Most Americans are apparently so used to the status quo that they are starting to forget why the world works like it does. Being a superpower and globaly hegemony requires spending money all over the globe, all the time. In this case, it is actually good that your most important ally (which the EU just is) refuses to get serious about its own military ambitions and is content leeching off your massive Military (which you need anyway, and which you finance to a large degree with exports these allies are buying from you)
If you dont, you cant complain about losing influence. Especially when youre competitors are just waiting to rush into any gaps you leave open.
One of Americas biggest fears always was Germany getting too close with Russia, which is why americans had such a focus on the Continent even after the end of the cold war
Now in just a few months Trump has managed to realign the entire EU with China. Again, I highly doubt that most Americans have any idea what they are getting into here in the long term. They voted for cheaper eggs and less immigrants and might get a downgrade to regional power within a few decades instead lol
>All that will mean not just the sacrifice of some national political sovereignty and a bonfire of other taboos but also higher taxes, lower living standards, and less generous public services.
That messaging is going to go down like a lead balloon in most of the EU public.
I’m glad we’re starting to see some sensible articles. There’s been an absolute draught in the recent past, but lately we seem to be getting back to some form of realpolitik even in the media. Yes, the US will miss not having a security dependent EU, because everyone would miss having a vassal continent. Which is exactly why Europe should do it, if they want to be a meaningful geopolitical player on the world stage. Not for me to tell Europeans what to want, the choice is theirs. But it’s not an easy choice to make because it’s fraught with thorny issues. For example, who will lead a potential European army? Or will it be each country for itself, thus guaranteeing irrelevance?
3 comments
Most Americans are apparently so used to the status quo that they are starting to forget why the world works like it does. Being a superpower and globaly hegemony requires spending money all over the globe, all the time. In this case, it is actually good that your most important ally (which the EU just is) refuses to get serious about its own military ambitions and is content leeching off your massive Military (which you need anyway, and which you finance to a large degree with exports these allies are buying from you)
If you dont, you cant complain about losing influence. Especially when youre competitors are just waiting to rush into any gaps you leave open.
One of Americas biggest fears always was Germany getting too close with Russia, which is why americans had such a focus on the Continent even after the end of the cold war
Now in just a few months Trump has managed to realign the entire EU with China. Again, I highly doubt that most Americans have any idea what they are getting into here in the long term. They voted for cheaper eggs and less immigrants and might get a downgrade to regional power within a few decades instead lol
>All that will mean not just the sacrifice of some national political sovereignty and a bonfire of other taboos but also higher taxes, lower living standards, and less generous public services.
That messaging is going to go down like a lead balloon in most of the EU public.
I’m glad we’re starting to see some sensible articles. There’s been an absolute draught in the recent past, but lately we seem to be getting back to some form of realpolitik even in the media. Yes, the US will miss not having a security dependent EU, because everyone would miss having a vassal continent. Which is exactly why Europe should do it, if they want to be a meaningful geopolitical player on the world stage. Not for me to tell Europeans what to want, the choice is theirs. But it’s not an easy choice to make because it’s fraught with thorny issues. For example, who will lead a potential European army? Or will it be each country for itself, thus guaranteeing irrelevance?
Comments are closed.