Can you elaborate how this statement led you to your conclusion?

I don’t understand your question. I’m assuming you are asking about the part “Europe deserves”. It’s simple really - for decades now Europe has been relying on US for military support. It’s a cardinal sin to do so if one wants an equivalent seat at the negotiating table. But the EU just can’t agree amongst themselves. Mercosur takes 30 years, India defence agreement has taken 20. The warning signs were there during 2016 but conveniently brushed. EU either acts together for the common good even if they don’t like something or continues to be bureaucratic, irrelevant old person. It’s slow agony at the moment.

The EU couldn't agree amongst themselves because the US (and its biggest vassal, the UK when it was in the EU) did everything to prevent such agreement.

We'll see what the States that were the most against any form of common European defense will do now that the US has proven unreliable. And if they are still under the delusion that the current US policies will go away, then it's time for Two-Speed Europe.

Don't blame this on the UK. UK leave vote was a few months before the 2016 election, so the timing is convenient. But let's not pretend that it was anything but complacency (that was shattered by Trump) is to blame here.

You are just swallowing the Trump line whole. Try being a hegemon without Ramstein and all the other bases.

> try being a hegemon without...

The hypothetical should really be on the vassal or it is just rethorics.

This is the time to call each other bluffs and keep revealing the naked emperors

This stuff goes back to Yalta, so just forget parotting these ideas. The US never wanted Europe to be self reliant concerning security, up until Trump and the Paypal mafia. Fortunately De Gaulle gave the Americans the finger during his presidency because he knew better. Not being on the losing side meant that Framce wasn't under US "protection" and could develop their own nuclear program and military hardware, as opposed to Germany (and Japan).

I disagree, Europe has not been ”relying” on US military support.

It is true that most(not all, for example Switzerland, Finland Poland all have excellent militaries) European countries have been underfunding their military in stark contrast to the war mongering nation across the Atlantic, but I would not call that “relying on”, just a delusion that we lived in an eternal peace.

FWIW I served my country Sweden for three years, including a tour in Kosovo and another in Afghanistan. I have been against this recklessness for as long as I can remember.

Also, the EU is hardly irrelevant, stop the hyperbole…

It is subtle, but different

Thank you for your service

USA got military support from Europe. Not vice versa.

USA is pure aggressor here. USA becomming fascist is not fault of Europe, so no, Europe does not deserve to be attacked by USA.

USA asked Europe for help, got it, used it for own benefit and then attacks Europe with lies and threats.

Please do not mix up the mention of the USA with your view on the current administration, and also your view of the many silent servicemember who will have strong opinions about a few things.

If they're so opposed to it, why are they so silent?

their job is the opposite of making noise, and they are extremely aware of the value of being economical with ordnance

> But the EU just can’t agree amongst themselves.

Because "the EU" is not a country. It is a bloc. People that speak lf EU here are very delusional about what it is, and seemingly never understand its function.

People speak of the EU as if it was going to be as nimble as a unified country with a single government structure. It is not. It is a bloc composed of 27 countries each with its own government structure, interests, budgets, industries, culture, and so on.

Also - defense. The EU has no army. Each of its 27 countries have their own separated armies, and make their own decisions.

In a post WW2 scenario, where most of Europe needed to rebuild, outsourcing defense to an ally was a correct decision (especially considering that escalating power in the preceeding decades only led to war).

Perhaps the current state of affairs lead to a more federalized EU, who knows.

Also the Canadian MP is involved in deploying surveillance[0] on his own country so I am not sure why people are giving him props. He is part of the problem.

[0]: https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/story/72859/carneys-new...

People need to stop buying into propaganda.

Surveillance is a different issue to the one he talked about, which is geopolitical and international instead of domestic (surveillance).

all nations around the world are currently increasing their surveillance capability... And it's worth keeping in mind that at least some of us see that as an issue, that's actually not a broadly accepted fact. There are a lot of people that don't see an issue with it.

And you'll be able to find a topic you disagree with with all politicians, if you discredit everything they say afterwards, you're essentially left holding your ears closed to all dialog.

No. Surveillance is exactly the main issue that is surrounding all of this scaling up abuse of governance locally and globally.

A man that is in directly involved in surveilling his own people does not have a leg to stand on in the Geo political arena. And to think otherwise is a massive mistake. Stop propping up people that do deserve it.

Surveillance underlines this issue so no its not the same. Why would anybody listen to a known bad actor, its directly related to the problem

It's about a lot more than surveillance. It's about sovereignty, continuity of government, resisting sabotage, countering influence programs, and so on.

Here in Belgium voting is mandatory, so the clowns we have are who the public decided were the best candidates. The only excuse we can make is that single-vote list-PR is worse than ranked voting.