Europe

[Furniture]

As I wrote above: "There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?"

This is exactly the kind of stuff Europe, and individual European nations, could deal with on their own. Tolerate, or respond. Or invoke Article 5, if they think it will help.

You seem to be displaying fundamental a lack of understanding of what an alliance is supposed to be. One doesn't join a mutual defense alliance to "deal with things" on one's own...

 

[Good2Golf]

As I wrote above: "There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?"

This is exactly the kind of stuff Europe, and individual European nations, could deal with on their own. Tolerate, or respond. Or invoke Article 5, if they think it will help.

Yes, I agree the Europe must now act with no expectation of US substantive support.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The path that the US is putting forward will most likely lead to a number of new European nuclear powers - full stop.

Or maybe it won't lead to any.

Russia hasn't resorted to using nuclear weapons to resolve its frustrations in Ukraine. It's easy to spitball cases for countries acquiring nukes and delivery systems. Costs a lot of money, though, to address a threat that doesn't seem to be a material risk for anyone not pushing Russia to the wall by marching on Moscow. I suppose Russia could announce tomorrow that it is going to pave its way to the Oder with nuclear detonations, but if the rest of NATO stays out, it will stop there. Sure.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You seem to be displaying fundamental a lack of understanding of what an alliance is supposed to be. One doesn't join a mutual defense alliance to "deal with things" on one's own...

As I wrote, they can invoke Article 5 if they think it's needed.

Europe is capable of defending itself against any external or internal threat. NATO was formed to deal with the USSR. European NATO is now much more powerful and Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union. Attacked NATO members always have the option to call on the alliance. Opinions are going to vary as to whether they should bother for overflights and sabotage. What would be the aim - is the US needed to deal with those problems, or is the US needed to escalate into a war to force Russia to FO?

No amount of talking is going to make Ukraine a NATO member. Russia had to take up military operations against Ukraine twice to wake people up; those who failed to respond adequately in 2014 bear most of the responsibility for the current situation. Europe had over half a decade to prepare to deter/defeat the second onslaught. I've advocated that the Ukraine war should either be ended (which most likely means Ukraine must concede territory) or escalated (by a coalition of countries intervening on Ukraine's behalf) to push Russia out of Ukraine, and maintained that the "third way" of keeping an inconclusive bloodletting going indefinitely is unconscionable. NATO doesn't have to be the tool for escalation. The US doesn't have to be involved.

Russia could some day attack to recover some of its former central Asian holdings. I doubt that Europe will be as prepared to help beleaguered nations there as it is to have the US help Europe.

 

[Kirkhill]

You seem to be displaying fundamental a lack of understanding of what an alliance is supposed to be. One doesn't join a mutual defense alliance to "deal with things" on one's own...

What Is the Tragedy of the Commons?​

The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation in which individuals with access to a public resource—also called a common—act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource.

 

[Kirkhill]

The enclosure movement (13th–19th centuries) in Britain privatized common land, driven by landowners seeking higher efficiency, profitability, and, particularly from the 16th century, the increased value of sheep grazing. This shift, moving from subsistence to commercial farming, replaced communal fields with fenced, individual holdings.
Wikipedia +4


Key Drivers for Enclosure:

• Increased Productivity: Landowners argued that enclosed fields, which allowed for better techniques like crop rotation and selective breeding, were far more efficient than open-field systems.
• Profit Maximization: The rise of the wool trade made converting arable land to sheep pasture highly profitable, incentivizing the consolidation of land.
• Social and Political Control: Enclosures allowed wealthy landowners to gain exclusive, legal ownership over land previously accessible to villagers, removing the rights of the common people.
• Agricultural Revolution: Large, fenced farms were integral to the adoption of new, more efficient farming practices, such as growing turnips and potatoes, which significantly increased food production.
  Lumen Learning +5

Key Effects:

• Dispossession and Migration: Many villagers lost their livelihoods, forcing them to move to cities to work in the factories of the Industrial Revolution.
• Rise of Capitalism: It transformed traditional, communal agriculture into a capitalist model of private, managed farming.
• Protests: Enclosures, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries, resulted in significant social disruption and protests known as "enclosure riots".

....

Common use and productivity/efficency are not compatible.

Productive, competent individuals co-operating is not the same as a communal venture. Especially after three generations.