The EU isn't necessarily worried it can't live without the US because the US wouldn't simply answer by withdrawing all support and embargoing the EU. They'd be shooting themselves in the other foot. But they would respond the way all superpowers do when direct, public intervention is not on the table. With subversion. If the NSA leaks have shown anything it's that even allies were thoroughly compromised and one button press away from a series of "unfortunate" events.
What's been recently dubbed "asymmetric warfare" has existed for decades. It's simply deniable attacks, economic or actual warfare via proxies, etc. Covertly supporting certain political candidates while subverting others in order to destabilize a country is in any superpower's playbook.
This is what the EU fears more than that it will suddenly have to face a Russian invasion without US support. For now it's a deal out of which the US gets far more than the rest. They get to cement their superpower status by having the most important and credible allies, and in exchange offer some protection and the promise of not shooting said allies in the foot... maybe just whack them over the shin once in a while.
It's also cheaper to let the US do its military thing and be a bodyguard, and that means the EU can focus on more important social issues. Maybe it's a small price to pay, maybe not. Some future generation will have to answer that.
I guess Europe had better hope America doesn't do what Americans want and pull troops home...
The only truth of foreign policy is "might makes right". Ignoring treaties as just pieces of paper isn't new. Hegemony isn't just about power. If you have the might, you make the rules and can twist them to your benefit. In any case, I guess the EU believes an American hegemony beats out one by Russia or China by a large margin.
Russia is a threat, but in the annoying neighbours who keeps holding loud parties, deal drugs and litter the streets and who's dog keeps crapping on your lawn kind of way. You don't want to do anything to encourage them, but actually your uncle is in the police and you have two cousins in the Army, and if the neighbours tried anything really serious, reality would assert itself pretty fast, and not in their favour.
The US is keeping it's military presence in Europe to serve US strategic interests, yes versus Russia but also with respect to the Middle East. US operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are heavily supported from bases in Europe. Pulling out those bases would cripple US ability to support those operations and project power across large swathes of Euraisa and Africa.
Actually countering Russian military capacity really isn't
an issue any more, and Britain and France have enough
nukes to act as a deterrent
Which... okay, yes. It's distinctly better than not being safe from a preemptive Russian nuclear strike. However, this is merely necessary; not sufficient.
Have you considered the vast number of non-nuclear aggressions that Russia might undertake, and in fact has already undertaken?
Crimea was safe from Russian nuclear attack too. Ask them how it went.
Are France and the UK's nuclear arsenal going to help if Russia makes more Crimea-style land grabs? Shuts down shipping lanes? Cuts pipelines or internet access? Shoots down geostationary satellites over Europe? Assassinates the leader of a NATO nation?
Granted, there's no guarantee that the United States would help you then, either. We have not been the most reliable partner, and I am deeply sorry for that. I do not support the leaders who have made things this way. I want us to be a better partner.
Regardless, surely you understand that there is a great need for conventional military deterrence by NATO? Nukes solve an extremely limited list of potential problems.
But would they be willing to sacrifice their countries in a nuclear exchange on behalf of Germany? Also, Britain and France have far fewer nukes than Russia and the US. In addition, they don't have the massive land area to make a first strike implausible.
On the other hand, the US actually LIKES the show of force, and sees it as a strategic strength, to the extent that they're overjoyed to have an ally to protect as an 'excuse' to flex muscle in the region.
I'd guess if the US could spare people and equipment, it would be moving much closer to China at the moment.
They are just set up differently. The EU doesn't have a central military, so they can't do foreign adventures very well, and as a result they don't invade places very often. But this could be seen as a good thing...
It totally would have worked, had the US not escalated to sanctioning any entities that dared to utilize this alternative system to deal with Iran. You are right to say the EU needs to get a bigger stick to successfully protect its interests when they diverge from American interests. In the long term - I'm talking decades - American troops will leave Europe, perhaps leaving a skeleton crew managing nuclear deterrence: whether they will be pulled back, or pushed out remains to be seen, but the natural evolution of the EU project will eventually result in a standing European army. What happens on Nov 3 will accelerate or delay this eventuality
The problem is: How do you convince a world class chip designer like HiSilicon that it should use a local foundry rather than TSMC? TSMC which is more advanced, more reliable, maybe even cheaper? Without breaking China's commitment to WTO and other agreements that facilitate open trade.
That problem is solved now by the policies of the US.
As for NATO , the EU has long has the technical means to do away with the need but they don't want to pay for it. How much do you value your security? Getting rid of NATO would be the first step in probably forcing the American government rethink its military spending; sadly the percentage of the US budget going there decreases by small percentages overall letting politicians on both sides claim they have reduced spending. Even halving the US defense budget won't solve the US deficit issues.
I think more US citizens should understand this. Even if the ENTIRE military budget were eliminated, the budget wouldn't put the US in the black. In fact, eliminating EVERYTHING except benefits programs still wouldn't balance the budget.
Millennial shouldn't forget that social security issues start in 2037 with a reduction to 76% of their current payout and it rapidly declines from there [0]. The only social program likely to work is the one you personally setup around yourself and save for right now.
[0] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
Both of which have precedent in the last 100 years. Ofcourse if you only read history from the perspective of the winners, gold is always a good long term investment.
As long as Trump is president, I don't think we need to have any illusions as to which side he would chose in a hypothetical armed conflict between the EU and Russia (he would pick no side).
EU politicians should wake up and smell the coffee, and invest in an EU army before it's too late. We really (desperately) need strategic independence from the US and other foreign powers. The US in particular has been an unpredictable, unreliable, and untrustworthy partner in the past two decades or so (e.g. Iran deal, Paris climate accords, Iraq war, EU-US trade wars, ...)
EDIT: Stop downvoting me and tell me instead where I'm wrong.
They could, but at least in the short term it appears to be cheaper to let the US spend the money on their military and still get the benefits, even factoring some lost trade to China. It would take many $123mm lithography machines to make up for the billions they would need to create a standing army. That trade off will change, but everything hinges on the “before it’s too late” part of your argument, which you can be assured that virtually no democratically elected politician will get right, since they are looking at <10 years by nature of political campaigns.