this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
480 points (96.9% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2401 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I wonder if it would happen with NATO partners as well. If the US elects another (or previous) moron, the partnership could end on a similar whim.

Idk, I feel like the US not a very stable or trustworthy partner. Maybe Macron was right, maybe the EU does need it's own army.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly strategically, it's stupid not to. But I sit here on my high horse, where we are used to sacrificing an enormous amount of tax dollars on military prowess and have the military wealth of like all nations combined. But hey we go bankrupt if we go to the doctors... so there is that.

I guess my rambling point is it sounds good in theory, but it's a huge sacrifice.

The US would be able to spend more on the military with all the money saved on socialised medicine. Private medicine is about corporations taking a cut, not saving govt money.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Spending doesn't mean quality or even quantity.

Americans get swindled big time by weapon manufacturers colluding with government contract drafters, and pharmaceutical companies colluding with medical insurance appraisers and hospitals to raise fictional treatment costs through the roof. All that, while having a taxation pressure pretty much on par with the average in the EU.

So far, the EU has managed to avoid the medical racketeering, it isn't unthinkable that it could also avoid the weapons racketeering... unless it keeps buying overpriced shit from the US big bully in town, instead of investing in it's own manufacturing.

An EU military, with weapons produced in the EU, would be a huge loss for the US, not necessarily much of a sacrifice for the EU.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem for the EU is they don't exactly have a sovereign currency, at least not the way The US, UK, AU, CA, and China have. We can always pay more, because the government can just "print more money." I don't know if the EU can really do that with the Euro. They should be able to, but they don't seem to function the way our Federal Government does.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The ECB is more independent, but that doesn't really matter. The EU can borrow from it just like the US government does from the Federal Reserve, and the ECB's mandate is to stabilize inflation, no matter what the EU does.

If the EU decided to borrow massive amounts of Euros to spend on weapon manufacturing and creating its own military, that would have massive ripples on the whole economy and impact inflation, but the ECB would just have to follow.

The only real difference is in foreign monetary policy: the ECB doesn't have to listen to EU Parliament's wishes to change monetary policy in order to weaponize it, while central banks in the US, UK, AU, China, etc. do have to listen to their respective government's wishes to mess up the internal economy for whatever reason they see convenient.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the explanation. I'm an American, so trying to keep our politics straight is a full time job. I haven't had much opportunity to really look at the alternatives.

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

America never was a trustworthy partner. They start wars and raise dictatorships all over the world. Trump just showed they werent trustworthy in economical treaties either.

[–] thechadwick@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

It's not all one thing or the other. People ascribe these kind of blanket generalizations to US foreign policy frequently but it's as short-sighted as painting German foreign policy as imperial. Certain US presidents have started wars. Others the Marshall plan, WTO, IMF, the UN, NATO, etc.

Right now there's a crisis in the US driven by the same fear of change that drove them into containment during the cold war. That isolationist populism certainly benefits some narratives but it's no better than the worst elements of China-first economic coercion in the ACS that's alienated a lot of Philippine fishermen in recent years.

Fact is the biggest threat to the human race is the dissension these isolationists/populists are selling. No meaningful action on climate, migration, or the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine can occur in that worldview and anyone should be suspicious of politicians who promote them.

Most US policy has been quite good when non-isolationists have occupied the white house, just like most non-reich based German leadership has strengthened European unity. The Nazis and Trump's me-first exceptions prove the rule. Education, familiarity, and exposure should be the Rx for the US right now, along with all the countries dealing with the current wave of populist snake oil movements. In the words of a US propaganda film of the same name "don't be a sucker".

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong. We have a very short policy lifespan. It's the major downside of term restrictions - nobody wants to or is able to plan for anything more than 2 years ahead reliably. Except the military budget of course, because we live in hell.

[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The problem is that politics do not stop at the border. Support for Ukraine has become yet another culture war, us-vs-them battleground. It doesn't really matter what the issues are anymore, only that there has to be conflict over them to keep attention whores in the news cycle.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

Macron was right, but being right is extremely expensive. Meanwhile, the EU's dependence on F-35s for defence isn't too great given the well-known issues with F-35 maintenance and the need for US private contractors in the maintenance loop.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everybody needs their own army. Otherwise they are too dependent on those who have, and that's not just the USA, that includes also plenty of vermin.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we disband alliances and rely on individual armies, you'll very quickly see that we're back to the middleages, where the smaller countries are eaten by bigger countries ad infinitum.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

That's not what I said, first. Second, smaller countries are eaten when the alliances they rely on turn out to be all puff.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Its* own army.