• SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I see what you’re saying, although I think it was a joint effort by the US and the EU. And it was short-sighted on both their parts.

    The EU is feeling the heat that comes from a lapse in personal security and the US will find out that they aren’t the power they thought they were without their allies.

    If Trump isn’t corrected it could all come crashing down for the US and the EU.

    • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Why for the EU?

      It’s much easier to produce military hardware than to set up a large trading network.

      Remember, we only need to have enough to decisively stop the Russia. We don’t need to become another US military power.

      • SomethingBlack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Because it never stops at just stopping the enemy, the allies could have simply contained Nazi Germany but chose to invade. The US could have continued the war in the Pacific but chose to drop 2 atomic bombs.

        Beating the enemy so thoroughly is the only way humans have ever been able to truly end a conflict of that scale, and in that situation if Europe is to beat Russia like that I don’t believe they’d hesitate to start launching nukes.

        So we’re stuck in a situation where Europe either risk nuclear war, or an extended border skirmish that could last decades. Both would be devastating