The Trans-Atlantic partnership and NATO should have died in 1991, and replaced with something that did not give Washington the amount of leverage over European affairs as it ended up having.

A way forward for Europe would have anyway involved this decoupling from the US in favor of a more horizontal relationship.


But that's the end of the good news.

Brussels is one giant Trans-Atlanticist lobby, and the European Union will likely suffer a severe crisis of legitimacy when the Americans stop greasing pockets.

Instead, it appears Washington will start fueling the ensuing political chaos by finally blowing the lid of the grand reservoir of justified criticism of the EU and its leaders which has been bubbling beneath the surface for decades.

The EU is an undemocratic, untransparant abomination (the document is completely right about that) that is then unlikely to be capable of the far-reaching reforms that it requires to become a viable independent European super state.


The more gloomy question to ask however, is 'why' and 'why now'?

It's clear the geopolitical situation in the world is coming to a head, and we must assume this decoupling from Europe is a piece to Washington's puzzle vis-á-vis how it intends to sow chaos in Eurasia, which is its only feasible strategy in maintaining hegemony.

Not only must it seek to defeat China, but it must also stop other Eurasian nations from rising up as 'laughing thirds' - nations like Russia and Europe, for example.

This is of course why the decoupling is taking place - Washington's intention is to embroil Russia and Europe in a war with each other, the rotten seed for which it has diligently started sowing since 2008.


Europe and Europeans on their part are geopolitically completely and utterly ignorant, as evidenced by the war-fueling rhetoric of European leaders (who are just towing the Washington line), and the stark lack of pushback from the European people themselves. This lack of understanding of the risks makes Europe infinitely more vulnerable.


A geopolitical storm is coming, and it will be insitgated by the US as it senses it is losing global control to BRICS. (The idea in the document that US is 'pulling back' is an obvious lie that shouldn't be taken seriously) Europe is not ready for it, but staying under Washington's yoke was no option either, and would have just given the Americans even more freedom to sacrifice Europe in whichever way it saw fit.

If Europe had instead started kowtowing to Washington even harder (I suppose it still might), the price for it will be militarization and fueling nationalism - two obvious ingredients for conflict down the line.

The Trans-Atlantic partnership and NATO should have died in 1991, and replaced with something that did not give Washington the amount of leverage over European affairs as it ended up having. — Tzeentch

Luckily NATO didn't go away, because Russia chose the irrational and destructive path of imperialism and clinging on to a lost empire and not the obvious solution of transforming and adapting to the post-empire situation as UK, France or Spain had. It had the CIS, could have been a stabilizing force, but then came Putin the gambler who saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as an unfortunate accident that could be repaired. Countries like Sweden and Finland would have been all too happy to enjoy their situation between the West and Russia, but Putin's bellicose actions forced them to use the NATO option.

Brussels is one giant Trans-Atlanticist lobby, and the European Union will likely suffer a severe crisis of legitimacy when the Americans stop greasing pockets. — Tzeentch

?
On the contrary.

First of all, Brexit showed every EU member just how much it sucks to go outside the common market. The disaster that faced UK hasn't gone unnoticed in other countries. There's no 'wonderful freedom' and economic bliss out there as an non-EU member, which many EU critical parties have now understood. Other countries aren't so rich as Norway and Switzerland. And if the bellicose actions of Russia have brought NATO countries together and NATO back to it's roots, the vilification of the EU by the US will just strengthen the lines in the EU. Of course they are those clinging on the Trump train, but they are few and have to understand that there's no advantage in having that "special relationship" with Trump.

Washington's intention is to embroil Russia and Europe in a war with each other, the rotten seed for which it has diligently started sowing since 2008. — Tzeentch

Quite a conspiracy theory. In truth Trump is eager to get those big bribes for those lucrative contracts that Kirill Dimitriev is dangling in front of him. It's similar to the promises of a Trump hotel earlier, now just the money is in the billions. The Trump regime is one of the most corrupt administrations (if not the most) that has ever been in power in the US.

The EU is an undemocratic, untransparant abomination (the document is completely right about that) that is then unlikely to be capable of the far-reaching reforms that it requires to become a viable independent European super state. — Tzeentch

Now your confusing. What do you want? An European super state? Jeesh, how undemocratic would that be! First and foremost, EU contrary to it's name is a de facto confederation of independent states and good that it stays so. It will be always a loose confederation and the what I abhor are the lunatic and utterly damaging ideas of it becoming a federation like the US. That will never happen and good so. That we have EU elections is enough, because I don't want the EU to challenge anymore than now the authority of the state Parliament. Yes there should be more transparency, but that's a minor issue.

Europe and Europeans on their part are geopolitically completely and utterly ignorant, as evidenced by the war-fueling rhetoric of European leaders (who are just towing the Washington line) — Tzeentch

What line are you talking about? The Washington line above sees Europe itself as the obstacle for the surrender peace in Ukraine! Obviously they aren't towing the Washington line. Did you read the National Security Strategy paper???

A geopolitical storm is coming, and it will be insitgated by the US as it senses it is losing global control to BRICS. — Tzeentch

BRICS is even a more loose group than the various G(pick a number 7 to 20) groups. China and India have had border wars and really aren't allies at all (especially when China is the closest ally to Pakistan). Brazil and South Africa have their own problems and have few things in common with China or India. The US can loose it's place a the sole Superpower, but look at the facts @Tzeentch, nothing will replace it. There's just this huge void left, which will create a giant vortex of various players trying to carve their place in the post-US world, but nothing and nobody will replace the US. And "the fall" of the US isn't going to be so dramatic. It won't be the sole Superpower, just the largest Great Power around.

Whoopee.

Just like with Ukraine, time will tell who is right.

Our views are too far apart to have this broad of a discussion, but I've got the following offer: if you have a small, bite-sized subject where you believe our views differ in interesting ways, point it out and we can go into it in detail.

It is good for Europe and the EU to get shaken to the core by all of this. We will all benefit from the EU becoming stronger and more connected as a collaboration. It’s the whole point of the union. So if we focus our attention to security, industry and collaboration between nations in a way that’s better than it is now, the EU will be much stronger in the long run. The US has only been good for military security, much of the industry is globalized today, meaning most production isn’t made within the US regardless of what the christo-fascists believe will happen through tariffs. And even if they bring production back home, it will cost so much compared to globalized production that the US won’t be able to export in competition with other nations. And if the EU regain a focus on actually building better production within the union because of this, unconstrained by nationalist ideologies, the EU could actually become a real power house.

But we also need to see that the republicans and the Trump regime is eating their own tail. They won’t be able to sustain their path for long and Trump will eventually die. Will other republicans be so eager to rely on the other openly white supremacist ghouls who aren’t popular? I think there’s a growing group within the republicans who have recognized that if Trump and his people don’t go away, it will doom the entire party. So I think there’s lots going on behind the curtains of planning to rid the party of all these christo-fascist extremists.

This also means that we will likely go back to a form of healing idea between the EU and the US.

I would bet that campaigns later on will focus much on healing the bad blood, to shake hands and show that we are healing as an Atlantic collaboration. It will be part of the opposition against Trumps type of people, and spawn a new era of the same kind of “hope” posters that boosted Obama into power. It doesn’t matter if there’s actual progressive politics going along with it, but there’s a win for anyone who’s about to fight dirty and point with their whole hand at the problems Trump caused and who speaks for “healing what was lost”.

It’s the kind of shit that gets campaigns exploding and people rallying. Since Trump has moved so hard in this extremist direction, there will be an equally powerful reaction. Politics and sociology works within the same entropic form of energy dispersion. With a lot of powerful actions comes an equally powerful reaction.

It’s why I like the Hegelian political interpretation of society through thesis, antitheses and synthesis, even if it’s a bit cliché. And what has happened is that with the rise of the internet, the polarization has grown more violent and large compared to traditional processes that formed a synthesis in political ideas and previously hold ideologies.

We’ve essentially already entered a World War III in ideas and ideologies. It’s sped up before militaries had time to lock and load. It might even be that the movement of clashing ideologies that previously led to war moves so fast that we already enter a synthesis phase before anyone has properly fired a bullet.

The war in Ukraine is for instance not because of ideology, it’s out of the delusion of a despot. The problems we have are that representatives of the extremes have gained powers through the speed of the internet, but that also means these ideas are all shot at the same time in large quantities of ammunition. Rather than slowly building itself into much more rigid frontlines that usually ends up in actual world war. So actual world wars aren’t really starting because of it, because the ideas are already being tested and dissected on the world stage. The public of the world behaves like the intellectualization after World War II, without the war happening.

We’re already dissecting the problems before they grow.

It might be hard to see in all of the stupid noise we experience today, but I can’t shake the idea that this is a temporary dark point, and we’re letting all these christo-fascists, right wing extremists, and Putinists blow their load all in one go, making them deeply unpopular in the future.

When people get fed up with the current status of things, they want change. And if most things look bad today, people want to change most things.

The mid term elections are only a few months away and Trump will only have three years left. I expect the European leaders realise this and that business as usual will resume afterwards. So all they need to do is sweet talk and stall Trump until he’s out of office. In the meantime, they are probably trying to catch up with what assistance they will need to give to Ukraine if the U.S. gives up entirely, like refusing to sell munitions to the EU.

I don’t think any attempts to stay in office by Trump will succeed. He’s lacking serious strategy and there is too much resistance to it in the US. He’s not far off finished.

If it only would be so.

Yes, the US is a very divided country, yet Europeans won't forget that Americans have now two times elected Trump as President. That tells something about the US. And it seems like the part of the paper on Europe was written by JD Vance (or someone similar thinking). Many commentators do note this: this isn't just going to go away when Trump is out of the picture.

Yes, there are other inconsistencies in the paper, like bragging about having huge "soft power" when you have closed down USAID and the Voice of America. Or that the US has to lead basic scientific R&D when the administration has cut severely R&D. Or no mention of North Korea. Or bragging about ending conflicts that either weren't armed conflicts or are still underway.

Many will see this paper stating the US being the ally of Russia against Europe. That's not going to happen, there's a vast majority of Americans who do see the traditional stance of the US beneficial, yet Trump is the one who calls the shots.

Our views are too far apart to have this broad of a discussion, but I've got the following offer: if you have a small, bite-sized subject where you believe our views differ in interesting ways, point it out and we can go into it in detail. — Tzeentch

Fair enough, @Tzeentch. I'll keep that in mind. Interesting also are the subjects that we would agree on.

Since Trump has moved so hard in this extremist direction, there will be an equally powerful reaction. Politics and sociology works within the same entropic form of energy dispersion. With a lot of powerful actions comes an equally powerful reaction. — Christoffer

This is what I also anticipate. Already the commentary is hardening: not with the leaders that have to meet Trump, but with other politicians and political commentators. Likely the outcome will be that EU will take a more central role with a NATO that has become more European. "Coalitions of the willing" is what we will have, just as we now have with the European countries assisting Ukraine.

It might be hard to see in all of the stupid noise we experience today, but I can’t shake the idea that this is a temporary dark point, and we’re letting all these christo-fascists, right wing extremists, and Putinists blow their load all in one go, making them deeply unpopular in the future.

When people get fed up with the current status of things, they want change. And if most things look bad today, people want to change most things. — Christoffer

How did we get rid of nazism? Or Fascism in Italy? Why weren't there really were no "Werewolf" units fighting for the Third Reich after the surrender in 1945? Because the whole Nazism thing had been a total, utter disaster for Germany and everyone knew it.

An ideology will die only if it will end in a total failure that nobody cannot deny. But if the end isn't so catastrophic, many people will remember the positive aspects. The next three years of Trump will likely be similar as this year, yet likely it won't end up in a TOTAL catastrophe. And hence I think that the MAGA movement will just shed it's skin as populism is so tempting as an ideology to many. Those damn elitists!!!

Let's take the example of Russia.

We have to think just why Putin sees the fall of the Soviet Union as this greatest misfortune ever to happen. The reason why Soviet Union collapsed so utterly and quickly (that it left also us Finns simply dumbfounded) is because the leader of Russia itself, Boris Yeltsin, hated Gorbachev and wanted Soviet Union to be destroyed. The Putsch didn't kill him. It would be as the English would have had enough of the whole UK stuff and wanted to be independent. Scotland wouldn't object to that and Whales and Northern Ireland wouldn't (and basically couldn't) then uphold the mantle of UK by themselves. That's what happened with Soviet Union.

So when there were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down (meaning it wasn't the ultimate catastrophe), many Russians have also positive feelings about the Soviet Union and the Empire. Obviously the economic planning didn't work, but anyway, Yuri Gagarin, the Great Patriotic War!

And so it is with these right-wing extremists and MAGA people. I'm not sure they will go away. It might not be so temporary.

Yes, the US is a very divided country, yet Europeans won't forget that Americans have now two times elected Trump as President.

Yes, this is a big and long lasting change and Europe has woken up and will secure their own security and future.
But with Trump gone, or muzzled the Republican party will likely be in turmoil for a while, so there will be a democrat government for the next term. Presumably the Russian invasion will have finished by the end of that term. Also Europe will be well on the way to ensuring their security and will probably play a leading role in NATO by then.

Many will see this paper stating the US being the ally of Russia against Europe. That's not going to happen, there's a vast majority of Americans who do see the traditional stance of the US beneficial, yet Trump is the one who calls the shots.

There is a cognitive dissonance in the U.S. when Trump sides with Putin. Remember the MacCarthy period, and the Cold War. Many people in the US won’t like the idea that the president, pretty much on his own has defected to the other side.

The only real dangerous position is that they clearly state they should “support resistance” in th EU. They are basically saying that they will try and control elections and support populists against nations Trump don’t like.

This is a hostile act against nation sovereignty and should be met with resistance. Best way would be to shut down social media that’s based in the US, but since that won’t happen, the EU should install laws that makes it illegal to try and change algorithms for political purposes and that Meta and other social media sources need to comply with transparency about their algorithms. If they don’t they will have to pay billions to the EU in damages.

And we need to block European politicians to get funding from American sources that aim to fund the political campaigns of American puppets.

And we need to block American companies to establish themselves within the economy of EU nations. Not block trade, but block the purchase of EU companies that have influence in a nation or in the EU. We’re already doing this with China and Russia.

In essence we need to treat the US as China, Hungary, Belarus, and Russia, as a dictatorship that acts just like they do. Trying to control other nations and infiltrate wherever they please.

Orban hyperventilates. Maybe the band can get back together.

Many people in the US won’t like the idea that the president, pretty much on his own has defected to the other side. — Punshhh

At least reading this paper, he obviously has done it. This strategy paper is really gives on a platter what Russia wants:

a) Stops NATO enlargement (even the possibility of it)
b) ends transatlanticism
c) attacks the EU and sees the EU as basically a threat

Those above are the primary objectives for Russia. Without the EU (or anything similar), Russia is stronger to any individual European country. And the Russian response is very enthusiastic:

(The Guardian, 7th Dec 2025)The Kremlin has heaped praise on Donald Trump’s latest national security strategy, calling it an encouraging change of policy that largely aligns with Russian thinking.

The remarks follow the publication of a White House document on Friday that criticises the EU and says Europe is at risk of “civilisational erasure”, while making clear the US is keen to establish better relations with Russia.

“The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision,” the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said on Sunday. He welcomed signals that the Trump administration was “in favour of dialogue and building good relations”. He warned, however, that the supposed US “deep state” could try to sabotage Trump’s vision.

That really the EU is the threat can be seen from example the statement of Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state on X:

My recent trip to Brussels for the @NATO Ministerial meeting left me with one overriding impression: the US has long failed to address the glaring inconsistency between its relations with NATO and the EU. These are almost all the same countries in both organizations. When these countries wear their NATO hats, they insist that Transatlantic cooperation is the cornerstone of our mutual security. But when these countries wear their EU hats, they pursue all sorts of agendas that are often utterly adverse to US interests and security—including censorship, economic suicide/climate fanaticism, open borders, disdain for national sovereignty/promotion of multilateral governance and taxation, support for Communist Cuba, etc etc. This inconsistency cannot continue. Either the great nations of Europe are our partners in protecting the Western civilization that we inherited from them or they are not. But we cannot pretend that we are partners while those nations allow the EU’s unelected, undemocratic, and unrepresentative bureaucracy in Brussels to pursue policies of civilizational suicide.

The statement coming from a high official of the Trump administration should make it clear what is the target of the US.

And it should be noted, just how utterly different this is from even the 1st Trump administration. There obviously the paper were still be written by "adults in the room" like McMaster.

In essence we need to treat the US as China, Hungary, Belarus, and Russia, as a dictatorship that acts just like they do. — Christoffer

Err... how do we treat those various countries? Hungary is part of the EU, China is an important trading partner, the only one which is truly ostracized is actually Belarus.

Would it simply be better to simply to assist the Democrats in the US? Assist every group that opposes Trump?

* * *
CORRECTION: Earlier I wrongly stated the quote from the past NSS was from the Biden administration. Naturally the 2017 NSS was made by the 1st Trump administration (and I've corrected it). This just underlines how radical as nothing else before this paper is.

Yes, Europe is now under a pincer movement, or piggy in the middle in terms of rhetoric. We will see if Zelenskyy agrees to anything with Trump, or if the U.S. stops the sale of munitions to Europe, which are used to supply Ukraine. There is more escalation to come, but it looks likely that Europe is going to have to step up to the plate.

If the U.S. can’t anymore sell arms to Europe, they might start to sell them to countries like India, Argentina etc. Also there will be chaos if the U.S. has to move their troops out of Europe. Trump could order that with a click of his fingers at any time.

If the U.S. can’t anymore sell arms to Europe, they might start to sell them to countries like India, Argentina etc. — Punshhh

That would an absolute disaster. The last thing is to refrain from selling armaments and support to countries that can perfectly make the aircraft and weapons themselves. Of the 20 largest military spenders in the world half are NATO members. And the effects of Trump can already be seen: Canada is thinking about shrinking it's order of F-35s and replace the order partly with Swedish Gripen E fighters. France doesn't buy American weapons and the UK and large EU countries are totally capable making every kind of weapon system America has. The choice is for Trump to push them to do this or not.

What also has to be remembered that many NATO countries have designed their armed forces for NATO. No Nordic country or Benelux country is preparing for a possible NATO neighbor attacking them. That's btw Article 1 of the NATO charter, something very important and mainly forgotten (except perhaps with the case of Greece and Turkey). No other alliance has the kind of integration and interoperability as the NATO countries. India, poor Argentina or even the Gulf States militaries are designed a) for internal security missions and b) to fight their neighbors.

Hence when people float ideas of other alliances (or organizations like BRICS being military alliances), they totally forget this. What basically exists is an axis of Russia-North Korea-China with the Russia North Korea alliance being a classical military alliance. But did these countries come to the help of Iran? No way.

Also there will be chaos if the U.S. has to move their troops out of Europe. Trump could order that with a click of his fingers at any time. — Punshhh

The Congress is already pushing back at this development:

(Fox News, Dec 8th 2025) Congress is moving to limit the Pentagon’s ability to pull forces out of Europe and South Korea, easing concerns among allied governments.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, finalized by House and Senate negotiators and released Sunday evening, keeps force presence at roughly its current levels in both regions. It states that the U.S. cannot reduce its forces in Europe below 76,000 without submitting an assessment and certifying to Congress that such a move would not harm U.S. or NATO security interests.

What has to be understood (and what many Americans are incapable of seeing in their hubris) is that Trump is actually weakening American power. The idea that the US could change it's allies to vassals and change NATO to become more of a Warsaw Pact is simply a ludicrous idea, which even the vast majority of Americans want. This all is just serving the interests of who genuinely see the US as a threat, namely China and Russia. But especially Russia is all too happy of this self immolation. Putin can naturally promise deals in the billions for Trump on this. It's peanuts for Russia achieving it's objectives.

What has been totally obvious for everybody for a long time is now started to be said quite openly:

(CNN 19th Dec, 2025) Denmark has labeled the United States as a potential security concern for the first time in an annual report released by one of its intelligence agencies, offering more evidence of the increasingly fraught transatlantic alliance between Europe and the US.

The report, compiled by the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS), warns that the US “uses economic power, including threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer rules out the use of military force, even against allies.”

That assessment forms part of the service’s wider analysis that “great powers increasingly prioritize their own interests and use force to achieve their goals.”

It's now only a matter of time when European politicians will start openly speaking to their voters in a similar way. Usually a National Security Strategy paper interests only the policy wonks, but now this is reaching quite wide in the European media.

The Congress is already pushing back at this development:

Yes I noticed that, which is why I mentioned the mid term elections. If the Republicans lose control of Congress (or the Senate), it will weaken Trump and hopefully he will become a lame duck.

In the meantime, he could initiate an emergency, such as war with Venezuela and exercise plenary powers to withdraw troops out of Europe, or something else equally stupid.

It think this runs a lot deeper ideologically than people think. For a number of reasons that may be a bit much to expand on here, liberalism is waning and will continue to do so. The US will not get back to 'normal', this process will only get more pronounced as the younger generations come of age and come into power.

It seems to me if anything Europe will follow the same direction with a couple of years delay, and the EU will fracture or will be drastically reformed.

But what do you think?
Is the Trans-Atlantic link now permanently eroding? I think it will limp onwards, because there's still too much invested in the relationship. Even if you think this isn't worth commenting, I really urge to take the time a read what the Trump administration seriously thinks the guidelines ought to be for US security policy. — ssu

It will erode if Europe sticks to liberalism and the current form of the EU.

It think this runs a lot deeper ideologically than people think. For a number of reasons that may be a bit much to expand on here, liberalism is waning and will continue to do so. The US will not get back to 'normal', this process will only get more pronounced as the younger generations come of age and come into power. — ChatteringMonkey

When there in their sixties and seventies, yes. The American voters are far too enthusiastic to choose octogenarians to the places of power. And stagnant political systems as the US system is also

But I tend to agree with this. Yet it isn't just liberalism (being replaced by crony-capitalism), but basically the collapse democratic structures of the Republic also. The Trump administration is simply just one long constitutional crisis and people are Ok with it, or simply passive about it. This is a real lurch to something that has been commonplace in Latin America.

It will erode if Europe sticks to liberalism and the current form of the EU. — ChatteringMonkey

Europe will likely stick to the rules based international order and liberalism, hence it will be an ideological nemesis towards American right-wing populism of the MAGA-movement. Hence it's no wonder that the Trump administration is so eager to get right-wing populist into power in Europe to dismantle the EU. I believe that Trump, as the ignorant idiot he is, truly thinks that the EU was formed to compete with the US. This ignorant view I guess can be popular in the US and the real reason, the two absolutely catastrophic World Wars that killed tens of millions of Europeans, is totally sidelined. Yet when you actually read the history, the actual reasons are obvious. Think just why the integration process in the Shuman declaration, was started from steel and coal production.

Now for those that don't know this, here's part of the actual text of the French foreign minister Shuman declaration from 1950, which started the European integration process:

World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

Hence the regulation/supervision of coal and steel production meant that either side could not just start to rearm itself.

Europe will likely stick to the rules based international order and liberalism, hence it will be an ideological nemesis towards American right-wing populism of the MAGA-movement. Hence it's no wonder that the Trump administration is so eager to get right-wing populist into power in Europe to dismantle the EU. I believe that Trump, as the ignorant idiot he is, truly thinks that the EU was formed to compete with the US. This ignorant view I guess can be popular in the US and the real reason, the two absolutely catastrophic World Wars that killed tens of millions of Europeans, is totally sidelined. Yet when you actually read the history, the actual reasons are obvious. Think just why the integration process in the Shuman declaration, was started from steel and coal production. — ssu

The union was successful in preventing intra-European war, and that was a fine idea at the time, but its disfunctions and those of liberalism become clearer with the day.

For Trump getting rid of the EU and the global liberal elites that come with it, makes sense from a domestic politics point of view, because it weakens his political adversaries.

I don't think this particular rules based order can survive the most powerful country and architect of it, leaving it behind. And the EU can't maintain it on its own, and so will be forced to adapt sooner or later.

I wish Europeans weren't so slow in realising where this is going.

The union was successful in preventing intra-European war, and that was a fine idea at the time, but its disfunctions and those of liberalism become clearer with the day. — ChatteringMonkey

It's a fine idea EVEN NOW. Never underestimate the importance of this. Just like with NATO, which has Article 1 and when the armed forces train together, operate together and make their warplans together, it's not just words on paper. As I've said again and again, without NATO I bet we would have seen perhaps a couple of border wars between Greece and Turkey. Without NATO/EU, there might be tension between Hungary and Romania too.

The real "dysfunction" has been the immigration policy, which de facto lead to UK to leave the union and have it's disastrous Brexit, which showed to every EU country extremely clearly how leaving the union would an absolute disaster in economic terms. Hence immigration, not economics, has been the real issue that has giving strength to the anti-EU anti-immigration populists.

But many Americans, including the Trump team, have not noticed the change that has happened. It hasn't been JUST Hungary, it's now been many countries like Greece, Poland and, heck, my own country, that have not let asylum seekers and immigrants inside. We have shut down the border with Russia: nobody except wildlife is crossing the border now and that's hard even to them in the south, because there's a long fence there now. This policy change was implemented also by the world hugging, climate change conscious, multicultural social democrats, so the idea that to change immigration policy you have to start supporting far-right populist is bonkers.

But if the US wants to support the "MAGA-revolution" and really entangles itself in domestic politics of EU countries, you will get a response you likely didn't anticipate. You'll just end Pax Americana and destroy your own position as the pack leader.

Immigration-policy had been a problem, but it's not only that right. There are major structural and organisational problem too. The decision process is very slow and cumbersome, and also lacks democratic accountability. It grew to fast to wide without deeper integration of the EU-states that were already in it and without the necessary structural reform to various decision processes. Because of this it seems especially ill-equipped to deal with a fast changing world.

Another 'mistake' is the monetary union that took away the power from the states to have their own monetary policies that suited their situation, and was very bad for the likes of Greece for instance.

And look, the biggest selling point, aside from it being a force for peace within Europe, was its free internal market and the economic prosperity that would bring. Maybe that was true for some time, but now we have to conclude that the European economy isn't doing that great. We basically missed the whole digitalisation/AI train, aren't creating any new companies that can compete on the world stage, and are even loosing more and more existing industries we used to be world-leaders in.

If you find yourself utterly dependent on other countries for your security, for your energy and natural resources, and more and more for basically most of your goods production and digital services, then something has gone wrong right?

The decision process is very slow and cumbersome, and also lacks democratic accountability. — ChatteringMonkey

Ah yes, the bureaucracy. I think the US has a lot of it too, actually.

Another 'mistake' is the monetary union that took away the power from the states to have their own monetary policies that suited their situation, and was very bad for the likes of Greece for instance. — ChatteringMonkey

First of all, not all EU countries are in the monetary union. It wasn't only UK that was out of the euro, just look how many EU countries have still their own currencies (the map has non-EU countries too, but anyway):



There are true benefits with the monetary union, not just that it has made travel more easy. First of all, one notable aspect has been that the interest rates of small countries like Greece and Finland came down as there wasn't anymore the "country risk". When we had our Finnish 'markka' as our currency, in the 1990's economic depression we had interest rates in the 12%-14%. So basically at better times the country risk meant that the interest rates came down 5%-7% at least. That's something of a benefit that many ordinary people have gotten. This also meant that irresponsible countries like Greece could take loans and create a debt bubble and when that burst, we had the Greek crisis.

Basically the euro acts in the euro zone as a gold standard. If you have a poor economy that performs badly, you get shafted as you cannot devalue your currency. Yet the ability of devaluation supports only a segment of the economy, those in the export industries. Usually the inflation devaluation creates eats the positive effects quickly away.

And look, the biggest selling point, aside from it being a force for peace within Europe, was its free internal market and the economic prosperity that would bring. Maybe that was true for some time, but now we have to conclude that the European economy isn't doing that great. We basically missed the whole digitalisation/AI train, aren't creating any new companies that can compete on the world stage, and are even loosing more and more existing industries we used to be world-leaders in. — ChatteringMonkey

One can argue that perhaps the EU has been too lax in giving US firms this playground of ours freely. Usually any European company trying to get into the US market will face the "not invented here, not from here" treatment. Especially now they will feel the wrath of Trump.

Yet the whole 400 million people single market and union is not at all anything similar to the 300+ million US market. First of all, there is the language barrier, even if we talk as a second language (at least) English. Then, moving from Finland to Spain isn't something like moving from Minnesota to Florida (even if Minnesotans and Floridians might think otherwise). The European single market is still a divided market based on totally natural issues. It isn't the language barrier, it's also the culture barrier. We are independent sovereign countries with their own cultures and history. That isn't going anywhere.

If you find yourself utterly dependent on other countries for your security, for your energy and natural resources, and more and more for basically most of your goods production and digital services, then something has gone wrong right? — ChatteringMonkey

You haven't then planned for any crisis and certainly not for war time if you have problems when a war or a pandemic erupts.

But let's think about what you just said.

Let's take UK as an example. When was the last time that England/Scotland and Whales could feed their populations with just the food they produced on their island?

Perhaps in the Bronze Age. The UK only came close to self sufficiency during in the Napoleonic Wars with intense focus on bringing agriculture to speed, but once industrialization kicked up for real, there was no way for the UK to feed itself without depending on international trade. This is simply a law of economics: when the city of Rome in Antiquity had 1 million inhabitants, the whole Italian Peninsula didn't produce enough to feed 1 million: it had to rely on exports from North Africa. With a city like London, this was true for the UK centuries after. Hence with a larger and stronger submarine force in WW1 or WW2, the would have been starvation and famine in the British Isles during the wars. Hence the need for a strong navy.

The fact is that our prosperity today is based on globalization. How utterly dependent are we of other countries? Utterly dependent is my answer. The real answer here is just to be independent ENOUGH for the time when that pandemic / war / asteroid strike / supervolcano eruption hits and erases the global trade system for a while.

The idea of total self-dependence sounds reasonable at first for the ignorant, but is a huge disaster if really taken as economic policy.

The real "dysfunction" has been the immigration policy, which de facto lead to UK to leave the union and have it's disastrous Brexit, which showed to every EU country extremely clearly how leaving the union would an absolute disaster in economic terms. Hence immigration, not economics, has been the real issue that has giving strength to the anti-EU anti-immigration populists.

Brexit was as a result of Russian friendly populists playing the race/immigration card. The links to the Kremlin are slowly coming out. A former leader of the Reform party in wales. Is starting a 10yr jail term for accepting Russian bribes. The Conservative Party was awash with Russian money through the Conservative friends of Russia association.

I think the US has a lot of it too, actually. — ssu

That's probably true, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Bureaucracy, especially because of its lack of accountability, tends to grow over time and develop its own internal logic and goals that aren't aligned with what benefits the people of the countries.

Basically the euro acts in the euro zone as a gold standard. If you have a poor economy that performs badly, you get shafted as you cannot devalue your currency. Yet the ability of devaluation supports only a segment of the economy, those in the export industries. Usually the inflation devaluation creates eats the positive effects quickly away. — ssu

I'm not sure you disagree with me here. The issue is that it takes away agency from countries to make their own policies so that they can react to their specific circumstances. For instance the austerity policy we had after the 2008 crisis was probably really bad for a lot of countries, it maybe really only made sense from a German perspective.

One can argue that perhaps the EU has been too lax in giving US firms this playground of ours freely. Usually any European company trying to get into the US market will face the "not invented here, not from here" treatment. Especially now they will feel the wrath of Trump.

Yet the whole 400 million people single market and union is not at all anything similar to the 300+ million US market. First of all, there is the language barrier, even if we talk as a second language (at least) English. Then, moving from Finland to Spain isn't something like moving from Minnesota to Florida (even if Minnesotans and Floridians might think otherwise). The European single market is still a divided market based on totally natural issues. It isn't the language barrier, it's also the culture barrier. We are independent sovereign countries with their own cultures and history. That isn't going anywhere. — ssu

It think the issue is we had this dogmatic free market ideology being pushed on member states where all barriers needed to be torn down, also to companies outside of the EU, and a lot of state aid from countries for their industries became illegal. But then the EU didn't really put something in place of that on a European level. We don't have European financing and investment banks for instance. Meanwhile China, but also the US, did subsidize their industries heavily or did have capital investment structures.... and that basically created an uneven playingfield for European companies.

So this is kind of a recurring theme. We take some measures to unify some or another policy domain, but then don't go all the way, or only take care of one side of the equation... and end up with a system that doesn't really work. If you're going to take away agency from the states, you have to make sure you organise that agency effectively on a European level.

The fact is that our prosperity today is based on globalization. How utterly dependent are we of other countries? Utterly dependent is my answer. The real answer here is just to be independent ENOUGH for the time when that pandemic / war / asteroid strike / supervolcano eruption hits and erases the global trade system for a while.

The idea of total self-dependence sounds reasonable at first for the ignorant, but is a huge disaster if really taken as economic policy. — ssu

Yeah I fundamentally disagree with this. It only works, especially for strategic sectors and resources, if you assume everything will go well for the rest of time and countries will keep having good enough relations going forward. It's fragile and temporary.

And I think it's naïve to think that would be the case, because we know from history that geo-politics is a ruthless game that won't go away.

Maybe some amount of interdependence is unavoidable, I would agree with that, but the issue is that the balance is totally skewed so that the US and China have a lot of leverage over us while we have little leverage over them.

Bureaucracy, especially because of its lack of accountability, tends to grow over time and develop its own internal logic and goals that aren't aligned with what benefits the people of the countries. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree with you. The real problem is that Brussels has copied the French way of bureaucracy. Basically the US administration would be far more transparent and open (now with Trump isn't). There are things to improve in the EU, but in my view these problems aren't so large that we have to do away with the EU altogether.

'm not sure you disagree with me here. The issue is that it takes away agency from countries to make their own policies so that they can react to their specific circumstances. For instance the austerity policy we had after the 2008 crisis was probably really bad for a lot of countries, it maybe really only made sense from a German perspective. — ChatteringMonkey

This is something that basically has to be viewed from country basis. In large, the EU practices do prevent totally reckless behavior, but then again especially when it comes to the large members, they do what they want. Yet joining the EU has done wonders to some countries. The perfect example was the economic growth of Poland compared to Ukraine as both countries started from a similar level once the Soviet system collapsed.



No wonder Ukraine and Ukrainians have wanted to be in the EU sphere, btw.

Yeah I fundamentally disagree with this. It only works, especially for strategic sectors and resources, if you assume everything will go well for the rest of time and countries will keep having good enough relations going forward. It's fragile and temporary.

And I think it's naïve to think that would be the case, because we know from history that geo-politics is a ruthless game that won't go away.

Maybe some amount of interdependence is unavoidable, I would agree with that, but the issue is that the balance is totally skewed so that the US and China have a lot of leverage over us while we have little leverage over them. — ChatteringMonkey

I think Europe simply underestimates how much leverage it has, because seldom it acts as a solid block. In the end, it's a confederacy of independent states. Only someone like Putin threatening us can bring us together.

There's the classic quote from Kissinger: "If I want to talk to Europe, where do I call?".

In security issue it has been actually Washington earlier. But now I guess Trump is disgusted to speak on the phone about European issues.

I agree with you. The real problem is that Brussels has copied the French way of bureaucracy. Basically the US administration would be far more transparent and open (now with Trump isn't). There are things to improve in the EU, but in my view these problems aren't so large that we have to do away with the EU altogether. — ssu

Sure, it needs to be reformed ideally. But maybe it can't be reformed because of the forces that resist that or lack of consensus, and then it will probably have to go. My main issue is that the Commission has to much power, it should be under the Council and the Parliament which are more accountable to the people.

Yet joining the EU has done wonders to some countries. The perfect example was the economic growth of Poland compared to Ukraine as both countries started from a similar level once the Soviet system collapsed. — ssu

Ok but this has very little to do with the monetary policies it seems to me. Poland and other eastern European countries did receive a lot of development funds from the EU for one. And second their workers and companies had a competitive advantage on the internal market because they had a lower standard of living and lower wages. All of sudden a lot of building and similar jobs in Western Europe were done by Poles who came here to earn money to ultimately take it back to Poland where they invested it. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that, good for Poland, but it did undercut workers and companies here and wasn't necessarily on average a good thing for Western Europe.

I think Europe simply underestimates how much leverage it has, because seldom it acts as a solid block.

It's the classic quote from Kissinger: "If I want to talk to Europe, where do I call?".

In security issue it has been actually Washington. But now I guess Trump is disgusted to speak on the phone about European issues. — ssu

Maybe Europe could have more leverage, but this only proofs my point that there are serious problems with its organisation no? Foreign policy was for the longest time not a European competency, but a competency of the members states, but then security and intelligence are for the most part dealt with within NATO etc. Again this is the point, that everything is splintered and spread over different levels of government while these things are related and should inform each other. The end result is that you basically just don't have a proactive and unified foreign policy.