel about it
Shut the frick up you wouldn't dare
You literally have no guns and whatever country you’re from has a joke of a military. “Steve Ortiz” will be fricking your sweetheart in less than 2 weeks from boots on the ground.
In case you don’t remember, America doesn’t hold back punches when killing white people.
Daily reminder we spit roasted Germany after WWII with 3 other countries because we could.
You can throw your fat weight around as much as you like, you'll still be fricked by guerrilla warfare tactics until you'll be forced to flee and ultimately lose the war as was proven most recently in Afghanistan
Afghanistan remained uncucked, unlike Europe. Once US semen supplies dry up Europe will lay down it's arms and kneel.
Afghanistan won because the locals were willing to accept appalling losses and terrible conditions for as long as it took for the US to get tired of kicking their shit in. This is extremely impressive and not a feat that any western population is going to be capable of
I think a quote from the outset of the war-
>America has the guns, but we have the clocks
Or something to that effect.
Of course, 'waiting for America to get bored of 20 years of occupation' isn't a strategy I think most people would want to take.
I think it's more that they don't understand/care, or the civillian population doesn't have the power to object. Those with the power and guns are the Taliban backed by Pakistan.
I'm talking about the taliban themselves, the men doing the actual fighting
It was
>they have the plant but we have the power
>We spend 10x more on NATO (in USD equivalent) than the next biggest contributor (UK).
yes but it wouldn't be a one on one and one of your opponents has the "we nuke first and go straight for the largest cities" doctrine
>We could roll Europe and make them a vassal state if we so choose.
"we nuke first and go straight for the cities"
>We could roll Europe and make them a vassal state if we so choose.
"we nuke first and go straight for the cities"
France is so fricking based
This might be werid coming from a Spaniard, but I love France
>go straight for the cities muh nooks
Great! Now America’s entire nuclear arsenal remains untouched, and who’s alive left is VERY pissed off.
Even in a nuclear exchange, Europe doesn’t win. How many SSBNs are in the Atlantic RIGHT NOW ready to blow their full load at the drop of a hat?
Euros really can’t wrap their head around the fact that they lose a hypothetical war with America every time.
yes, but is it worth let's say the 20 biggest cities in the USA?
no one wins when the nukes start flying
france just makes it very clear that they aren't going to wait or play around
you get one tactical nuke at most and then it's straight fo the major population centers
france will not die unless you die with her
>you get one tactical nuke at most and then it's straight fo the major population centers
SSBNs in the Mediterranean perform a decapitation strike. Dumping Trident IIs all over your strategic points. Now what Frenchie?
Do you seriously think we’re just dropping bombs from bombers or something? Again, we’ve planed and strategized a nuclear exchange for 70-some-odd years with an opponent more dangerous than your irrelevant dump.
You don’t win. Not to say America is unscathed or something, but you lose both conventional and nuclear exchanges 100% of the time.
yes, but is it worth it?
great you wipe out france and europe surrenders
LA, DC, Portland and Chicago are gone
the chinese have taken Taiwan
you have guerrilla war in irradiated Europe
russia takes in several european countries that would rather be under them than be under nuclear genocide usa
japan kicks the usa out and strikes a deal with the chinese
ect ect ect
all because what?
there isn't a scenario where getting nuked by france is worth it
war isn't some kids boasting about what action figure would beat the other, it is the continuation of politics by other means. As long as France has it's nukes there isn't a political goal worth getting nuked by them. And as such you can't win a war against them
So in your little hypothetical, France performs a first strike. Instead of striking actually valuable targets (silos, sub bases, military bases, etc.) you sperg out and launch all 300 (lmao) nuclear weapons at NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. correct?
And somehow after killing millions of Americans, who still have essentially their full nuclear arsenal intact, you think France survives the exchange in any way, shape or form?
You’re delusional. Again, America would be devastated, but we would retaliate and destroy you. You don’t win.
are you illiterate or something?
as I've clearly stated before the French strike first and they go straight for the population centers
So I’ll explain why
the French don't care about taking out your second strike, because they can't degrade it to a point that they don't get whipped out.
Because the only countries that pose a real treat to their sovereignty have to many nukes (the usa and before 2022 also russia).
So, they offer you this bargain, mess with what we consider to be our severity and we nuke you as hard as we can.
It's the equivalent of pulling the pin on a suicide vest when getting mugged.
Why? Because they know they have nothing that is worth taking for you than what they would do in response
So yes you land on continental France or try to impose you will to a degree that makes France no longer a nation to act freely on the world stage and the nukes come out.
A “polite” for Parisians tac nuke first, say a carrier group or a beachhead and if you don’t take the hint you get all the rest.
the frog strategic policy is frick around and find out. Do you really want to know how many they can get before you get them?
You’re delusional, and you clearly have a poor grasp on nuclear strategy. Have a good day, frog.
>ik ben een kikker
sorry but you are off by two countries
but no french nuclear doctrine is: if france can not live, the world is better off dead. And who else is narcisist enough for that but the french?
oh and to return to me not understanding nuclear strategy.
nukes seen as the ultimate escalation serve to draw a very clear line of not one step further, to make (decisive) armed conflict too much of a risk and too much of a cost to go for.
the usa and the ruskies are free to talk about their second strike from their vast nuke fields in the middle of nowhere.
France and the other nuclear powers don't have the luxury of the numbers and dispersal to talk about nuclear warfare and surviving it.
it is "push us far enough and we push the button" or nothing.
it is brinksmanship, but the frogs are delusional and still think they are an empire/center of the world.
No one wants a nuclear exchange - and lowkey people think it's better to lose conventionally than to go with nuclear exchanges. Americans are smart enough to back off if it gets that bad. Panic nuclear weapons would only be used by crazy dictatorships - like Hitler in the bunker with Berlin being stormed type situations. All is lost so frick everything and everyone taken it all down with us.
>france just makes it very clear that they aren't going to wait or play around
SourcE?
https://www.francetnp.gouv.fr/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise-473?lang=fr
from the frogs mouth
>strictly defensive
>nuking NYC in a first strike
lmao
>strictly defensive
you invade france and we can't beat you conventionally?
defensive nuke use it is.
can't take the hint from a (few) tactical nukes?
screw you if we can't have our stuff, you can't have yours.
The US military is designed to be a standalone full spectrum force while all the EU armies are designed to piggyback off of the US.
Wrong. EU armies are designed for national defense and limited power projection outside Europe.
>From what? Estonia alone could conquer Moscow at this point.
Given Russia's poor showing in Ukraine, I sorta wish we had some proper war kino.
>Russia occupies the Baltic states quickly
>Baltic states, Finland, Poland, all quickly mobilize
>VDV spallttered all over
>huge Russian casualties
>Russians are expelled before Americans or Germans can even mobilize
>Fierce debate about whether the Baltics should march on Moscow after taking such heavy loses to end it all for good
LET ME AT EM!
NATO is nothing but a club of countries and a set of standards, but those countries have a frickton of hardware and trained men.
Ukraine has fricked Russia with a fraction of the EU's stuff and population, so it's pretty obvious that only the US and China are above them now.
Hehe no Russia would be in Berlin if it was not for the zognited states
most people now reason that there is no need For EU army because NATO exists but if you pool assets of those nearly 30 countries it looks formidable - only US and China would pose credible threat.
NATO isn't just a formal alliance but realistically if e any of the neighbors of Russia got into a shooting war it would be in the direct security interests of the nordics, baltics, Poland and the UK to join the war. If like hypothetically Estonia or Finland was invaded there is a 0% chance that everyone would just sit around. Doubly so now that everyone knows that Russia is too pussified to use nukes which don't work anyway.
At this point it needs to be asked. Defend against what exactly?
The question has to be asked: why is Nato approval so strong now, after the pitiful performance of russia? Shouldn't it be on its lowest level to date? I mean nobody considers russia a credible threat anymore, so whats the point of nato? Why not simply sticking to the EU and get rid of unnecessary taxpayer funded paperwork?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_%27round_the_flag_effect
Probably because Russia doesn't just have conventional forces but nukes as well anon.
Unless you're suggesting the EU nuclearize to have 4000 nukes lmao.
If they borrowed some of those tonnes of plutonium from the bongs for refinement I'm sure they could do it regardless of US opposition.
Nuclear umbrella
Literally muh nukes.
I genuinely hope Russia is forced into denuclearization after they lose so we can abandon NATO and let euros deal with their own shit. We need to focus China and the South Pacific more than the destitute shithole that is Russia.
Nuclear weapons aren't the key factor, and Russia would be foolish to give them up. They are the assurance that USA + Europe doesn't do something stupid like invade Russia and get bogged down in an ugly war.
Russia has to meddle and conquor all of its neighbors because of it's geography. It needs buffer states, access to water, and to house troops far away from the Euasian plains. And the mafia state in Russia ensures that to "expand" economically they don't liberalize their economy, they instead have to take over more oil/gas assets and state funds.
>Russia has to meddle and conquor all of its neighbors because of it's geography
Or else what? I'm sure the French once said similar things about the Lowlands or Northern Italy. This imperialistic attitude is what must be beaten in the first instance. There is nothing unique about Russia making its people fundamentally incapable of not invading others.
>Russia has to meddle and conquor all of its neighbors because of it's geography. It needs buffer states, access to water, and to house troops far away from the Euasian plains
Uh huh. And why don't the other more prosperous european nations need these things? The buffer zone/sphere of influence shit is the rot at Russia's geopolitical core
>Uh huh. And why don't the other more prosperous european nations need these things?
Other states modernized and liberalized and stopped caring so damn much about land. Working together is better for everyone. Japan is resource poor, so it too pushed forward with empire. But after WW2, they abandoned empire for a modernized state, and they achieve all of their resource and economic goals peacefully. Russia could have chosen the same path, but they chose empire.
Literally NO ONE has any plans ton invade Russia. But they're weak, they know they're weak, and it makes them paranoid.
The EU was designed to prevent wars in Europe. Primarily to chain Germany- it started as the European Steel and Coal Commission between Germany and the Lowland countries. The theory being that if we tie Germany's economies to the countries it historically invades Germany will be less likely to invade lest they destroy their economy in doing so.
That and the free-movement of people. It stops mattering who speaks what language on what side of the border if you can just take a car trip to grandma's without having to bring your passport when you cross between countries.
Honestly it's a model I think more regions should move towards, but naturally the areas where it'd be most useful are the areas where it's the hardest to implement.
It is a good model, but you need a level of economic and social development first. You couldn't have implemented it in 16th century Europe when Catholics and Protestants genuinely hated each other. Only after a certain amount of liberalization do you realize that these distinctions are silly, and it's better to just do business.
The Arab League and African Leagues are modeled on the EU but they'll never go anywhere until they develop and stop caring about religious busllshit. And their leaders don't care about truly modernizing or making their people richer. They're Russia-tier.
Tying countries economies to prevent wars - good theory and it works sometimes and doesn't in others. Worked in Germany, didn't for Russia.
I think that the issue is really corruption more than anything else. That and stability. It's kind of impossible to get an intergovernment agreement going when you have no faith the other guy will keep his word, or won't pocket all the money you give him, or that he'll be replaced by the guy who shot him next tuesday.
Also the environmental pressures are different. Countries still don't fight wars between each-other that much. Like sure Iraq and Iran had a war. And periodically the Middle East will try to wipe Isreal off the map. But say Morrocco and Tunisia aren't really worried the other will annex them. Neither are say Mali and Sierra Leone. In the 50's there wasn't much real reason to assume Germany wouldn't start WW3 if given the chance- or that alliances would swap and friends would invade friends as happened all the time in Europe.
Yet now germany is the puppetteer behind EU and the main source of disenfranchisement among the other member states. If it wasnt for the catastrophical effects of brexit people probably the union would've had dissolved by now
I mean it failed at making Germany no longer want to take over Europe. It just succeeded in stopping them from using guns to do it. So a mixed bag.
What do people expect?
Germany is simply too big and important and right in the center of Europe, both figuratively and literally.
The only countries able to afford "muh neutrality" are those too small to really matter and with gentle neighbors willing to put up with them.
A Europe without German hegemony simply cannot be.
>Russia has to meddle and conquor all of its neighbors because of it's geography.
>has to
You know, there's a thing called money, with which you can buy things other than yachts.
>You know, there's a thing called money, with which you can buy things other than yachts.
I mean has to given their ideology, their economy. Yeah, you can guarantee safety much better by integrating your economy and modernizing it. But Russia never got past 19th century thinking. Yeah, Russia could have followed the path of Germany and Japan - even with the collapse of the Soviet Union there's no reason Russia couldn't be a top tier country or even super power.
Russia going in on Ukraine showed that NATO is needed, regardless of Russias ultimate failure there.
Also, Europe got a bit of a wakeup moment in general from it. 77 years of relative peace in Europe. No more wars of conquest between nations. And then the fricking Russians put an end to that era and gave us all a reminder of the BAD old days. And the whole continent reacted to it like a PTSD-ridden 'Nam vet to unknown voices outside his window at night.
>Russia going in on Ukraine showed that NATO is needed,
As of right now, Ukraine is a completely disfunctional state with half of their population either displaced or fled abroad, their economy propped up by foreign aid, and a bloody nasty war on 20% of their land, and the offucpied land being constantly filled with new Patriotic Russians who wish to annex it. Yeah, it's a bad situation and Russia's dismal military failures obscure it. Ukraine would have much rather preferred to have avoided this situation.
This is a very good point. Its easy to be sit back and laugh at russia when its someone else country they are embarrassing themselves in
Just becuase russia sucks at conquering doesnt mean they wont try and it wont be damaging as frick.
Basically it was just demonstrated if you aren't in NATO russia will try to invade you.
The states neighboring Russia are the ones who have to worry the most. Can Russia defeat and take over Poland? Nope. But could Russia turn half of Poland into a wasteland with thousands of dead on each side? And perhaps create another frozen conflict to ensure that Poland has no peace? Yep.
If Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, were part of NATO they'd never have any problems with Russia. And if the Baltic states were not part of NATO they'd be caught in endless Russian conflicts too.
Russia can only destroy and take over, never create. And Paradoxically, NATO is the best thing for Russia since it prevents them from being stupid and getting drawn into stupid endless wars.
You know I have similar thoughts about the Soviet Union. I think we've had political opportunists trying to burn down the country since the 90's because they're no longer worried the Russians will invade if the country's on fire.
I mean I always thought that if we managed to avoid civil war back in the 60's with the civil rights act with how much organized racism and opposition there was then we as a country are gonna keep going. Now I'm thinking probably the only reason the south didn't secede was because they thought the Soviets would just take them over if they did.
I mean look at where the US was prior to this conflict. People were openly asking if the US had grown too unstable to be a global leader, there was a vacuum of US influence that russia was exploiting and many in Europe were talking about just making decisions without the US. Now that the Russians have come knocking, everyone's scrambled to stay on the US' good side.
See NATO was at a lowpoint prior to the Ukraine invasion for that same answer. NATO existed to contain the USSR. The USSR was gone, and while 9/11 shook everyone up, most of the rest of NATO just got tired of America's adventurism in the Middle East (which is ironic because prior to that the US was mostly in the Middle East to fix europe's frick ups there).
Now sure Putin invaded Georgia and Ukraine but it had some plausible deniability and those countries had some problems- so everyone figured 'well just don't have your government collapse and Putin won't invade, simple enough'.
The problem now isn't 'is Russia a credible military threat' that much is clear- I mean sure Estonia doesn't want to have to lose half their territory and squat there like the Ukrainians are, but Germany is going to be fine. The issue is 'are the Russians dumb enough to try something' and the answer is yes.
And that's bad for a couple of reasons- randomly invading countries is bad for business. Proxy wars, and border skirmishes, that's the affair of the day because those don't really disrupt business. People can go about their day if say two countries support different sides in a civil war. If countries randomly eat each-other that changes the calculus. It's also bad because Russia decided they could invade Ukraine because NATO was obsolete and weak. Ergo- if you don't want random wars on your doorstep, you can't let NATO look weak. NATO needs to be strong not because they're worried about losing a war. NATO needs to be strong to prevent a war in the first place.
Russia being a failure just means that 10 years later they'll try again to invade someone after having attempted to learn from previous mistakes. Russia never changes so NATO is necessary and will remain relevant.
In my Russian History class, we went over that since Napoleon you've basically had two factions in Russia arguing about what it means to be Russian.
On the one hand you have the westernizers who say that Russia sucks cause it's a backward dictatorship rural farm state full of illiterate hicks and they need to embrace liberal governments, modern technology and modern social norms in order to catch up to the west.
Then there are the Slavophiles who say all that's actually a good thing, because everyone's out to get them and to wipe them off the map, and being the opposite of the west is good because Russia is Based and the West is Woke. Also- every time the westernizers try to fix something it just makes the problem worse (for example: The soviet union).
And as history shows, the only problem with the Soviet Union was Russia. The other countries are fine without it, most are even better than ever before.
>Also- every time the westernizers try to fix something it just makes the problem worse (for example: The soviet union).
Man what a bunch of frick-ups. If Russia (and China for that matter) had kept their liberal-nationalist revolutions in place they'd be normal fricking liberal democratic states. Of course the USSR was moronic. of course! Literally just do what France or the UK were doing you goofs! You had all the resources, and population, and everything. Once oil got big you could have pumped that all into modernization and safe keeping for bad times.
Just because states were behind in the past is not historical inevitability - Sout hKorea was Africa-tier until recently.
The problem with China is that the KMT were incompetent unlikeable morons who taxed peasants via grain during a war and famine. And “taxed” is a very polite word for looted. And let’s not forget destroying their own damn to own the japs and drown a huge section of their country. Mao didn’t win the civil war, the KMT lost it
Without the Japanese the KMT would probably be forgotten now. The Japs came in and decimated KMT cities and strongholds and defeated most of the KMT army. Then the shitty truce. Then the commies won post-war. It was a recipe for disaster but the Japanese are 100% to blame for that.
CHina was on the same path Korea, Taiwan, and Japan were on. nationalist liberal authoritarans come to power, modernize and reform, then gradually democratize. Big problem with CCP is that they did modernize the economy (with massive corruption), but there's no way to politically mdernize. They're too stuck with communism and communist symboles.
Meanwhile generic nationalist liberals are more flexible rather than being wedded to specific ideologies. Commies can't say they were wrong without invalidating their entire rule. And they keep getting crazier and weirder with Xi in power.
Because NATO membership protects you from the Russians. Note how they didn't go for the much smaller and even more vulnerable Baltics.
Well, Russia is a joke NOW, but I don't think that the Baltics are eager to take their chances let's say 5 years from now. Russia is like a wienerrach, it's never going to just keel over and die, it will always be a pest for the neighbouring nations.
it's the first time in over 30 years that anyone in western and to a lesser extent central and eastern europe has had to give any thought to their countries military
NATO was this far of old thing we didn't really need and the USA uses to drag us into stupid forever wars we get the refugees from
now it has a reason again, now the USA is seen as the exporter of security it is ect.
having a proper war just a day or two away by car shook people up
I would only hope they couldn't
before, i would have said no.
now? there's just no one who could fight them. choina can't reach with anything serious. russia would end up bogged down in finland, the baltics, and eastern polan before being utterly overrun. honestly the north africans leaguing up and invading through spain would have a better chance than any serious geopolitical player.
If pre-Ukraine Russia had gone to war with the EU and the US completely stayed out of it and didn't send so much as a single round or a single advisor, the EU would have had ammo troubles early on but ultimately wiped the floor with Russia once they got a few countries pressed into non-stop ammo production
(and we're saying nobody can nooooook in this scenario)
No, it's the eu
It's 27 tourist economies and loser counties bolted together
Look at WW2 they all fell to deutschistanis merely tank rushing them
There's no fight left in them
EU has some limited military cooperation mainly for members that aren't NATO members and member states can ask for assistance in war or crisis situations somewhat akin to article 5, but the EU rule doesn't force the other members to help, it's optional.
EU has very deliberately ignored the military part of their union because most members are in NATO anyway so why duplicate the effort?
If NATO just dissolved suddenly EU might step up and form a defense union, but it would be a massive effort and fundamentally change the nature of the organization. There would probably be a argument that EU shouldn't take on that role and a Euro-NATO should be formed instead to avoid getting it entangled in EU decision-making and bureaucracy
That implies EU would want to actively FIGHT anything. EU would just use Eastern Europe as a crash dummy and then try to get into Russia's pants behind the scenes, because I don't see let's say Germany being very eager to fight anything.
It depends, for us (Germany) we tried the EU model on Russia, as in intertwine our economies to the point where there was no incentive for war. That obviously didn't work and it's clear Russia still has imperial ambitions, so now we're in the process of doing a complete 180 on our policy and go back to guaranteeing this by means of military
I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it seems like Germany and Russia are too intertwined economically for Germany to completely sever its ties with Russia.
Because Russians played a very obvious reverse uno card on Germany and now it's the EU that's dependent on Russian resources and the other way around.
they are dependent on them for cheap resources
they can get what we need on the world market but at a higher price
it is hurting germany bad that they now have to get more expensive gas, but it can afford it at least for a while longer and the pain will become less and less as the energy transition + new suppliers come online
it has however helped to wreck countries like pakistan that now have to compete with germany and co for gas on the global market
? Our imports from Russia right now are less than 1% of what they were before the war. All russian imports now come from Norway and Kazakhstan for oil and Norway, Qatar and the US for gas. The prices are back to pre-war levels too so the only one that's getting fricked now is Russia
All Germany did was enable European Russian dependance on an oil dictator.
Trade with another nation to improve relations is pointless if they kill all their other industries so the peasants won't have the means to revolt through a successful competitive industry that have leverage over oligarchs.
All it means is the oligarchs aren't totally reliant on it, and thus can exploit you.
If they actually manage to cooperate, sure. The EU has several decently threatening armies, and counted together its member states are the world's biggest economy. What it lacks is a central government capable of organising any kind of unified response. If the US decided to drop out of Nato and invade Norway, by the time the bureaucrats in charge had come up with a process for deciding what to do about it, it'd be over.
>The EU has several decently threatening armies
Like what? Finland, France (when they actually bother), maybe Spain. Poland has a good army on paper so far, but shit's untested. You think this will be enough for Russia?
>You think this will be enough for Russia?
Have you been asleep for the last year?
The thing with Russians is that they are VERY stubborn.
>Enough for Russia
Bruh, you have got to be kidding me we are talking about actual threats.
Russia would be dealth with by France and the UK to the point they were totally irrelevant and impotent nevermind the rest of Europe joining in.
France has the third or fourth best army in the world and they use it plenty. Why the frick do you think Spain is up there, or above Italy or Germany, or the skandis now they’ve joined their air forces?
Physically? Yeah. Politically? Frick no. You know shits fricked when you can count on a country across the ocean for defense more than your EU neighbors.
Because as it so happens, the interests of the country from across the ocean and yours are more aligned then the interests of your neighbour. So much for the Western unity.
Not at all. Traditionally France surrender, Italy change side and Germany will go coop mode.