The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.

It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.

French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.

archive

  • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    it would really be something else if they fought them

    No it wouldn’t be. Germany is suggesting forced conscription already, and so is France. I don’t want to see young men thrown into the meat grinder to satisfy the imperial wishes of either Europe or Russia

    • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      you raise a good point, and to be honest i haven’t figured out what the morally correct answer to this is.

      • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 minutes ago

        In my opinion, the morally correct answer is to have a mild relation with Russia, consisting of trade and not much more. Europe would get access to a huge pool of resources to boost its industry, and stopping to antagonize our neighboring countries would help to drive down military tensions in the continent.

        NATO was conceived as an anti-Soviet military pact, and any excuse for its usefulness expired after 1991. Now it’s just a military playground for US interests, keeping European money flowing to the Wunderwaffen of the USA Military Industrial Complex, and maintaining Yankee military bases in the continent.