The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:

But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.

But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.

Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Facts aren’t the issue, interpretation is.

    The interpretation is entirely correct. EU is subordinate to US in every practical way, and one has to be wilfully ignorant not to see that.

    If you really believe that Europe is “subjugated” I invite you to look at the trade wars we had with the US.

    If by trade war you mean US cannibalizing Europe by luring what business is left to prop up its own failing economy then sure.

    Most were quite short indeed as the US caves pretty much instantly each time they are shown what we can do. Are those the actions of vassals?

    What interests has US actually caved on exactly?

    “Focussing” doesn’t mean anything. Approach, confront, what? You never know with the US they don’t have a coherent foreign policy.

    Focusing means allocating resources towards Asia. Meanwhile, the fact that US does not have a coherent policy should itself be very worrisome for Europe. Having outsourced your security to an unstable and unreliable partner has put Europe into a rather precarious situation today.

    Also, we’re not relying on their protection.

    It’s very clear that plenty of European states feel they need to have military parity with Russia. While the idea of a war with Russia is obviously insane, that doesn’t change the political reality of Europe. Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.

      • albigu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.

        Hasn’t Russia been holding on to the claimed regions for almost an year now?

          • albigu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            From what I gathered their demands for a peace deal for a very long time are basically for recognition of the new areas, without added land claims. This would imply that their war goal was just those. Am I incorrect there? Could you provide a source, if so?

              • albigu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So what you’re saying is that, despite the main demand for peace from Russia not being met for more than an year being that of accepting their annexations, they actually have some other unstated greater war goal? Am I really incorrect in saying that from the very beginning the main Russian demands were the control of the currently annexed lands and Crimea, demands which are still unmet today? Can you provide me any sources for that? Don’t see why it matters so much which side wins in the end for the sake of this argument.

                Also I don’t think “beelining for Kyiv” is such a big tell, as since you are a paradox fan you know that taking a capital is usually a good move even if you don’t intend to control it.

                  • albigu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes and no. Russia did have a greater goal, and now Putin (no “they”, any more) is left with the goal to stay in power.

                    Could you please provided me with an extensive source that goes in-depth on this “greater goal”. Googling has not provided me with any in-depth results.