I read it just before Cyberpunk came out, just to know some more history of what I was stepping into. I was completely flabbergasted by how modern it felt to me.
I don't have the patience to read much anymore unless it is real good. I ate that one, more than once. And the others.
This is such a dumb take. Like 80 years ago the so-called Europeans were killing each other. 35 years ago there were 2 German nations that had animosity towards each other. This is why teaching history is important in schools so people don’t live in imaginary land
Interesting that you didn't feel the need to say what your "nation" is, or their nation BFFs. It would have allowed us to dig into real data, but no, let's just use feelz instead :)
People are people, and nation states are nation states. These are different entities.
If we say that nations can have enemies then it stands to reason that we can also say that they have friends.
You can of course be needlessly reductive and say that friendship is just two temporarily, mutually aligned self-interested parties, but… yeah. That’s pretty verbose. And not even correct.
what kind've voter intimidating sh* is this? down-voted for being honest, promoting understanding and responsibility?
jokes on you guys as i firmly believe bullying racketeering and intimidation are quite literally terrorism when applied to population groups consisting of more than (1) individual.
I'd split it into 2 camps. Elites who realize Europe isn't a unified group or has a military strong enough for defense..
And people who get wet when France says they are going to send soldiers to Ukraine and it never materializes.
The general population has 0 understanding of international relations. It's the United States and China right now. Any other belief comes from someone who has read 0 international relations Realism books.
Its not that Europeans havent read Mearsheimer. its that for the best part of three hundred years the whole of Europe has been trying that same realist script until there was nothing left but total ruin across the entire continent. Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
I would bet any amount that if you go to a random European city and stop 100 random people on the street you'd be lucky if one person has even heard of Mearsheimer. I think you're also overthinking how the EU got created. I don't think pre-EU Europe was on the brink of violence either. It was more IMO simplistic (but possibly correct, who knows) thinking that it's stronger (economically) as a block. A lot of present day Europe issues that might lead to bigger problems are potentially worse because of the EU.
The primary goal of this was to prevent another war by joining european economies together economically. It's not 'overthinking it'. It quite literally is the main reason and you can go and read the speeches from the politicians at the time to confirm this.
Heres a direct quote from the declaration itself
> The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.
The fact that the european powers (with the exception of russia) are largely at peace with each other and haven't had a major war with each other since the second world war is very unusual given european history.
Definitely far from my expertise but I think you're contradicting yourself.
I am talking about the formalization that is specifically the modern European Union. You are talking as if it's some inevitable consequence of earlier efforts.
> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit.
I don't think anything you're saying is strengthening this statement that I had an issue with.
The Maastricht Treaty which is what created modern day EU was driven by other concerns, asking Gemini yields: "To answer your second question: No, everyday Europeans in 1992 were not primarily thinking about WWII.
By the time the Maastricht Treaty was being drafted, the public was reacting to a completely different era of history. They were focused on the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening of Eastern Europe, and the need to compete economically with the United States and Japan in a rapidly globalizing world. The defining event on the public's mind was the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, not the end of WWII."
So you are right that the processes that eventually led to the formation of the EU started after WW-II due to concerns related to that war. But specifically the EU as it stands today with its current structure and agreements was not formed due to those considerations. Europe could have continued with the previous arrangements. At least that's my take and I don't think anything you're saying contradicts it. I'll admit to a certain lack of knowledge so happy to learn more about Europe pre-EU or why what I'm saying is still wrong.
EDIT: I guess one can see how the reunification of Germany was a factor that could have made people consider the world wars. That said the creation of the EU was a major change compared to previous arrangements.
EDIT2: When I read the EU site you linked to I get a strong sense of "backsplaining" as if it was written after the fact to appear like the EU was just part of a process that goes back to WW-II. The title says "History of the EU – 1945-59" but in 1945-1959 there was no EU. Didn't the term European Union only show up circa 1992? So this is perhaps the "history of Europe" but not the history of the European Union? I could be totally wrong. I am not European but I did live through these events and follow the news (well, not WW-II but the fall of the USSR, Germany's unification, and the establishment of the modern day EU). What's of interest to me in the context of this specific question/debate is what were the concerns of the Europeans and their leaders entering into the agreements that formed the modern day EU.
Presuming the EU just appeared out of thin air in 1992/1993 and ignoring the predecessor organisations which were crucial for the formation of the EU is just wrong.
It's also not just about WW2, europe had at that point been at major war with itself in some form or another for well over a thousand years with only very brief periods of peace.
Of course by the 1990s it wasn't top of peoples minds because there had been peace for nearly 40 years, which is testament to the success of the original project, it doesn't mean the original goals had disappeared.
It was a pretty radical step change though? One currency. Freedom of movement and employment. The EU is almost like one country. The only thing really missing is having one military force and then it's basically like the United States of Europe. NATO is close to that. Maybe they don't want to lose all their UN seats though ;)
The modern EU was a decades-long journey, heavily informed by the geopolitical realities of constant horrific European wars, that this person has clearly laid out for you. I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue or achieve anymore.
The EU has clear predecessor initiatives and organizations that lead to its current form. Just like territories became states in the US, or the League of Nations lead to the UN. This isn’t a complicated concept we see it all the time. Something forms, it molds and changes over time, and eventually it becomes something else. But the roots are still clearly understood and are a part of its history.
The European Union is only a little over 20 years old. The economic and political union of Western Europe is an ~80 year old project that directly led to the European Union. You may as well take issue with people talking about England’s colonies prior to 1776 when discussing US history.
The only thing I am trying to achieve is accuracy.
History of everything is a long journey. The OP made a comment re: the EU specifically which I thought was off. And at least so far in this thread my reply seems to have been more accurate.
> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
This statement isn't talking about "the decades long journey Europe has gone through informed by wars". It is very specifically talking about the creation of the EU (and e.g. its slow bureaucratic mess which are an attribute of the modern EU). I have yet to see any actual support to the idea that the specific step of the formation modern (of the) EU was indeed primarily about Germany and France sliding back into war and that a "slow bureaucratic mess" was the intentional vehicle here. As someone who has lived through these events I have my perspective and it's fine for others to have a different perspective. But if that is the case then I'm still to see that in this thread.
You are painting a picture as if a geographic region inevitably drifts towards the EU, the UN, the USA, etc. This just feels like total nonsense to me to be blunt. These are decisions taken at the time for various specific reasons. Sometimes they go one way. Sometimes a different way. The countries that formed the EU and decided to adopt one currency and open borders (amongst other decisions) took that step for a reason. It was not inevitable. There are and were many other paths forward. And Germany and France going to war, as far as I recall, was not part of the discussion at the time (1992-ish).
Is current day Europe and the EU a product of a history. I mean duh. That was not the point the OP was making.
EDIT: I can see why this would be a sensitive topic for present day Europeans and how the rise of nationalism is a possible threat to the modern day EU. There's definitely ample motivation to paint a certain picture here and tell a certain story. Present day EU was not a given. It passed by a very small margin. Then there was Brexit. It's not a given that there would be more wars in Europe without the EU. Europeans can do what's best for them. Again, my main reason for jumping in is that the comment didn't agree with my memory of the time when all of this was happening, so it feels like a modern day rewriting of what Europe was actually like in the 90's.
> I can see why this would be a sensitive topic for present day Europeans and how the rise of nationalism is a possible threat to the modern day EU.
I am not European, I am from the US. I saw this conversation and saw you being weirdly obstinate. This contrarian position then digging in regardless of response is not productive.
How would you propose I should have replied to support a more productive discussion here?
The original comment was the opposite of my personal experience having followed the events as they happened. The responses to my comment did not really address what I was talking about.
If you make a point (that the formation of the EU is because of X you are very specific about it) then you should be the one who is prepared to demonstrate it somehow. Why is this a problem?
Are you familiar with the topic or you're simply here to tell me that my manners are bad? If you're familiar I'd love to get your input on the actual question.
Why is my position "contrarian"? I am disagreeing with the original comment. For sure. And the reason I am persisting is that this comment seems wrong and I don't want to just let it go. It's important enough. FWIW I asked another random person whether my take on the EU's formation made sense to them (who was around at the time) and they agreed with me. It's definitely possible that I'm missing something profound but if I am then those taking the other position should spell it out. Maybe the OP meant something different. The OP didn't even weigh in.
@jpleyden98 jumps in with: You're just showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge about the history of the EU. Directly linking modern day EU with "European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950". I don't think that's right. At the very least it's missing a lot that happened in between.
> Its not that Europeans havent read Mearsheimer. its that for the best part of three hundred years the whole of Europe has been trying that same realist script until there was nothing left but total ruin across the entire continent. Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
Back to the original comment I had a problem with. This isn't some minor detail. It's pretty important. This history matters. At least I think it does.
So ignoring my bad manners and my apparent ignorance. Where is the support to the idea that the Europeans created the EU as it stands today "they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit" ? I'm happy to learn something new today. When I try with AI it seems to agree with the point I am making: "Treating the 1993 Maastricht Treaty as a simple continuation of the 1950 Coal and Steel Community is a common oversimplification. While the underlying desire to keep Germany anchored to Western Europe remained a constant thread, the actual decisions made in 1993 were driven by a vastly different geopolitical crisis and economic reality.". If the OP just talked about the post-war European integration then I'm in complete agreement. To just project that to modern day EU feels like a very big stretch to me. But a quote from the specific individuals involved in the formation of the EU circa 1992 would definitely help me change my position. Again, this feels like a pretty big deal to me in terms of why the EU exists as it does today and understanding Europe.
EDIT: Also worth looking up the thread to what OP was responding to:
> The general population has 0 understanding of international relations.
And I think he's absolutely right.
Again, not that the wars in Europe don't cast a shadow today. But Europe has moved past that would be my take. Obviously not Putin I guess. But we digress.
The entire thread is a mix of politics/opinions etc. What I was trying to contribute is what the world was actually like during the formation of the EU from my personal experience and that it was not primarily driven by WW-II. Now it's possible my personal experience is wrong but hey, at least it's something that's not pure politics/opinion?
EDIT2:
When you say where we got here is a process over time how is that not something that is just true? Yes, everything today everywhere is a result of the process of history playing over time. The EU was not a predetermined outcome. That is not the question. Is the EU today (and in 1992) primarily concerned with European wars or with the world?
EDIT3:
To repeat what I'm not arguing with:
- Post WW-II sentiments and agreements were definitely driven by trying to ensure that a similar war does not repeat (more specifically around Germany).
- Before the EU was established in 1993 there were various cooperation arrangements in Europe that trace their history back to WW-II and can be seen through the lens of evolution.
- Where I disagree is the persistent weight of WW-II in the decades that followed vs. immediate after the war. More specifically the applicability to today's politics and geopolitics. In my impression the 60's until the fall of the USSR were dominated by the cold war and not the worry of new wars with Germany or France for example. The EU itself is a step function that was not a given and was driven by a wide array of reasons. The EU today also has a wide range of concerns. I also wouldn't compare the EU's formation to the USA or the UN. That said I can see how on some level the erasure of nationalism removes the motivation for wars that stem from said nationalism.
A friendly suggestion: make fewer points in a comment. This is just too much to address at once. I have tried to respond twice now and I just can’t even begin wading through all this, it’s overwhelming
It is Anders Puck Nielsen who is a serious military researcher and commentator. He is a go-to by any television channel in Denmark and has been from the start of the war.
> The moral dimension is also completely illusory. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that's funding is due to the same cold-hearted power politics that Russia subscribes to.
Blatant gaslighting. Ukraine is defending against an invasion. Russia has said it wants to go further and take what it can of Europe, states that the Baltics aren't countries and threatens us all with nukes on a daily basis.
In Europe we defend ourselves by funding Ukraine.
It is super simple; Russia attacks when it is strong enough and takes what it can.
We tried living in peace, we believed in it. We basically got rid of our armies in Europe, since everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia.
> everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia.
Talk about an extraordinary case of recency bias. Cheap shot, I know, but I had to make it.
Europe currently defends itself because that's all it CAN do. They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII.
I didn't read it that way (but I can see multiple possible readings).
Here's my interpretation:
When someone has a shitty public opionion, we force others to MAKE PUBLIC their opinions.
And because our society is so polarized, we don't talk about opinions or their nuances; we reduce them to binary views (it's possible they are but not always), we pick a side and we light our torches.
Then why does this thread have 1800 comments when most HN threads have a small fraction of that? Half of them are just people virtue signaling that they're no longer paying for this VPN service.
This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.
Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.
So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.
(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)
> Economic power (US will no longer be the world reserve currency).
As a reminder, reserve currencies are just currencies that are held in large amounts by national banks and other important institutions. The USD, like the Euro, Yen, Pound, and others are all reserve currencies.
The USD is the dominant currency, in part because the US is in the Middle East right now doing exactly what it is doing by using the military to enforce trade for oil in USD. But if the US loses that "status" it just.... reverts to being more like the EU? Doesn't seem so bad to me.
There's also pros/cons with being "the reserve currency".
> The power of allies (see Trump begging for help in Hormuz).
See Europe begging for help in Ukraine. I don't think this is a good argument. If 4 years of Trump being mean was all it took to erase all soft power the US ever had, then it never had it in the first place and it wasn't worth caring about.
>If 4 years of Trump being mean was all it took to erase all soft power the US ever had, then it never had it in the first place and it wasn't worth caring about
That's a weird statement. Like all it was were some empty words. The current system, which you don't think is worth caring about, has been exceptionally good for the US. The US is the wealthiest nation in the world. Do you think this is simply because Americans are superior human beings?
Also,
>See Europe begging for help in Ukraine
..what, exactly, are you trying to say here? Other than yes, the US does in fact seem to be siding with Putin in spite of a few attempts at acting neutral.
> The current system, which you don't think is worth caring about, has been exceptionally good for the US.
I'm not against the current system, generally speaking. Critical of it, at times, absolutely. But not against it. Apologies if I gave you the wrong impression there.
> The US is the wealthiest nation in the world. Do you think this is simply because Americans are superior human beings?
I think our culture and policies were superior, and then toss in a gigantic country with access to both oceans, incredible natural resources, and well protected and you have a recipe for an economic and military super power. So it's a combination of things really. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the cultural attributes though.
> ..what, exactly, are you trying to say here?
Idk, people are making fun of the US "begging for help" against Iran. I'm going to make fun of the EU begging for US help against Ukraine.
> Other than yes, the US does in fact seem to be siding with Putin in spite of a few attempts at acting neutral.
US isn't siding with Putin. China and Iran are though. Or have you forgotten that Iran [1] is building and selling drones to Russia who is using those drones to bomb innocent civilians in Ukraine? Or have you also forgotten that China is supplying Russia with equipment and weaponry, often times under cover to evade sanctions? But sure, saulapremium, it's the US who is siding with Putin and we certainly didn't give Ukraine tens of billions of dollars in support, we certainly didn't rush missiles to Ukraine to help them fight against Russia, nor did we sanction Russia to hell, stop Venezuela from skirting those sanctions, and we can't possibly still providing intelligence and targeting support to Ukraine.
This is what I'm talking about. If all it takes are a few mean words from our idiot president and now all of a sudden it's the US who is siding with Russia, then what are we even doing here? Why should Americans even bother caring about our allies?
You need a recalibration in your understanding of who is doing what here and who the bad guys are.
[1] Iran is also funding militias in the Middle East to try and start wars, today is hanging people for peacefully protesting, killed an estimated 30,000 of its own citizens this year over protests, and when the US attacked its military instead of just targeting military bases, or even the oil infrastructure, Iran is lobbying missiles at apartment complexes, threatening to kill people at amusement parks worldwide, and more.
>and now all of a sudden it's the US who is siding with Russia
No, it's not the mean words that indicate this, it's more the open and obvious siding with Russia that does that. And before you go and collect a list of things that Trump has done which have hurt Putin, let me respond to that right away: The fact that he is a bull in a china shop who hurts everyone, whether they're on his side or not, doesn't change the fact that it's clear to anyone and everyone who's side he is on.
>people are making fun of the US
..nobody made fun. Eupolemos was showing you that you are losing soft power, the thing that you don't see any value in.
“Losing soft power” in this context is “US does something we disagree with”. It’s like my sitting here saying the EU is losing soft power by not taking on Iran and stopping their government from all the bad things they are doing.
> No, it's not the mean words that indicate this, it's more the open and obvious siding with Russia that does that. And before you go and collect a list of things that Trump has done which have hurt Putin, let me respond to that right away: The fact that he is a bull in a china shop who hurts everyone, whether they're on his side or not, doesn't change the fact that it's clear to anyone and everyone who's side he is on.
Trump is a bull in a China shop and still helping Ukraine. But the US is the bad guy and losing soft power while Iran and China help Russia prosecute its unjust war against Ukraine.
Let’s talk about the soft power China is losing by supporting Russia, or Iran for that matter.
You know there was a famous and accurate saying by Winston Churchill that America will always do the right thing after it has exhausted all other options. I think that’s more true of the EU today than it is of the United States.
For the record, I love the US. I grew up watching almost nothing but US movies and TV. I've lived in SF and New York.
We fully agree that the dictatorships are bad, of course they are. And the US is not that, yet. But it sure appears to be flirting with the idea.
The point I am making is not that the US is bad or good, but that it's are losing soft power, and no, that doesn't just mean "doing something we disagree with".
There is an election in my country right now. Key items that parties now profile themselves on are:
* decoupling from US defence tech
* decoupling the public sector from Microsoft and AWS
* decoupling from Visa and Mastercard
Now, even if all of this happens (and it obviously won't just happen as all of those are hard and expensive), my tiny country won't move the needle in any way. But these talking points were completely unimaginable two years ago.
And I see another trend: my peers in the local startup scene are now reconsidering YC and Delaware encorporation as the default for startup creation. Importantly, this is not because of left wing ideology. Most of them, like myself and I think yourself, are somewhat right-leaning in the traditional sense, not MAGA. We all agree that the EU is over regulated and almost detrimental to entrepreneurship. But at this point, betting on the US looks like a liability.
If these trends are similar elsewhere, and I strongly suspect that they are, the long term loss for the US will be significant. It's the kind of effect that we wont see before years have passed and by then, other things will be on the radar, so I doubt that there will ever be a reckoning of this fact. But I don't doubt that it will happen.
I read it just before Cyberpunk came out, just to know some more history of what I was stepping into. I was completely flabbergasted by how modern it felt to me.
I don't have the patience to read much anymore unless it is real good. I ate that one, more than once. And the others.
reply