> closer trade ties lower the likelihood of armed conflict
This was 100% what Europe believed and the Merkel administration in Germany more than anyone. Not to bring politics into HN intentionally, but I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and threats of invading Poland, Finland, and Germany from Russian spokesmen or MPs kind of throws cold water on this theory.
No matter how well meaning you are, you can't expect dictators and "strong men" to ever act in anything but bad faith. It is time the west realizes this and acts accordingly. As an American, I'm sad to see the "de-americaning" happening due to those here who elected a bad administration, but I can't say it is surprising. Ultimately, a less weak and less dependent on the US Europe is a net good for the world. Europe collectively being able to put a check on the US forces the US to not do stupid things, so this is good long term.
I agree with what you're saying, but lowering the risk does not mean completely eliminating the problem. It's always hard to argue the counterfactual, but I feel the number of conflicts since 1990 that HAVEN'T happened due to countries being economically dependent on each other is significant.
Note that I said specifically dictators, and most of Europe isn’t that. The closest would be Orban and maybe Erdogan. But Hungary is seemingly a disliked minor player. Turkey is actually interesting in that Erdogan is a strong man and he’s actually really good at it seemingly. He’s also got a very modern and well trained military.
The US also isn't a dictatorship yet and certainly wasn't when we started becoming so dependent on them.
You can try avoiding dealings with any autocracies, but that's really hard given our modern world and it's not like other democracies can never screw you over. I think it's more realistic to demand that we diversify our imports so that we can react to things like Russia's Ukraine invasion better.
This reasoning completely ignores NATO essentially trampling over red lines established with Russia in the past, doing a soft coup in Ukraine in 2011 and reverting their stance on Ukraine joining NATO.
NATO is the reason Russia attacked, not because "Germany was soft". Over-reliance on an external parter for a strategic economic input (cheap gas) was also a huge mis-step (all while shutting down self-reliant nuclear plants), but doesn't really dispute the "closer trade lowers likelihood of conflict" argument.
Or put in another way, Ukraine can't be free and get a shot at democracy because imperialistic Russia deems it its sphere of influence.
And no amount of denouncing US hypocrisy in defending democracy will make me change my mind. Two wrongs doesn't make a right and if it happens that Pax Americana allows a country to take a more democratic route, then let it happen.
Or as some Ukrainian said :
"We are not Russian doorstep, we are free, independent Ukraine. F** you"
This was 100% what Europe believed and the Merkel administration in Germany more than anyone. Not to bring politics into HN intentionally, but I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and threats of invading Poland, Finland, and Germany from Russian spokesmen or MPs kind of throws cold water on this theory.
No matter how well meaning you are, you can't expect dictators and "strong men" to ever act in anything but bad faith. It is time the west realizes this and acts accordingly. As an American, I'm sad to see the "de-americaning" happening due to those here who elected a bad administration, but I can't say it is surprising. Ultimately, a less weak and less dependent on the US Europe is a net good for the world. Europe collectively being able to put a check on the US forces the US to not do stupid things, so this is good long term.