I wish Europe would just push back. More than what they are currently. There is so much potential there, but somehow the EU all look at the US as some form of idealogical father figure. Excuse the hyperbolic-talk.
I don't think it is true. It's like saying "I wish those kids didn't let the bigger one bully them". The reason the bully is bullying is because he is in a position to do it.
The EU is being careful because the US are more powerful.
Trump has repeatedly backed off when he's challenged. It's happened time and time again. It's the reason TACO is a thing. The best strategy against him is to be relentless about pushing back, even if on paper the US is more powerful.
It seems you can also just lie to help him save face, like Canada did when it agreed it would adopt very strict border control policies to stop "drugs coming into the USA," and listed out steps that all were just existent Canadian laws and policies.
The problem that US generals have right now is that Trump has gotten the idea that the US (viz., he himself, in his mind) ought to literally own Greenland and he does know how real estate works. Treaties, mineral deals, guarantees for additional military bases that would mean de facto control over Greenland would work with a rational person. However, they won't work with someone who insists on buying or annexing a country to own its territory.
Yeah, another strategy is to just give him something he can claim as a W even if it's bullshit, or to glaze him enough. He's so hyperfixated on owning Greenland though, that I'm not sure those will work this time.
This effectively means the end of the 0 percent tariff on US products. There are also already calls in the EP to activate the Anti-Coercion Instrument:
The problem is NATO, a lot of the EU is reluctant to push back because at the end of the day the US guarantees that Russia cannot pursue the type of landgrab it is currently trying to do in Ukraine against other states. The risk that the US runs into when trying to take Greenland is that this argument loses weight instantly, so the expectation is that the EU will be much more willing to use its anti coercion tools if Trump tries to make it a reality.
Russia already fails in Ukraine where they are fighting with our old junk, and the other EU States are kicking their defense industry in full gear. What makes you think they could win a full scale war against the EU
Russia don't have to be able to win a full-scale war against the EU for such a war to break out, it suffices that deterrence breaks down sufficiently that Russia get the idea they can get away with some land grab, e.g. in one of the Baltic countries.
The war in Ukraine illustrates very well the difference between perception and reality. Perception counts for deterrence.
The Baltics are protected under the EU defence clause, NATO or not they will be assisted by the EU.
It's already quite clear the US has virtually left NATO, at this point they wouldn't assist at all with a landgrab in the Baltics so I'm glad the EU defence treaty is more forceful about the level of aid/assistance than Article 5.
NATO at this point is virtually dead, there's no trust in the USA and the rhetoric about Greenland has cemented it. Hope the Canucks can join a defence pact with the EU, the Trump admin and its Project 2025 achieved what they wanted.
You might want to check some reliable sources about how the war is going for Ukraine, because it seems like you think they are kicking some Russian bootie, which is simply not the case. Take the US (and risk of mutual worldwide nuclear contamination) out of the equation and Ukraine would be in even worse shape.
> because it seems like you think they are kicking some Russian bootie,
This seems like quite the assumption.
It is generally a mistake to attempt telepathy/IP.
Russia not doing nearly as well as one might expect for an aging out core of a former superpower is not an equivilance with their target is kicking their arse.
The grind Russia is having to go through against Ukraine is an indicator of how it might fare against a full NATO (sans the US).
".. because at the end of the day the US guarantees that Russia cannot pursue the type of landgrab it is currently trying to do in Ukraine against other states"
I am sorry to say that we (Europeans) increasingly do not believe that the US would help us.
It's like when every liberal scoffs at leftists opposing US imperialism, nothing about the power balance has changed. Europe was always a vassal of the empire. This is the liberal international order, this is what that means, not what they tell you it means, but what it actually means.
That's why they can kidnap Maduro, have the BBC censor the word "kidnapped" in their reporting on it. Have every European politician applaud it, point to Maduros case against him at the ICC and have Netanyahu fly over France. You can't do anything about Greenland, the same way you can't do anything when he comes for Norways state-owned extraction industry next. Liberals can scream hypocrisy tears all they want, this is the world they built. The empire is coming home.
Leftists wanted her to not be a dog shit politician in order for her to win, they were screaming for her to embrace real substantive policy positions and not business as usual, corrupt, liberal elitism. The same leftists are now in the street protecting communities from the gastapo, while liberals debate about which words they can say. It were those exact liberal politics that lost Hillary the election too, and then you were screaming too about how it was all Bernie's fault. For christ sake, Trump was able to sell himself as the PEACE CANDIDATE, how can you fuck this up so badly?
Because when you have a brain you understand that a more center oriented candidate with Luke warm opinions in policies has more chances of being acceptable to a larger audience than a candidate with more "substantive" policies.
Having Biden running at the start was the real issue.
I just don't understand the perspective that Trump is a historical threat and therefore we can't accept business as usual. I have a number of disagreements with the status quo myself, but I'm not going to pursue them until Trump is out of power, because I want to absolutely minimize the number of people who feel they have to choose between supporting Trump and abandoning some principle of theirs. To me, any other strategy seems tantamount to saying that Trump isn't so bad.
But your lukewarm candidates lost twice, Hillary lost, Kamala lost. The point we are making is that they lost, because they are lukewarm. There is a reason Trump won in the first place you are ignoring, you are ignoring the times of unprecedented grievances that people have, people want real change. Trump represents that change to people, a fascist lie and scapegoating of course, but you are representing the comfortable elite under whom nothing will ever change for the better for anyone. All you have is complain about leftists, we didn't loose, you lost twice. Dems are more unpopular than ever, even now under fucking Trump, your politics are dogshit and you don't have anybody else to blame for it.
I don't represent or subscribe to what you think! I agree that both of them were weak candidates who lost where a better candidate could have won, and I myself have been growing away from the Democratic party ever since the 2016 primary.
What I cannot agree with, what I find completely unacceptable, is the idea that any dispute over candidate quality can justify splintering the anti-Trump coalition. If Bernie were the 2024 candidate, I assure you I would have even harsher words for any business types who ran around complaining about him.
The EU has a huge strategic problem because they let their own defenses and industry rot for decades and can't functionally stand alone against Russia, US pressure, and Chinese economic infiltration / industrial replacement at the same time. At least, not without great sacrifices the population isn't willing to make, like pension reform.
So they are playing gentle with the US because it's the least bad choice right now.
The EU is 450 million people! It's the size of the entire continent of south america! It was the richest part of the world for centuries! They absolutely should be able to function as an independent block with international trade for convenience and not survival.
Not even the US can stand against China by itself...
The EU still has a large military industrial base getting revitalised as we speak, it didn't rot, it simply didn't need to pump out massive amounts of gear until this point.
Poland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, etc. all have different kinds of weapons manufacturers. You can even include the UK, and Norway in the mix even though they aren't in the EU.
No, the EU obviously did need to pump out massive amounts of gear, and failed to, and that's why four years into a war, Ukraine is still suffering under the yoke of a country with 1/10th the GDP of the EU.
If the EU had taken their responsibilities seriously given the MASSIVE THREAT next door, Ukraine would have had massive ordinance dumped on it in March 2022 and been free of Russians by Christmas.
It failed for political reasons. Political leaders being afraid to get involved in the war. Also do not rule out right wing political parties that are often anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia due to being sponsord by Russia.
The USA also has had it share of preventing the EU from getting involved.
China has a population of 1.4B people yet they import huge quantities of fuel and food and we can't pretend that they lacked investments in core industries.
That may actually be an advantage: position Europe as a neutral block that trades with everybody, and it may actually be valuable enough as a neutral that anytime one of those three has designs on it, the other two would naturally have to combine to thwart them.
The fact is that there is no potential there. Europe has no leverage over the US. It is not holding back anything, it has nothing.
Somehow when the US went to war with Russia, it ended up completing the conquest of Europe. Europe used to just be stagnant. Now it is stagnant and isolated from everywhere except the US, and the US treats it accordingly.
> ASML relies on the United States for several of its components, and it’s this very reliance that has allowed the United States to use the Foreign Direct Product Rule and impose export controls on ASML products. However, there are signs of a shift. ASML has already started to reduce its dependence on American technology, aligning with the EU’s goal of strategic autonomy. Earlier this month, ASML announced a major investment in Mistral, France’s flagship AI startup. The Dutch firm invested $1.5 billion in Mistral, becoming the company’s largest shareholder. The deal was widely seen by policymakers as a move that strengthens European ‘digital sovereignty.’ In a sector dominated by American tech giants, ASML’s Mistral investment represents a growing realization from Europe: cooperation within the bloc is necessary for the EU to stay competitive in the AI race.
---
I don't follow, how exactly does the investment into a French AI startup reduce ASML's "dependence on American technology"? Is it a supply-chain dependence, or a revenue-making dependence?
The EU is being careful because the US are more powerful.