I, for one, would very much like to see US be more neutral.
But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.
If you acknowledged that more openly, I think people would take more gladly to your arguments: yes, it will hurt both US and EU as the countries move away from this mutually beneficial arrangement (which helped keep US a global economic leader, and helped EU focus on society development — greatly simplified summary so obviously flawed), but I do agree with you that hopefully we end up with a nicer state of affairs in 20-30 years. I am not necessarily confident this happens though, which is also what you might be seeing play out (fear of this unknown future).
You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?
Note that people do complain about other countries doing the things you see them complain about in the US too (eg. China's state sponsorship of local companies with reduced taxes and oversight), though I understand how you, as an American, feel those towards the US more strongly. And yes, they are even more common against the US because we have more US people engaging in discourse on the same platforms (mostly US ones), so they are unsuspecting "willing" listeners. Not much sense in arguing about China when everybody agrees, and Chinese do not feel the liberty or have any desire to participate.
And that's perhaps the core point: the two cultures value these same human rights, which does mean that you need to hear the shit people dislike a lot more (and there's even the term for it in "vocal minority").
>I, for one, would very much like to see US be more neutral.
Cool.
>But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.
Europeans keep mentioning these supposed benefits in discussions online. But suspiciously, they never get very concrete.
Prior to WW1, the US had a policy of staying out of European geopolitics. Our economy did fantastic during that period.
Switzerland does fantastic by staying relatively neutral.
Currently, the US is sanctioning Russia. This has obvious economic downsides for the US. It makes the dollar less attractive as a global reserve currency.
If European countries were "vassal states" to the US, as I'm always being told, why were they buying oil from Russia rather than the USA prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? That would be an obvious economic benefit for the US that failed to materialize.
>You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?
I don't know. Perhaps you would've had a third world war already? After all, that was the idea with the US staying in Europe -- to prevent a third world war. By all means enlighten me regarding whatever you had in mind.
One point is it would probably be good for the US economy, since you would've bought more American weapons to better defend yourself.
- - -
Part of what I am trying to help Europeans understand is that their anti-American rhetoric is the very thing that undermined the American voter's idealism towards Europe.
Europeans consistently seem to believe that America benefits significantly from the current arrangement. I haven't seen much evidence at all that anyone in the US believes this. American citizens don't believe it. American leadership doesn't believe it either. Look at the recent JD Vance leak.
The last 3-4 presidents have all been asking Europe to step up and fund its own defense.
There is an astonishing mismatch between the cynicism with which the Europeans view the transatlantic relationship, and the idealism with which the Americans previously viewed it (until they realized how little Europeans like them, now that the transatlantic relationship has become the #1 topic on social media). I believe that America's shift away from Europe will become a bipartisan consensus now that the US has woken up. Trump lead the shift, but I think there is a very good chance that the Democrats keep it in place if they come back into power.
More and more Americans are thinking thoughts like: "Those Europeans are making fun of us for our lack of public healthcare. Why should our tax dollars pay to defend them, when we could be spending that money on our health at home?"
I hope you get ready for what may come when the US leaves:
>Zelensky highlighted the disparity in forces between Russia and Europe, saying that Ukraine's army consists of 110 brigades, while Russia fields 220 and plans to expand to 250 this year. In contrast, Europe, including U.S. troops stationed there, has only about 82 combat brigades, he said.
>...
>"Today, an army of 110 brigades is holding back those who have 220-230. But it's one to two," Zelensky added. The president said that while Russia's numeral advantage compared to Ukraine is two to one, in comparison to Europe, it's three to one, which is sufficient for an effective offensive.
You are venturing into what-ifs as if there is any one clear answer, with your implication being that nothing else would have changed (if US did not fund EU defense, US would have saved that money instead).
I can come up with a scenario that's more peaceful: eg. if US did not fund EU's defenses, EU would have developed their own defence industry further, and instead of buying weaponry from US, they would have equally got it from Russia, and more recently, India and China. Perhaps even India and China catch up slower as Russia has richer willing customers in EU.
This would have led to Russia having an even bigger economic interest in playing nice with EU, and would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
Ergo, no war in Ukraine.
At the same time, US companies would not have been trusted with projects with highest earning potential (government infrastructure projects, including IT): perhaps MS never gets so deep into EU institutions and companies, Amazon never gets trusted for IT infra, etc.
Now, I think the US is recognizing that this earning potential has moved to other big countries or systems (like BRICS), as these countries have increased their purchasing power — which is all fair and good — but to repeatedly claim that US did not benefit from EU's purchasing power for US products in the last 60 years is insincere.
My understanding is that the US and Europe traded quite a bit prior to WW1, including for critical stuff such as food. I don't see NATO as nearly as critical for transatlantic trade as you do.
A basic problem with your story is the US/Europe trade deficit. If the US gains such a critical trade advantage by providing security to Europe, you would expect this would come through in the EU buying lots of US exports. In fact, the US buys more EU exports, despite the EU not funding US defense the way the US funds EU defense.
>I can come up with a scenario that's more peaceful: eg. if US did not fund EU's defenses, EU would have developed their own defence industry further, and instead of buying weaponry from US, they would have equally got it from Russia, and more recently, India and China. Perhaps even India and China catch up slower as Russia has richer willing customers in EU.
So Europe would buy USSR weapons during the Cold War? How does this hypothetical go, exactly? This just sounds like a scenario where the USSR expands to cover all of Europe. The Berlin Wall never would've fallen because instead of a wall, it would be the Atlantic Ocean. And honestly, if that's the world you want to live in, I'm fine with that.
>would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
But NATO would have included a rearmed West Germany in this hypothetical? I'll bet the USSR would've feared that...
>US did not benefit from EU's purchasing power for US products in the last 60 years
Trade is always mutually beneficial. I think security benefits both parties approximately equally, in the sense of allowing that trade and prosperity to occur. But the US would've received similar trade and prosperity benefit if it had only invested in Europe's security 10% as much, and asked Europe to cover the rest.
In any case, as I stated in my comment -- whatever Europeans may believe, few in the US appear to agree much. That seems to be a core part of the issue. Europe can tell itself all it wants that "defending Europe is in America's core interest" -- but if America doesn't actually believe that, it doesn't matter, and you guys need to either defend yourselves or (much preferably) find a way to make peace with Russia.
As I stated already, I don't think "defending Europe is in America's core interest", especially not today — but it definitely was for the bigger part of the post-WW2 period.
Some things will not necessarily show up in the trade numbers: as a random example, a US company like Amazon opening up Amazon EU headquarters in Ireland will not show up as surplus for US economy as long as they reinvest that locally, but most Europeans will see it as a US company and the business contributing to its success — "simple" goes out the window very quickly with global monopolistic companies.
It's funny you focus so much on the "Cold War", when it was mostly a Cold War between... US and USSR. Again, you are making claims as if you know exactly how things would have played out if US did not decide to invest in influencing European politics and economies. Perhaps we would have seen a larger shift to socialism and communism instead (eg. in Spain, socialists have already been on the winning side of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Spanish_general_election).
Even that might not mean strong alignment with USSR, just like Yugoslavia never did even as a socialist, communist country.
I hear you on how Americans perceive the situation differently, but you are similarly not willing to hear out the European viewpoints.
Anyway, I think this has gone long enough — thank you for sharing your perspective, and even if I failed to nudge you towards better understanding the "other side" too, it's always great to hear different viewpoints.
>It's funny you focus so much on the "Cold War", when it was mostly a Cold War between... US and USSR.
The common US view is that if that Cold War was not "fought", the USSR would've taken over most or all of Europe. Non-alignment only works if there are 2 rival superpowers to play off of each other. But if you're fine with USSR hegemony in Europe, or you think that's not the outcome that would've happened -- that's a great argument for the US pulling out now. If the US doesn't reliably make things better (which is my view), it's better for us to leave.
>I hear you on how Americans perceive the situation differently, but you are similarly not willing to hear out the European viewpoints.
I think I am willing to hear Europeans out. I previously said stuff in this thread like "I'm happy for you to constructively critique..." and "If you wish to persuade me... you're welcome to respectfully make your case..." and "Of course Europe's contribution to Iraq and Afghanistan should be acknowledged." [Note that Europeans in this thread have largely not acknowledged any sort of positive contribution the US made to Europe -- which reinforces my point that we should go. What frustrates me is Europeans who complain about the US endlessly, and also want us to stay!]
>Anyway, I think this has gone long enough — thank you for sharing your perspective, and even if I failed to nudge you towards better understanding the "other side" too, it's always great to hear different viewpoints.
Appreciate you sharing your perspective as well. To be fair, I think we mostly agree with one another anyways, and my disagreements are deeper with others in this thread.
Americans do generally support Ukraine and Europe. Even most Republicans seem to oppose Trumps policy. A policy wbichseems to be based on whims and a personal appreciation for far right dictators who flatter him. But somehow we elected him so until Republicans man up and impeach him we have to suffer from him undermining our alliances and government.
Russia is the one that needs to find a way to make peace. Not only because they started it but because they're the reason there is no peace deal
> This would have led to Russia having an even bigger economic interest in playing nice with EU, and would not have feared NATO at all, because it wouldn't have included US.
Ergo, no war in Ukraine.
The Capitalist/free trade peace theory has not worked out well, compared to democratic peace theory. It failed wrt Ukraine where both Ukraine and multiple EU countries had significant trade with Russia but Russia still went to war despite knowing some of the economic damage it would cause.
Also the invasion had nothing to do with NATO.
Bricks isn't actually a thing
Of course both US and EU have benefited from trade relations quite a lot and Trump's nonsense is nonsense
But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.
If you acknowledged that more openly, I think people would take more gladly to your arguments: yes, it will hurt both US and EU as the countries move away from this mutually beneficial arrangement (which helped keep US a global economic leader, and helped EU focus on society development — greatly simplified summary so obviously flawed), but I do agree with you that hopefully we end up with a nicer state of affairs in 20-30 years. I am not necessarily confident this happens though, which is also what you might be seeing play out (fear of this unknown future).
You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?
Note that people do complain about other countries doing the things you see them complain about in the US too (eg. China's state sponsorship of local companies with reduced taxes and oversight), though I understand how you, as an American, feel those towards the US more strongly. And yes, they are even more common against the US because we have more US people engaging in discourse on the same platforms (mostly US ones), so they are unsuspecting "willing" listeners. Not much sense in arguing about China when everybody agrees, and Chinese do not feel the liberty or have any desire to participate.
And that's perhaps the core point: the two cultures value these same human rights, which does mean that you need to hear the shit people dislike a lot more (and there's even the term for it in "vocal minority").