Nearly half of #EU citizens no longer see US as most important #ally, survey shows
Source: euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11…
The most US-sceptical country was #Belgium, with only 43% of people considering the US their prominent #military partner, while #Poland had the highest pro-US rate (65%).
Now the legitimate #question arises as to whether European politicians are capable of an independent foreign policy at all, given that for decades they have only acted as willing vassals of the US? In the #EU, it is already difficult to reach compromises on domestic #policy. There is not even #agreement within the EU on whether #Russia is an #enemy.
#future #Europe #usa #politics #nato #trump #defense #diplomacy #change
like this
Tom Grzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Just wait ...
;-(
anonymiss
in reply to anonymiss • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •anonymiss
in reply to anonymiss • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •anonymiss
in reply to anonymiss • • •brainwavelost
in reply to anonymiss • • •Peace at last in the West.
Or France, Germany and the United Kingdom start a war against each other to ensure that one of them takes over from the USA.
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel likes this.
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel likes this.
mariashytiuk
in reply to anonymiss • • •David
in reply to anonymiss • • •In the twentieth century's two world wars, no battles (other than Pearl Harbor) were fought in the United States. Those wars gave the USA a big advantage. It's now the biggest economy in the world, and has the world's third largest population and is pretty much tied with China for third largest land area. It is also rich in natural resources.
After WWII, the victors banded together to a degree that they didn't after WWI. They formed NATO to counter the perceived threat of the Soviet Union. Instead of bringing its military back to the US as after WWI, the US stayed in Europe and Japan. The intent seems to have been a Pax Americana similar to the Pax Romana. The military capability of the US after WWII was not reduced by the war, as was Europe's; it was increased. I think this made it natural that NATO would depend heavily on the US, at least at the beginning.
The occupation of Japan finally ended in 1972 when Okinawa was returned to Japan. However, the US still has bases there. Thanks to NATO, there are also US bases in Europe.
So is this how it should continue? T
... Show more...In the twentieth century's two world wars, no battles (other than Pearl Harbor) were fought in the United States. Those wars gave the USA a big advantage. It's now the biggest economy in the world, and has the world's third largest population and is pretty much tied with China for third largest land area. It is also rich in natural resources.
After WWII, the victors banded together to a degree that they didn't after WWI. They formed NATO to counter the perceived threat of the Soviet Union. Instead of bringing its military back to the US as after WWI, the US stayed in Europe and Japan. The intent seems to have been a Pax Americana similar to the Pax Romana. The military capability of the US after WWII was not reduced by the war, as was Europe's; it was increased. I think this made it natural that NATO would depend heavily on the US, at least at the beginning.
The occupation of Japan finally ended in 1972 when Okinawa was returned to Japan. However, the US still has bases there. Thanks to NATO, there are also US bases in Europe.
So is this how it should continue? That is the question.
Trump complains that the US is now held back by its military spending. The US spends a larger percentage of its GDP for its military than European countries and Japan. Trump says that's not fair.
What do I think? Well, as I've pointed out before, the US military is much smaller now than it was before the Vietnam war ended and the USSR was dissolved. Half of all the bases I was at are gone. I've said before that I think this is good. It indicates a safer world.
I think the US can, without harming its safety, spend even less on its military. I think we need to cooperate with other countries, and that will always be in our best interest, and in the world's best interest. But I think the US military can share responsibility for preserving peace.
Putin seems to want to Make Russia Great Again. While he is in power, I think Russia will be a threat to its neighbors.
Xi seems to be trying to replace US influence and power with Chinese influence and power.
So what does the US need to do militarily? I would like to see the US continue to help Ukraine. As for China's bullying of the Philippines and others, I think the US Navy and other navies should continue to sail around in international waters near China. All countries should stand up against imperialism that conquers more and more ocean. The ocean is almost the only commons left on Earth.
like this
Michael Fenichel and anonymiss like this.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •There are two problems with the US easing-up on its leadership of NATO:
Number one would be Ukraine: Not all members are in agreement with what should be done - some would rather not support Ukraine at all. With the US not providing pressure, support could well falter from many sides. This, in and of itself would weaken the internal cohesion within NATO,
Number Two is similar: Not all nations are going to make any attempt to pick up the financial gaps left as the US contributes less. This will greatly weaken the internal cohesion of NATO - not to mention its physical military strength.
like this
Michael Fenichel and YesNotes .info like this.