6 ms·

Europe isn't a superpower but it's a giant entity with 450 million people and 15% of the world's gdp. It has the means to oppose the US and retaliate against it

Europe isn't a superpower but it's a giant entity with 450 million people and 15% of the world's gdp. It has the means to oppose the US and retaliate against its sanctions, if it doesn't it's because of the cowardice of its politicians and the weakness of its institutions.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
More importantly, the bilateral relationship between the US and Europe represents 30% of global trade, and 40% of the global GDP. Both economies complement each other naturally (at least right now), and neither partners don't want it to end, so even with the relationship becoming more fragile as the US tries to close itself off from the world, I think both will still try to remain collaborative with each other, regardless of this posturing that is going on.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  It will take a lot to shift that trade dynamic, but the current US administration seems quite energetic about rapidly tearing down Chesterton's Fences that it doesn't understand nor want to spend the time to understand, so I'd not bet on this remaining so even for the next 3 years. And yes, I do understand how utterly bonkers it is to suggest something this big changing over just 3 years.
  - tormeh 10mo ago
    I don't believe this is possible, even at Trump speed. It's much easier to wreck NATO than to reshape the world economy to that extent.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      Indeed, but it's not impossible for him to simply wreck the economy faster than it can be correctly reshaped.
      - ethbr1 10mo ago
        Boris Johnson: Hold my pint.
        ben_w 10mo ago
        Fortunately for the UK, the photos of Boris Johnson holding a pint during covid lockdowns he'd ordered, mean that Boris Johnson is no longer a threat to the UK.
    - golem14 10mo ago
      I didn't believe Brexit would happen either, until it did.
  - SllX 10mo ago
    That trade dynamic isn’t going to shift unless the EU becomes a lot more insular. The War in Ukraine is dampening trade with Russia. The EU is struggling in their trade relations with the PRC even more than with America right now, and fears them more than they fear us. A trade deal (“Mercosur”) with South America is in the process of potentially blowing up, and if it’s not passed in its current state, Brazil is looking to walk for the remainder of their President’s term in office. So the EU’s options are limited.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      The EU certainly has limited options, I agree about that. The problem I see is the risks are not under the EU's control. We may face becoming much more insular regardless of what any of us ourselves actually want. Trump is behaving in a manner not consistent with EU nations retaining indepdendence and sovreignty. And also betting the future of USA on economic development plans (and military plans) that do not seem realistic.
      - SllX 10mo ago
        The insular part was a very small, maybe too subtle of, joke. That’s also not a viable option for the EU, or more specifically: the constituent nations of the EU. They’re as dependent on trade as we are, maybe even more so, and so we are stuck in this relationship where we constantly piss each other off in various ways, and believe me when I say it goes both ways.
    - ethbr1 10mo ago
      > So the EU’s options are limited. Part of the issue if that as you move up the value chain your list of potential trading partners shrinks, as lower-income partners aren't viable. Look at GDP per capita (I picked nominal, for export consumption purposes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Europe's options for high-value exports at scale are... who?
      - tremon 10mo ago
  - StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
    Technically the biggest blow to the US-Europe trade relationship came from the Biden administration. The IRA was naked attempt at pulling European companies from Europe and push them to invest in the US instead. Trump policies look extreme because tariffs are often seen as crude and outdated but it's very much a continuation of economic hostility rather than a novelty.
- chrisweekly 10mo ago
  "neither partners don't" I think your main point is valid, but it would be more compelling if you'd taken a few seconds to read it before submitting, to catch this double-negative.
ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
Europe (as in all european countries combined) does not have a military powerful enough to oppose the US. And that is all that matters.
- xnyan 10mo ago
  Would you say that the United States had a much larger and more expensive military than Vietnam? How did that work out for the United States?
  - jonnybgood 10mo ago
    The US was winning the Vietnam war militarily. The US pulled out because it wasn’t winning it domestically.
    - tor825gl 10mo ago
      This is a fiction.
    - praptak 10mo ago
      Well, "not winning domestically" can happen as likely today as it did in the sixties. If anything, the US society is more divided today.
      - randallsquared 10mo ago
        In the event that someone is directly attacking Americans in America, I think you'll find that Americans are more united than it appears. Americans culturally have seen ourselves as the "Good Guys" for the last century or so, and Good Guys imply Bad Guys. If there aren't any credible Bad Guys external to the US, Americans start thinking the Bad Guys are the rich, or the coastal elites, or flyover country, or liberals, or whatever. That's just 'cause there's no one else to be against, though; it'll pass.
        jvdvegt 10mo ago
reactordev 10mo ago
If the EU goes against the US and happens to recruit allies, we’re cooked.
- 0xbadcafebee 10mo ago
  Not really. We have the most money, the most guns, and world economies depend on us. Europe won't even fight Russia when they literally invaded a country in their backyard, and Russia is much weaker than the US.
  - lesuorac 10mo ago
    Fighting Russia or the US is basically the same; you're just going to get nuked. Ukraine doesn't get nuked because Russia isn't in a real risk of losing it's own territory and doesn't want to annex irradiated lands. But also Europe (besides Ukraine) doesn't have much to gain from fighting Russia. They're happy to assist in air raids in North Africa / Middle East for energy reasons (see Libya) but it's fighting for practical purposes. The table can also be turned against the US. Despite the endless complaints about Mexico sending drugs & drug dealers into the US it's not like we are doing effective (or drastic).
    - astrange 10mo ago
      Europe has a lot to gain from fighting Russia, because if they conquer Ukraine they're going to invade Poland next.
      - Calazon 10mo ago
        I doubt Russia would invade the EU anytime soon under current conditions, even if they manage to annex all of Ukraine with no further losses. Much more likely they invade another non-EU, non-NATO country like Moldova.
        M95D 10mo ago
        Much more likely they'll invade Belarus, then Letonia, Estonia, etc. well before they invade Moldova.
buckle8017 10mo ago
Europe would need to increase military spending to 20+% of GDP to plausibly defend themselves. The EU is a vassal state through and through, they just haven't accepted this yet.
- nosianu 10mo ago
  > they just haven't accepted this yet. What on earth are you talking about??? We have accepted that for a long time, and there are no plans to change it. Why do you think there is zero movement to disentangle from any important US dependencies? Such as software. There is nothing whatsoever happening to be any less dependent on the US, part from defense, and that only after repeated urging and finally some real force-pressure to get the EU moving (even after Trump's first term little to nothing actually happened). European countries are perfectly fine with where they are, if any less dependency on the US is to happen, it will only be after huge pressure from the US. That is deliberate, they just don't see value in e.g. trying to recreate the Microsoft and other software ecosystems. After all, it already exists, so why compete at that point? It does not make economic sense. Also, it is not Europe's strength: Every country would, in practice, (have to) develop their own version, while in the US a company can easily scale across the entire nation. For Software, it makes no (economic) sense for Europe to compete in an area where this kind of scale is important. And that strength argument, only some minor politicians, and some journalists, keep bringing up headlines such as "Can Germany save Europe?", or celebrating "Germany back on the world stage" when there is some minor meeting hosted by Germany (seen recently). The vast majority of people could not care less about being "number one" and "leading (anything, politically)". Not trying to reinvent the wheel, or many wheels actually, out of some "pride" moment seems pretty foolish to me. If the US is good producing this or that, we get it from there, so what? Everybody, including the US, made even more far-reaching similar decisions with industry moved to China. Compared to that, European reliance on the US is not much, and pretty much unavoidable, unless one gives up lots of wealth.
- crote 10mo ago
  Defend against what? France has nukes, so those aren't a plausible threat. Any kind of land invasion is doomed to fail - the US didn't even manage to beat a bunch of goat herders in one of the poorest countries of the world. A naval blockade is the most likely to succeed - except for the whole "land bridge to Asia/Africa" part. And if the blockade does succeed and the continent starts to starve, there's the whole "France has nukes" part again... Besides, do you really think China/India won't get involved? And do you really think the US public is going to accept their friends and family dying because some power-hungry politician got the braindead idea to send them against Europe? The reception will be worse than Vietnam!

embedding-shape 10mo ago

More importantly, the bilateral relationship between the US and Europe represents 30% of global trade, and 40% of the global GDP. Both economies complement each other naturally (at least right now), and neither partners don't want it to end, so even with the relationship becoming more fragile as the US tries to close itself off from the world, I think both will still try to remain collaborative with each other, regardless of this posturing that is going on.

ben_w 10mo ago
It will take a lot to shift that trade dynamic, but the current US administration seems quite energetic about rapidly tearing down Chesterton's Fences that it doesn't understand nor want to spend the time to understand, so I'd not bet on this remaining so even for the next 3 years. And yes, I do understand how utterly bonkers it is to suggest something this big changing over just 3 years.
- tormeh 10mo ago
  I don't believe this is possible, even at Trump speed. It's much easier to wreck NATO than to reshape the world economy to that extent.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    Indeed, but it's not impossible for him to simply wreck the economy faster than it can be correctly reshaped.
    - ethbr1 10mo ago
      Boris Johnson: Hold my pint.
      - ben_w 10mo ago
        Fortunately for the UK, the photos of Boris Johnson holding a pint during covid lockdowns he'd ordered, mean that Boris Johnson is no longer a threat to the UK.
  - golem14 10mo ago
    I didn't believe Brexit would happen either, until it did.
- SllX 10mo ago
  That trade dynamic isn’t going to shift unless the EU becomes a lot more insular. The War in Ukraine is dampening trade with Russia. The EU is struggling in their trade relations with the PRC even more than with America right now, and fears them more than they fear us. A trade deal (“Mercosur”) with South America is in the process of potentially blowing up, and if it’s not passed in its current state, Brazil is looking to walk for the remainder of their President’s term in office. So the EU’s options are limited.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    The EU certainly has limited options, I agree about that. The problem I see is the risks are not under the EU's control. We may face becoming much more insular regardless of what any of us ourselves actually want. Trump is behaving in a manner not consistent with EU nations retaining indepdendence and sovreignty. And also betting the future of USA on economic development plans (and military plans) that do not seem realistic.
    - SllX 10mo ago
      The insular part was a very small, maybe too subtle of, joke. That’s also not a viable option for the EU, or more specifically: the constituent nations of the EU. They’re as dependent on trade as we are, maybe even more so, and so we are stuck in this relationship where we constantly piss each other off in various ways, and believe me when I say it goes both ways.
  - ethbr1 10mo ago
    > So the EU’s options are limited. Part of the issue if that as you move up the value chain your list of potential trading partners shrinks, as lower-income partners aren't viable. Look at GDP per capita (I picked nominal, for export consumption purposes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Europe's options for high-value exports at scale are... who?
    - tremon 10mo ago
- StopDisinfo910 10mo ago
  Technically the biggest blow to the US-Europe trade relationship came from the Biden administration. The IRA was naked attempt at pulling European companies from Europe and push them to invest in the US instead. Trump policies look extreme because tariffs are often seen as crude and outdated but it's very much a continuation of economic hostility rather than a novelty.
chrisweekly 10mo ago
"neither partners don't" I think your main point is valid, but it would be more compelling if you'd taken a few seconds to read it before submitting, to catch this double-negative.

ExoticPearTree 10mo ago

Europe (as in all european countries combined) does not have a military powerful enough to oppose the US. And that is all that matters.

xnyan 10mo ago
Would you say that the United States had a much larger and more expensive military than Vietnam? How did that work out for the United States?
- jonnybgood 10mo ago
  The US was winning the Vietnam war militarily. The US pulled out because it wasn’t winning it domestically.
  - tor825gl 10mo ago
    This is a fiction.
  - praptak 10mo ago
    Well, "not winning domestically" can happen as likely today as it did in the sixties. If anything, the US society is more divided today.
    - randallsquared 10mo ago
      In the event that someone is directly attacking Americans in America, I think you'll find that Americans are more united than it appears. Americans culturally have seen ourselves as the "Good Guys" for the last century or so, and Good Guys imply Bad Guys. If there aren't any credible Bad Guys external to the US, Americans start thinking the Bad Guys are the rich, or the coastal elites, or flyover country, or liberals, or whatever. That's just 'cause there's no one else to be against, though; it'll pass.
      - jvdvegt 10mo ago

reactordev 10mo ago

If the EU goes against the US and happens to recruit allies, we’re cooked.

0xbadcafebee 10mo ago
Not really. We have the most money, the most guns, and world economies depend on us. Europe won't even fight Russia when they literally invaded a country in their backyard, and Russia is much weaker than the US.
- lesuorac 10mo ago
  Fighting Russia or the US is basically the same; you're just going to get nuked. Ukraine doesn't get nuked because Russia isn't in a real risk of losing it's own territory and doesn't want to annex irradiated lands. But also Europe (besides Ukraine) doesn't have much to gain from fighting Russia. They're happy to assist in air raids in North Africa / Middle East for energy reasons (see Libya) but it's fighting for practical purposes. The table can also be turned against the US. Despite the endless complaints about Mexico sending drugs & drug dealers into the US it's not like we are doing effective (or drastic).
  - astrange 10mo ago
    Europe has a lot to gain from fighting Russia, because if they conquer Ukraine they're going to invade Poland next.
    - Calazon 10mo ago
      I doubt Russia would invade the EU anytime soon under current conditions, even if they manage to annex all of Ukraine with no further losses. Much more likely they invade another non-EU, non-NATO country like Moldova.
      - M95D 10mo ago
        Much more likely they'll invade Belarus, then Letonia, Estonia, etc. well before they invade Moldova.

buckle8017 10mo ago

Europe would need to increase military spending to 20+% of GDP to plausibly defend themselves. The EU is a vassal state through and through, they just haven't accepted this yet.

nosianu 10mo ago
> they just haven't accepted this yet. What on earth are you talking about??? We have accepted that for a long time, and there are no plans to change it. Why do you think there is zero movement to disentangle from any important US dependencies? Such as software. There is nothing whatsoever happening to be any less dependent on the US, part from defense, and that only after repeated urging and finally some real force-pressure to get the EU moving (even after Trump's first term little to nothing actually happened). European countries are perfectly fine with where they are, if any less dependency on the US is to happen, it will only be after huge pressure from the US. That is deliberate, they just don't see value in e.g. trying to recreate the Microsoft and other software ecosystems. After all, it already exists, so why compete at that point? It does not make economic sense. Also, it is not Europe's strength: Every country would, in practice, (have to) develop their own version, while in the US a company can easily scale across the entire nation. For Software, it makes no (economic) sense for Europe to compete in an area where this kind of scale is important. And that strength argument, only some minor politicians, and some journalists, keep bringing up headlines such as "Can Germany save Europe?", or celebrating "Germany back on the world stage" when there is some minor meeting hosted by Germany (seen recently). The vast majority of people could not care less about being "number one" and "leading (anything, politically)". Not trying to reinvent the wheel, or many wheels actually, out of some "pride" moment seems pretty foolish to me. If the US is good producing this or that, we get it from there, so what? Everybody, including the US, made even more far-reaching similar decisions with industry moved to China. Compared to that, European reliance on the US is not much, and pretty much unavoidable, unless one gives up lots of wealth.
crote 10mo ago
Defend against what? France has nukes, so those aren't a plausible threat. Any kind of land invasion is doomed to fail - the US didn't even manage to beat a bunch of goat herders in one of the poorest countries of the world. A naval blockade is the most likely to succeed - except for the whole "land bridge to Asia/Africa" part. And if the blockade does succeed and the continent starts to starve, there's the whole "France has nukes" part again... Besides, do you really think China/India won't get involved? And do you really think the US public is going to accept their friends and family dying because some power-hungry politician got the braindead idea to send them against Europe? The reception will be worse than Vietnam!