Europa sollte den Gedanken des Alleingangs annehmen

For almost an entire year, Europe has repeatedly faced the same choice: go along with another outrageous demand from US President Trump, or deploy what power it has to impose costs on Washington’s transgressions. Again and again, European leaders have chosen the former in the belief that ingratiating themselves with Trump will avoid the possibility of worse harm coming from opposing him.

But in doing so, they have allowed considerable actual harm to accumulate:accepting vastly unbalanced tariff changes and the abandonment of the most-favoured-nation principle; interference in European elections and pressure to (de)regulate in favour of US tech; sanctions on political figures and international court officials; and taking on the full financial burden of containing Russia’s imperial military ambitions. 

The more Europe pays for its supplication, the less convincing its strategic rationale becomes. What evidence is there that hitting back would cost more? The most frequently mentioned fear is that if Europe stops kissing the ring, the US will stop supporting Ukraine. That raises the question of how much support the US has left to withdraw. Washington gives Ukraine hardly any money or weapons. As a result, as Nathalie Tocci of the Italian Institute for International Affairs points out, it “has lost significant leverage over Ukraine” and “does not have the cards to impose a capitulation”. 

The US could halt intelligence sharing again. Whether this would make it impossible to keep Ukraine in the fight (especially if Europe maximised support for Kyiv and pressure on Moscow, including by seizing its reserves) cannot be known from public information. But even so, folding to Trump on everything to protect a European country’s sovereignty is absurd if “everything” includes ceding sovereign territory to him.

Rather than a strategic weighing of outcomes, a broader psychological anxiety hamstrings European leaders: an inability to contemplate going it alone — without US support or even against US wishes — where “it” means not just Ukraine and wider security, but technology and the economy.

This inferiority complex is unwarranted. It also aids the Trump administration’s concerted effort to sap European courage to go its own way rather than follow US diktats. As Trump understands so well, a leader’s job is to project confidence to use the strength one actually has.

In Trump’s zero-sum approach to commerce, the EU could give as good as it gets, for example by denying US digital services the enormous profits they make in its market. Rising opposition in the European parliament to ratifying last summer’s EU-US “trade deal” while Trump threatens Greenland sends the right signal.

On everything from relatively small increases in common spending to a full-fledged digital currency, the EU has game-changing tools at the ready. If it could shed its fear of missing out, it could use a “buy European” policy and its ample savings to build domestic supply on everything from AI to most weapons in a matter of years — as China has proved is possible.

Even on the biggest question of security, why would anyone think Maga US is more likely to come to the rescue of a region that is proving itself a repeated pushover than one willing to fight back when challenged? Truly strategic thinking for Europeans is not ingratiation but making clear what they are willing to fight for.

At the moment, the US could simply declare that it owns Greenland and it would be game over. A small number of additional European troops could alter that — not because a US invasion could be defeated, but because Washington’s calculation would change if it would have to contend with an invasion.

Please don’t leave us behind!

You know what’s funny ? Even the most imperialist and colonist trashes are facing and will increasingly face the (very obvious when you think about it) limits to extraction, regardless of how many prayers they do to the god of innovation.

And it’ll be the case here. No doubt the richest and industrials will go again in the full fascist way once they realize that it’s necessary to maintain our material wealth. And most people will have to adapt while in cognitive dissonance about „elites“ that keep telling them that „we’ll always have more“ and reality, in which they experience „always less“.

Let’s not talk about lowtechs and permaculture, but instead, let’s create a big army, make many weapons, and go pillage whatever countries that don’t have nuclear firepower, so we can keep on having 150 different flavors of chips and GTX6090 so we can jerk to 4k pr0n !

What a livid joke this all is. Because many people here still insist on basing their understand on „somehow, we’ll manage a way to extract always more“.

Yes, we 40 something countries should together go at it alone.

Not alone!! You guys can have my Latam coffee :v

EU weighs replacing US troops with unified European army

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/eu-weighs-replacing-us-troops-with-unified-1768168275.html

When it comes to Europe (and by that I mean the EU) becoming self-sufficient for its own defence, how does that impact the ability of certain EU member states to continue their own policies of neutrality?

In a political union that could well have a common military defence obligations, how will Ireland continue to be neutral in the event that say Denmark or Estonia are directly threatened or worse, invaded?

Last times Germany chose that path, it went horribly wrong.
Even if we had several allies on the continent each time.

So we should better learn from history and act more reasonably this time. Especially when all the other relevant superpowers would more or less be declared as enemies as a result.