Your argument is that EU countries will not stand up to the US, because they are afraid of losing American protection.
However, in case of Germany you linked evidence that goes directly against your argument:
>German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
Given the context of the thread, this quote reads like the Germans want to build their own army to spite the US. For example, because the US spied on them.
---
As far as Denmark goes, their feelings regarding the US are probably genuine, but I very much doubt that the Danes see Russia as an existential threat.
The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. If you read between the lines you find that the main security benefit of US/NATO is keeping Europeans from fighting each other rather than defending them from some external threat.
I that sense, I completely agree that US and NATO are the cornerstone of European security. And that's why industrial espionage against them is a bad idea. It makes European countries suspicious of the US and suspicious of each other. The resulting fragmentation leads to insecurity and then we are back to 1939 eyeing each other as our next meal.
> The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia.
Technically, Russia did occupy the Danish Island of Bornholm following the German occupation.
The gave it up in 1946, but still it spent almost a year under soviet occupation.
On topic, I think we just like Americans and buying planes from the US was more or less a forgone conclusion :)
Besides nobody has ever been fired for buying the most advanced plane from the US -- hopefully we only need them because they are cool, hehe, so what does it matter if they can fly?
How is the argument that EU countries won't stand up to the US refuted by the desire of some politicians in the EU to create an EU army.
As long as that army doesn't exist those EU countries still rely heavily on the US for security, and therefore the dynamic the GP is proposing might exist today.
However, in case of Germany you linked evidence that goes directly against your argument:
>German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
Given the context of the thread, this quote reads like the Germans want to build their own army to spite the US. For example, because the US spied on them.
---
As far as Denmark goes, their feelings regarding the US are probably genuine, but I very much doubt that the Danes see Russia as an existential threat.
The last country to invade and occupy Denmark was Germany, not Russia. If you read between the lines you find that the main security benefit of US/NATO is keeping Europeans from fighting each other rather than defending them from some external threat.
I that sense, I completely agree that US and NATO are the cornerstone of European security. And that's why industrial espionage against them is a bad idea. It makes European countries suspicious of the US and suspicious of each other. The resulting fragmentation leads to insecurity and then we are back to 1939 eyeing each other as our next meal.