Spoiler: the answer is “no”. If you must fear that every four or so years, your supposed “ally” will be taken over by a traitorous, corrupt moron, you have! No! Ally!
This sentiment is a major part of the MAGA platform - just swap “European” for “American.”
Why become isolationist? It’s a weak position. What about countries like Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, etc? Just because the US sucks right now doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t work together.
I definitely think Europe should have strong relationships with good allies, like Canada and Japan. Hopefully they would both be reliable.
Mexico, potentially yes, they could be a reliable ally. As for India I’m not so sure, because India seems to want to be quite friendly with Russia (I think India buys a lot of military equipment from Russia), and Russia has been waging war against Europe for the last 12 years.
India has been a Russian ally since the West backed Pakistan in their war 60 years ago.
Just because they are purportedly a democracy doesn’t make them western allies in any way. They claimed to be neutral (3rd world) during the cold war and after, but look at their actions, look at where they buy weapons, who they trade with.
They’re mercantilist first just like China, but be under no delusion they would not hesitate to sell us out for pennies if we were foolish enough to embrace them.
This was a call for independence (particularly with regard to defense), not for isolationism. They may share some features, but are two are very different things indeed.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist. Are you simply advocating for stronger European militaries? Ironically, MAGA has also been asking for that - they want Europe to spend more on their militaries.
My position is that the stronger and more prolific the alliances are among nations of the world, the less each individual country will need to spend on militarization (a complete waste of resources). That’s not suggesting that Europe shouldn’t be spending more on their militaries in light of recent events. That’s just an unfortunate consequence of a shitty disposition of US isolationism.
Independence rhetoric does closely align with the rise of right wing nationalism we see throughout the world. I’m curious how you distance yourself from that movement.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
You’re not wrong, there are broader and narrower definitions of security. For the purposes of my posting, I used it in a more narrow, defensive meaning.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist.
Happy to. “Independent”, in a security/defensive context, means that you can organise your own defense if need be. This does not mean that you’re unwilling to cooperate. Like you said correctly, there are great benefits to be had from military alliances: joint development means reduced R&D and maintenance costs for everyone involved. Compatible command structures and shared strategies improve security for those inside and deterrence of those outside the alliance. But: if allegiances shift and your former partners drop out of the alliance, you’re not opening yourself up to any vulnerabilities - unlike large parts of Europe, which has entirely relied on the U.S. for things like air defense, intelligence and nuclear deterrence, but also conventional land operations, and now needs to build up these capabilities in a rush.
“Isolationism”, on the other hand, means you’re flat-out unwilling to cooperate or care. You refuse to enter alliances, be bound by treaties of any kind, and generally take no interest in getting involved with the rest of the world, including the use of soft power.
The reason you’re suspicious of the word “independence” and connect it to right-wing populism is because, like so many other words, right-wing populists love to abuse it: they say “independence” because it has a nicer ring to it, but in fact, they seek isolationism. And in doing so, they actually weaken their nations by passing up the benefits of cooperation. I dare not say whether that is up to irony or design - because they were bought by foreign powers looking to weaken the nation in question.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
More spending doesn’t automatically equal stronger. Especially if you’re spending that money on highly complex equipment produced by an openly hostile third party, which can end its supply of spare parts at any moment and therefore render the capabilities purchased with that equipment all but useless.
Spoiler: the answer is “no”. If you must fear that every four or so years, your supposed “ally” will be taken over by a traitorous, corrupt moron, you have! No! Ally!
Fool me once, fool me twice, and all that jazz.
Now geht on with it!
I think more Europeans need to realise that the only countries which care about the security of European countries are European countries.
Which is what realists have told us all along, post-cold-war optimism be damned… We were bloody naive.
Eh, not necessarily. In the last decade or two though… yeah, definitely. I don’t think the US will ever recover the good will we once had.
Canada enters the group chat.
This sentiment is a major part of the MAGA platform - just swap “European” for “American.”
Why become isolationist? It’s a weak position. What about countries like Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, etc? Just because the US sucks right now doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t work together.
I definitely think Europe should have strong relationships with good allies, like Canada and Japan. Hopefully they would both be reliable.
Mexico, potentially yes, they could be a reliable ally. As for India I’m not so sure, because India seems to want to be quite friendly with Russia (I think India buys a lot of military equipment from Russia), and Russia has been waging war against Europe for the last 12 years.
India has been a Russian ally since the West backed Pakistan in their war 60 years ago.
Just because they are purportedly a democracy doesn’t make them western allies in any way. They claimed to be neutral (3rd world) during the cold war and after, but look at their actions, look at where they buy weapons, who they trade with.
They’re mercantilist first just like China, but be under no delusion they would not hesitate to sell us out for pennies if we were foolish enough to embrace them.
This was a call for independence (particularly with regard to defense), not for isolationism. They may share some features, but are two are very different things indeed.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist. Are you simply advocating for stronger European militaries? Ironically, MAGA has also been asking for that - they want Europe to spend more on their militaries.
My position is that the stronger and more prolific the alliances are among nations of the world, the less each individual country will need to spend on militarization (a complete waste of resources). That’s not suggesting that Europe shouldn’t be spending more on their militaries in light of recent events. That’s just an unfortunate consequence of a shitty disposition of US isolationism.
Independence rhetoric does closely align with the rise of right wing nationalism we see throughout the world. I’m curious how you distance yourself from that movement.
You’re not wrong, there are broader and narrower definitions of security. For the purposes of my posting, I used it in a more narrow, defensive meaning.
Happy to. “Independent”, in a security/defensive context, means that you can organise your own defense if need be. This does not mean that you’re unwilling to cooperate. Like you said correctly, there are great benefits to be had from military alliances: joint development means reduced R&D and maintenance costs for everyone involved. Compatible command structures and shared strategies improve security for those inside and deterrence of those outside the alliance. But: if allegiances shift and your former partners drop out of the alliance, you’re not opening yourself up to any vulnerabilities - unlike large parts of Europe, which has entirely relied on the U.S. for things like air defense, intelligence and nuclear deterrence, but also conventional land operations, and now needs to build up these capabilities in a rush.
“Isolationism”, on the other hand, means you’re flat-out unwilling to cooperate or care. You refuse to enter alliances, be bound by treaties of any kind, and generally take no interest in getting involved with the rest of the world, including the use of soft power.
The reason you’re suspicious of the word “independence” and connect it to right-wing populism is because, like so many other words, right-wing populists love to abuse it: they say “independence” because it has a nicer ring to it, but in fact, they seek isolationism. And in doing so, they actually weaken their nations by passing up the benefits of cooperation. I dare not say whether that is up to irony or design - because they were bought by foreign powers looking to weaken the nation in question.
More spending doesn’t automatically equal stronger. Especially if you’re spending that money on highly complex equipment produced by an openly hostile third party, which can end its supply of spare parts at any moment and therefore render the capabilities purchased with that equipment all but useless.