4 ms·

What we got, and get, out of supporting Western Europe at the end of WWII was that otherwise, the entire continent would have been run by the Soviet Union. Not

What we got, and get, out of supporting Western Europe at the end of WWII was that otherwise, the entire continent would have been run by the Soviet Union. Not just that, we got a valuable trading partner, and our rebuilding put an end to hundreds of years of European wars. Not that you might care about the moral aspect of it, but we also finished Nazi Germany and prevented that horror from taking over the world. What we got out of expanding the alliance to Eastern Europe was a further bulwark against Russia, which has always been an expansionist totalitarian empire that enslaves or kills anyone who disagrees with the dictator. It's no different now than it was under the czars. Europe is basically America's backyard now, and Russia wants it. Giving up your backyard because your violent neighbor threatens you for it, doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak.

DamnYuppie 2y ago
I am aware of the long history we have with Europe and how it came to be. Yet I am in the present and I no longer care what we look like to the rest of the world. I see problems at home and these are far more concerning to me then Russia taking over Europe. China is a much bigger enemy of America's in the Pacific. We should be focusing our defense spending there. Let Europe stand for Europe. No matter what happens America will be blamed and shamed, we didn't spend enough, we didn't xxxx enough, if only America had done yyyy zzzz wouldn't have happened, and on and on. So I am all for putting Americas interests first. Also I find your last sentence to be the antithesis of what I am talking about. Why does America look weak? Wouldn't Europe look much weaker??? It feels like gaslighting, like someone will call you names so you need to come and die for us! It gets old.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  Regarding the ukraine war I don't remember any tangible criticism regarding the US. That would be way too hypocritical considering Europe aid has been too slow. At least nobody in my circle was asking more of the US. I really think you're being played. Also so far market are down, prices are up. Was it the best administration to deal with problems ? I understand the parent last sentence differently. Considering America's might, giving in to a mediocre aggressor seems weak. It's not that you have to do it, but it was the previous foreign policy / aura of the USA. Leader of the free world IIRC. Now you're free to change course. But it would be wise to operate smoothly.
- mongol 2y ago
  America looks weak because it has just lost the cold war. All the effort spent since 1945 to counter authoritarian superpowers have been thrown in the bin. Instead it turned into one itself. It is pathetic.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Pathetic is to have an authoritarian superpower on the same continent as you for 80 years and still opting to rely on a superpower an ocean away to be the primary defender of your interests. Some of the countries in Europe to take a cue from Finland and not outsource its defense.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      sorry, what did Finland do beginning in 1945, until the Soviet Union broke apart?
      - kcplate 2y ago
        Sorry, I think my sentence was not very clear there. Finland always seemed to be very sensible when it came to its country’s security. I realize “Finlandization” may have had a negative context but during that time Finland made sure it was prepared as militarily as possible if its political “non-alignment” approach failed. It didn’t assume anything. My point was their approach to their security vs outsourcing defense was a more pragmatic approach considering where we have ended up in 2025 and one that other countries in Europe should have probably followed. If and when your “strong” partner moves away from your interests, you still need internal strength. To a degree Europe (save for a few countries) never expected their strong partner to get wishy-washy on their interests.
  - DamnYuppie 2y ago
    The cold war ended when the USSR ceased to exist. Russia of today looks much more similar to Europe of the 70's and 80's than it does to the USSR. It also looks weird that the "allies" spend so much money with Russia but worry about them so.
- k12sosse 2y ago
  Wagner took refugees from Africa and collaborated with south America to run them up to your southern border.
  - DamnYuppie 2y ago
    Like I said bigger problems at home. That Southern border is a mess and needs to be addressed. That is America's largest security issue as it is how anyone will get into America. Well that and Canada, but they are less violent thus far then what is coming from the south.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure America doesn't have to give up its world power just to deal with its southern border. If it does, it's going to be a lot weaker on both.
      - DamnYuppie 2y ago
        Define "giving up world power." Because last I checked, being a world power means taking care of your own nation first, ensuring its security, economy, and people are strong. If America can’t even secure its own borders, prevent foreign influence on its soil, or manage its own spending, then what exactly are we protecting? Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad. Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.
- dangjc 2y ago
  This weakens the US against China. Europeans have no stake in a big Pacific conflict and will be much less interested to back US war mongering now. It’s short sighted for us to forego alliances that were helping us build a world order and a trading bloc that isolated China.
- noduerme 2y ago
  My last sentence was the sum of what I'm saying. America is powerful because it operates as a global empire. Not by holding land, but by maintaining alliances. Everything you think is wrong at home right now would be infinitely worse if we didn't control global trade, force the rest of the world to buy our debt, and use soft/hard power to shut down every other actor from the Chinese Communist Party to ISIS - over there, not over here. A lot of people in America, on both left and right, loathe the fact that we are this gargantuan empire. But the reality is, once you're at the top of the food chain, there is no easy exit. If America stopped being the world's only superpower, it would become a third world country immediately. You point out that America will get blamed for X,Y and Z. Of course. It already does. The only reason you don't experience the immediate consequences of that is that America (until today) held a lot of global sway. You can't just opt out of your alliances and still expect to have the preferential treatment you have, or the power you had. We live in a republic that functions as a global empire. If we weren't that global empire, we would be Argentina or Brazil. You want to give up generations of investment in American supremacy for... what, exactly? Problems at home will not get better if America withdraws from the world. They will get much worse, because the only thing keeping this country from being a disaster is the fact that it is central to the world order. And the only people who want it to not be central to the world order, who want to destroy the functions of government and weaken us on the world stage, are the autocrats who find America to be a beacon that they wish their populations didn't have to look at. America is not perfect and you can be Bernie or Tucker or Trump and argue that we have no business doing it, but it's a lot better for you, me, and the rest of the free world that America is in charge of maintaining order than to have no one in charge of that. So my statement was not that Europe looks weak, but that Europe is already America's plaything. Only a traitor would hand it over to the enemy.
kcplate 2y ago
> doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak. Not really sure I care if the neighbors across the water think we look weak just because we don’t want to defend them because they don’t want to be strong. And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak…
- cheesemonster 2y ago
  [dead]
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  > And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak… Claiming to be strong without any displays of actual strength, both in soft and hard power, is a very typically weak behavior.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Yeah, because any one of those 11 CSGs that scare the living shit out of pretty much everyone who opposes the US are nearby are very weak.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  And the us has called for that and the sabotaged that with policies again and again. The military industrial complex doesn't want a thriving europe at arms. And the Russians supported every longterm self defeating movement. And they won, first in europe, then in the us, finally in this thread .
etc-hosts 2y ago
> Not that you might care about the moral aspect of it, but we also finished Nazi Germany and prevented that horror from taking over the world. There's a lot of research on how the Allies helped move many Nazi war criminals to safe havens in other countries, help the remaining Nazis into positions in government and business in West Germany, used the remaining Nazis as intelligence networks, helped them organize into wild-eyed anti-Communist cells all over the world, and of course absorbed several Nazi scientists into research institutions in the US. In a moment of madness Churchill put out a plan to hire the Wehrmacht after their defeat to go invade the real enemy, the Soviet Union.

DamnYuppie 2y ago

I am aware of the long history we have with Europe and how it came to be. Yet I am in the present and I no longer care what we look like to the rest of the world. I see problems at home and these are far more concerning to me then Russia taking over Europe. China is a much bigger enemy of America's in the Pacific. We should be focusing our defense spending there. Let Europe stand for Europe. No matter what happens America will be blamed and shamed, we didn't spend enough, we didn't xxxx enough, if only America had done yyyy zzzz wouldn't have happened, and on and on. So I am all for putting Americas interests first. Also I find your last sentence to be the antithesis of what I am talking about. Why does America look weak? Wouldn't Europe look much weaker??? It feels like gaslighting, like someone will call you names so you need to come and die for us! It gets old.

agumonkey 2y ago
Regarding the ukraine war I don't remember any tangible criticism regarding the US. That would be way too hypocritical considering Europe aid has been too slow. At least nobody in my circle was asking more of the US. I really think you're being played. Also so far market are down, prices are up. Was it the best administration to deal with problems ? I understand the parent last sentence differently. Considering America's might, giving in to a mediocre aggressor seems weak. It's not that you have to do it, but it was the previous foreign policy / aura of the USA. Leader of the free world IIRC. Now you're free to change course. But it would be wise to operate smoothly.
mongol 2y ago
America looks weak because it has just lost the cold war. All the effort spent since 1945 to counter authoritarian superpowers have been thrown in the bin. Instead it turned into one itself. It is pathetic.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Pathetic is to have an authoritarian superpower on the same continent as you for 80 years and still opting to rely on a superpower an ocean away to be the primary defender of your interests. Some of the countries in Europe to take a cue from Finland and not outsource its defense.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    sorry, what did Finland do beginning in 1945, until the Soviet Union broke apart?
    - kcplate 2y ago
      Sorry, I think my sentence was not very clear there. Finland always seemed to be very sensible when it came to its country’s security. I realize “Finlandization” may have had a negative context but during that time Finland made sure it was prepared as militarily as possible if its political “non-alignment” approach failed. It didn’t assume anything. My point was their approach to their security vs outsourcing defense was a more pragmatic approach considering where we have ended up in 2025 and one that other countries in Europe should have probably followed. If and when your “strong” partner moves away from your interests, you still need internal strength. To a degree Europe (save for a few countries) never expected their strong partner to get wishy-washy on their interests.
- DamnYuppie 2y ago
  The cold war ended when the USSR ceased to exist. Russia of today looks much more similar to Europe of the 70's and 80's than it does to the USSR. It also looks weird that the "allies" spend so much money with Russia but worry about them so.
k12sosse 2y ago
Wagner took refugees from Africa and collaborated with south America to run them up to your southern border.
- DamnYuppie 2y ago
  Like I said bigger problems at home. That Southern border is a mess and needs to be addressed. That is America's largest security issue as it is how anyone will get into America. Well that and Canada, but they are less violent thus far then what is coming from the south.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure America doesn't have to give up its world power just to deal with its southern border. If it does, it's going to be a lot weaker on both.
    - DamnYuppie 2y ago
      Define "giving up world power." Because last I checked, being a world power means taking care of your own nation first, ensuring its security, economy, and people are strong. If America can’t even secure its own borders, prevent foreign influence on its soil, or manage its own spending, then what exactly are we protecting? Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad. Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.
dangjc 2y ago
This weakens the US against China. Europeans have no stake in a big Pacific conflict and will be much less interested to back US war mongering now. It’s short sighted for us to forego alliances that were helping us build a world order and a trading bloc that isolated China.
noduerme 2y ago
My last sentence was the sum of what I'm saying. America is powerful because it operates as a global empire. Not by holding land, but by maintaining alliances. Everything you think is wrong at home right now would be infinitely worse if we didn't control global trade, force the rest of the world to buy our debt, and use soft/hard power to shut down every other actor from the Chinese Communist Party to ISIS - over there, not over here. A lot of people in America, on both left and right, loathe the fact that we are this gargantuan empire. But the reality is, once you're at the top of the food chain, there is no easy exit. If America stopped being the world's only superpower, it would become a third world country immediately. You point out that America will get blamed for X,Y and Z. Of course. It already does. The only reason you don't experience the immediate consequences of that is that America (until today) held a lot of global sway. You can't just opt out of your alliances and still expect to have the preferential treatment you have, or the power you had. We live in a republic that functions as a global empire. If we weren't that global empire, we would be Argentina or Brazil. You want to give up generations of investment in American supremacy for... what, exactly? Problems at home will not get better if America withdraws from the world. They will get much worse, because the only thing keeping this country from being a disaster is the fact that it is central to the world order. And the only people who want it to not be central to the world order, who want to destroy the functions of government and weaken us on the world stage, are the autocrats who find America to be a beacon that they wish their populations didn't have to look at. America is not perfect and you can be Bernie or Tucker or Trump and argue that we have no business doing it, but it's a lot better for you, me, and the rest of the free world that America is in charge of maintaining order than to have no one in charge of that. So my statement was not that Europe looks weak, but that Europe is already America's plaything. Only a traitor would hand it over to the enemy.

kcplate 2y ago

> doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak. Not really sure I care if the neighbors across the water think we look weak just because we don’t want to defend them because they don’t want to be strong. And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak…

cheesemonster 2y ago
[dead]
KittenInABox 2y ago
> And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak… Claiming to be strong without any displays of actual strength, both in soft and hard power, is a very typically weak behavior.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Yeah, because any one of those 11 CSGs that scare the living shit out of pretty much everyone who opposes the US are nearby are very weak.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
And the us has called for that and the sabotaged that with policies again and again. The military industrial complex doesn't want a thriving europe at arms. And the Russians supported every longterm self defeating movement. And they won, first in europe, then in the us, finally in this thread .

etc-hosts 2y ago

> Not that you might care about the moral aspect of it, but we also finished Nazi Germany and prevented that horror from taking over the world. There's a lot of research on how the Allies helped move many Nazi war criminals to safe havens in other countries, help the remaining Nazis into positions in government and business in West Germany, used the remaining Nazis as intelligence networks, helped them organize into wild-eyed anti-Communist cells all over the world, and of course absorbed several Nazi scientists into research institutions in the US. In a moment of madness Churchill put out a plan to hire the Wehrmacht after their defeat to go invade the real enemy, the Soviet Union.