“I don’t remember exactly when I first thought something was seriously wrong with the transatlantic relationship. Over the years, particularly in my time at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, I had many opportunities to meet and talk to the young conservatives coming up through the ranks of the Republican Party, the cohort which has now taken over the Trump administration. There certainly was something wrong then, but it took me a while to fully grasp it.
At first, I would listen to their seemingly harmless banter. There were jokes about the bureaucracy in Brussels or the long holiday breaks in Europe, the hagiography of Silicon Valley founders, and talk of the shameful absence of European counterparts. Cracks about the European propensity for too much talk and no action. The “Europoor” internet meme. Sometimes the jokes were even amusing, but at some point they turned into what seemed like a fixation. It was no longer funny. It was obvious that a powerful form of Europhobia was developing among a new generation of American elites, the kind of Europhobia today represented by the National Security Strategy issued by the Trump administration in December, in which Europe is portrayed as a civilisational enemy. It is the same Europhobia that leads secretary of the treasury Scott Bessent to go on television, as he did on 18 January, and claim that Europe projects weakness, while the US projects strength.
In retrospect, it seems to me that this political and intellectual current had an important impact on Brexit. Flowing almost unimpeded from American conservative circles to their equivalents in Britain, it helped shape the perception that the European Union was a historical loser, outdated and finished. The description of the EU as facing “civilisational erasure” through open immigration, now present in Trump’s official National Security Strategy, illuminates much about the Brexit-era fears over immigration a decade ago.
If Brexit was the first blow against the EU from a new Europhobic movement in America, we now face a second and far more serious attack. As the ideological worldviews prevalent in Europe and America continue to diverge, there is an obvious risk that the military and technological dependencies Europeans have allowed to develop may be used against them. For many decades, the West functioned as both a political and emotional community. In such a community, mutual dependence is not exploited, and partners refrain from anything that could jeopardise a shared destiny. But without the West as a political community, that logic disappears. I am told that German policymakers now lie awake at night worrying about what would happen if Trump decided to turn off the spigot of liquefied natural gas crossing the Atlantic. Germany is now more dependent on the US for energy than it ever was on Russia.
Warnings about the end of the world forged in 1945 are common sense, not alarmism. Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants sovereignty over Greenland, not mere access, and the announcement of 10 per cent tariffs against a number of European countries looks like an initial salvo in a campaign of economic coercion. These measures should be compared to a form of blockade during wartime, rather than the wave of tariffs announced in 2025, whose goal was purely economic.
If economic coercion fails, American troops in Greenland could attempt to prevent Danish vessels or aircraft from landing on the island. Should European countries accept the inevitability of such a move – whether a forced purchase or a military operation – any notion of European sovereignty would vanish. No one would again take either the EU or its member states seriously. After years of praising Ukraine for its courage and sacrifice in defending its sovereignty and territory, how shameful it would be if Europe were incapable of doing the same.
In the social media post announcing the new tariffs, Trump already seemed to regard European countries as no longer sovereign. The tariffs were presented as a response to a small deployment of troops from Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Britain. Trump accused them of playing a dangerous game, even though he had previously criticised them for not sending enough troops to Greenland. But why should sovereign countries be unable to participate in exercises with Denmark, the host nation, or why should Denmark be prevented from moving troops within its own territory? Bessent has argued that Europeans must accept diminished sovereignty because they are entirely dependent on Washington for their defence. This could mark the beginning of a century of humiliation. Writing in 1994, Henry Kissinger suggested it was easy to imagine a future in which Europe would lose its independence – not to Russia or China, but to the United States.
Break sounds dramatic, But more Strategic Independence while cooperating feels like the real conversation, Europe’s been circling for years.
An actual break will only be to Russia’s benefit. A long-term redefined, but still cordial and co-operative relationship between a stabler America and a stronger, more assertive Europe is best.
The Netherlands is launching their own build serie of spy satellites.
8 comments
“I don’t remember exactly when I first thought something was seriously wrong with the transatlantic relationship. Over the years, particularly in my time at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, I had many opportunities to meet and talk to the young conservatives coming up through the ranks of the Republican Party, the cohort which has now taken over the Trump administration. There certainly was something wrong then, but it took me a while to fully grasp it.
At first, I would listen to their seemingly harmless banter. There were jokes about the bureaucracy in Brussels or the long holiday breaks in Europe, the hagiography of Silicon Valley founders, and talk of the shameful absence of European counterparts. Cracks about the European propensity for too much talk and no action. The “Europoor” internet meme. Sometimes the jokes were even amusing, but at some point they turned into what seemed like a fixation. It was no longer funny. It was obvious that a powerful form of Europhobia was developing among a new generation of American elites, the kind of Europhobia today represented by the National Security Strategy issued by the Trump administration in December, in which Europe is portrayed as a civilisational enemy. It is the same Europhobia that leads secretary of the treasury Scott Bessent to go on television, as he did on 18 January, and claim that Europe projects weakness, while the US projects strength.
In retrospect, it seems to me that this political and intellectual current had an important impact on Brexit. Flowing almost unimpeded from American conservative circles to their equivalents in Britain, it helped shape the perception that the European Union was a historical loser, outdated and finished. The description of the EU as facing “civilisational erasure” through open immigration, now present in Trump’s official National Security Strategy, illuminates much about the Brexit-era fears over immigration a decade ago.
If Brexit was the first blow against the EU from a new Europhobic movement in America, we now face a second and far more serious attack. As the ideological worldviews prevalent in Europe and America continue to diverge, there is an obvious risk that the military and technological dependencies Europeans have allowed to develop may be used against them. For many decades, the West functioned as both a political and emotional community. In such a community, mutual dependence is not exploited, and partners refrain from anything that could jeopardise a shared destiny. But without the West as a political community, that logic disappears. I am told that German policymakers now lie awake at night worrying about what would happen if Trump decided to turn off the spigot of liquefied natural gas crossing the Atlantic. Germany is now more dependent on the US for energy than it ever was on Russia.
Warnings about the end of the world forged in 1945 are common sense, not alarmism. Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants sovereignty over Greenland, not mere access, and the announcement of 10 per cent tariffs against a number of European countries looks like an initial salvo in a campaign of economic coercion. These measures should be compared to a form of blockade during wartime, rather than the wave of tariffs announced in 2025, whose goal was purely economic.
If economic coercion fails, American troops in Greenland could attempt to prevent Danish vessels or aircraft from landing on the island. Should European countries accept the inevitability of such a move – whether a forced purchase or a military operation – any notion of European sovereignty would vanish. No one would again take either the EU or its member states seriously. After years of praising Ukraine for its courage and sacrifice in defending its sovereignty and territory, how shameful it would be if Europe were incapable of doing the same.
In the social media post announcing the new tariffs, Trump already seemed to regard European countries as no longer sovereign. The tariffs were presented as a response to a small deployment of troops from Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Britain. Trump accused them of playing a dangerous game, even though he had previously criticised them for not sending enough troops to Greenland. But why should sovereign countries be unable to participate in exercises with Denmark, the host nation, or why should Denmark be prevented from moving troops within its own territory? Bessent has argued that Europeans must accept diminished sovereignty because they are entirely dependent on Washington for their defence. This could mark the beginning of a century of humiliation. Writing in 1994, Henry Kissinger suggested it was easy to imagine a future in which Europe would lose its independence – not to Russia or China, but to the United States.
Break sounds dramatic, But more Strategic Independence while cooperating feels like the real conversation, Europe’s been circling for years.
What are we waiting for?
🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇺🇬🇧🇩🇪🇩🇰🇦🇺🇨🇭🇧🇻🇳🇿🇮🇸🇨🇿🇳🇱🇪🇪🇫🇮🇸🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇵🇱🇫🇷🇯🇵🇦🇹🇿🇦🇷🇴🇮🇪🇮🇹🇪🇸🇵🇹🇱🇺🇬🇷🇭🇷🇸🇮🇧🇪🇫🇴🇧🇬🇹🇼
🇲🇪🇲🇰🇦🇱🇽🇰🇲🇹🇸🇲🇦🇩🇲🇩🇨🇾🇹🇷
An actual break will only be to Russia’s benefit. A long-term redefined, but still cordial and co-operative relationship between a stabler America and a stronger, more assertive Europe is best.
The Netherlands is launching their own build serie of spy satellites.
https://hollandhightech.nl/en/news-calendar/news/archive/2024/pami-1-is-the-first-in-a-series-of-satellites-to-strengthen-dutch-space-capabilities
All weather satellites, first one launched last summer.
https://www.nlspacecampus.eu/news/netherlands-enters-military-space-era-with-first-sar-satellite-and-new-royal-netherlands-air-and-space-force/
They are also researching a long range cruise missle.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/netherlands-wants-to-develop-an-alternative-to-the-u-s-tomahawk-cruise-missile
And then depending on India. Mass immigration is real
You always play into the Kremlin’s plans. Have some faith, patience and pit Trump in his place. Get some balls for once and stay united.
Like, right now? Hard break? You’ll only play to the Russian hands