• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Good question. I can see how American MIC can benefit by further cannibalizing EU industry. How anybody in the EU can benefit from this is beyond me.

              • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Sure big ties with US but they have some autonomy left. A working eu would actually be really good in theory, but what it is now is a disaster.

                • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  Barely any autonomy. Everyone can see the EU is a fragmented mess of foreign lobbyists trying to get their pie from each EU country. With the US being the strongest outside influence by far.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I do believe my initial statement was unambiguous. The intellectual deficiency here lies not in the articulation but in its reception. Allow me to elucidate for your particular benefit. The European Union has declined to appropriate funds for the welfare of its own populace, yet demonstrates remarkable alacrity in committing vastly greater sums to perpetuate the conflict in Ukraine. Should this simplified rendition still prove too conceptually demanding, I am prepared to compose it in words of one syllable.

            • TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              How is it you feel the 2 are related? And is it your view that Europe cannot spend money to help stop an obvious threat to Europe, ever, forevermore. Because they didn’t bail Greece out over 20 years ago?

              And you don’t see how damaging the currency used by all EU member states would hurt more people?

              I mean, there’s like 10 other ways this makes no sense and you’ve not made any kind of argument or supported your statement with anything at all other than pointing out the EU did something now. And didn’t do something entirely different in the past

              • Matty Roses@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                What is the threat to us, exactly? You think Russia, which hasn’t taken Kyiv with a million dead, is going to march through Paris next week?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Your attempt at a rebuttal is a fascinating study in missing the point. You have constructed a series of elaborate, irrelevant hypotheticals while steadfastly ignoring the central, rather blatant contradiction I presented. The relationship is one of priority, a concept you seem to graze but never fully grasp. It is not that Europe cannot address external threats. It is that its institutions consistently find limitless coffers for geopolitical artillery while pleading poverty for domestic welfare. To equate a sovereign debt crisis from a bygone decade with the present-day choice to fund foreign armaments over internal aid is either disingenuous or remarkably simplistic.

                Your sudden concern for the sanctity of the common currency is touching, if conveniently selective. The fiscal prudence you now champion was notably absent when underwriting banks or military contracts. You demand an exhaustive thesis when a simple observation of present action versus present inaction suffices. The argument is self evident in the allocation. That you require it spelled out with supporting footnotes merely confirms the initial assessment of your comprehension. Shall I draw you a picture?

                • TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  What blatant contradiction? What priorities? They didn’t bail Greece out of a banking crisis 20 years ago, they have committed money to Ukraine now. I take it you find these 2 decisions to be incongruous? Why? You can’t explain yourself other than to say that you don’t think those 2 decisions can both be made without the decision maker being a hypocrite? Is this at least a correct interpretation of whatever you are trying to say?

                  If so, ok? So what. You believe it’s hypocritical? Great. Others don’t. Support your position.