From this side of the pond, it seems like US is now an (overt) empire which only cares about themselves and would be happy to crush anything and everything which doesn't acknowledge them as the kings of the planet or disrespect them the slightest sense.
The US has been an empire for a long time. They were just much more clever and effective about it and have been aligning themselves with western democracies.
This seems to be ending now.
Europe is being bombarded by fascist propaganda internally, from Russia and now the US as well (primarily perpetuated by Musk). For some reason everyone decided that breaking up and weakening Europe is a majorly important goal. I can't shake the feeling that this is a coordinated effort.
> They were just much more clever and effective about it...
I know. This is why I added an "(overt)" here.
> For some reason everyone decided that breaking up and weakening Europe is a majorly important goal.
People might not know it much, but Europe has some silent power about some very important aspects of this world. Removing this power will allow seeding of infighting and removal of tons of regulations in physical and digital realm, allowing much more "monies" for the rich.
Plus, Europe is leaving fossil based fuels faster than anyone else.
It's all about monies now. The rest can be (modern) peasants and merely survive. It doesn't matter as long as monies keep coming.
It's a fusion of Brave new World and 1984. Look at Australian politics. One prominent figure allegedly told that $2/day is enough for many people.
> For some reason everyone decided that breaking up and weakening Europe is a majorly important goal.
If we assume that the US is in the process of moving away from being a democracy, or at least becoming an illiberal democracy (I personally think that this is _slightly_ pessimistic and that the Supreme Court may surprise us and save it yet, but it's an idea that's very much out there) then Europe (defined broadly) is left as the last major outpost of liberal democracy in the world (or second-last; you could argue India either way to some extent); it then makes some sense that it would be targeted by authoritarian and moving-towards-authoritarian states.
I dispute the US is an empire. I get that all the time from Russian propagandists saying they are fighting the expansion of the US empire but there isn't one. I'm a Brit and we used to have a real empire where you'd appoint a viceroy to run the country and build colonial headquarters and station troops and beat up or imprison the locals if they go uppity.
Calling the US an empire because it if friendly and does business with other countries is just propping up the fascist propaganda.
Under this plan, some countries are coerced to abandon building their own advanced goods (like planes), and given promises of supply from the US, fueling the technology gap with some countries in the mid-term.
This plan is what made Europe to be semi-dependent on US for defense and some advanced tech. My country had to re-invent the wheel countless times to close that gap, sometimes getting flak from the US, and even some technologies are outright denied to us to keep us vulnerable in some cases.
This plan is what made US a "soft-empire", though everybody signed into it because they had to. Now, the current US administration wants to discontinue these warranties, and Europe is starting the ReArm program.
Another face of the US (the Greater US) is discussed in this book [1], also worth reading, which is in my reading list.
The Marshall Plan doesn't mention empire. Wikipedia defines them as
>An empire is a political unit made up of several territories, military outposts, and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries".
I've sort of argued with Russian propagandists going on about Europe being part of the US empire so the Russians are only doing the same by sending tanks into Ukraine but it isn't really like that. I mean the UK is obligated to help defend the US under NATO and we did sent troops to Afgansitan on their behalf so is the US part of the British Empire or is the the UK part of the US Empire and how can we tell? Where are the viceroys? At that point I mostly get blocked.
I mean you can redefine the words so everywhere that watches netflix is part of the US cultural empire but it's not empire in the traditional British Empire sense and gets a bit meaninless if you include everything.
Seems like I like arguing.. let us go with your definition..
US has several outlying territories. US has around 800 military bases around the world. In SK and Japan (and to a large extent in Australia), US dictates the policies. The world institutions have been mostly controlled by the US without putting itself under their jurisdiction. I see one dominant center with several subordinate peripheries - in Europe, Australia, SK, Japan and the island nations of Pacific. Unlike olden days, you do not need to send people as governers directly. You only need to control the trade, defence and foreign policies.
I live in Europe / UK and I'm not aware of being in a subordinate periphery. We have cooperated with the US in opposing Russia / the USSR but I'm not aware of being in part of the US empire and you may note that now the White House has been occupied by the Kremlin and is telling Ukraine to surrender to Russia, we are telling them to sod off with that. Is the UK part of the US empire or is the US still partly part of the British Empire and how can I tell?
Also re Australia, it's a long standing military ally of the US but it still a constitutional monarchy under the British crown - I think they still have Liz on some of the bank notes. I guess military cooperation trumps head of state? It all gets confusing.
I know it is several days, but Europe and Australia have given up their foreign policy independence in return being part of US defense umbrella. Western Europe and Australia will toe the US line pretty much always, even if it is against the detriment of their own citizens and countries.
This Munich security conference is a wake-up call for EU in many ways. The speeches by JD Vance and Jeffery Sachs were both shocking in different ways. The reason you are telling US to sod off now, is primarily because you want to return to the old ways of pre-Trump. Europe really likes the NATO security umbrella and the money from US. When the old ways are threatened, you are screaming to return to the old ways. I am not seeing a Europe that is saying we will be independent. I am seeing an Europe that desperately wants a return to the predicable security umbrella.
Sure they're friendly — to corrupt politicians who sold our country's rich natural resources to American companies for peanuts back in 1991, and continue doing so.
As a resident of a supposedly developing country that's been stagnating for more than 30 years, I really see very few positive things coming out of the US and Europe. Their companies suck our country dry in exchange for kickbacks to the government (which has never won even a single honest election — but this never bothers anybody), their politicians are never worried about "human rights" or "democracy" in our country because they have significant monetary interests here. In spite of our horrific human rights record.
Lots of promises of large capital investments from the West were made by many diplomatic missions back in Spring of 2022; none have actually materialized.
Meanwhile, the Chinese and Russians are busy building roads, bridges, and power plants — playing the long game.
The fact that the US does imperialism is common knowledge. The control and influence, by military, by corporations, by corruption, etc. is absolutely massive.
It is very silly to argue it does not exist just because the British allegedly had a larger one.
People (the majority of which are not Russian and hate modern day Russia) call the US an empire because of seemingly endless list of things like banana Republics, operation condor, sending death squads to Nicaragua, chevron genocide, wars for oil.
> I know this could be said of any country at any time, but please don't conflate the current administration with the whole American people. [...] and I know I'm not alone in being perplexed by how he won the election.
The current administration didn't grow in a vacuum. It might not be the whole of the USA people, but a large enough fraction of the USA people supported the current administration, otherwise there would be no chance of it getting elected, even with all the brokenness of the USA electoral system. And the current administration still has a large enough support from the USA people, otherwise they could do nothing: the government is not some mechanical device which blindly follows the wishes of whoever is in command, it operates through people, and if all the people rejected the current administration, its orders would have no effect.
But all the politicians in charge of the current administration are (and have been chosen to) do exactly that - blindly follow the wishes of the person in command. The voters may (or may not have) voted in the current administration either with or without electoral fraud and gerrymandering on Musk's part, we'll never know, but we do know the same political group were not against trying to take the Capitol forcibly last time, so not by democratic means. It was and is worth too much to Russia and China to not have their man in charge of their adversary (the US), doing their bidding. So they did was necessary to make that happen. Including Musk's takeover of X. His collecting of voter information. The foreign interference and disinformation campaigns. And so on. They play dirty these people, they do not represent democracy, they represent the taking down of the US and everything they used to represent. In a democracy we give the elected politicians a mandate. It means the administration only operates through the people via their vote and that only takes place typically every four/ five years. Until the next vote (if there is one, or at least there may be a rigged one), then no, it does not operate through the people, not on a day to day level of functioning. And to talk of the people rejecting the current administration before the next election is not practical. They have little power to do so. Unless you are referring to an armed insurrection against the government, a revolution. Which of course is not part of the democratic system, that is another means of the people responding all together. There have been revolutions to overturn dictatorships, yes.
A high percentage of people here in the states were so disgusted with the GOP, they foolishly didn't vote. Now, the only thing that can bring any relief, is the US Constitution. If followed, it will right the ship, hopefully at the mid-terms.
I live in Texas, I didn't vote for Trump. It's 20hrs by car to Washington DC.
Trump is firing people at random, Musk is plugging his USB drive into all the databases, what can I practically do to "reject the current administration"?
I also have friends and relatives with different values, it's very hard to relate to them voting Republican again after what we went through with COVID. Had the party nominated someone else, maybe, but doing this again after all we knew already?
There’s always been a streak of self-loathing and nihilism in the US. Some kind of imposter syndrome writ large and handled with fake arrogance and real terror.
> please don't conflate the current administration with the whole American people.
The whole? No, of course no leader should ever be conflated with the whole people of a country. A plurality, however? Definitely.
Trump won an evidently free and fair election, growing his vote-share over essentially the whole country. He has not conducted a heel-face turn since entering office, and his actions are broadly consistent with his campaign statements.
Moreover, Trump isn't the only elected official in the federal government. If Trump were some aberration then Congress would have every ability to thwart his agenda or remove him from office; they have not. The majority-Republican Congress approved even his controversial cabinet nominees on party-line votes, and to my knowledge they have not taken any major investigative or punitive steps since.
A majority of American voters may not have voted specifically for this, but they did vote for the party and candidate who are content to allow this to happen in the supposed service of other goals. Voters who earnestly believe the misinformation shared by demagogues and social media are a tragic case, but that does not excuse voters who 'voted with their wallet,' foreswearing their obligation to the common good in hopes of a tax cut.
Do not mistake me for a rabid partisan. I do not let the Democrats off the hook either for reasons that are another rant and are directionally in alignment with Nate Silver's published opinions.
I agree. Mr. Trump can credibly argue that he received a mandate at the last election. It was not a squeaker, a “hold-your-nose-and-vote”, it was convincing and, as you say, cleanly won vote. America knew exactly who he was, and has known for some time. He was very clear in his statements what he was going to do when he was elected, who he was going to use to do it, and he is following through. all but one of the most controversial cabinet nominees sailed through their confirmations with flying colors, with barely token opposition from those who made a great public show of “being on the fence,” as we knew they would.
Part of me is curious to know exactly what those who “vote with their wallets” would abide. It is unfortunate for them that their Faustian bargain is turning out not to be true, and that neither inflation, nor the cost of living, has or will go down, and that services that they and their loved ones may rely on are being dismantled, but they were candidly advised that this would be the case.
There are dozens to maybe hundreds of moving parts when you set about to influence another country's politics. Conspiracy theories about hacking voting machines can't be confirmed. But an adversary would do it if they could. It's certain that they're doing just about everything else from co-opting religion to degrading the quality and availability of public information to bribing and/or coercing politicians. It's a war, just not a shooting war.
“Even worse” is an odd way to say “black woman”. I am not accusing you of sexism or racism; I am saying there is enough sexism and racism in the US to account for the difference in total popular vote, and certainly to account for the 115k votes that won the election for Trump.
Had Walz been top of the ticket with exactly the same campaign and policies, he would have won. It sucks and it’s an indictment of the country, but pretending otherwise doesn’t help.
There's zero chance of that. Democrats didn't even trust their own base to have a primary for Kamala because she would repeat her 2019 primary performance.
One gamble her campaign made was that more people would vote for her specifically because she was black and/or female. I doubt there are any hard numbers, but I'd guess that number far overrode any racism/sexism vote.
Walz suggested he may run for 2028 so we may get lucky enough to witness your prediction. I'd bet against him winning more than one state before primaries.
Maybe that wasn't the best way to put it but did you see her on stage saying 200 million Americans died from covid? Twice. I think someone of even moderate competence would be able to figure it's not true over half the US population was dead. It seems to me the only way she was lined up to be president was for reasons other than competence.
You think she's dim because she misspoke and said million instead of thousand?
Have... have you heard Trump speak? Or lifelong gaffe machine Biden? Or Bush Jr? Even Obama misspoke from time to time and he was a particularly gifted orator.
I almost can not imagine a worse president. I would rather vote for a random homeless person off the street.
Harris may not have had a great campaign but it absolutely baffles me that a majority of voters would even consider voting for Trump after all the crap he pulled last time. He should be in prison, not the white house.
I'm not American. Harris didn't strike me as being worse than Trump either as a person or as a political leader. What about her was even worse than Trump?
