Thread by @gbponz

Part of a common misconception: Europeans have always had a coherent strategy, that is NOT to become militarily independent. That makes sense, but not at the force-on-force level: (/) @Halsrethink @nglinsman @RobertMCutler @vtchakarova @pietercleppe @Danjsalt @moutet

https://twitter.com/ElbridgeColby/status/1484180350255435776

Ostensibly this enabled them to quieten the leftist/pacifist part of their political spectrum (remember the Euromissiles fracas?) but again, that was only a superficial issue. There was a real one tough. (/)

Economically and on a technological level, Europe was perfectly capable of producing a military instrument on a par with WHATEVER US contingent was planned to be deployed to Europe in a conflict.(/)

HOWEVER, as it was proved by #Reagan (and anticipated by the "Long Telegram" by George Kennan), the conflict could only be ended on an ideological level. And European ideology is....what? (/)

Reagan (and Lady #Thatcher, of course) made two points: Communism is an ideology doomed to failure and violence of man over man, and the spirit of free enterprise of individuals would overcome it on a philosophical, but above all on an ECONOMIC level. (/)

Yet, European countries refused the #Reagan ideology as much as Russia did, if not more. I still hear their laughter when Reagan said "dustbin of history". And those were the cutting edge of European diplomatic abilities: the fall of the Wall first and #QE later (/)

/ made mincemeat of what paltry level of excellence was present. So, it's not that Europe cannot afford a defense apparatus suitable to its needs: it's that it lacks a political system which would be able to use it at all.(/)

For those doubting, there was an attempt, Jugoslavia. Remember how it went?.