It’s not about champagne. It’s about us not making anything like the Patriot air defense system. Or us not having the capabilities to command our disparate militaries cohesively without US involvement in NATO. The whole Western order has been built on the premise of US being the corner stone that ties everything together.

Thank God the French have always been suspicious about it since the Suez crisis, hence we _do_ have at least some independent capabilities.

For those who don't know, the French (and British) instigated the Suez crisis. It was a highly illegal attempt at regime change in Egypt and the US along with the USSR and United Nations rightfully pressured the French to stop. Bizarre example to illustrate the need for military independence.

Unfortunately your assessment is based on the faulty premise that anyone in international politics does anything to be nice.

The US doesn't give one rats ass about Egypt. The US won and got their way in Suez and the international seas in general. Europe lost.

There is no right in geo politics - only might. It's completely machiavellian. This is because you don't get to elect your neighbors leaders, and so they aren't beholden to you. International politics fundamentally doesn't work like national politics because of this. You can't stop Putin, Trump, or Xi, from taking what is yours unless you have the steel and oil to stop them. You can't sue them or vote them out like in national politics.

The problem with your perspective is that citizens can still tell right from wrong. And the public is much less Machiavellian than those in charge. The people can change how their leaders act, but won't when they believe any attempt to steer towards pro-social geopolitics is pointless.

I should also point out that some countries are much more bellicose than others, in direct contradiction with your nihilist view.

I absolutely do not encourage anything bellicose. I'm saying you are not good for not defending yourself. Everyone needs to defend their access through the Suez.

This is entirely true, but it's still good that as a result of this, the French prioritised independent defence policies for the last 60+ years.

It’s not an example, it’s a timeline.

SAMP/T is quite good.

> Who cares if we sell less champagne??!?

Nobody, but it seems a lot of people care if we sell less german cars.

Interestingly, everyone is willing to sacrifice someone else’s livelihood.

> Who cares if we sell less champagne??!?

Those whos relatives freeze when their country can no longer get LNG imports

The US is underwriting European security (and by extension various European welfare states).

Do you really want to block the import of arms and financial aid to Ukraine?

If Europeans were serious about their sovereignty they’d have made very different choices up until now.

It isn’t right that America has so much power in this circumstance, but going back decades the US has been asking for Europe to take defense seriously.

> It isn’t right that America has so much power in this circumstance, but going back decades the US has been asking for Europe to take defense seriously.

Funny because the last time I believe that it was the US that requested help in Iraq and Afghanistan and not the other way around.

Europe should certainly increase its defense spending (and actual capabilities). But the reason NATO exists isn't just to please Europe. The US have a direct interest in containing Russia; I don't think they can afford to simply stop caring about the rest of the world. And I'd be willing to test that theory.

> I don't think they can afford to simply stop caring about the rest of the world.

It seems that the policy of the current US government is to split the world between themselves, Russia and China. And I guess that's a legitimate policy, even though I think it's both impossible and incredibly misguided.