5 ms·

The US doesn't really see Russia as an adversary under Trump. Which begs the question, why should the EU see China as an adversary? That's mostly an American t

The US doesn't really see Russia as an adversary under Trump. Which begs the question, why should the EU see China as an adversary? That's mostly an American thing, the Pacific doesn't really concern us. Maybe alliances will reshuffle in the future?

tr352 1y ago
The EU needs China. No green deal without Chinese batteries, solar cells and rare earth metals.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  And China needs the EU. No rising Chinese middle class without the world's largest wealthy consumer market. A match made in heaven ;)
  - lm28469 1y ago
    Like Russia's gas and Germany's industry ;) Or the EU relying on the US army for defense ;) We're not in the post ww2 world illusion or world peace through commerce, mutual dependencies clearly don't stop nationalist interests. Trump shattered the illusion with his illegal meme tier tariffs, now we're slowly going back to empires dealing with their friends while fucking over anyone else.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      There is no conflict in our nationalist interests though. We are too far apart, unless we split up Russia between us...
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    [flagged]
anamax 1y ago
> The US doesn't really see Russia as an adversary under Trump. From the fall of the Berlin wall until the Ukraine invasion, the US saw Russia as more of an adversary than Europe saw Russia. Yes, even after Russia annexed Crimea. In fact, it's only this year that Europe has started to significantly increase defense spending, three years after Russia invaded Ukraine. And, even then the most aggressive increase plans end up short of where spending was during the Cold War. Every US president after Clinton (and maybe Clinton as well) urged European countries, especially NATO ones, to keep funding defense and they cut instead. It turns out that the cowboys were right, that there was a bear in the woods, and that "soft power" wasn't power.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  I 100% agree that Europe regarded Russia as a potential trade partner (and possibly more positively than the US) even after the 2014 annexation. But I don't think that this makes EU policy necessarily incorrect: Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? We won't know, but I don't think so, and European militarism in the 2000s might have led to significantly worse outcomes than we actually got. I also think that painting this as a clear "US stance proven right in hindsight" is an outsized claim; EU military spending only really came up under Trump, and was a very minor topic before. You could make a similar argument that "the cowboys" were all wrong with the whole middle-east interventionism thing (in Afghanistan and Iraq), but the military side of that was at least competently executed (unlike Russia in Ukraine), collateral damage lower and war crimes somewhat minimized/prosecuted. I sadly agree that Costa-Rica-style pacifism appears a non-viable approach for the EU now despite looking somewhat workable 15 years ago.
  - anamax 1y ago
    > Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? Probably not Crimea, but you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power". The lack of European defense spending since 95 means that Europe doesn't have much to help Ukraine. (EU countries brag about "100% to Ukraine" but never talk about how little that 100% is.) It also means that Europe doesn't have much in the way of a defense industry. (And then they whine when money gets spent on US weapons.) Getting serious in 2014 (after Crimea) would have given Europe options. > EU military spending only really came up under Trump Trump's comments, the actual words, on EU defense spending were basically the same as Obama and W's. The difference was in how Europeans, especially the Germans, reacted. BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"
F3nd0 1y ago
Why should the EU not see an expansive authoritarian superpower as an adversary, or, at the very least, a real threat to its continued existence and sovereignty?
- saubeidl 1y ago
  They're on the opposite end of the world, our interests do not conflict, but even overlap (i.e. they're the only other major power taking climate change seriously)
- bix6 1y ago
  You talking about China or the US here?
  - eCa 1y ago
    China is trying to grow their influence around the world, while the US is trying to reduce their influence around the world. From where I’m sitting in the EU, both seem successful in their quests. (So I’m assuming they mean China.)
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  China needs Europe to support its export economy because there will never be enough domestic demand to prevent a deflationary spiral. Europe is a rational actor China can expect to act rationally in trade, and Europe can benefit from that. The US has nothing to offer Europe except LNG that Europe cannot produce itself, or obtain from China at better price or quality. Canada has ~200 years of LNG reserves and can ship to Europe from LNG Canada. https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/imports/united-states https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/imports/united-s... https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... The True Cost of China's Falling Prices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45876691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45876691 - November 2025 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-self-defeating-china-strategy https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-self-d... > In 1995, China accounted for less than five percent of global manufacturing output. By 2010, that number had jumped to around a quarter, and today it stands at nearly a third.
lawn 1y ago
Democracies and authoritarian regimes naturally oppose each other, which is why the EU and China will never be true allies. Coincidentally it's also why the US and EU are growing further apart.
- generic92034 1y ago
  > Coincidentally it's also why the US and EU are growing further apart. That is not a given, as there are many authoritarian political parties in European countries growing in size and influence. Possibly Europe is only the usual decade or two behind the US developments? Well, I at least hope it does not come to this.
Teever 1y ago
Because democracies and authoritarian regimes are like oil and water. Authoritarian regimes will inevitably attempt to expand because authoritarian leaders view the existence of people they don't rule as a threat towards their rule and they inevitably desire to grow their control and power over more and more people.
- barbazoo 1y ago
  > Authoritarian regimes will inevitably attempt to expand Which is ironic that most of the annexation talk came from the US in the recent times, not from China. Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, Mexico what else has he threatened to annex?
  - imafish 1y ago
    So what does that tell us about the current US administration?… :)

tr352 1y ago

The EU needs China. No green deal without Chinese batteries, solar cells and rare earth metals.

saubeidl 1y ago
And China needs the EU. No rising Chinese middle class without the world's largest wealthy consumer market. A match made in heaven ;)
- lm28469 1y ago
  Like Russia's gas and Germany's industry ;) Or the EU relying on the US army for defense ;) We're not in the post ww2 world illusion or world peace through commerce, mutual dependencies clearly don't stop nationalist interests. Trump shattered the illusion with his illegal meme tier tariffs, now we're slowly going back to empires dealing with their friends while fucking over anyone else.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    There is no conflict in our nationalist interests though. We are too far apart, unless we split up Russia between us...
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  [flagged]

anamax 1y ago

> The US doesn't really see Russia as an adversary under Trump. From the fall of the Berlin wall until the Ukraine invasion, the US saw Russia as more of an adversary than Europe saw Russia. Yes, even after Russia annexed Crimea. In fact, it's only this year that Europe has started to significantly increase defense spending, three years after Russia invaded Ukraine. And, even then the most aggressive increase plans end up short of where spending was during the Cold War. Every US president after Clinton (and maybe Clinton as well) urged European countries, especially NATO ones, to keep funding defense and they cut instead. It turns out that the cowboys were right, that there was a bear in the woods, and that "soft power" wasn't power.

myrmidon 1y ago
I 100% agree that Europe regarded Russia as a potential trade partner (and possibly more positively than the US) even after the 2014 annexation. But I don't think that this makes EU policy necessarily incorrect: Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? We won't know, but I don't think so, and European militarism in the 2000s might have led to significantly worse outcomes than we actually got. I also think that painting this as a clear "US stance proven right in hindsight" is an outsized claim; EU military spending only really came up under Trump, and was a very minor topic before. You could make a similar argument that "the cowboys" were all wrong with the whole middle-east interventionism thing (in Afghanistan and Iraq), but the military side of that was at least competently executed (unlike Russia in Ukraine), collateral damage lower and war crimes somewhat minimized/prosecuted. I sadly agree that Costa-Rica-style pacifism appears a non-viable approach for the EU now despite looking somewhat workable 15 years ago.
- anamax 1y ago
  > Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation? Probably not Crimea, but you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power". The lack of European defense spending since 95 means that Europe doesn't have much to help Ukraine. (EU countries brag about "100% to Ukraine" but never talk about how little that 100% is.) It also means that Europe doesn't have much in the way of a defense industry. (And then they whine when money gets spent on US weapons.) Getting serious in 2014 (after Crimea) would have given Europe options. > EU military spending only really came up under Trump Trump's comments, the actual words, on EU defense spending were basically the same as Obama and W's. The difference was in how Europeans, especially the Germans, reacted. BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"

F3nd0 1y ago

Why should the EU not see an expansive authoritarian superpower as an adversary, or, at the very least, a real threat to its continued existence and sovereignty?

saubeidl 1y ago
They're on the opposite end of the world, our interests do not conflict, but even overlap (i.e. they're the only other major power taking climate change seriously)
bix6 1y ago
You talking about China or the US here?
- eCa 1y ago
  China is trying to grow their influence around the world, while the US is trying to reduce their influence around the world. From where I’m sitting in the EU, both seem successful in their quests. (So I’m assuming they mean China.)
toomuchtodo 1y ago
China needs Europe to support its export economy because there will never be enough domestic demand to prevent a deflationary spiral. Europe is a rational actor China can expect to act rationally in trade, and Europe can benefit from that. The US has nothing to offer Europe except LNG that Europe cannot produce itself, or obtain from China at better price or quality. Canada has ~200 years of LNG reserves and can ship to Europe from LNG Canada. https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/imports/united-states https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/imports/united-s... https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... The True Cost of China's Falling Prices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45876691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45876691 - November 2025 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-self-defeating-china-strategy https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/americas-self-d... > In 1995, China accounted for less than five percent of global manufacturing output. By 2010, that number had jumped to around a quarter, and today it stands at nearly a third.

lawn 1y ago

Democracies and authoritarian regimes naturally oppose each other, which is why the EU and China will never be true allies. Coincidentally it's also why the US and EU are growing further apart.

generic92034 1y ago
> Coincidentally it's also why the US and EU are growing further apart. That is not a given, as there are many authoritarian political parties in European countries growing in size and influence. Possibly Europe is only the usual decade or two behind the US developments? Well, I at least hope it does not come to this.

Teever 1y ago

Because democracies and authoritarian regimes are like oil and water. Authoritarian regimes will inevitably attempt to expand because authoritarian leaders view the existence of people they don't rule as a threat towards their rule and they inevitably desire to grow their control and power over more and more people.

barbazoo 1y ago
> Authoritarian regimes will inevitably attempt to expand Which is ironic that most of the annexation talk came from the US in the recent times, not from China. Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, Mexico what else has he threatened to annex?
- imafish 1y ago
  So what does that tell us about the current US administration?… :)