Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
You said those bases and equipment would be taken over by local militaries. Other than vibes, what are you basing that on? I’m 100% certain those troops won’t see your only option. They will fight until they die or US air and naval forces arrive. I have no idea who would win. Wondering how you know.
Source: was stationed in Europe.
Search top 5 largest air forces in the world. A quick search gives the following numbers for active military aircraft:
The United States (14,423) Russia (4,036) China (3,284) India (1,850) Egypt (1,122) Turkey (1,055) South Korea (890) Pakistan (818) Japan (779) France (697)
Any US (not a joint or UN) base will be able to hold out long enough for those aircraft to get in the fight. When that happens the number of troops on the ground won’t matter.
If EU countries attack (justified or otherwise US bases) why do you assume the goal will be taking over a capital?
What is any of this based on? You believe that if the US went into any European country with military force they would not move support forces into the area beforehand? This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.
Look, I hope this doesn’t happen. I am not a fan of my country.
My question was what are your conclusions based on. So far that seems like nothing.
So this started with me asking what you based your comment on. Please share the knowledge you are basing this on by linking to a source.
My comments are all said begrudgingly. I served in the military. I am anti what America is currently doing. My comments are based on numbers of weapons systems and years of strategy where the US purposely let the EU underspend on defense.
Given that you want to reduce this to personal attacks, I will exit now, and let trolls troll.
You are asking for sources, but you are also just giving your opinions, based on your experience. That's not a source. What are we talking about here, anyway?
If the US takes Greenland, NATO breaks up and US troops are no longer welcome in Europe. Are you telling me the US are fighting in Greenland and try to conquer Europe at the same time? If Europe will be attacked by the US it will be considered a pariah state. They will have to turn diabolically evil and take over every western state. And if they don't succeed taking Europe they will have lost their strategic bases.
I still hope that the US military has leaders with a spine, who will not follow those orders. But that hope is fading away quickly.
But what do I know. I have no experience in military strategy. Those are just thoughts that came to mind. I was triggered that this discussion wandered far from it's original starting point.
What are we talking about about:
(Comment I responded to)
I was genuinely curious what this point was based on, as in my first hand experience being stationed at US Navy bases in Europe did not support that conclusion.
First hand experience is a source. For example, someone says “the sky is purple.” You are skeptical based on your personal experience. You ask for a source supporting that claim. You even go as far as to say, I have seen the sky before and it is not purple. In a normal rational dialogue the other party might respond, here is why I think the sky is purple
I am not promoting American exceptionalism. I observed the level of tech and financial investment the US Navy has in its European bases. I also observed those levels compared to local forces. I do not believe that local forces would take over bases and equipment. Destroy them, yes very possible. This is actually part of a strategy called tripwire troops. In the event of a conflict, US bases would be prepared to hold out until larger assets arrived to support them. Attacking these bases gives the US a reason escalate the level of engagement.
That’s all I was asking about. You can search for basic information about US defense expenditure related to European defense expenditure to find support for my observations. I searched for anything supporting the conclusion that if the US invaded Greenland local European military forces would seize local bases and equipment and found nothing.
[example of a source](Source: European Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/8lhLm73boOSh0Nf7c) supporting my opinion. It’s simple to search for more.
My personal experience while stationed in Europe was participating is training exercises regarding attacks on bases by local terrorist groups. This was in an exercise format. These exercises lasted several days and occurred on a regular basis. I was in the room the simulation occurred in. I was able to see first had the decision making process of the people involved.
In my opinion, having observed the declassified US response to an attack, the thought that these bases and equipment would simply be taken over by local forces is not likely. The bases will likely be destroyed and used a a pretext for a larger component of US forces to engage. That being the case, would local EU leaders risk attacking US bases? Legitimate question that gets to the heart of the issue raised by the original comment.
I am not sure why you are talking about fighting European armies. I have nodes idea who wins. I am talking about g about the specific comment that these bases would be taken over and equipment acquired by local forces.
In short, in that scenario the bases are not meant to survive. Their purpose is to get hit to justify hitting back harder.
Edit: better than simply saying that’s your opinion, explain your understanding of the US response following direct attacks on its military bases.
We are talking about a response to the US invading Greenland. So either the "remaining" NATO or rather the EU just let it happen or they defend themselves (which they clearly stated they have ordered the local military to do so in the event of an US attack). If they fight in Greenland the risk wouldn't be to attack them but to not attack them. It would be absurd actually to leave them be while they are probably helping and organising the attack in Greenland.
I agree that it is absurd to think that the US military would ever march into European capitals unless it was at the end of an extremely long engagement similar to what is being done to Ukraine.
Also, I sincerely hope none of this ever happens (or if it does that the left [economic NOT US political left] is victorious and I can use my fediverse comment history to be welcomed into the the post US post capitalist world)
Not the guy you’re responding to, but if you were stationed there you would have known how often supply flights come in and out of say Rammstein AB. It’s a small city, it can’t survive without the USAF mad logistics.
I don’t know if those bases would be attacked, they would be forced to surrender and GTFO their host country, with a bunch of the heavy hardware probably confiscated.
The moment the US attacks any EU nation in this trojan horse style, they would instantly have EU close its airspace, and declare war on US.
Not saying the yanks won’t be able to make a bit of a dent, and there would be chaos, but the USA would be giving up significant EU continental control for an attack that is doomed before it starts, and it would now have EU and China potentially as a coalition against it.
Not to mention Japan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other places us USAF forward bases might be putting them on notice.
Yes they have overwhelming airforce and navy, but not if you think about the key principle of war: good logistics. And not if you think about the phase after such failed attack.
Navy not air force here, are those result flights bringing in commissary items or weapon systems?
I’m not saying the US has an easy time or saves all bases. But thinking that the US would fight to occupy if its bases were attacked is a bold assumption.
The EU can close its airspace. The trick is enforcing that.
How? If the US attack they will take out any airfield first.
AA
SAMs
Threaten to release the remaining Epstein Files themselves.
Easy. All fielded and covered and not waiting on known bases to be shot with a rocket from a local American base close-by.
What should the Epstein files do? How much worse can it get? Throwing the baby into the lake was not a problem.
I don't believe that the war would break out because all those weapons are needed against China and Russia. It's just that unlike Russia, the US could take out Europe from within.