11 ms·

It's still baffling to see the US lose so much face in so short a time. There is definitely truth that Europe has relied on US defense for too long, but what t

• pfdietz 5mo ago
  The US is teetering on the edge of a financial abyss. These are all just foreshocks.
  • ignoramous 5mo ago
    > The US is teetering on the edge of a financial abyss. Do you say this because of the outstanding debt? Otherwise, just their top 10 publicly traded companies earn more than all but 2 countries. Just the US defense budget ($1T and estimated $1.5T next year), which exports US foreign policy globally, absolutely dwarfs every other country's.
    • khriss 5mo ago
      Debt, rather the lack of any via ble means for the US to pay back even a fraction of its debt without having the world's reserve currency. Yes, theoretically they can always print their way out, but that's just default through inflation and bond yields will correct immediately to account for it.
      • pfdietz 5mo ago
        It's the outcome I expect. It's probably the outcome the US politicians expect, too.
    • Frieren 5mo ago
      > just their top 10 publicly traded companies earn more than all but 2 countries Are not European countries trying to reduce dependency on American tech giants? China was very successful in this regard. Russia is also independent but in the most incompetent way possible. The EU could do it quite well. The USA is not a reliable partner. To send data to the USA from the EU is a fatal mistake that needs to be corrected. The risk was acceptable in the past, but not anymore. The USA comes from a very privileged position thanks to many factors. The government is making sure that non of the conditions hold anymore.
      • pepperoni_pizza 5mo ago
        I'm sure you've seen many empires come and go in your thousands of years as an immortal elf mage.
    • nolok 5mo ago
      And what is that worth, when they failed to properly protect their allies in a war they initiated against something that was obvious and expected ? The attack on Iran has been absolutely terrible for the US's image as an absolute military power
    • vkou 5mo ago
      The issue isn't the debt. Debt can be paid off. The issue is that there's a complete collapse in it's ability to pick good leadership, or at least leadership that can meet the bar of 'doesn't piss on the floor', and no path for course-correction from it. It's in the 'everyone plunder as much as you can carry' stage, and nobody cares. (Which also means that whatever that debt will be buying will more likely than not, be incredibly stupid, and likely self-destructive.)
      • piva00 5mo ago
        Debt can be paid off until it can't, US's budget expenditure on interests has tripled since 2020, it is larger than their expenditure on the military now. The 10-year bond yield is not controlled by the Fed, if it keeps raising the interests payment will continue the crushing of the budget. The USA currently depends on debt, it doesn't collect enough taxes to cover expenses as it is, with interests raising on an even larger debt amount there's no way out except for raising taxes to plug the gap. Any American politician who raises taxes will be out of a job, it's one of the most sensitive topics for Americans so it will only be done when the problem is out of hand. Of course, the USA can just print its way out of debt instead of raising taxes but at that point their bonds wouldn't be as attractive, inflation would also become a huge issue (probably the 2nd most sensitive economic topic for Americans). As far as I know most empires had their pivotal moment when their debt crushed their power, it seems to be inevitable.
        • vkou 5mo ago
          > Debt can be paid off until it can't, > The USA currently depends on debt, it doesn't collect enough taxes to cover expenses as it is That's where the lack of 'good governance' comes in. Good governance would, as of 2026, require raising taxes. The US has plenty of capacity to pay, it's just that the people running it prioritize keeping capital owners happy over the long-term welfare of the country. You're right that actually raising taxes is political suicide. That's one of the reasons this dysfunction has no escape clause, but the past 10 years have piled on a lot of other reasons, too. It's one thing when a government is ignoring a financial timebomb, but is otherwise, trying to... Run the country like a country. It's another when it's ignoring a financial timebomb, while also running the country in the same way that a drunk runs a hurdle race.
    • s_dev 5mo ago
      All of these financial 'privileges' are based on the US having the world reserve currency and petro dollar. The US in the unique position of being able to 1. Print Money. 2. Externalise inflation. 3. Ensure a base load demand for it's currency based off a worlds need of oil. These privileges were supported wholeheartedly by all the worlds 'middle' powers e.g. Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Spain, Sweden etc. Thus establishing a world order. The US has seemingly turned on all these middle powers for no reason, decided the world order needed to change when it was already #1. The US will of course still be a superpower but it is going to lose it hegemony.
      • akie 5mo ago
        THANK YOU! So many people, including very intelligent and well-informed ones, do not understand this. The US gets truly outsized benefits from having the reserve currency.
    • mazurnification 5mo ago
      Debt is symptom not a underlying cause. As well big defense budget and very big valuations (1). This is according to Klain and Pettis diagnosis that I think is correct one or at least close to being correct (from the "Trade wars are class wars" book - do not worry this has nothing to do with socialism). Basically they argue that US (and other trade deficit countries) and China (and other trade surplus countries) are creating mirror imbalances that would have to be rectified - either by policy actions or when driven up to conclusion by system breakage. Like Great Depression or Japan lost decade on the surplus side. And possibly inflationary crisis on deficit countries (but this is my interpretation - I do not think they claim that and I might have not understood something). In that lenses latest political development in US does make more sense. (1) trade deficit pushes assets price up - as dolar from trade surplus has to return to US somehow - to buy stocks for example. That would also explain why market looks so good even if "real economy" is not so hot - but as US trade deficit is big so is stock demand. Similarly trade deficit pushes unemployment up - to keep it in check federal policy has to intervene. Could be by Biden IRA or by Trump big defense spending. This in turn results in big budget deficits.
  • laughing_man 5mo ago
    If this is true, it's more true of the larger European countries.
    • piva00 5mo ago
      How exactly?
    • benterix 5mo ago
      I don't believe it's true about the USA, and it's even less true about Europe.
    • garte 5mo ago
      Europe is a lot more diversified than the US (subtract the whole AI / internet tech sector and US treasure bonds and you get a lot less volume than Europe) and spends more in social security which is good for the economy as a whole. The US has inflated numbers through soft power influence throughout the whole world but that makes its current course only more self-destructive including bond yields when they come crashing down.
    • tpm 5mo ago
      Please do try to substantiate this with numbers.
      • renewiltord 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        • tpm 5mo ago
          there is no link in any of the parent comments
          • renewiltord 5mo ago
            Indeed, it would seem that both positions are equally well-substantiated.
  • pjc50 5mo ago
    People say this about a lot of places, and even Greece is now kind of OK. The US is not yet Argentina. The bad governance is mostly exporting problems to elsewhere, like the new oil crisis for east Asia. Even the ""government shutdown"" (just ended) isn't a problem. It turns out that you don't have to pay air traffic controllers for months.
    • Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
      They have been saying it about Russia for five years now, and while I'm sure they're hurting, it takes a lot more to fully collapse an economy, especially one as big as Russia or especially the US.
• kakacik 5mo ago
  Anybody who had the pleasure to go through relationship with mentally unstable person (for the lack of better words, if I had to guess some undiagnosed borderline disorder on a scale 1-2 out of 10 mixed with some childhood traumas) sees nothing out of ordinary - just daily chaos, tantrums, illogical destructive behavior and very little self-control on the other side. Narcissism adds a curious twist, but of course for the worse.
  • ragebol 5mo ago
    The more shocking thing might even be that this whole mess is allowed to continue and that there is no way to stop an out of hand situation. The whole US system can't be trusted even when this administration is gone, it's just broken.
    • jahnu 5mo ago
      This is the truth. It would only take half a dozen Republicans to stop the madness now so the obvious question is why don't they? The political system and elite institutions have failed their country. Does the US self correct with the next two election cycles? Hard to believe right now.
      • pjc50 5mo ago
        They like it this way. That, more than anything else, makes them Republicans.
      • benterix 5mo ago
        > It would only take half a dozen Republicans to stop the madness now Well, the alternative for now is Vance. Hard to say which one is worse.
        • jahnu 5mo ago
          Definite risk of a monkey paw curling. But I assume he's less chaotic.
    • 5mo ago
• vr46 5mo ago
  They're laughing all the way to the bank, the US has locked Europe into so many long-term petrochem supply contracts courtesy of two energy crises, and the US have stated point-blank that the supplies (of LNG, in this case) are tied to the US-EU trade treaty plus whatever changes the US wants to make. Same protection racket plus a foot on the brake of the EU's push to renewables.
  • pjc50 5mo ago
    The renewables rollout just keeps going despite the discourse. It does mean buying things from China, which is now the least threatening option.
    • mpweiher 5mo ago
      Alas, it is exactly the intermittent renewables that create a dependency on fossil fuels. Unless you have nuclear or another reliable source like hydro, which you only get if you have the right topography for it.
      • ragebol 5mo ago
        How do renewables create a dependency on fossil fuels? This dependency already existed before renewables in the current sense were a thing. If anything, renewables help existing stock of fossil fuels last longer as you don't burn as much when renewables are generating.
        • peterbecich 5mo ago
          I'm going to guess if net energy use goes up, due to a glut of renewable energy, the gaps on cloudy, windless days will result in greater fossil fuel use than before. There need to be assurances renewables are replacing fossil fuels rather than just adding capacity.
          • pjc50 5mo ago
            > the gaps on cloudy, windless days will result in greater fossil fuel use than before How can it possibly, when ""before"" (what dates and countries are we talking about?) was mostly fossil fuel anyway? Remember that Germany, France, Spain and Poland look completely different in terms of energy mix!
• SXX 5mo ago
  And this is a good for EU. In past decades EU lost energy independence and good part of nuclear because croocked politicians that took dictatorships money while feeding same dictator with oil and gas money. At the same time EU had no proper army to defend itself because dependance on US or a way to supply said army.
  • 4gotunameagain 5mo ago
    Conflict with allies is not a good thing for anyone, apart from nationalism. The dictator now makes more money, so we just lost our cheap gas source, and we buy more expensive oil from others.
    • SXX 5mo ago
      Conflict is not good, but wake up call that EU need means to defend itself will help long term. You cant outsource army to defend your borders.
  • wewxjfq 5mo ago
    Europe sans Russia does not produce uranium - why people constantly paint this as an independent energy source is beyond me. Of all Russian energy companies, it was Rosatom that could not be sanctioned.
    • inigoalonso 5mo ago
      You’re right that European nuclear is not "independent" if that means "mined entirely inside Europe". But the dependency profile is not the same for Russian pipeline gas. Uranium is globally traded, compact, cheap to stockpile relative to the energy it contains, and available from several non-Russian suppliers (Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, Australia...). The harder choke points are conversion, enrichment, and reactor-specific fuel fabrication. Europe does have uranium resources, for instance the Salamanca/Retortillo project, but the constraint is permitting, environmental acceptance, waste handling, and political legitimacy rather than geology. So the honest claim is not "nuclear makes Europe autarkic". It is "nuclear gives Europe a more diversifiable and stockpilable dependency than gas, provided Europe also invests in mining, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication capacity".
• exceptione 5mo ago
  > There is definitely truth that Europe has relied on US defense for too long, That wasn't the problem for the USA, on the contrary. «The U.S. is lobbying against SAFE because it mandates contractors from the EU/EFTA/Ukraine. One reason why Tusk is speaking candidly about how shaky the U.S. is as an ally: Washington says it wants Europe to arm itself and take its security into its own hands, but then it demands Europe rely on American hardware. You can't have it both ways. The U.S. said: "Take over Ukraine's war needs." So Europe did so. Now PURL purchases are being slowed down or are on hold because of America's prioritization of its own requirements for the war with Iran. Talking out of both sides of one's mouth doesn't work anymore, and if Trump wants anyone to blame here, he should look in the mirror. Forfeiting America's security patronage always meant forfeiting our ability to bully and coerce.» src: https://xcancel.com/michaeldweiss/status/2047689018683408593
  • pjc50 5mo ago
    Even before Trump, and the invasion of Ukraine, it was transparently obvious that the idea of minimum spending commitment to NATO was intended to prop up the US arms industry rather than actually achieve anything military. To a certain extent the US occupation of Germany was intended to prevent Germany rearming on its own.
    • benterix 5mo ago
      > it was transparently obvious that the idea of minimum spending commitment to NATO was intended to prop up the US arms industry ...to Trump. European leaders took it literally: since the USA stopped being a reliable partner, Europe needs to depend on itself for protection. It makes zero sense to buy American weapons if you can produce/purchase them on the continent.
      • vrganj 5mo ago
        They knew what Trump meant, but this way they could agree at a surface level to keep him happy, while actively distancing themselves in reality.
      • 5mo ago
• throw324du 5mo ago
  People finally started seeing America's true colors
• AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
  We didn't 'rellied on US defense'. We have a different policy... We have Mauser, Carl Walther, Sauer & Sohn, Haenel, DWM, Krupp, Reinmetall, Hckler & Koch and more. We know how to do military
  • koonsolo 5mo ago
    I hope you're French, otherwise you are still relying on US defense.
    • AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
      I'm german and as you just read in the article, Rheinmentall is a german company. And from whom do i depend on US defense? Against Russia? Who can barely make it in Ukraine? Middle east were everyone is fighting everyone and were Iran is very very pissed at the USA? Tell me what defense do i need against whom?
      • koonsolo 5mo ago
        You don't think nuclear deterrence has a place in a modern defense strategy? If not, then I don't see the point in discussing this further.
        • Fnoord 5mo ago
          Well, the nuclear deterrence was how effective in RU vs UA and US/IL vs IR?
          • koonsolo 5mo ago
            Like I said, if you think you don't need nuclear deterrance, there is no point in discussing this further. Also funny how you give 2 examples of nuclear powers who attack countries with no nuclear deterrence.
            • Fnoord 5mo ago
• nolok 5mo ago
  It's a classic case of falling for your own BS. The world's rules were written by them, for them, and their allies notably european countries were willing to go along for the ride for all the side benefit of said safety and stability, both pretended it was a gift out of niceness while it was actually massively profitable But then a portion of the US started believing the whole gift part, and now they're destroying their own control of the world order and forcing other to realign out of their control
  • akie 5mo ago
    I wish I could upvote you twice, because that's exactly what's happening.
  • benterix 5mo ago
    > But then a portion of the US started believing the whole gift part, and now they're destroying their own control of the world order and forcing other to realign out of their control I'm still not sure whether Trump actually believes it or if he's just using it as a propaganda tool. I remember how he reported a conversation with Macron telling him that Macron will have to increase the cost of drugs for French citizens. It was so completely out of touch as drug pricing works completely different in the EU. But he definitely likes to directly imply that all positive aspects of life in Europe are being sponsored by the USA (rather than citizens paying higher taxes). Who knows, maybe he believes it, I wouldn't be surprised really.
  • apexalpha 5mo ago
    The PAX Americana established from '45 and expanded globally after the Soviet Union fell is so all-encompassing that people can't see beyond it anymore. They just can't see the forest as they've been between the trees all their lives. We've truly fell for our own tricks as we call it "international rulebased order" which hides the fact that it's just a benevolent dictatorship under the American Federal government. As we say in Dutch: trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. Perhaps now it leaves in a Boeing. This will forever change the US' role in the world.
  • LeChuck 5mo ago
    This is a great way to put it. Also, confusing having the most powerful army with having an all powerful army.
• aa-jv 5mo ago
  Short time? No, the US has been losing its stance in the world since the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, murdering a million people in cold blood on the basis of outright lies. It has been downhill ever since then. The support for the Gaza genocide is just one in a long list of atrocities for which the American state is responsible, and for which the entire world is starting to hold America responsible. The rest of the world has been watching, and knows this - even if Americans, in their bubble, do not. Its the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and massive violations of human rights at scale which cause the world to lose face in the American system. Plus, the way Americans treat their own people - nobody wants to live like an American, any more. Until someone comes up with an antidote for the warrior narcissism which inflicts a huge portion of American society, the maw of the abyss remains wide open.
  • gorgolo 5mo ago
    I’m not from the US and not trying to defend the US actions, but on Iraq and Gaza, much of Europe takes the same position and goes along with it (and even directly joined the wars and sent troops). I find the online opinion on Europe / US relations interesting. Online you’d think Europe and US are about to split. But in real life, Europe is more dependent on the US than ever. In terms of energy (Russian fossil fuels basically replaced by US fossil fuels), defense, economy (European economy relatively smaller now than 20 yrs ago), and they just finished signing very one sided deals where they guarantee energy purchases and investment after the tariff war. I think there’s a disconnect between European commenters and European politicians.
    • benterix 5mo ago
      > I’m not from the US and not trying to defend the US actions, but on Iraq and Gaza, much of Europe takes the same position and goes along with it (and even directly joined the wars and sent troops). What?! I'm not talking about the recent events when Europe not only didn't joint Trump's war but openly refused the use of its military bases. Even in the past when the so-called "coalition of the willing" was formed, Europe had the biggest protests in its history. There were not hundreds of thousands but millions people on streets. So your picture of uniformity was already false 20 years ago, and now it's just crystal clear.
• simonebrunozzi 5mo ago
  Minor nitpick: you meant "lose", not "loose". It's a common mistake that I see around, and I think it might be useful for you to know :)
  • strogonoff 5mo ago
    I dabble in correcting other people’s spelling on occasion (can’t help it). Somewhat frustratingly, the usual reaction is “language evolves” and “everyone uses it this way” and “if it is understood, it does not matter how you wrote it”.
    • ragebol 5mo ago
      I don't agree with those a lot. At some age, ones use of language stops/slows evolving I suppose.
    • bananaflag 5mo ago
      I agree with the argument that language evolves. Still, "loose" is confusing because it makes me think for one second of the actual word "loose", so it breaks the cadence of reading (and thus it is not really "understood"). If the word "loose" didn't exist, I would have no problem with people misspelling "lose" in this way and eventually becoming mainstream.
    • Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
      Well only to a point, I don't think there's been any significant or formal "we spell this existing word like this now" in a very long time. The only way English language really evolves now is by the addition / invention / adoption of a new word or added meaning to existing words, like yeet, influencer, youtuber, incel, looksmaxxer and simp. And a lot of them are meme words not actually used in normal parlance. Others are the wider adoption of subculture specific words and expressions, like AAVE getting adopted by teenagers / young adults.
  • ragebol 5mo ago
    Corrected
• duxup 5mo ago
  They bought all that stuff, but it was also a choice. I wish Europe was more organized as a group and assertive. But as it stands I don't think Europe is capable of that for reasons beyond just "we bought a lot of stuff". Politically I'm just not sure they're capable.
• jounker 5mo ago
  There are wonderful parallels with Wilhelm II of Germany. It just takes one idiot at the top with no understanding of his own failings to undermine decades of careful diplomacy and policy.
  • ragebol 5mo ago
    In a functioning democracy, this should not be possible. There should be check and balances. Reading a bit about Wilhelm II: so many parallels indeed. "Dreamt of a great colonial power", had to deal with some form of democracy, making incoherent replies, ... And more.
    • halJordan 5mo ago
      No it should definitely be possible in a functioning democracy (and is because it happened in one). It would not be possible with an educated electorate. But that's different from what you said
      • rising-sky 5mo ago
        Doesn't it require some form of educated electorate to sustain a functioning democracy? Otherwise it is really "by the people" if they are merely avatars?
      • GJim 5mo ago
        > It would not be possible with an educated electorate. A free and impartial press is vital for democracy to work (how else do you know who to vote for). However the current state of American news media leaves a lot to be desired..... Abandonment of the broadcast media 'fairness doctrine' for one thing.
        • Yizahi 5mo ago
          The problem with this situation in USA is not quite only because of media. Why did Congress instantly caved under the threat and even imposed a self censorship on itself to prevent any minority dissent (the case of "let's make whole year 2025 a single legal day, to prevent opposition vote" a year ago). It's because they are afraid to not be elected under threat of MAGA. And why is that? Because the election system is very not democratic in the USA. First past the post is already very bad system. No alternative parties, no open election lists, a huge legal lobbying/bribing allowed preventing electing independents. Etc. So the top commenter is right - democracy or even a semblance of one would have mitigated this disaster a lot, by protecting "checks and balanced" from being dismantled by a dictator.