Donald Trump’s declaration at the NATO summit that the U.S. had returned to war with Iran didn’t lead to the usual gasping allies or perplexed officials.
If anything, it cemented Europe’s increasing reliance on itself.
As motorcades sped out of Ankara’s presidential place and down the barricaded streets ringing the Turkish capital on Wednesday, a half-dozen European officials said the ceasefire’s end only stiffened their resolve to be less dependent on the American militarily and stand alone.
“After seeing what’s happening in Iran and Ukraine, we first of all, have to build our own military might, and then everybody will respect us: Americans, Russians, Iranians or Chinese,” said a European official. “The more muscles you have, the less political anger you show.”
This is a bit naive. War and conflicts are way more complicatee than “one lunatic in the world”. Conflicts have always a reason. We can agree with it or not, but believing it’s all caused by one monster leader that it’s followed blindly by the people is just a very common propaganda point, which has been used for the last >2000 years and in basically every conflict we knoe about. One of the main reason armed conflicts happen is because each side feels the other one is rearming. This becomes a circle and a spiral that it’s hard to stop, especially when the arms industry has such ppwerful lobbies.
“If you want peace prepare war” right? Now let’s look how many years of peace the romans had in their entire history thanks to this doctrine.
Well, yeah, one lunatic may be a bit short here, but the principal stands, that it doesn’t need rearmment for someone to want what the others have. I think the argument for starting a war is often “the others are a thread to our way of living” which results in violence. This thread m ay or may not be objectively true, depending on the conflict. But was Iran a thread for the US? Or a family in Lebanon a thread to Israel? Some jews to Germany? Some dude liking other dudes a threat to my sexual preference? Someone else identity, religion a threat to mine? Kid slayed in Bucha a threat to a Russian soldier? Objectively, I would say, no. But yet, these subjective threads result in violence and the question stands, would I recommend someone who would otherwise become a victim recommend to prepare? And to that, I’d answer yes. Is the current war on Ukrainian territory just, and Russia in the right? And if so, where does their right to invade Ukraine end exactly? Because often enough the goal post in violent conflicts is moved when the “loosing party” makes concessions. The world wars both ended, not because Germany said “well this is enough for us” but because they where defeated in the battlefield. Do nations generally use their military just for defense? Unfortunately, no.
I guess you mean military power here. How do you achieve that without rearming?
This is the assumption that i’m challenging. Obviously, to make people accept spending billions in rearming there must be the threat of becoming a victim dangling above our head, hence the constant scaremongering about Russia attacking a NATO country any moment. Before were the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea… at moments it’s China, sometimes it’s Iran. There is constantly an enemy to defend from, which justifies military spending.
And this scared instinctive reaction, which ignores any other factor that isn’t pure and irrational fear (pumped and justified by the state apparatus of every single NATO country) is how the weapons industry is laughing their way to the bank, while we leave in fear because of yet another enemy at the doors.