7 ms·

There is a weird attitude among European elites where on the one hand, they point out how European countries have always been in a subservient position within t

There is a weird attitude among European elites where on the one hand, they point out how European countries have always been in a subservient position within the American sphere of influence, but then, instead of cheering that this era is ending, they seem to be all upset about it and want their collar to be put back on. Help me understand this. To me it seems that maybe the interests of EU elites differ from the interests of the EU common classes. The EU elites seem to have considered themselves as basically equivalent to American citizens in all but name, and were quite happy selling out their native countries in return for access to America.

MrJohz 2y ago
Can you give some examples of this attitude? I'm not sure I've seen that behaviour anywhere, and it's very difficult to look up examples when your description is so vague.
- _zamorano_ 2y ago
  With Nord Stream, the elites tried to gaslight their population using the media into believeng an stupid made-up story about how Russia blowed up their own pipe. Very convenient for the US, not so for the EU
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Only if it were Russia can Trump stay quiet about Nord Stream, which he has.
    - nbgtqrad 2y ago
      [dead]
- galfarragem 2y ago
  Lol. Just listen to any ‘opinion maker’ on European media - they whine about it 24/7. They’re ‘not happy’ - to say the least - that the status quo has changed.
- _zamorano_ 2y ago
  How about the consequences of US proxy wars? Not a word about the reasons mediterranean european countries keep getting floods of displaced refugees. Maybe if the US stopped bombing their countries, we'd stop getting so many.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    The bombing of Libya was a full NATO operation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i... But yes, the War On Terror completely destabilized such a large area including Syria that it's been a disaster for Europe.
    - tored 2y ago
      Correct, and that is why I argue that Europe is an vassal state, i.e. taking actions against its best interest because the overlord tells them to.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    The internal refugees in Syria occurred because of multi-year drought. Burma, 2008, was a cyclone. Leaving out some theories on proxy war is like leaving out any other kind of challenge.
  - paleotrope 2y ago
    If the US wasn't fighting these "proxy" wars, Euroland would have a lot bigger problems. Refugees are a simple problem to fix. Don't take any.
amarcheschi 2y ago
The people i know (except for the tankie ones such as my high school philosphy professor, that guy was goat) would have preferred a less abrupt usa exit and not one that potentially puts europe security at risk. I do not know enough about the elites to talk about it tho
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  I don't support Trump, but you really can't claim that Europe wasn't warned here. Russia first invaded Ukraine back in 2014. And here's Trump back in 2018, warning about German dependence on Russian gas, and stating that Europe needed to step up defense spending "immediately": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0 This has hardly been "abrupt". Even Obama and Bush were telling Europe to step up defense spending.
  - amarcheschi 2y ago
    Honestly, Trump has said so many things that you can probably find everything and the opposite of everything coming out of his mind. Yes, I do agree that we had been warned and since the Ukrainian invasion defense budgets of European countries increased. I also think such an abrupt change of mind from the US hurts both sides and nobody earns anything from it. Except Russia. Even if European cointries increased spending before, the situation is changing in such a way that even nuclear weapons - something that almost no European country would have wanted if they already hadn't had them - are being taken into consideration to be developed as a nuclear umbrella from France towards other European countries.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      >Honestly, Trump has said so many things that you can probably find everything and the opposite of everything coming out of his mind. I think he's been pretty consistent on the issue of European defense spending, actually. In any case, if Trump is inconsistent, that itself can be considered a warning -- that sometimes the US elects inconsistent presidents. >I also think such an abrupt change of mind from the US hurts both sides and nobody earns anything from it. Nothing short of this "abrupt change" has been successful in getting Europe to take responsibility for its own security. As I said, US presidents have been complaining about this for ages. I hope you finally listen, because my enthusiasm for defending Europe (as an American and a registered Democrat even) is currently quite low: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43459774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43459774 >nuclear umbrella from France towards other European countries We'll see if France actually commits to that, or if it is all talk. If Nation A extends its nuclear umbrella over Nation B, that basically means that Nation A is putting its own cities at risk in case of nuclear retaliation, for the sake of Nation B. As an American, it sort of boggled my mind when I learned that we were putting our own cities at risk for the sake of our allies this way. And it seems that Europe's way of thanking us is to make fun of our healthcare system, accuse us of the non-crime of "cultural imperialism", etc... See what I'm saying about enthusiasm to defend you guys? Something needs to change in the relationship.
jjevanoorschot 2y ago
An important distinction is that US and EU interests aligned on many important areas up until recently. So it was less of a subservient relationship, and more of a mutually beneficial one. Now that the US wants to turn it into a subservient relationship, the EU is naturally looking for other options.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
    about 50% of women in us are Trumpists
    - username135 2y ago
      You mean of the people that voted? Or of the population? Both are different figures and both would be incorrect. A very quick search; https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/18/men-and-w...
      - leereeves 2y ago
        That link is from 2020. Can you find something from 2024?
        username135 2y ago
        Probably, can you?
        2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
watwut 2y ago
What is weird about not liking that former powerful ally is becoming a hostile entity actively trying to harm you? They are not cheering, because what is happening is loose loose situation and they dont like the loose part. Also, buying American tech und military exports in the past was not exactly something shameful. The way you write about it, as if trade was "being slave with a humiliating collar" is weird thinking. > To me it seems that maybe the interests of EU elites differ from the interests of the EU common classes. Common classes in EU are not benefiting from trade war, they are not benefiting from USA annexation threats and they are not benefiting from Russia expanding. > The EU elites seem to have considered themselves as basically equivalent to American citizens in all but name, and were quite happy selling out their native countries in return for access to America. This is nonsensical. You are making stuff up, big time. How is buying American arms a symbol of "considering themselves to be Americans"? I cant recall any call or push to be more America.
isoprophlex 2y ago
I don't recognize this attitude at all. But I'm no elite anywhere. Thinking about it, it's not so weird? We beat the nazis together, we've generally enjoyed world peace, freedom, and the joys of neocolonialism. Things were sailing along just fine. Now things are all weird and fucked up and we have to worry about fucking russia, defense spending in general, the fate of greenland, cloud computing and all that shit? Putting it like that, I'd like things to go back to the way they were too...
- username135 2y ago
  Can't say I disagree.
- huijzer 2y ago
  > We beat the nazis together If you by "we" mean Britain, the United States, and Russia. And by "we" mean the people living 2 generations earlier, then I agree with your statement. As a side note, people who were 18 in 1940, would be 103 today. So most people who fought in the second world war have unfortunately passed away. I personally would never say "We beat the nazis together". The only thing I did was benefit from the war that generations before me have won.
  - hansworst 2y ago
    You’re forgetting Canada. You’re also glossing over the fact that despite losing to the nazis, the occupied countries didn’t exactly just roll over when they got attacked. And during occupation there were resistance movements in those countries too. So there’s definitely a “we” here. And while of course most of those people are dead now, they were all part of cultures that still hold many of the same norms and values as they do today.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    This comment is either bad taste trolling or simply insulting to anyone outside these theee countries that gave their lives to fight sgainst nazis… in Germany too there were people fighting the nazis, just as an example.
  - 2y ago
buyucu 2y ago
Those elites have known nothing but subservience. They simply can't imagine anything else.
usrnm 2y ago
Relying on the US for military protection allowed many European countries to save billions of their own money for years. Undoing this going to be very, very expensive and there is no good understanding where all this money is supposed come from, the main idea right now seems to be massive amounts of debt, which can get very ugly in the long run. It absolutely needs to happen, but I can clearly see why many politicians are not thrilled about the whole thing
- nosianu 2y ago
  > the main idea right now seems to be massive amounts of debt, which can get very ugly in the long run The economy, unlike one's personal finances, is a circle. Unless the Europeans buy abroad, all that money is going to stay in Europe, circulating and stimulating the economy. Even if it's "only" arms, spending it to maintain industry is way better than many alternatives. Manufacturing infrastructure and lots of skilled jobs and workers, sounds good to me to have. "Debt" is just a number, and if you are in a strong enough position you can always change policies around the purely virtual "money". Finance/money is supposed to be the virtual control system, and the real world thing it is supposed to help to steer is everything real and what we actually care about. In all other areas we would never accept that the control system becomes the target!! The target is always the real thing, and we will adjust the control system to achieve the desired outcomes. Not so with finance! It has taken on a life of its own, and the vast majority of people will gladly and unthinkingly subordinate the real world to its whims. Something that makes at least a little bit of sense for the individual makes no sense for the economy though. We have people in charge who know all and care about the control system first of all, the real world outcomes be damned. If the control system says we need high unemployment and homelessness and less high paying jobs there is nothing we can do, because the purely virtual human-invented finance system is the god. But hey, religion has been on the decline for a long time at least in the modern world, right (/s)? > which can get very ugly in the long run Only when the people in charge think like described.
  - usrnm 2y ago
    That's exactly the same reasoning we heard during Covid, injecting massive amounts of money into the economy was supposed to be perfectly safe and even a good thing. Definitely not supposed to lead to any inflation. Guess what happened next.
tored 2y ago
What Trump did was to pull out the rug under the European establishment, which have all built their political existence on the transatlantic cooperation. Who is to blame? European establishment wants of course the citizens of Europe to blame Trump and not them for not preparing for this eventuality. But the truth is that almost all of them are responsible for neglecting what is the best interest of Europe. Thus they play this game.
- tgaj 2y ago
  Hard times are ahead if nations start to care only about their best interest and not about what is the best interest of the whole world.
  - tored 2y ago
    Globalization died with Covid when it became obvious that the old order no longer functioned in a world with lockdowns and pandemics, it disrupted the entire supply chain. Then globalization died a second time with the Russia’s war in Ukraine, with the emergence of BRICS and the consequences of sanctions and the breakdown of the global monetary system.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Covid was a hiccup for global trade. The just in time supply chains created by the constant whittling/looting of the MBA class were the problem. Globalization died when the small minded monster Republicans had been farming for decades escaped its talk radio cage and found Trump. Trump (and his loser-mentality enablers) saw systems they didn't understand, and more irritatingly other parties who wouldn't just lap up shit as they were bossed around, and inferred this meant the US must have been getting a poor deal instead of an awesome one. (BuT tHE dEbT!!1!)
      - tored 2y ago
        I think what your comment proves is that many Americans are stuck in the Democrat vs Republican mindset and thinking that kind of explanation actually works in a global context. Pax Americana is over, US is no longer capable of dictating globalization to the rest of the world, why? Because many countries has caught up.
4ndrewl 2y ago
The driver for this is clear, surely? It's that we're now unsure where the USA stands viz-a-viz Russia.
belter 2y ago
What do you do, if one of your social acquaintances goes full Kanye West? "Anger in Greenland over visits this week by Usha Vance and Mike Waltz" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/greenland-usha-vance-mike-waltz-visit-anger https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/greenland-usha...
fransje26 2y ago
> instead of cheering that this era is ending, they seem to be all upset about it and want their collar to be put back on. > Help me understand this The answer is money. All the get-rich-quick schemes/scams are coming from the US. For a very current example, look not further than Tesla vs Volkswagen valuation. That level of dollars valuations that are completely detach from reality, and the capacity of getting real, tangible, value out of the scheme before it collapses as a house of card, is orders of magnitude above what you can get elsewhere in the world. Hence the elites want to continue having access to that market, domestic market be damned.
2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
same people who are convinced russia is going to lose the ukraine war and go bankrupt while at the same time endangering europe. it's all about rhetorics being used to manipulate for personal gains of a small elite. the kind of elite who makes billion dollar contracts via sms and then accidentally loses such sms.
acje 2y ago
There was this "end of history" idea where Europe, elites or not, believed that democracy would follow globalization and free trade. This turned out to be very naive but still common belief. Now Europe will have to fend for it self. In the long run I think this will benefit both US and Europe, but short term it will hurt both. Also I don´t think Europe will pivot away from US, we still understand that at least half of US shares our values, but US can´t be trusted to stand up for these values anymore. Same as Hungary, Turkey. I personally see it as a good opportunity to get some action going in Europe, as I discuss here in the context of building digital infrastructure: https://lnkd.in/dRNSYPWC https://lnkd.in/dRNSYPWC
OrderlyTiamat 2y ago
Among my friends, the feeling is that the USA used to be seen as a valued ally, and now it has shown itself as a fickle and untrustworthy ally. Yes people are various shades of upset, and yes people now value European countries splitting from the USA. These two views are compatible, and have nothing to do with class.
thyristan 2y ago
After WW2, Europe, Germany and especially France, tried to create the precursor of the European Union with a defense component. There should have been a common European army with European nuclear weapons a common command structure and soldiers from all members. When this didn't work out, NATO was intended as a European defensive alliance, without the US at first. Why didn't those two things happen? Because of US influence: The US actively prevented any kind of military unification e.g. by preventing West Germany from going in that direction (as the occupier they could do so) and by alienating France and bribing and distracting the UK (by sharing plans for weapons such as nukes and submarines). When the NATO idea came up, the US offered their membership, but with a twist: NATO troops would always be under USian command. At every opportunity, the US made themselves indispensible for European defense and prevented any kinds of European political initiatives in that direction. That is why France rejected the NATO command structure for quite some time and was only "half a member". This "arragement" had a downside of increased dependence and an upside of decreased spending and responsibility for the Europeans, and they got used to it. For the promise of US protection, Europe would give up its independence in that regard. Europe would be dependent on US-controlled military infrastructure such as AWACS, SOSUS, PATRIOT, and satellite coms and surveilance. Europe would be dependent on US-delivered weapons and weapons components. In many suppossedly national/european military hardware, there are some indispensable USian components like radars, engines or GPS, which is a double advantage for the US: they could sell something and have a means to stop any kind of use they dislike, either by withholding spare parts and support or by builtin remote shutdown switches. Europe participated in the occasional war on behalf of the US like Iraq or Afghanistan, and the US cleaned up some European messes like Yugoslavia. It all seemed like a dependence that was one-sided, but still somewhat beneficial to the Europeans. Now, the US are walking back on their promises and are actively breaking their side of the deal by e.g. questioning their future adherence to the mutual defense obligation in NATO article 5. This is a much bigger deal than it sounds at first: When you read the game theory of it, promises of mutual defense must be unwavering, there must not be any doubt in the mind of a potential enemy. If the rockets are flying, a red button must be pressed, no questions asked. Any kind of doubt will be exploited by an enemy, as can be seen by current Russian propaganda threatening Europe. In former times, the US would be first to condemn such threats and issue counter-threats. Nowadays: silence. This means that the US effectively ended NATO. Mutual defense obligations and promises of defense from the US are now worthless. Of course nobody is cheery about that. A European common defense is years and billions (long scale) away. Of course nobody is cheery about that. After the Europeans dutifully obliged the US and accepted their declaration of article 5 after 9/11 (the only occasion where article 5 was ever invoked), the US now declare their ingratitude and unwillingness to ever reciprocate. Of course nobody is cheery about that.
bad_user 2y ago
I'm the “European elite” you're thinking of. Well, not “elite” in the sense of being rich, I'm not rich, but I'm also not stupid. It's simple: global trade is good, isolationism is bad. It's as simple as that. The “EU common classes” don't want higher prices or poorer services. This is a fact that the US's elites in power will soon discover. And it's easy to see why this trend is a train wreck in progress: unemployment, in both the US and EU, is at an all-time low, and if you significantly lower imports via tariffs and economic wars, who do you think will work on those local products and services? Never mind that US's investments and exports are also crashing as a direct result of this administration's policies, so I'm guessing they rely on future software developers that end up unemployed to become lumberjacks. But yes, now that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally, I want the EU to cut its tech dependencies from it for as much as possible, while strengthening ties with all of our other allies, such as Canada, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India. There's no conflict in this reasoning.
- seec 2y ago
  Employment stats in the EU are a complete joke and don't reflect at all real work/value creation. It's all about moving numbers from one box to another. Just because you made one more bureaucrat bullshit job does not mean you are creating any value, quite the contrary. You seem to conveniently forget that all of this was "possible" only with heavy borrowing, and it looks like many countries won't be able to even pay the principal soon enough. When you take this into account, the "growth" has been negative for over 10 years, and it was barely stagnant for quite a while before. We exported the growth and manipulated money, now the truth appear. You can only pretend for so long. The reality is that the value creating has been quite low in most of the EU and now that the economic engine that was Germany has stalled, everything is grinding to a halt. Germany had heavy reliance on cheap Russian gas for its chemical industry and premium car market, both are getting disrupted massively. It's actually a perfect example on why we should avoid too much reliance on other countries. The hilarious part is that in the meantime, Germany was giving "ecology" lessons to all their neighbors and the world at large. In typical arrogant German fashion, they had everything figured out, until they didn't, that is. They actually hold a lot of responsibility for their terrible leadership on the EU.
rimeice 2y ago
Deep down the elites know this is the best thing that could possibly happen for Europe long term. Shed the dependency on the US, build your own defence economy and the myriad of parallel non military economic benefits that come from defence investment. Yes a painful transition in the short term so you have to whine about it a bit to try and limit the damage, but this US adminstration is the single best thing that has happened to Europe and the UK. This is where Europe gets reborn. In 20-30 years Europe will be a proper superpower again.
seec 2y ago
It's not necessarily about being content to submit to the US, but more an ideology of globalism too good to be true. Most of the leaders in EU have some sort of collectivist mindset (either right or left, just what and the amount differ) and they apply this worldview to everything. So when they see other countries taking the load/lead on things they don't think it's an "us vs them" situation, they think it will stay us, as in together. When everything is working ok, when everyone feel like they are getting their fair share, it works fine; but when the world becomes unstable, and they are tensions about resources and power it all breaks down. This is the mindset that created the biggest providence state that ever was. But the problem is that it was always a lie. The thing was built on power imbalance between countries, and just because they accepted the deal when they were weak doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. The only reason it worked in the first place is that they sold the newer generation's future, borrowing aggressively to fund a way of life that wasn't sustainable If they had thought long term, they would never have given so much power to other countries, the USA is one of them, but it's the same for China, and Russia to a lower extent. Now that those big countries are fighting for domination, they find themselves in the crossfire, just now figuring out that we are too dependent and don't have that much say because we don't have a lot of power. You cannot solve a problem with the mind that created it, and that's the issue we face. We desperately need to think differently that what got us there, but they cannot erase their "programming", for them, it's the "right" way, it's basically the only way. The US will fare a bit better for a while, precisely because they control important stuff, like the tech industry, decent army power and are still the de facto reserve currency. But in reality, they will face the same problems down the line if they don't change as well. The protectionism is because at the rate it's going, we will all be under China's rule before long. You can trade stuff, but never make yourself completely dependent on another country. You may be friends, until you are not. Things change, politics are unpredictable, it's a bad idea to hope for mercy when a big power is rising.

MrJohz 2y ago

Can you give some examples of this attitude? I'm not sure I've seen that behaviour anywhere, and it's very difficult to look up examples when your description is so vague.

_zamorano_ 2y ago
With Nord Stream, the elites tried to gaslight their population using the media into believeng an stupid made-up story about how Russia blowed up their own pipe. Very convenient for the US, not so for the EU
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Only if it were Russia can Trump stay quiet about Nord Stream, which he has.
  - nbgtqrad 2y ago
    [dead]
galfarragem 2y ago
Lol. Just listen to any ‘opinion maker’ on European media - they whine about it 24/7. They’re ‘not happy’ - to say the least - that the status quo has changed.
_zamorano_ 2y ago
How about the consequences of US proxy wars? Not a word about the reasons mediterranean european countries keep getting floods of displaced refugees. Maybe if the US stopped bombing their countries, we'd stop getting so many.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The bombing of Libya was a full NATO operation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i... But yes, the War On Terror completely destabilized such a large area including Syria that it's been a disaster for Europe.
  - tored 2y ago
    Correct, and that is why I argue that Europe is an vassal state, i.e. taking actions against its best interest because the overlord tells them to.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  The internal refugees in Syria occurred because of multi-year drought. Burma, 2008, was a cyclone. Leaving out some theories on proxy war is like leaving out any other kind of challenge.
- paleotrope 2y ago
  If the US wasn't fighting these "proxy" wars, Euroland would have a lot bigger problems. Refugees are a simple problem to fix. Don't take any.

amarcheschi 2y ago

The people i know (except for the tankie ones such as my high school philosphy professor, that guy was goat) would have preferred a less abrupt usa exit and not one that potentially puts europe security at risk. I do not know enough about the elites to talk about it tho

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
I don't support Trump, but you really can't claim that Europe wasn't warned here. Russia first invaded Ukraine back in 2014. And here's Trump back in 2018, warning about German dependence on Russian gas, and stating that Europe needed to step up defense spending "immediately": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0 This has hardly been "abrupt". Even Obama and Bush were telling Europe to step up defense spending.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  Honestly, Trump has said so many things that you can probably find everything and the opposite of everything coming out of his mind. Yes, I do agree that we had been warned and since the Ukrainian invasion defense budgets of European countries increased. I also think such an abrupt change of mind from the US hurts both sides and nobody earns anything from it. Except Russia. Even if European cointries increased spending before, the situation is changing in such a way that even nuclear weapons - something that almost no European country would have wanted if they already hadn't had them - are being taken into consideration to be developed as a nuclear umbrella from France towards other European countries.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >Honestly, Trump has said so many things that you can probably find everything and the opposite of everything coming out of his mind. I think he's been pretty consistent on the issue of European defense spending, actually. In any case, if Trump is inconsistent, that itself can be considered a warning -- that sometimes the US elects inconsistent presidents. >I also think such an abrupt change of mind from the US hurts both sides and nobody earns anything from it. Nothing short of this "abrupt change" has been successful in getting Europe to take responsibility for its own security. As I said, US presidents have been complaining about this for ages. I hope you finally listen, because my enthusiasm for defending Europe (as an American and a registered Democrat even) is currently quite low: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43459774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43459774 >nuclear umbrella from France towards other European countries We'll see if France actually commits to that, or if it is all talk. If Nation A extends its nuclear umbrella over Nation B, that basically means that Nation A is putting its own cities at risk in case of nuclear retaliation, for the sake of Nation B. As an American, it sort of boggled my mind when I learned that we were putting our own cities at risk for the sake of our allies this way. And it seems that Europe's way of thanking us is to make fun of our healthcare system, accuse us of the non-crime of "cultural imperialism", etc... See what I'm saying about enthusiasm to defend you guys? Something needs to change in the relationship.

jjevanoorschot 2y ago

An important distinction is that US and EU interests aligned on many important areas up until recently. So it was less of a subservient relationship, and more of a mutually beneficial one. Now that the US wants to turn it into a subservient relationship, the EU is naturally looking for other options.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
[flagged]
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  [flagged]
- 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
  about 50% of women in us are Trumpists
  - username135 2y ago
    You mean of the people that voted? Or of the population? Both are different figures and both would be incorrect. A very quick search; https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/18/men-and-w...
    - leereeves 2y ago
      That link is from 2020. Can you find something from 2024?
      - username135 2y ago
        Probably, can you?
        2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

watwut 2y ago

What is weird about not liking that former powerful ally is becoming a hostile entity actively trying to harm you? They are not cheering, because what is happening is loose loose situation and they dont like the loose part. Also, buying American tech und military exports in the past was not exactly something shameful. The way you write about it, as if trade was "being slave with a humiliating collar" is weird thinking. > To me it seems that maybe the interests of EU elites differ from the interests of the EU common classes. Common classes in EU are not benefiting from trade war, they are not benefiting from USA annexation threats and they are not benefiting from Russia expanding. > The EU elites seem to have considered themselves as basically equivalent to American citizens in all but name, and were quite happy selling out their native countries in return for access to America. This is nonsensical. You are making stuff up, big time. How is buying American arms a symbol of "considering themselves to be Americans"? I cant recall any call or push to be more America.

isoprophlex 2y ago

I don't recognize this attitude at all. But I'm no elite anywhere. Thinking about it, it's not so weird? We beat the nazis together, we've generally enjoyed world peace, freedom, and the joys of neocolonialism. Things were sailing along just fine. Now things are all weird and fucked up and we have to worry about fucking russia, defense spending in general, the fate of greenland, cloud computing and all that shit? Putting it like that, I'd like things to go back to the way they were too...

username135 2y ago
Can't say I disagree.
huijzer 2y ago
> We beat the nazis together If you by "we" mean Britain, the United States, and Russia. And by "we" mean the people living 2 generations earlier, then I agree with your statement. As a side note, people who were 18 in 1940, would be 103 today. So most people who fought in the second world war have unfortunately passed away. I personally would never say "We beat the nazis together". The only thing I did was benefit from the war that generations before me have won.
- hansworst 2y ago
  You’re forgetting Canada. You’re also glossing over the fact that despite losing to the nazis, the occupied countries didn’t exactly just roll over when they got attacked. And during occupation there were resistance movements in those countries too. So there’s definitely a “we” here. And while of course most of those people are dead now, they were all part of cultures that still hold many of the same norms and values as they do today.
- illiac786 2y ago
  This comment is either bad taste trolling or simply insulting to anyone outside these theee countries that gave their lives to fight sgainst nazis… in Germany too there were people fighting the nazis, just as an example.
- 2y ago

buyucu 2y ago

Those elites have known nothing but subservience. They simply can't imagine anything else.

usrnm 2y ago

Relying on the US for military protection allowed many European countries to save billions of their own money for years. Undoing this going to be very, very expensive and there is no good understanding where all this money is supposed come from, the main idea right now seems to be massive amounts of debt, which can get very ugly in the long run. It absolutely needs to happen, but I can clearly see why many politicians are not thrilled about the whole thing

nosianu 2y ago
> the main idea right now seems to be massive amounts of debt, which can get very ugly in the long run The economy, unlike one's personal finances, is a circle. Unless the Europeans buy abroad, all that money is going to stay in Europe, circulating and stimulating the economy. Even if it's "only" arms, spending it to maintain industry is way better than many alternatives. Manufacturing infrastructure and lots of skilled jobs and workers, sounds good to me to have. "Debt" is just a number, and if you are in a strong enough position you can always change policies around the purely virtual "money". Finance/money is supposed to be the virtual control system, and the real world thing it is supposed to help to steer is everything real and what we actually care about. In all other areas we would never accept that the control system becomes the target!! The target is always the real thing, and we will adjust the control system to achieve the desired outcomes. Not so with finance! It has taken on a life of its own, and the vast majority of people will gladly and unthinkingly subordinate the real world to its whims. Something that makes at least a little bit of sense for the individual makes no sense for the economy though. We have people in charge who know all and care about the control system first of all, the real world outcomes be damned. If the control system says we need high unemployment and homelessness and less high paying jobs there is nothing we can do, because the purely virtual human-invented finance system is the god. But hey, religion has been on the decline for a long time at least in the modern world, right (/s)? > which can get very ugly in the long run Only when the people in charge think like described.
- usrnm 2y ago
  That's exactly the same reasoning we heard during Covid, injecting massive amounts of money into the economy was supposed to be perfectly safe and even a good thing. Definitely not supposed to lead to any inflation. Guess what happened next.

tored 2y ago

What Trump did was to pull out the rug under the European establishment, which have all built their political existence on the transatlantic cooperation. Who is to blame? European establishment wants of course the citizens of Europe to blame Trump and not them for not preparing for this eventuality. But the truth is that almost all of them are responsible for neglecting what is the best interest of Europe. Thus they play this game.

tgaj 2y ago
Hard times are ahead if nations start to care only about their best interest and not about what is the best interest of the whole world.
- tored 2y ago
  Globalization died with Covid when it became obvious that the old order no longer functioned in a world with lockdowns and pandemics, it disrupted the entire supply chain. Then globalization died a second time with the Russia’s war in Ukraine, with the emergence of BRICS and the consequences of sanctions and the breakdown of the global monetary system.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Covid was a hiccup for global trade. The just in time supply chains created by the constant whittling/looting of the MBA class were the problem. Globalization died when the small minded monster Republicans had been farming for decades escaped its talk radio cage and found Trump. Trump (and his loser-mentality enablers) saw systems they didn't understand, and more irritatingly other parties who wouldn't just lap up shit as they were bossed around, and inferred this meant the US must have been getting a poor deal instead of an awesome one. (BuT tHE dEbT!!1!)
    - tored 2y ago
      I think what your comment proves is that many Americans are stuck in the Democrat vs Republican mindset and thinking that kind of explanation actually works in a global context. Pax Americana is over, US is no longer capable of dictating globalization to the rest of the world, why? Because many countries has caught up.

4ndrewl 2y ago

The driver for this is clear, surely? It's that we're now unsure where the USA stands viz-a-viz Russia.

belter 2y ago

What do you do, if one of your social acquaintances goes full Kanye West? "Anger in Greenland over visits this week by Usha Vance and Mike Waltz" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/greenland-usha-vance-mike-waltz-visit-anger https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/greenland-usha...

fransje26 2y ago

> instead of cheering that this era is ending, they seem to be all upset about it and want their collar to be put back on. > Help me understand this The answer is money. All the get-rich-quick schemes/scams are coming from the US. For a very current example, look not further than Tesla vs Volkswagen valuation. That level of dollars valuations that are completely detach from reality, and the capacity of getting real, tangible, value out of the scheme before it collapses as a house of card, is orders of magnitude above what you can get elsewhere in the world. Hence the elites want to continue having access to that market, domestic market be damned.

2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago

same people who are convinced russia is going to lose the ukraine war and go bankrupt while at the same time endangering europe. it's all about rhetorics being used to manipulate for personal gains of a small elite. the kind of elite who makes billion dollar contracts via sms and then accidentally loses such sms.

acje 2y ago

There was this "end of history" idea where Europe, elites or not, believed that democracy would follow globalization and free trade. This turned out to be very naive but still common belief. Now Europe will have to fend for it self. In the long run I think this will benefit both US and Europe, but short term it will hurt both. Also I don´t think Europe will pivot away from US, we still understand that at least half of US shares our values, but US can´t be trusted to stand up for these values anymore. Same as Hungary, Turkey. I personally see it as a good opportunity to get some action going in Europe, as I discuss here in the context of building digital infrastructure: https://lnkd.in/dRNSYPWC https://lnkd.in/dRNSYPWC

OrderlyTiamat 2y ago

Among my friends, the feeling is that the USA used to be seen as a valued ally, and now it has shown itself as a fickle and untrustworthy ally. Yes people are various shades of upset, and yes people now value European countries splitting from the USA. These two views are compatible, and have nothing to do with class.

thyristan 2y ago

After WW2, Europe, Germany and especially France, tried to create the precursor of the European Union with a defense component. There should have been a common European army with European nuclear weapons a common command structure and soldiers from all members. When this didn't work out, NATO was intended as a European defensive alliance, without the US at first. Why didn't those two things happen? Because of US influence: The US actively prevented any kind of military unification e.g. by preventing West Germany from going in that direction (as the occupier they could do so) and by alienating France and bribing and distracting the UK (by sharing plans for weapons such as nukes and submarines). When the NATO idea came up, the US offered their membership, but with a twist: NATO troops would always be under USian command. At every opportunity, the US made themselves indispensible for European defense and prevented any kinds of European political initiatives in that direction. That is why France rejected the NATO command structure for quite some time and was only "half a member". This "arragement" had a downside of increased dependence and an upside of decreased spending and responsibility for the Europeans, and they got used to it. For the promise of US protection, Europe would give up its independence in that regard. Europe would be dependent on US-controlled military infrastructure such as AWACS, SOSUS, PATRIOT, and satellite coms and surveilance. Europe would be dependent on US-delivered weapons and weapons components. In many suppossedly national/european military hardware, there are some indispensable USian components like radars, engines or GPS, which is a double advantage for the US: they could sell something and have a means to stop any kind of use they dislike, either by withholding spare parts and support or by builtin remote shutdown switches. Europe participated in the occasional war on behalf of the US like Iraq or Afghanistan, and the US cleaned up some European messes like Yugoslavia. It all seemed like a dependence that was one-sided, but still somewhat beneficial to the Europeans. Now, the US are walking back on their promises and are actively breaking their side of the deal by e.g. questioning their future adherence to the mutual defense obligation in NATO article 5. This is a much bigger deal than it sounds at first: When you read the game theory of it, promises of mutual defense must be unwavering, there must not be any doubt in the mind of a potential enemy. If the rockets are flying, a red button must be pressed, no questions asked. Any kind of doubt will be exploited by an enemy, as can be seen by current Russian propaganda threatening Europe. In former times, the US would be first to condemn such threats and issue counter-threats. Nowadays: silence. This means that the US effectively ended NATO. Mutual defense obligations and promises of defense from the US are now worthless. Of course nobody is cheery about that. A European common defense is years and billions (long scale) away. Of course nobody is cheery about that. After the Europeans dutifully obliged the US and accepted their declaration of article 5 after 9/11 (the only occasion where article 5 was ever invoked), the US now declare their ingratitude and unwillingness to ever reciprocate. Of course nobody is cheery about that.

bad_user 2y ago

I'm the “European elite” you're thinking of. Well, not “elite” in the sense of being rich, I'm not rich, but I'm also not stupid. It's simple: global trade is good, isolationism is bad. It's as simple as that. The “EU common classes” don't want higher prices or poorer services. This is a fact that the US's elites in power will soon discover. And it's easy to see why this trend is a train wreck in progress: unemployment, in both the US and EU, is at an all-time low, and if you significantly lower imports via tariffs and economic wars, who do you think will work on those local products and services? Never mind that US's investments and exports are also crashing as a direct result of this administration's policies, so I'm guessing they rely on future software developers that end up unemployed to become lumberjacks. But yes, now that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally, I want the EU to cut its tech dependencies from it for as much as possible, while strengthening ties with all of our other allies, such as Canada, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India. There's no conflict in this reasoning.

seec 2y ago
Employment stats in the EU are a complete joke and don't reflect at all real work/value creation. It's all about moving numbers from one box to another. Just because you made one more bureaucrat bullshit job does not mean you are creating any value, quite the contrary. You seem to conveniently forget that all of this was "possible" only with heavy borrowing, and it looks like many countries won't be able to even pay the principal soon enough. When you take this into account, the "growth" has been negative for over 10 years, and it was barely stagnant for quite a while before. We exported the growth and manipulated money, now the truth appear. You can only pretend for so long. The reality is that the value creating has been quite low in most of the EU and now that the economic engine that was Germany has stalled, everything is grinding to a halt. Germany had heavy reliance on cheap Russian gas for its chemical industry and premium car market, both are getting disrupted massively. It's actually a perfect example on why we should avoid too much reliance on other countries. The hilarious part is that in the meantime, Germany was giving "ecology" lessons to all their neighbors and the world at large. In typical arrogant German fashion, they had everything figured out, until they didn't, that is. They actually hold a lot of responsibility for their terrible leadership on the EU.

rimeice 2y ago

Deep down the elites know this is the best thing that could possibly happen for Europe long term. Shed the dependency on the US, build your own defence economy and the myriad of parallel non military economic benefits that come from defence investment. Yes a painful transition in the short term so you have to whine about it a bit to try and limit the damage, but this US adminstration is the single best thing that has happened to Europe and the UK. This is where Europe gets reborn. In 20-30 years Europe will be a proper superpower again.

seec 2y ago

It's not necessarily about being content to submit to the US, but more an ideology of globalism too good to be true. Most of the leaders in EU have some sort of collectivist mindset (either right or left, just what and the amount differ) and they apply this worldview to everything. So when they see other countries taking the load/lead on things they don't think it's an "us vs them" situation, they think it will stay us, as in together. When everything is working ok, when everyone feel like they are getting their fair share, it works fine; but when the world becomes unstable, and they are tensions about resources and power it all breaks down. This is the mindset that created the biggest providence state that ever was. But the problem is that it was always a lie. The thing was built on power imbalance between countries, and just because they accepted the deal when they were weak doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. The only reason it worked in the first place is that they sold the newer generation's future, borrowing aggressively to fund a way of life that wasn't sustainable If they had thought long term, they would never have given so much power to other countries, the USA is one of them, but it's the same for China, and Russia to a lower extent. Now that those big countries are fighting for domination, they find themselves in the crossfire, just now figuring out that we are too dependent and don't have that much say because we don't have a lot of power. You cannot solve a problem with the mind that created it, and that's the issue we face. We desperately need to think differently that what got us there, but they cannot erase their "programming", for them, it's the "right" way, it's basically the only way. The US will fare a bit better for a while, precisely because they control important stuff, like the tech industry, decent army power and are still the de facto reserve currency. But in reality, they will face the same problems down the line if they don't change as well. The protectionism is because at the rate it's going, we will all be under China's rule before long. You can trade stuff, but never make yourself completely dependent on another country. You may be friends, until you are not. Things change, politics are unpredictable, it's a bad idea to hope for mercy when a big power is rising.