I don't have any poll figures, but I have the impression that more and more Americans and even some American politicians consider Europe to be secondary to their country's interests, in addition to thinking that the Europeans, through NATO, are ruining the American economy.
However, a closer look reveals that Europe is still very important to American interests.
First and foremost, NATO, from which Europe benefits greatly, enables the USA not only to stabilize the continent, keep Russia out, and exert significant political influence (for these reasons alone, it goes a long way towards justifying the importance of Europe for the USA), but above all, as a former US national security advisor writes
"Europe is America's fundamental geostrategic bridgehead. For America, the geostrategic stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. Even more valuable than the relationship with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic Alliance enables it to exert political influence and military weight directly on the continent. At this point in U. S.-European relations, the allied nations of Europe depend on the United States for their security. If Europe were to enlarge, this would automatically increase the direct influence of the United States. Conversely, if transatlantic ties were to weaken, America's primacy in Eurasia would be over. America's control of the Atlantic Ocean and its ability to penetrate deep into the continent would be severely limited. "
That was for strategic/military interests.
The second interest for Usa is commercial: in fact, Europe is the USA's leading trading partner. I'm sharing these figures with you to give you an idea of the continent's economic importance.
Finally, I'd like to add something that makes the European continent even more important to American interests: two European companies, ASMl and Zeiss, without which not even Taiwan could manufacture its most sophisticated chips.
I hope I have succeeded in convincing you of the importance of UE
Why do some Americans seem to think that Europe is no longer important to their interests and that the US should concentrate elsewhere?
I don’t have a problem in being an ally with Europe. I mean after all, much of America has ancestors from Europe. I am 100% of European ancestry and blood. The following is my problem.
America and Europe philosophically are worlds apart and two different mindsets when it comes to liberty and freedom. The whole basis and foundation of America was to depart and become independent from royalty in which much of Europe still adheres to kings and queens. In America, our mindset and rightfully so is that you should have the ultimate freedom and choice to fail miserably or succeed with the sky being the limit. That means that every man and woman has the potential through the freedom of having government get the hell out of the way, that men and women should be able to equate to being their own king and queen! You make your choices. Good choices should equal increase and reward which cannot be revoked or taken, whereas poor choices equate to the consequences of living miserably or even dying. It’s just a reality of life.
Here in America, we value the ownership of private property! In fact even more than valuing private property, it is the fundamentally necessary framework and foundation for ultimate liberty. This new age mentality circulating the globe by the world economic forum and the United Nations which originate in Europe says that people will “own nothing and be happy about it.“ This is obviously absolute hogwash and 100% diabolically opposed to the foundational principles of which America was founded upon. Europeans have become so excessively socialistic over the years that it’s borderline full on communism within some EU countries. I’ve heard some things that make me angry because they are such a lie even though the people think and really believe it. Things such as “the people of Finland are the happiest people in the world.“ In the context that because the government provides everything for them. In the UK about eight years ago there was an apartment fire complex. Many ended up being homeless. Instead of helping themselves they sat around and waited for government. It was a mentality of “what’s the government going to do for me”? The real question should be what are you going to do to help yourself? Is it not the responsibility and destiny of each individual person upon their own head? I don’t require anyone to help me, I figure out how to make things work in life and I help myself. But by God if I find a way to help myself and become successful, no one else including government should feel entitled to my success that I have built up and earned on my own.
Furthermore, much of Europe has forgotten the history of the threat of war which came knocking on their doorstep multiple times in the 20th century alone! Not only did it come knocking on their door, but much of Europe was ravaged by war! You would think that Europe would learn to distrust government and want to be armed as a populous to combat tyranny if it should ever rise up against them again. But instead, they have a fictitious sense of security that government will somehow protect them when in reality, it was actually government in the 20th century alone mostly in Europe that accounted for the destruction of upwards of 260 million lives! From my vantage point, there isn’t any common sense whatsoever if a person can turn down owning their own weaponry and firearms as a means to protect themself, their family, and ultimately their country! It’s like saying there’s a rapist outside trying to break into my home but because a person hates guns (a tool for defense) so bad, they turn away the gun and call the government which is full of rapists to come as well! Sorry but it’s the same mentality. Either figure out how to help your own situation and self, or perish!
Look at how the EU government handled Covid! It was bad enough in America as it was but it was 10 times worse in Europe with the draconian and forceful shut downs, arresting people, acting like the Nazi SS and going door to door, forcing vaccinations and masks, etc.
Men and women are meant to be fully free. So long as they’re not harming anyone else, people should have the right to have their own autonomy and maximum liberty. This is why in America we have a constitution and bill of rights to restrain government and even each other from infringement of liberty. So long as the divide and fundamental difference of rooted principles exist between America and Europe, the two can never really be one nor should it be!
I knew someone who came here to visit from Europe and was overwhelmed at how we had such big buildings, the landscape, all of the innovation, and said “you would be so bored to go visit Europe“ and wanted to know how things were so big and extravagant here in America. I said ultimately it’s based on the fundamental belief that everyone has liberty, financially, personally, and otherwise. Only then can the stars be the limit!
The US shouldn’t concentrate elsewhere! The US should get out of foreign and global entanglements and concentrate here at home on restoring our own freedoms and liberty and protecting our own borders from invasion. We should be focused on strengthening our own economy and getting rid of our damn near $50 trillion dollar debt! We should be focused on removing the many tyrants that are in our own government!
You seem to be angry with Europe 🤣 but in reality the ideals on which America is based are due to the philosophers of the Enlightenment who were born in Europe.
As for the rest, you're oversimplifying the causes of wars: each nation defends its own interests, the most important of which is its own security. Europe is a small continent made up of multiple nations, each rightly fearful of its neighbor. In fact, the USA took part in both world wars, and not out of idealism, but for reasons of national security and mutual interest. In the end, it was unthinkable to let a single nation dominate the European continent.
Don't forget either that it was relatively easy to develop ideals when you have a favorable geographical position, if the USA had been born on the Eurasian continent, if they had sometimes naive ideals, believe me they would not would not have survived the cruelty of international relations for long...
@Julie4 The ideals espoused by our founding fathers, namely George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others were not “oversimplified” but rather based off of the wisdom of analyzing centuries of tyranny at the hands of royalty. You’re right, they did come from Europe and they knew what America should not become based on their experience! It may sound overly simple to you, but the question is still very simple. Should men and women be free to govern themselves? Or should they be subject to mortal tyrants who have wrongfully elevated themselves to seek power and wealth?
Traditionally, America has been a force for good in the world. In fact, America has been more charitable than all other nations combined! Don’t believe me? Look it up. America has traditionally been a beacon of hope when tyrannical nations have tried to bully and take over peaceful nations. The problem however is twofold. First of all, in defending other nations, America has depleted its own resources in doing so. Secondly, corrupt politicians in America have seized such opportunities to gain power as well as enable international bodies such as the United Nations. So in essence these corrupt politicians are an enemy within American. They are committing treason! The government is full of them right now unfortunately!
At the end of the day, America has no business nation building or being involved in international affairs. Sure, America can and should be friends with other peaceful loving nations. But we have always had a warrior mentality for good which up until recently has been for the defense of our own liberty and sovereignty. Unfortunately nowadays, America is riddled with debt and the more recent generations are being raised in such a way that masculinity is seen as “toxic“ all of which is leading to a weak military and untimely the destruction of a once great nation if we don’t as a people turn things around snd hold our government accountable based on the constitution.
It’s actually the other way around. Europe, Canada, Australia, and other peace loving nations had better hope that America doesn’t fall! If America falls, the rest of the world will surely fall with it, which will mean enslavement for all of mankind!
@Julie4 America, the American military, and the well armed American citizens which number an estimated 120 million is the last remaining factor stopping the final creation of diabolical global governance! If that force for good falls, you, I and everyone is done!
Believe it or not, this is actually a short answer, rooted in part in the geography of American culture and, in part, on the nature of American education about recent history.
Taking the latter first, most American schools teach that after World War II, the USA was preeminent and that Europe lost its' previously dominant position in the world. It also does not help that the next major wars in the USA were in the Far East - the Korean War and the Vietnam War. This having the gradual collective effect of making Europe seem less important.
The empires were gone. The major wars were fought in Asia or the Middle East. These, among other factors, made Europe less uppermost in the American mind. The net effect being to make Americans - who to be fair tend not to be very historically aware - think Europe did not matter as much anymore.
This then relates to the first point. Europe seemed - and even now, Ukraine notwithstanding seems - less prominent and therefore less important. The less Europe occupies the American mind and the American media, the less important Europe seems in popular opinion and popular culture. Throw in a dash of the American tendency - rooted in no small measure in geography - toward isolationism and you get why Americans at the popular level tend to think Europe is not all that important anymore.
For all that, though, please note that this is where things stand in the popular mind. Among American policymakers the importance of Europe remains axiomatic. As a trading partner, as a strategic position, as an integral part of the NATO alliance, as the home of three nuclear powers, and so on.
Given the need of American policymakers to gain popular support in order to hold office and have a mandate for various policies, this does become complicated. However, that said, among American policymakers, with a few exceptions here or there, the importance of Europe remains a given.
Well, as I say, this is more a popular phenomenon. Among policymakers, scholars and the like with a greater strategic and historical understanding, the importance of Europe is axiomatic. (This I write as a guy who works in politics and specifically on international issues.)
Thanks for the kind compliment and hope you are well.
I listen to my relatives occasionally criticize Europe. In the same vein, there has been a growing interest in the last decade learning about our roots and where we came from prior to the US founding.
@love_conquers_lust Thanks. You make an excellent point. I was speaking mostly in terms of geopolitics and the like for purposes of this question. However, you are on the money when you note that most Americans are of European heritage and knowing who we are and where we are from is too VERY important.
My profile sums it up. Been here since pioneer days. That’s what we’ve done.
Our current domestic political situation is nasty, but staying the course was not beneficial for most of us. I called the 2016 election before the primaries were won, my family wrote me off saying it was a joke. I remember watching that map turn red as hell on election night and laughing while it happened. He’s a terrible representative for women. I hate the way he acts because many take that as a license to be nasty towards women. But the reality is, he was a necessary evil to send a message to middle class America to wake…the fuck…up. Pull their collective, consumer driven heads out of their asses and pay attention to politics. Wake up.
@nightdrot Female empowerment and gender equality, especially in rights has been here so long it has become a conservative value. It’s here to stay. Raising women up raise both genders up. Extropy and better living through science have been the drivers behind it, not the other way around. I believe gender differences should be celebrated. Failing to recognize them is dangerous. This is why the Left doesn’t have the answers, they seek to inadvertently destroy that descending down the path of Marxism where gender, race, age, anything doesn’t exist dissolving the lines of morality opening the door to barbaric acts that were rife before governments even existed. This is why our immigration policy since the 60s has sucked. It’s flirted with inviting cultures that seek to subjugate women and return to the old ways before Christianity was founded.
This is why Trump is heinous. But his policies align with mine and other conservatives. Who else was going to step up? Something I’m ashamed to say. I’m embarrassed by the effects he’s had on our society. I hate the effect it’s having on my female relatives. It further angers me how the Left weaponized race and gender to make women feel bad.
I think our wealth inequality is mostly a product of the pussification of our nation. Our approach to equalization shouldn’t be “GIVE me your money”. The mindset should be “what would it TAKE for you to willfully part with some of your money.”
Plenty, plenty more. But I’m caring less and less about people judging me on it. Dog whistling be damned. I don’t expect affirmation from anyone in agreement. It’s their right to make that decision in confidence at the polls.
@love_conquers_lust Thanks. Actually, I was only joking. I am not a fan of Mr. Trump, but women's issues is not the primary reason for my views. On wealth inequality, I am more of your mindset.
Beyond all that, I agree with your general observation. The American public has grown intellectually lazy and morally vacuous. Content to substitute feeling for thought. On this point, you and I are fully in agreement.
One final thought, I’m merely a Midwestern citizen. I’ve written late night musings to my state senator.
I think gender equality could be used as a basis for immigration reform. From what I’ve read, the UN has been pushing women empowerment since the 60s as part of depopulation. I’m suggesting parlay off that and judge other countries by how well they treat the most vulnerable of their members like women. This could result in policies that allow exclusive immigration from Westernized nations like Europe, Canada, Australia, and maybe Japan while excluding others like Africa, Southern America, Middle East, and most of Asia. It’s also not something women should be used as a shield for, it should be supported by both genders on a united front. The target nations should follow suit. Until those nations improve things for the both genders, they’re cutoff from immigration or at least are DRASTICALLY reduced. The UN focus of decreasing wealth inequality across nations (globalization) should continue and be further motivated by this, pressuring governments to stop oppressing women if they want greater access to the Western world. I fear the repercussions of this on women from excluded nations but once upon a time the Western world was in the same boat with no nation to run to, we had to lift ourselves up.
@love_conquers_lust It's an interesting idea but in the current context of American political culture I am not sure how well it would sell. Also, much of the way women are treated in different countries is related to their cultures. They are not apt to be open to large changes - see also the Middle East.
The treatment of women is symptom and not cause. You need to look at cultures, also recognizing that cultures are generally NOT amenable to rapid change, let alone change by legal mandate.
I prefer to yield to the experts on policy and wish you poor bastards the best of luck for all of us. I'm just one vote, which my ancestors bled to gift me. I'll be damned if I don't use it.
Simple ignorance. There's been studies on the general knowledge of Americans and it's widely subpar. A large majority, in one study, couldn't even name their state capital city.
Such is why some Americans, before recent Ukraine and Russia, still thought we were in the Cold War whereas the rest of the world wasn't still living 50 years in the past.
.
Another aspect is inferiority.
Though Americans love to think theirs in a superior country, it's not. As such the American inferior mentality and pettiness means they acts like tots towards others.
Take as example robotics. Military "robotic" dog - google it - as example.
If you were to compare American robotics versus say Chinese or Japanese it is like comparing something dug out from the garbage versus actual functional robotics.
Throughout history most of the outstanding inventors in America aren't American (such as Musk) or of recent immigration (in their parents or grandparents were immigrants).
.
So in short it's better to pretend that a better region doesn't exist rather than admit one's own inferiorities.
I think part of the challenge is the different mindsets of European politicians and American politicians. One of the largest issues is amount of GDP spent on defense. European politicians consistently have under funded their own National Defense, which makes many American politicians wary. As an example, Trump pointed out that most NATO members had not contributed their promised monies, which leads to the others making up the shortfall. And then you have the natural competition between different nations regarding trade, and it makes for a situation that isn’t easily overcome.
I am not saying that I am right, but those could be potential issues with how European citizens and American citizens view each other.
USA has more or less always been an isolationist country, not necessarily based on their government which understands geopolitics better but rather the people. USA is a country that is very safe and has access to pretty much everything it could ever want, ranging from resources to good neighbors and a winning geography that makes it about as safe as you could possibly be on your "island fortress".
As such you can afford to look inwards and ignore foreign concerns and threats as if it does not concern yourself. However, this is a short sighted view as anyone with experience knows and especially would not work for USA as they are today.
USA today is the super power of the world. This is not a measurement of the nations strength or something you can really build up by focusing inwards but rather a rough estimate of your influence on the rest of the world. This is something that Americans have a problem grasping at. They think USA is number 1 and the super power because they are that strong rather than the fact that it comes from their direct and soft diplomatic power.
Unlike when the British for example were the super power it was super obvious that one shitty little island was not important because of who or what was on it but rather their ability to control the rest of the world, this is not as clear for USA. America just feels so powerful by itself that you could easily forget about the less tangible stuff around it even though that is in reality the important part.
In a way I guess its a form of laziness. Recognizing the at glance strength of USA while doing the minimum amount of thinking and reading up on the actual core of the foundations.
I agree with your argument. That's why, through the examples I've given, I've tried to convince my American readers of the crucial importance of Europe.
I didn't take monoprise's comment the wrong way, he gave his arguments while remaining courteous and that's not bad at all, because on social networks it's not uncommon to come across people who insult you to present their arguments.
But Monoprise seems to naively think that trade isn't important, that the USA can do without it. Which is obviously not the case, because to a certain extent the USA needs access to certain essential products, such as semiconductors. Even if the USA manufactures them, it doesn't do so at the same technological level as Taiwan, and Taiwan itself depends on two of the most advanced European companies in these technologies. So if the USA were to be deprived of this access (and the world economy with it), the repercussions would be considerable. What's more, there are things that would be difficult to calculate if the USA were deprived of trade, such as increased unemployment, recession, loss of confidence in the American economy, and so on.
In the end, to a certain extent it's true that the Americans have a huge domestic market, considerable production capacity and enormous natural resources. All of which means they have the means to fulfill their global ambitions.
But to think that the USA doesn't need trade, and that Europe is insignificant to American interests, would simply be to lead the USA into disaster.
Europe is insignificant to American interests. What do you really provide to us? Zilch.
Go to any store in America and the vast majority of products are made in China, Singapore, Thailand, or India.
@Julie4 Look. I love France. Truly. But not once in my entire life have I ever purchased a product that said “made in France.” It’s literally never happened.
Nor have I ever purchased any products from Sweden @Soteris because I’m not lame and don’t want to waste money on shoddy craftsmanship.
In fact, other than English or German beer, I rarely, if ever, buy ANY products from Europe.
The Germans do make some good audio equipment. 👍
Unfortunately, @Julie4 the real reason why America is in Europe at all is simple. Your countries are convenient places to put military bases. We have turned your continent into bus stops and airplane terminals. Thats all it means for Americans. A place for us to refuel. Nothing more. You provide us with very, very little.
You may disagree, or even be insulted, but well, that’s just how it is. We barely even think about you. Perhaps if you actually provided products that Americans used, or if you could bring yourselves to not insult us (while simultaneously asking us for money) we may feel closer to Europe. As it is we pay you little attention. We just don’t care.
American citizens don't care about America, and neither do European citizens. But their leaders do, because they understand the true interests of their nations.
You say you don't buy European products, that's fine, but you don't represent the entire American population. What's more, Europe is America's biggest trading partner, so you have to take into account not only imports but also exports. And in reality, indirectly, your technological products and those of the whole world, from TVs and telephones to the most sophisticated military weaponry, need specific technology. This specific technology could not exist without two very specific European companies (for your information, the USA has asked these two European companies to stop collaborating with China). ), deprive the USA of this, plus the other things I've mentioned above, add to this the consequences that are difficult to measure, and you'll understand why the USA has an interest in staying in Europe.
At the end of the day, Americans (the people) and Europeans too, don't realize what their real interests are, and react out of emotion. Fortunately, our leaders don't.
@Julie4 See what I mean? They simply dont get it. They think they have everything they need within their own national borders and that they can just afford to ignore the rest of the world without there being any consequences coming their way. They can't see the greater geopolitical system at play which is what is supporting their own country.
I would be perturbed if the US did withdraw from Nato though I think European countries have withdrawn first to a significant degree by reducing their military spending and stocks.
The US was last man standing after WW2. It's percentage of world GDP was 50% and it had 80% of currency reserves. It was the only one that could spend back then and it needed a coalition against Russia. Nato's purpose was to keep Russia out and Germany down. The first remains but the second has changed.
Now at 13.5% of world GDP, I could see US views changing wrt to how much they contribute to European security. The EU GDP is about the same. So a "this ain't fair" factor could easily come into it.
East Asia is clearly highly important if only for chips and the threats from China. I think the US view is that they can handle Russia or China but not both. So given it is not 1946 anymore the US might be entitled to expect Europe to handle Russian revanchism.
The US is pretty well able to be isolationist being in the middle of two oceans with not much dependency on trade. Zeihan argues this well in a different context but it should also apply to an isolationist approach.
I do hope the US does not retreat into isolationism but it does seem that European countries need to do more as do east Asian countries. Japan, South Korea, plus Australia & India.
That's my thoughts. I will watch this new Napoleon movie for sure.
You seems to naively think that trade isn't important, that the USA can do without it. Which is obviously not the case, because to a certain extent the USA needs access to certain essential products, such as semiconductors. Even if the USA manufactures them, it doesn't do so at the same technological level as Taiwan, and Taiwan itself depends on two of the most advanced European companies in these technologies. So if the USA were to be deprived of this access (and the world economy with it), the repercussions would be considerable. What's more, there are things that would be difficult to calculate if the USA were deprived of trade, such as increased unemployment, recession, loss of confidence in the American economy, and so on.
In the end, to a certain extent it's true that the Americans have a huge domestic market, considerable production capacity and enormous natural resources. All of which means they have the means to fulfill their global ambitions.
But to think that the USA doesn't need trade, and that Europe is insignificant to American interests, would simply be to lead the USA into disaster.
Don't forget that beyond security reasons, the USA intervened in two world wars to allow free trade in Europe ,
Not so naively I think. Human decision making is not that advanced from chimps. It is in terms of reasoned global politics for sure but part of the US electorate will reason much more simply, which is kinda the question.
In both WW1 & 2 the US was very isolationist. Wilson I think campaigned on keeping the US out but seemed to actually have a different objective after re-election. In WW2 US was again very isolationist. Lindyberg was a strong campaigner against. I think the strongest support before WW2 was 70% for war against Japan before Pearl harbor. After Pearl Harbor US declared war on Japan but not Germany.
I listened to Roosevelt's fire side 'arsenal speech' yesterday by co-incidence and it was preparatory I'd have to say. Both those Presidents seem to have had a strong view and direction. In WW1 it needed the Zimmerman telegram and in WW2 the US let Germany declare war. I would think those two Presidents didn't feel strong enough to carry the congress/country before then is my guess.
This is where my major doubt is. Is the US Presidency/congress able to convince the American people. The republican candidates seem to be in a different direction.
On technology the closest analogue we have is Philips in WW2 who made field radios for the Germans - I suppose they didn't have much choice. Yes ASML ( a philips' spin off) is critical and so is Zeis. We do focus on TSMC (another Philips spin off) a lot more than ASML but either ceasing to function would be a significant.
Plug for Chip War by Miller. Worth reading if you haven't yet.
It is not as if I disagree with what you say and I do hope it is so. I think we need to be mindful of risks in a lot of ways and one of them is the presidential campaign and election.
Well, the USA couldn't let Japan dominate for reasons of national security anyway , and Europe, for reasons of security and trade, couldn't let a single power dominate the continent.
Indeed, the Americans were slow to enter the two world wars, but they had to convince public opinion of the need to send American soldiers to die for American interests. And don't forget that the U. S. couldn't easily get involved in the war, because the German submarines were doing a lot of damage. In the end, there are many reasons why the USA didn't get involved from the outset, but they did in the end.
And American public opinion is mistaken if it thinks it can do without Europe.
But you're right if you've tried to explain to me why the American public thinks they can do without Europe. In fact, I'd have to say that if you were to poll the world's different opinions on the respective national interests of their countries, the vast majority of people would be quite unable to say what the interests of their nations were.
That was my focus without trying to suggest the best interests of the US. I like the US hegemony and hope it can be preserved past the current problems.
Yes I think the average citizen would struggle to identify the national interests of their country. Freedom of the seas & submarine cables are a vital interest to us because we are an island but that is a point rarely made by our politicians. So you cannot blame the average Joe for not thinking that when domestic politics are about mortgage rates and inflation.
Of course we value our own country 1st and Europe 2nd.
You kind of point out why in trying to point out benefits of America influence Eurasia. While our political leaders in Washington D. C. are driven by such power and control over the world.
The benefit to the American people of the enormous expense of securing Europe and having such influence in Asia is far less and more difficult to argue.
Take the Ukrainian war for example. There is little to no benefit to America in the Ukraine winning or losing. A Ukrainian victory is almost exclusively benefit to the Ukrainians and Europe. We Americans by contrast really only lose with a weak and alienated Russia compromising our security against real threats like China in the pacific.
Remember we Americans are in North America separated by huge oceans from Eurasia. We make everything we need here, so even if the trade benefits were at threat we would be ok. The only powers that can really threaten us are either here with us in Americas (like Mexico & Canada) or would need the logistical capability to wage war across the ocean.
Which no country on Earth possesses and only countries with economies China, or Europe even has the capability to acquire. So if Europe is useless or friendly Russia is poor or incompetent, then China is the only real threat to theses united States outside of the Americas.
Inside the America we have problem with drug cartels in Mexico, large scale invasion colonist from the south threatening our culture and frankly the viability of our economy for our low skilled/young.
Theses are big problems, which defending Europe, from threats they dwarf doesn't help but take large amounts of resources from.
Let me present to you for your own convenience, Exhibit A of someone who does not get it and does not understand geopolitics.
Common talking points include: Isolationism, "Of course we value our own country 1st"
Poor cost/benefit analysis, "There is little to no benefit to America in the Ukraine", "The benefit to the American People of the enormous expensive of securing Europe and having such influence in Asia"
More Isolationism, "We make everything we need here", "Remember we Americans are in North America separated by huge oceans from Euroasia"
Inability to accept real threats, "even if the trade benefits were at threat we would be ok"
On the side note, they often also believe in made up threats such as drug cartels, immigration and culture wars but this is more a problem originating from corruption in politics rather than problems understanding geopolitics.
@Soteris declaring someone's concerns made up is not making any case that they are.
I said Russia is not a real threat because they don't have the economy required to be one. This fact was demonstrated correct by their failure to take the comparatively tiny next door country of the Ukraine, a country they should have been able to easily overrun.
China by contrasts now has a larger navy than theses united states, thou it isn't of the sort needed to facilitate an invasion of America china has the ship building and logistical capability to build such a fleet in relatively short order. This makes china a REAL threat to America.
The Mexican drug cartels are indeed a threat being already here killing large numbers of people both indirectly with drugs and directly. They are also undermining our political stability via blackmail and corruption of border towns to help facilitate their deadly invasion.
The fact that this is a political problem in that many of our politicians refuse to do anything about it does not set it apart from any other military threat. It is nonetheless a far more significant problem to theses united States than Russia. The body count proves that fact.
What you just said is incredibly wrong. First of all, the fact that Russia failed to invade Ukraine has nothing to do with its size of economy, just like how USA has failed to invade countries in the middle east. You dont just automatically win because your army is bigger or better. I have talked extensively about why on this website so ill just move on.
China is also not nearly as militarily scary as you think it is. Politicians in USA wants to hype up the danger of China to make them out to be a credible enemy to rally against for their own political benefit. China is also a very performative country that is very concerned about its appearances, including making their military look more powerful than it actually is.
In reality, USA has been down-scaling its navy while at the same time increasing its effectiveness. This is not World War 2, numbers alone mean nothing, and that quality is something that the Chinese navy just dont have. You only need to look at the pathetic state of Chinas carrier program to see how far behind they actually are.
As for the drug cartels and immigration? Those are problems that cost you lives and money on a civilian scale AKA a task for the police rather than the military. What it does not do however is endanger your position as a super power. Having USA lose influence around the world such as Russia winning in Ukraine or Europe cutting ties however would be actively undermining USA as a super power. This is not something so easily quantified but as a wise man once said.
"Remember we Americans are in North America separated by huge oceans from Eurasia.". You are an ocean away from either side of the rest of the world. If you lose relevance then you risk becoming isolated and ignored. That alone would mean that USA get left behind as the rest of the world continues its development into the future. It is in USAs best interest to eliminate that distance as much as possible since its your best asset but also your worst enemy.
@Soteris Looking thou a little of your history it seems your argument boils down to the hypothsese that Russia could have used resources more wisely which is frankly true of every country in theory.
The reality every country deals with corruption some more than others, and the Russians HAVE carried out successful military operations numerous times before such as most recently in georga.
Economy matters, it enables you to buy the resources you need and supply your army properly, as well as overcome the cost of corruption and even pay people to help you get rid of it.
China has an economy as does Europe where they can do this well enough to be a threat to the US. Russia does not anymore, Russia doesn't even have a population large enough to support a successfully campaign on a peer level against Europe next door much less America on the other side of the oceans.
As such beyond their nuclear weapons Russia is not a real threat to either Europe or America anymore. The real threat to America is china with 5 times as many people as we have an an economy that rivals our own. That means they not only have the means to build and sustain a military but the numbers to afford to put enough of them in North America to really threaten us.
China's main weakness is access to natural resources which Ironically is Russia's main strength. As such a Russia that is too weak to say no to China is in fact a major threat both military and economic both to theses united states and frankly Europe.
Russia running the Ukraine hardly matters compared to that.
While it is true that Russia had a successful invasion of Georgia, it only happened after already losing the first invasion and having to go back home to lick their wounds. Even other successes like the occupation of Crimea by the "little green men" were actually exposing just how badly Russia was prepared for a war at that time but because it still resulted in a success it does not look like anyone actually took too much notice of it, least of all the Russians themselves.
But that is besides the point really. USA is not under threat, aside from arguably nuclear Armageddon. Even during the cold war against the USSR there was no actual reason to assume the Soviets could have invaded North America. That is not what was at stake at that time. What USA has been fighting for all this time is not personal safety but world wide influence, the super power status. It is what powers you and enables you to continue as you are.
The moment you lose your influence around the world then your turn as a super power is over. It does not matter how powerful you are, how big your economy is or how strong your geography is. Without world wide influence you are just one country among many.
Super power status is not an economic game, its a political game.
@Soteris While you can argue that our politicians were fighting for global domination, the fear during the cold war was Russia could upon taking western Europe requite the means to invade and conquer North America, or simply destroy it with nukes.
Regardless Russia is not in a position to do that, only China, and Europe are in a position to do that.
As for global influence being key to American success I must strongly disagree there, we were a very successful country in the 19th century, without worrying about the world as a whole and simply trading with whom ever was willing, we will be again.
Few countries have a good reason not to trade with a high income country. So we are basically just concerned about communist ideology ending the trade and freedom altogether. In this regard we need to focus on containing the CCP and withdraw from enabling European idiocy.
As it stands for the 20th century we are a part of the European problem, in that we have allowed far left European political projects to thrive on all the money Europe would otherwise have invested in their defense if not for the American defensive umbrella.
European politicians freed from the need to defend themselfs have instead invested all that money waging war upon their own people's freedom and self-reliance.
They have ignored the critical underlining well-being of their own country's youth in importing large numbers of migrants to drive down the wages of their entry level jobs to better line their own pockets and buy votes with.
No one with any knowledge of military matters were concerned about an invasion of USA. That is not a thing. Remember D-day? That short hop over the English channel? That is among the most difficult military operations ever orchestrated by humanity. Doing something like that but across an entire ocean is not possible with todays technology.
China can't do it. USA can't do it. If it were not for your allies and bases around the world then you would be stuck in North America yourself.
As for trading, there is always an incentive to trade with your closest neighbors. Luckily for USA you got both Mexico and Canada as good trading partners. But its important to remember that once again, you have an ocean to overcome anytime you want to trade with the rest of the world. That means your products are inherently less competitive in other markets. Furthermore, following the success of the EU as a trading block this is spreading across the world with different regions making their own versions of single markets.
That means that in the future your products will always be competing against free local trade. Unless you can undercut everyone else or sell something that no one else can then you are going to struggle selling anything. Granted, you might be able to negotiate free trade deals but that goes against your isolationist ideology.
I also can't respect anyone who talks about "entry level jobs" as if some careers should be inferior and beneath people who are not desperate. All you are doing is creating a class system.
@Soteris You are making the case for why Americans should be against letting our politicians wast enormous amounts of resources in military adventures on the other-side of the world in Africa and Eursasia. We should be focused on the more realistic and practical threats on our southern border and increasingly with Canada's new policies northern borders as well.
That said your overstating the difficulty of such an operation, and our reliance upon allies. A nation need merely establish navel superiority then taking islands to build up a large invasion force is easy. China and Europe have the economy, manpower, and resources to build the fleet necessary to do this, and America already has such a fleet.
This is why maintaining naval and air superiority is soo important. Modern tecnoligy can make a sneak attack more diffiuclt but hiding the required invasion force was not plausible even 80 years ago.
I don't see how the fact that it is more advantageous to trade with your neighbors than someone on the other side of the world does anything other than buster the so called American "isolationist" position. That said the cost of international trade today with large efficient cargo ships, and air-cargo is relatively low, or we would not see soo much of it.
More consequential are differences in rules and other cultural trade barriers. The UK for example would benefit enormously more from a free trade and common labor market with the US and Canada than from the same relationships with the EU because it is linguistically, culturally soo easy for them to integrate with our workforce.
Granted such a relationships with the US market would due to the very poor regulatory burdens of the British goverment largely empty Brittan of much of its people. Who would be offered far higher paying jobs in the States.
This temporary problem however would force the British goverment to reform.
I am the last person who is going to defend USA's stupid use of violence around the world but that is not to say all, or even most has been for naught. For example, your navy has guaranteed the safety of shipping around the world which has included dealing with things like Somali pirates. This is because the current trade network benefits USA. If this network were to break down, then USA is the one losing out.
Also in regards to amphibious landings, I am not overstating anything. If anything I am understating just how insane and monumental D-day actually was. USA today would have to spend years to rebuild that same capability it had back then and once again, that was just to make a short hop over the English channel. You can't do that over an ocean. No one can.
And D-day was crazy even when the Allies had full naval and air superiority combined with a successful deception campaign. Even then it was something you had to dedicate to 110% and almost failed. You simply do not understand the magnitude of the problem here.
You are also underestimating local trade. Sure, sea trade is inexpensive and such but it is still a hurdle to trade and something that does not exist among neighbors. There is a lot more trade between EU members than trade between EU and USA or EU and China for example.
And no. The UK is struggling really badly right now after Brexit and they have been unable to enact border controls because it would disrupt their trade too badly which means anyone can smuggle anything into the UK right now without fear.
What has kept USA ahead is your super power status. How you can gain extra benefits around the world that others dont have. Isolationism removes this and makes you just another country.
@Soteris We launch amphibious invasions all the time, In fact even in world war 2 D-Day was just 1 example most unusual only in its scale and most notability the less than professional way it was carried out by the U. S. Army who frankly are not the normal service carrying out invasions as that task then like today is the job of the USMC. On D-day in world war 2 however the USMC was preoccupied carrying out countless amphibious invasions across the pacific.
No it doesn't take years, and frankly D-Day was such a big deal mostly because of how heavy defended that particular beach was. A matter of some incompetents as the NAVY failed to take out the coastal defenses. In reality even in Europe the U. S. army was already in italy moving North.
So no, it is not that big of a deal. The hard part is keeping the army supplied and that simply requires naval superiority and a Merchant marine force able to transport soo much across such an ocean.
England was not invaded by nepolean or The NAZI's because neither had naval superiority. Both china and Europe as a whole however given enough time are capable of building navies capable of such naval superiority, and already have merchant marines that could be converted to supply such an army.
Sure, you can make an amphibious assault if you want. That is not going to conquer a nation the size of USA though. For that you need a sustained invasion, something that requires a sustained assault on a far larger scale.
In D-day it took 24 days to land approximately over 850,000 men, 148,000 vehicles, and 570,000 tons of supplies. This would be worse today since modern soldiers carry more supplies and uses much more to maintain modern equipment not to mention the greater weight of modern vehicles and extra requirements.
USA can't do this today nor can any other country. If they spent like 5 years or more preparing then maybe they could recreate a D-day over the English channel. Extrapolating this to across an ocean however and USA is orders of magnitude short on what would be required. Furthermore, the ships needs to be quick to unload since even if you built an artificial harbor like on D-day you will be limited on how many ships can dock at the same time.
As such you need fewer big ships and more medium to smaller ships which makes this mess even worse. Also, modern container ships would be next to useless since they require port infrastructure which would either not exist or would be easily destroyed so dont expect too much help from the private sector.
Lastly, only really 1 to 3 beaches were heavily defended based on where you draw that line and much of that was due to the screwups of the invasion forces rather than the prepared defenses. I think the lowest numbers were around 200 losses and the highest were around 3000.
I know Americans don't agree with everything Europe has done historically. But I don't know anyone who doesn't see Europe as important. I'd rank Europe with Canada as our most important allies, then Japan and Australia. Everyone else can take a back seat. We want America first, and everyone else second. We want you guys to put Europe first, and us second. Look out for yourselves and protect yourselves. Sometimes our interests will align as mutually beneficial, more times than not. I don't see that changing anytime soon. You got border problems, and so do we.
As an American I would think more highly of your comments on NATO if all members of the alliance actually spent their fair share on defense. Years ago the alliance members agreed to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense. As of last year only about 7 of the members met their obligations. Major European countries like France, Germany, Italy and Spain (as well as Canada) failed to meet their obligations. Tiny Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania met their obligations.
NATO countries in Europe collectively have approximately the same amount of wealth as the United States. Yet for far too long the majority of those countries have freeloaded off the United States' taxpayers. (The U. S. more than meets its obligation by spending approximately 3.5% on defense.) It's past time for Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own defense.
Rather than spending so much wasted money on a military with a global footprint, it would make more sense to relocate key European and Taiwanese industry to the US, and bring the employees and executives with it, giving them US citizenship.
The EU will continue to decline as a percentage of the world economy and will therefore become of less importance to the US, to which it is an economic competitor as well as a military dependency. Since the population of people descended from European immigrants declines in the US, so to will interest in the region.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
6 mo
Please @julie4 No offense, but most Europeans seem to really look down on America and Americans. Just loo at the way the Europeans on here (you are literally the only exception that comes to mind) make it a point to say some demeaning, derogatory comments about how (fill in the blank) Americans are.
The Germans, Swedes, and Brits on this site are especially nasty.
Much as I love parts of Europe after having both lived there and traveled throughout it, frankly I would prefer it if America had nothing to do with the whole bloody continent ever again. All you do is just insult us.
Wow, you sure are easy to influence if insulting you is enough to make you sabotage your own country. Talk about being a snowflake. There is no room for feelings in geopolitics however which is why you fail so badly.
@soteris and @julie4 See what I mean? See how long it took for some POS to insult Americans? And you seriously expect me to care about Europe or Europeans? Why?
@julie4 YOU didn’t. Soteris did. You asked why Americans aren’t interested in Europe. He just demonstrated why. Because Europeans, like him, hate Americans. Why? Because I guess things are just that lame and boring in Sweden.
Some Americans have always felt that other countries are not as important as the US. That's why teh US was neutral in WW-I and WW-II... until forced into the war.
The situation today has not changed that much, though the media is hyping up the feeling of American neutrality and at-homeness.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
6 mo
maybe because america has so many shit heel races now there's no link to Europe anymore..
or maybe Americans have been inhaling so deeply of their own dutch oven culture for so long theyre braindead from prolonged methane exposure.
Or perhaps they babytalked themselves into a mass second childhood.
Or theyre only interested in fresh countries to invade and Europe is been there done that.
or it could all be in your head and you just need a good nap.
Europeans take advantage of the US. NATO is primarily the US, Europe does not have strong militaries as they spend their money elsewhere. The UK, Poland and some others do but others like Germany do not. Then they don’t really support the US like Germany sending billions to Russia for cheap fuel. Germany is their largest economy and the least helpful. We would be better served letting them form their own defense without us and then see of they are a good alliance partner.
I think it would be foolish to compromise the US relationship. I hadn't heard of the premise that our economy is being ruined via NATO. Sounds like sonething Trump would say. We need EU 100%.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Why do some Americans seem to think that Europe is no longer important to their interests and that the US should concentrate elsewhere?
