[raven12345]

So here's the problem. Assuming what you said is correct, the US, UK, and France want NATO to be more than just a defensive organization. But what about other NATO members? They don't have as many interests to protect in Africa and the Middle East, but they need NATO to defend against Russia. So why should they care about competition between China and the US elsewhere?

and you said China actively supplies war material to Russia. but in early 2025, China’s top UAV export destinations were Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and the United States, https://www.airmobi.com/from-billion-dollar-orders-to-global... why Netherlands need so many UAV? That's why polls showed that China has higher approval than the US in Europe.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

I don't know why you expect us to solve your Russia problem. Why don't you ask your new friend China for help? As Europeans themselves have said many times, the US does not do a good job playing world police. We need to stop warmongering and involving ourselves in the affairs of other countries. It never does any good.

Furthermore, Europe has very little soft power in the US at this point. There's no region of the world I am less interested in helping. With every post I read from you guys, I understand more and more why my ancestors left that place. Think of it this way: We need to reallocate money away from our military, and towards our healthcare system which you guys are always making fun of. Does that help make my point clear?

As a user named raven12345 stated:

>Is there any doubt that a country that hasn't fought a war in decades is more popular than countries like the US and Russia, which are constantly at war?

We in the United States need to stop involving ourselves in so many wars. Plain and simple. You said it yourself.

>So why should they care about competition between China and the US elsewhere?

Where did I say that? I don't want the US to be competing with China. I'm an isolationist. I prefer a Swiss approach to foreign policy for the United States.

>That's why polls showed that China has higher approval than the US in Europe.

So we need to drop sanctions on Russia, like China has done, so that the Europeans will like us more?

"...companies — possibly with the tacit approval of customs authorities — have also engaged in classification fraud, concealing sensitive goods under misleading labels. In addition, some shipments are routed through third countries to disguise their final destination in Russia. By continuing to publish detailed customs data, Beijing openly signals its disregard for Western trade sanctions against Russia. But the data reveals only what China chooses to make visible — and it remains unclear what volume or categories of trade may lie beyond the published figures."

https://kinacentrum.se/en/publications/china-russia-trade-in...

"To help prevent a further deterioration of Russia’s economy and defense industrial base, Russia has leaned heavily on China. China-Russia trade reached nearly $250 billion in 2024, up from $190 billion in 2022.46 China has been Russia’s top trading partner since 2014, with its share of Russia’s foreign trade increasing from 11.3 percent in 2014 to 33.8 percent in 2024.47 In addition, Russia relies on oil exports to China, which now make up about 75 percent of China’s imports, compared to a pre-2022 average of between 60 and 65 percent.48

In the defense sector, China has significantly increased exports to Russia of “high-priority items,” a set of 50 dual-use goods that include computer chips, machine tools, radars, and sensors that Russia needs to sustain its war efforts.49 While Russia lacks the capacity to produce many of these goods in sufficient quantities, China’s massive manufacturing sector can produce a number of them at scale.50 Chinese exports helped Russia triple its production of Iskander-M ballistic missiles from 2023 to 2024, which Russia has used to pound Ukrainian cities.51 In addition, China accounted for 70 percent of Russia’s imports of ammonium perchlorate in 2024, an essential ingredient in ballistic missile fuel.52 China has also provided Russia with drone bodies, lithium batteries, and fiber-optic cables—the critical components for fiber-optic drones used in Ukraine, which can bypass electronic jamming.53"

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine

Contrast the $250 billion Russia/China bilateral trade figure, with the $146 million worth of drones which the Netherlands imported from China. Like comparing an apple to a grizzly bear.

$146 million is also fairly tiny compared with the $60 billion worth of weapons that Europe bought from the US over 2022-2024: https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/1...

When you buy weapons from the US, it's a worrisome dependence on an evil warmonger. When you buy weapons from China, it's "yay we are buddies with China now". See why I've had enough of your "friendship"?

For years, Europeans have sharply criticizing the United States for sometimes partnering with authoritarian countries. It's fascinating to see the rapidity of your reversal: how eager you now are to partner with China, an authoritarian country which happily trades with Russia. It goes to show that this "don't partner with authoritarian countries" stuff is just disingenuous virtue signalling.

[1718627440]

> your Russia problem

Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem. Also Russia gaining control means often the USA loosing.

> Why don't you ask your new friend China for help?

Who said China is the friend of Europe? The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse.

> We need to reallocate money away from our military, and towards our healthcare system

I don't think EU countries have a problem with that. They rather complain, that you are currently allocating money to a military, that wants to attack EU states and to a para-military that attacks USA citizens.

> So we need to drop sanctions on Russia, like China has done, so that the Europeans will like us more?

It is that China is seen as evil anyway, so nobody expects them to sanction Russia for real, while we didn't saw the USA that way.

> For years, Europeans have sharply criticizing the United States for sometimes partnering with authoritarian countries.

You don't criticize enemies, you criticize friends. I think the criticism also was more that you create authoritarian countries, partnering was also done by European nations, that's called realpolitik.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem.

The US is a big country. Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones?

The Europeans always argue that the US only acts in its self-interest. But then when they explain why helping Europe is in the self-interest of the US, they always have the most nonsensical arguments.

>Also Russia gaining control means often the USA loosing.

I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia.

>It is that China is seen as evil anyway, so nobody expects them to sanction Russia for real, while we didn't saw the USA that way.

Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls?

>You don't criticize enemies, you criticize friends.

That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty. Furthermore, European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend. (That's been true for decades.)

>I think the criticism also was more that you create authoritarian countries, partnering was also done by European nations, that's called realpolitik.

Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior.

[mopsi]

Nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Issues

[0xDEAFBEAD]

That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness.

It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.

[1718627440]

Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you.

> US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2

If "US foreign policy analysts" would actually think that these situations might lead to the next WW2, then you wouldn't counter them with destabilizing countries, that leads to the rise of extreme parties and then treating them with ignorance. Because THAT is exactly how WW2 happened.

> If we are involved, we're called imperialist

Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved.

> It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.

If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. I mean you are a sovereign country and can do what you like, but you do it, because your administration thinks that is a good idea, not because all the other countries would tell you to. You frame it like other countries called for action and you did them and now they complain. No, they told you they won't like that, and you did it either way.

[mopsi]

Earlier you wrote:

  > I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia.

The thing is, nobody's offering you that. In the ideal scenario for Russia, the US would be mired in internal conflict and instability to such an extent that it would be unable to function as a country, leaving Russia to dominate the world:

  > Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con...

In other words, they want an endless line of Donald Trumps to ruin your country and turn it into a banana republic so that you wouldn't have the energy to pay attention to Russia stomping over the rest of the world.

Why would any American voluntarily choose this fate?

[1718627440]

> Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones?

Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor? Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown? Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them. Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions.

> they always have the most nonsensical arguments.

Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you?

> Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls?

I already addressed exactly that:

>> The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse.

It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible.

> That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty.

While believing to have some power via financial ties. Now it's back to formal complaints and deadlines.

> European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend.

From the European viewpoint the criticism on the US administration is what would be also in the interest of the US populace. The US electorate of course begs to disagree, they elected Trump after all. Sorry, that protesting against expansion of corporate and state surveillance, influence of the military industry conglomerate and erosion of worker and environment regulation offends you personally. I fail to see how that is mean-spirited.

> That's been true for decades

The same criticism has existed for decades, but the official policy has stayed the same for a long time, namely that supporting "our" camp in world politics is worth compromising on international law, human rights and national security interest.

> Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior.

It literally just used the word to explain American behaviour.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor?

None of these arguments make much sense.

>Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown?

I don't think it is a problem for us either way. No one is going to attack the US.

>Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them.

The US has made many mistakes in its foreign policy. I've made my opinion clear on that. Just because we did something in the past does not make it a good idea.

>Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions.

Well you'll be glad to stop then.

>Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you?

Tell that to the Swiss.

American soldiers should not die due to European ineptitude. There were only 2.5 years between Pearl Harbor and D-Day. Russia invaded Ukraine almost 4 years ago. If you truly believed this was an existential threat, then you've had plenty of time to prepare.

>It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible.

How about you respect our ability to determine our own foreign policy, and take responsibility for your own issues? As I said, stop treating us like a vassal state and telling us you know what is best for us (as you do in your comments). I'm not the only one who notices you doing this: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158145261

Look at this argument I had the other day... a European spent a bunch of time condescending to me, and wasn't able to muster a single factual argument in favor of their position. This sort of thing is very typical in my discussions with Europeans: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46742363

When Elon Musk endorses parties in Europe, Europeans complain he is interfering in their politics. The trouble is that Europeans have been doing the same in US politics for a heck of a lot longer. It's always the same patronizing and ignorant interference, based on a caricatured view of the US: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/eurocope "Haha, Americans are dumb. Haha, Americans die in school shootings. Haha, the American healthcare system sucks." All along, we've been deterring Russia for Europeans, and now as a result, Russia is working to destabilize the US (according to another commenter in this thread). I'm sick of it.

Think of it this way. I want out of NATO, so as to reduce the influence of the evil "military industry conglomerate". Just like you yourself said, we need to reduce its influence -- which means reducing our military size and commitments. Get it? I'm just taking your arguments to their logical conclusion.