If the USA did not protect Europe anymore, would it be invaded and dominated by Russia?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

It is not likely that Russia would necessarily invade Europe - though as history shows that could not be ruled out. It is rather that the freedom of action of the states of Europe would be curtailed and the divisions that characterized Europe pre-1914 would re-emerge.

The tendency is to assume that the USA "protects" Europe. That is not entirely untrue, but it is more complicated than that. In effect, what the USA does is to reassure the states of Europe that their security will not be undermined by the conflicting interests of the states within Europe.

For example, Germany and Russia have a long and unhappy history, but the Germans, historically, have seen Russia as a source of raw materials and foodstuffs to supply and sustain their economy. The Russians, for their part, have seen cooperation with Germany as a way to assure Moscow's dominance of eastern Europe.

To be sure, as noted, this is not an easy or necessarily stable relationship. Germany wants Russian food and raw materials, but does not wish, suffice to say, to be dominated by Russia. So Germany has sought to dominate the very same states of eastern and central Europe that Russia wishes to dominate for its' own security. Thus, Poland's unhappy history.

This matrix gets even more complicated. France uses Russia as a counterweight to Germany. Italy plays a balancing role between Germany and France, using the former to keep the Russians out of the Mediterranean and the later to keep the Germans out of the Mediterranean.

Then into all this, the UK has sought to play a balancing role. It sides with whichever is, at least in theory, the weaker side, thereby maintaining a balance that effectively secures Britain's security.

Suffice to say, this gets very complicated and is highly unstable. Hence two world wars in the 20th century.

When the United States stepped in to secure "Europe," it was not only protecting all the states of Western Europe from Russia, but from their inherent distrust of each other. To borrow a famous phrase, the purpose of NATO was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down."

It being added that the United States was not doing this out of mere altruism. The Americans having learned the painful lesson that instability in Europe can lead to American blood being shed. In that sense the Americans are not unlike the British, who are said, not surprisingly, to have a "special relationship" with each other. Which is to say the Americans and the British both have an interest maintaining the balance of power in Europe.

That, by the way, is why there is so much ambivalence in the USA about Ukraine. In strict strategic terms, the USA is not impacted by Russian control of Ukraine. As is seen by the fact that Russia or the USSR controlled Ukraine though most of America's history with no obvious ill effects for the USA.

Thus, to many Americans, Ukraine is not worth a war with Russia. Yet were the USA to stand aside and not aid Ukraine, that would be taken in many of the European states - especially in eastern Europe - that the USA might not come to their aid if Russia attempted to pressure them.

Thus, what the USA would find is that, behind the shield of NATO, the states of eastern Europe in particular, and in due course much of the rest of Europe, would be cutting deals with Russia. Deals that would not necessarily be favorable to American interests.

Suffice to add, such tumult, insecurity and instability could ultimately lead to military action by Russia or war more generally. Those are the lessons of 1914 and 1939, and why, contrary to opinion in some parts of America, engagement with Europe - and the world more generally - is not optional.

[Matthias345]

Can you explain to me what the consequences would be if a European power managed to dominate the continent , for the interests of the USA? Honestly, for me, it wouldn't have many.

I mean, the real interests are in the Pacific.

So even if a European power were to dominate the continent, it wouldn't be able to compete with the USA on the world stage and wouldn't be able to threaten those interests.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 First of all, at the moment, the USA is facing a dual crisis. We cannot afford a dominant power on either continent - and the real problem is that Russia and China combined well outweigh the USA and likely the West in general.

Fortunately, Russia and China are not natural allies. Circumstance has drawn them together at the moment, but over time their natural rivalries would likely assert themselves and divide one from the other.

That said, the problem is that if either China comes to dominate the Pacific or Russia Europe, the USA would no longer be able to assure its' own security. The point of the balance of power in both continents being that it prevents one power on either continent from being in a position from which they can securely increase their influence over - and threat to - the Western Hemisphere.

THIS is where American interests in Europe and Asia reach critical mass. It is not mere economics, but a question of strategic position and its' concomitant diplomatic influence.

To boil international relations down to a question of mere economics is to greatly oversimplify the intricacies of the international arena. (It is also, in a strange way, quasi-Marxist. Man is not merely homo economicus after all.)

The only bit of sunshine is this scenario is that if Russia were to come to dominate Europe, or China to dominate Asia - or both, their natural rivalries with each other would come into play as each would be sufficiently secure to challenge the other. The problem being that were the USA to tip in support of Russia or China in THAT divide, the victor between Moscow or Beijing would be in a position to finish the USA's position in the rest of the world.

[Matthias345]

As for Asia, I understand. But according to you, a random nation like Russia that would succeed in dominating the European continent would lead to the return of rivalries with China, but if Russia or another country dominated Europe it would have enough resources and power to threaten the global position of the USA as well as its own security? Hence the importance of NATO and the American position in Europe?

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Russia is hardly a random nation. Grant that it has moved from the world's 2nd largest economy down to its' 11th. Still, it has massive territory, a large population and abundant foodstuffs and raw materials.

In fact, in that sense, it makes an interesting complement to China. The latter a large industrial power that exports finished goods and services but must import food and raw materials to sustain its' economy.

Fortunately, China and Russia have competing interests. Each has some claim on the other's territory dating back centuries. (Mongolia has managed to maintain its independence between these two giants by acting as a sort of neutral zone between the two.) Each cannot have a free hand in other parts of the world because each cannot be sure that one would not exploit a situation in which the attention of the other was diverted to some other conflict.

Those rivalries would not return, they exist even now. They are inherent in the geography, history, demographic, economic and other interests on each side. The point being that if one power is able to gain a dominant position unchallenged in its' own immediate sphere, it would be in a position to seek out a dominant position in other spheres.

The parallels are to pre-WWI. For the last 70 years the USA was engaged in ideological contests with other powers. (WWII and the Cold War.) However, although there have been other periods of ideological conflict - see also the wars of the French revolution, for example - most of history has been about realpolitik. The clash of material and strategic interests.

The USA entered WWI because of such motives. (Though ironically our entry into the war, along with the Russian revolution, changed WWI from a realpolitik contest to an ideological conflict.)

We are now again facing a realpolitik era in which the balance of power, spheres of influence, and so on secure the peace. Allow that balance to be disrupted and conflict follows.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Just to give you some sense of the enduring nature of international rivalries and particularly USA-Russia rivalries, the following was written by Alexis DeTocqueville in the 1830s - well before the Cold War:

“There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.”

[nightdrot]

P. P. S. I may have misunderstood part of your question. Yes, the USA must remain in NATO. Not only to secure the balance of power between Russia and the USA, but also between Russia and Europe and ALSO between the states within Europe.

The various states in Europe still have competing interests and varying degrees of wealth, power and influence. To let those rivalries play out is potentially disastrous. See also 1914.

By securing the balance within Europe, the USA not only secures it from Russia, and thus assures a relative stability that protects the USA. It also secures the peace within Europe and avoids the danger of Russia exploiting the differences within Europe.

All of which could either lead to Russian dominance or to outright conflict between the various powers.

[Julie4]

Don't underestimate what Europe represents. Admittedly, Europe is no longer the dominant force in the world as it was in past centuries, but in reality the EU is the world's second-largest agricultural producer, behind the USA, and accounts for 40% of world trade, making it at the heart of the planet's trade flow system. In view of these facts, the domination of the European continent by a single power would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

Such a power could threaten American interests and global positions. The USA didn't get involved in two world wars, and today it doesn't maintain an important position in Europe with major political commitments for nothing, all of which is enough to prove that Europe is of considerable importance to American interests, and not just to Americans.

It's only thanks to NATO that no power can dominate Europe. History proves it. No power could maintain its domination over the continent. What's more, even without NATO, the USA, the UK and all the other European countries wouldn't let it happen.

I had to go away for a day @nightdrot but tomorrow I'll answer you about the French revolution because I still don't quite agree with you.🤣

[nightdrot]

Glad your okay. I was a little worried.

Unfortunately, just as you get back, I am leaving town for a bit. So no need to get back with me. Besides, I am sure that you won't quite agree. (That was partly a joke.)

Mostly, though, I don't want you to think that I don't like, or have no respect for France. Yup, no doubt of it. My instincts are Anglophile and I also don' have - Burkean that I am - much sympathy for he French revolutionaries.

That said, it is hard not o have a great deal of respect for France and what it has accomplished. To me, the France of the post-Napoleonic era - and this notwithstanding some periods where things were not going well for France (see also 1870-1871) - was a formidable and in many ways admirable power. Also, I think post-WWI, that France under Clemenceau was far wiser than the USA under President Wilson.

So no need to reply. Just because I do not sympathize with the philosophical predicates of the French revolution, that is not to say that France is not, in many ways, an admirable country.

[Julie4]

@nightdrot You've always spoken with great respect about France and you know that I also have great admiration for the USA and the UK. In fact, contrary to what some people might think, I'm very interested in American and English history, and in other civilizations in general. My next book will be on the Persian Empire, which I find quite incredible. I don't want people to think that I'm only interested in my own country, because that's very far from the truth. I admire many other civilizations, and certainly the USA and the UK are at the top.

You also know that I have a lot of respect for you, you have a great intelligence, your career, thanks to you I have learned a lot and when I read you I improve my knowledge, even if I still have a lot to learn.

Okay, I won't answer about the French Revolution. Take care of yourself and give my love to your family.

[RavVid]

I think the Russian army performance in Ukraine is saying no.

Their blitzkreig was clearly a snailkreig. The anti tank weapons Nato has wreaked havoc on Russian armor. Russian aircraft has not achieved dominance against older soviet era aircraft but to be fair Soviet focused on air defense and Nato aircraft might similarly struggle against s300 and s400 defences. More striking Russia maybe down to 30 experienced pilots at this moment.

Russia's mobilization capacity seems to be defective also.

In WW2 German tanks were inferior to French and British tanks but won from superior doctrine. Russia does not seem to be good at combined arms.

Russia has nuclear weapons but so has Britain and France. I believe that France has a doctrine of a warning shot of a low kilo tonnage missile. But would that deter or exacerbate? I don't know that we can know how a nuclear war would pan out.

So if Western Europe had the will I think it would prevail. Russia's main chance would be quick victory but it seems optimistic to rollover Europe from Krackow to Paris quickly.

BUT WOULD RUSSIA?

I think that would depend highly on whether they thought they could win and there is the risk. If Russia puts on rose colored glasses on their prospects with the absence of the US then they might try if successful in Ukraine. I do think they would try to swallow Europe bit by bit. Batics, Finland, Poland etc etc.

[Anonymous]

The Ukraine invasion shows that NATO isn’t obsolete. Russia may not be able invade and dominate the whole of Europe anymore but they might try to chip away at taking more territory incrementally like they’re doing now. I think maintaining the alliance is important for other reasons as well. The U. S. gets access to NATO intelligence and use of European military bases. Putin knows the US can stage forces right on his doorstep. It benefits our security as well. It’s why maintaining a strategic presence in Japan and S. Korea is important with regards to China. These decisions aren’t always solely about protecting an ally. Our importance to NATO also benefits us diplomatically and economically through trade. War in that region would disrupt billions of dollars in trade. Our economy has strong ties to Europe. It’s scary that Trump and the dopes who follow him don’t understand any of this.

[Anonymous]

No. Russia is weak. I don't think they could even beat Poland 1 on 1 in a conventional war.

France and Britain have large proffessional modern forces and when you add the potential conscripts to those numbers you get a pretty fearsome forces

[razelove]

Nope, or rather even if that did happen it wouldn't matter. Europe has been fighting with itself with malleable borders for as long as there have been humans in Europe, or the globe for that matter.
Even if Russia did invade Europe, I don't think they have the manpower or stability to indoctrinate and rule Europe for several generations and stabilize ruling it.
Neither do I think they have interest in much besides access to the sea, and absorbing parts of the USSR they can absorb that would not take generations to bring back as part of a functioning country.
As another example, if the US would have straight up conquered Korea, do you think even today, 70 years after the Korean war, that South Korea would be a fully integrated part of the US?
I've heard Hawaii still feels different, and that has been a territory since 1898.

[DJB72]

The USA protects Europe? Really? How?

Combine Europe's military ability plus topography and Russia wouldn't defeat Europe any more than Europe would defeat Russia. The need for lengthy supply lines through bad areas of land would prevent Russia coming West as much as it prevented Napoleon and Hitler going East.

All America does is repeatedly poke the bear.

In the last 120 years Europe has had two major wars where America couldn't be bothered to help until they realised their asses were going to be handed to them if they didn't get involved while they still had allies to work with. The rest of the planet has been at war two years before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Exactly what happened in 1916 when the Germans started sinking American ships in the Atlantic.

Their records speak for themselves. Korea - technically still at war after 60 years. Vietnam - asses handed to them by communist farmers. Afghanistan - disaster from start to end. Iraq - invaded based on lies and the country no more stable now than in 1990.

In 250 years the country has had virtually no consecutive years of peace. When they weren't fighting other countries they got busy with a civil war because half the country didn't want to acknowledge that Africans were human beings and not property.

But hey, sure America "protects" Europe... 🤦🤣

[EpicSnail]

This is one of the most ungrateful things I have ever read. Do you realise how many young American men gave their lives so we could be free?

[DJB72]

Yes. How many young European men died between 1914-16 and 1939-41 defending freedom before the American government deigned to get involved? How many of the six million holocaust victims would have survived if America hadn't sat back for the first two years of WW2?

How many boys died in the trenches needlessly because of American apathy in government?

Have you stood in the British cemeteries on the Somme? Visited the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing and looked through the over 72000 names of just British and South African soldiers whose bodies have never been recovered?

I'm not ungrateful for the soldiers whose sacrifice allowed freedom to grow until about 30 years ago.

My Great Grandfather fought on the Somme. My Grandfather fought in North Africa and the Normandy Beaches. My Grandmothers' brothers were pilots in bombers and fighters.

Don't think I don't respect the soldiers.

My contempt is for the politicians. Many American men went to Canada to enlist because of the apathy of the US government of the day in both wars.

I was invalided out when I tried to enlist in 1989 age 17. Poor eyesight and spinal problems prevented me serving. It broke my heart.

[Miristheiss]

They'd be weaker but NATO is still pretty strong.
I think Russia's invasion days are kind of behind them now. Their military has been so weakened by the loss of equipment in Ukraine. Their population is about 150,000,000 and it is in decline and their birth rate is shrinking so their size and manpower is diminishing. I don't think Russia will invade Europe and Europe has enough military power and manpower to stop the invasion.
I wonder if people in Russia fear that Europe will invade them? Europe wouldn't but I wonder if the propaganda there makes them think Europe is always after them.

[ZackBan]

Russia been struggling for a year to take a country like Ukraine while the Ukrainian military uses twitch to coordinate the defense.
I think most European countires are safe especially if they stood together.

That being said the US is better to have on your side than agaisnt you. All this talk of BRICS is just talk. They might be powerful nations but they are also oppressors to their own people and don't have enough good will to raise a powerful army to fight in open conflict. The only war they can wage is an economic one

[BeMuse]

Europe would be forced to protect themselves. They are technically capable if they put resources and funding toward such an endeavor, but if they did they would have to get rid of a lot of their social safety nets to pay for the essentials like basic security. Back to the meat and potatoes of running a nation state. No more free ride. America doesn't want protectorate vassal states. We're not an imperial power. We want allies. If you're pulling your own weight, that doesn't mean you can't ally with America and work together toward common goals and mutual security.

[FreyaRed]

Weapons, ammunition and soldier training is expensive. Russia has similar GDP to Italy or south Korea and much lower industry capacity because majority of Russian GDP is generated by fossil fuels and raw materials.
Russia isn't anymore a conventional threat for EU.

[andreasderjuengere]

Errrmmm... the U. S. are EXPLOITING Europe.

Russia's military isn't strong enough to take on with all of the European potential opponents when they 'work together' - and that would very likely be the case.

They can't even quickly ''take'' Ukraine.

[EpicSnail]

They have nukes, though.

[andreasderjuengere]

@EpicSnail... Nukes and speed limit are theoretical options only.
What happened in Tchernobyl... did the world end from radiation?
Also - why would one spoil the soil that one wishes to own?

[Leapfrog00]

I doubt it. President bush and Gorbachev signed a strategic arms reduction treaty, which limits the amount of nuclear warheads they are allowed to possess.

George W. Bush also signed a treaty with Putin. It's unlikely they dishonor the treaty. After WWII, the UN was formed to prevent major wars across the world. I guess anything is possible, but there would be a a large number of peace treaty violations.

[Lionman95]

Dominated no. Invaded yes since the culture in many European countries is rather pacifistic and they would try to avoid war at all cost. I think Ukraine holds back Russia because of the equipment of the US not so much because of the help of other European countries.

[Avicenna]

No, there would still be NATO-trained militaries in Europe and nuclear weapons deterrents. Germany in particular would have to step up, but it would not be a cakewalk for Russia. That said, why would Russia even try that when it could have made Europe dependent on Russian energy instead.

The Baltic states would be the ones likely to face Russian aggression since they were once part of the Soviet Union and they are tiny.

[KostasKouvalis]

Considering Putin had to buy missles from Kim, I seriously doubt it. Also, Putin has no reason to invade all of Europe. He only cares about the areas where ethnic Russians live. What would be the point of Russia giving all these countries independence, only to reinvade them?

[DryGermanGuy]

Invaded by what? A horde of ragged drunks with rusty AK47s and 50 year old trucks? Please… 🙄

[ImalwaysrightOK]

I think that's exactly what the US should do. Let's find out together just how long before Europe comes begging to be saved once again.

[Julie4]

The US " saved Europe " because it was in its national interest to do so

[ImalwaysrightOK]

Now Europe just takes advantage. They should pay what they owe NATO.

[Julie4]

Some NATO members don't pay enough, but then again, if the US maintains NATO and no president destroys it, it's because it's in their national interest to maintain NATO. Many Americans don't seem to realize the importance of NATO even for the US.

[ImalwaysrightOK]

The US doesn't really need NATO and when we were in need, nobody helped. NATO is basically the US protecting Europe at our expense. Like you said, we have some interest in doing so, but Europe benefits far more from the arrangement and they are ungrateful. If Europe had to pay what the US does for its national defense, they would see why the US complains. Europe's share is a fraction of their GDP as compared to the US's.

[Julie4]

The Europeans benefit from the American protection, yes, some European countries do not pay enough, yes, but if the US has an interest in maintaining NATO, in fact it is even of great importance.

As Brzeziński said

"Europe is America's fundamental geostrategic bridgehead. For America, the geostrategic stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. Even more valuable than the relationship with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic Alliance allows it to exert political influence and to have a military weight directly on the continent.
At this point in U. S.-European relations, the European allied nations are dependent on the United States for their security.
If Europe were to enlarge, it would automatically increase the direct influence of the United States. Conversely, if trans-Atlantic ties were to weaken, the
Atlantic ties were to weaken, America's primacy in Eurasia would end. Its control of the Atlantic Ocean, its ability to penetrate deeply into the continent would then be very limited. "

"Finally, on the Western periphery, the ousting of the United States by its partners would signal
the end of American participation in the Eurasian chess game".

[andreasderjuengere]

''We'' already give the U. S. a supply base and operational hub to molest the middle East. What ELSE do they seek? More stars on their flag?

[Jersey2]

I believe the US is better off with out cheap Allie’s like most of Europe. Germany is a parasite.

[andreasderjuengere]

@Jersey2 the feeling is bilateral - I agree there. So let's end this farce :)

[andreasderjuengere]

By the way...'' Rhein-Main Air Base'' is a pain in the arse for locals. Except for the hookers, maybe :D

[andreasderjuengere]

... was, that is 😎

[Jersey2]

@andreasderjuengere Well fortunately for you and I there are millions of Americans who feel the same. The US should revert back to our isolationist past and not be drawn into Europes squabble or anyone else’s for that matter. We will be safe, trade with the winners, and continue to develop our technology. It will eventually happen as the US cannot afford to finance the worlds defense.

[andreasderjuengere]

@Jersey2 - you have 'good' ideals, I think. All this 'imperialistic' hoo-hah from last century is quite outdated. Do we need ''alliances'' or military pacts? The next big war (if it's not already going on) will be through banks and mega-companies. Ukraine presently is more or less an outdated joke.
To make sure that our own community is economically secure... and with trading interactions to other communities a ''NATO'' will become just the anecdote in history that it is already.
I don't think so much about 'isolationism' - but rather about... erm... de-escalation :)

[RyanEC]

No I think Western European nations could take Russia if need be.


This may sound strange coming from an American, but I hope Western Europe escapes American hegemony.

[Unit1]

We'd be pretty screwed being on our own to say the least. Putlers brutes just recently captured bakhmut and that city is a ruin. However that alone took them like half a year, so i wouldn't be so worried.

[LiamJHayden]

Putin would probably coerce Lithuania into granting Russia a corridor into the Kaliningrad Oblast, but full occupation would cost far too much and the people and generals would probably remove him.

[ibodi]

Dont know well but Napoleon's ambition made it.

[exitseven]

nah, I think the Soviet Union has had their day in the sun.

[Agape93]

Invaded, maybe. But dominated? They can't even dominate a smaller and weaker neighbor.

[Anonymous]

I mean yeah. But Russia has always had fuedalistic attitude. They've never really unlocked the potential of thier people which is why despite being a country of vast resources they never reach thier full potential.

[Ben487]

eventually, after enough of the world has been taken over by dictatorships they would turn on the US despite its power

[AngryCarl2]

Most European countries have a functional military, which Russia demonstrably doesn't. But NATO exists for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Not at all. Russian forces would march into Amsterdam and immediately find all the drugs they couldn’t have back home and suddenly because environmentally conscious and start partying with Greta Thunberg, averting a complete takeover.

[Blueeyes81]

No. Europe, if working together, would dominate Russia. If each went at it alone then they would crumble one by one

[Pohjolan]

Um hello! Ukraine is part of Europe.

[Julie4]

It is part of Europe, but it is not by dominating Ukraine that Russia will dominate Europe. Moreover by having added in my question the American protection, which suggests that I speak about NATO and Ukraine is not part of it

[Pohjolan]

If Russia fails to occupy Ukraine then its it's going to take a while before they can take on NATO with or without USA.

[Iron_Man]

Anything is possible but you’re lucky you have us 😊

[OddBeMe]

No but all of Europe would rearm. Do we want Germany to rebuild their army…again?

[DryGermanGuy]

„We have beaten the Germans twice and now they are back again.“
- Margaret Thatcher

[OddBeMe]

@DryGermanGuy Germans and japs…we don’t want them thinking world domination again…lol

[Babygirl_S]

USA, Russia, China, North Korea etc. are bully countries.

[Cubus]

Yep. They would stop at Odra, next to their best friends.

[Twalli]

No. Russia was failing to dominate Ukraine long before the US sent aid.

[SawerBrown]

Quite possibly

[greenice27]

The Soviet Union could do this in 1945.

[Jennz6]

Maybe 🤔 I’m not sure

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No. Russia military is 💩

[TotallyAlmost]

No. The Russian army is an embarrassing joke.

[msc545]

Very unlikely.

[eagle1951]

probably