'There Is No Going Back': The Inside Story of Europe's Rupture with America

AAlien1Being about 2 hours ago 23 commentsRead Article on wsj.com

ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

33% Positive

Analyzed from 1102 words in the discussion.

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

shmeeed•about 1 hour ago

http://archive.today/Ujf4C

cmiles8•15 minutes ago

The challenge for Europe is if it can actually deliver. It’s been highly dependent on the US economically, technically, militarily and otherwise for decades. Posturing on sovereignty has ramped up again but it’s not fundamentally new.

A lot of folks would take Europe more seriously if there was more substance behind the talk. If it wants to replace US tech it needs to be competitive with US tech. Today it’s light years off.

The US has its own challenges, but it’s ability to unite as a country of independent states is something that Europe is unlikely to match anytime soon and that has a direct impact on the ability to execute everything Europe is posturing about.

everybodyknows•2 minutes ago

[delayed]

everdrive•35 minutes ago

We're paying a very high cost, but it's not something that regular Americans will notice in their day-to-day lives, which will likely mean that perception of the problem will continue to fall across ideological lines.

Either way, we're in an age of decline and fracture.

HarHarVeryFunny•40 minutes ago

Trust is slow to build, quick to destroy.

It wouldn't make any strategic sense for Europe to wait it out and see what happens next, and no doubt it has been a wake-up call to see how quickly the US can pivot from friend to adversary.

Once Europe has severed reliance on US, then it is hard to see them reverting.

david422•27 minutes ago

I think the silver lining here is that decentralizing power from America is a good thing, for the world, long term.

bryanlarsen•14 minutes ago

If I had to pick a global hegemon, America is probably a better choice than most. But "no global hegemon" seems even better.

The last 80 years have been exceptionally peaceful compared to the rest of history, so I hope it continues despite America's loss of hegemon status.

holowoodman•11 minutes ago

No, it isn't imho.

After the cold war has ended, the western nations focused on not giving a fuck about military strength, allies or facing opponents the size of Russia or China. Instead some small-time infantry campaigns like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were started and then basically abandoned without any decisive result or even with a total failure. But even back in the 2000s, there were no common goals and no real alliances, just some commitments to save face and keep up appearances.

So now, Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Persian Gulf have called the bluff that is Western military power and decisiveness. I'm guessing those were just the first instances of a long line of wars that should have been prevented by the US-lead West, that are now possible because the West is fractured and aimless.

baron3dl•15 minutes ago

It will be interesting to see if Pax Europa can hold, or if the continent will return to its historically consistent belligerence.

kown7•11 minutes ago

At least historically, this isn't supported. I'd refer to Sarah Paine's talks for more details.

More fault lines and pirates and no one to police them.

WarmWash•19 minutes ago

The (ten) trillion dollar question is if Euro nations are going to foster fertile grounds for domestic American/Chinese competitor companies to grow, and at this point, grow rapidly. The second question is if this will be done jointly, or if old lines will come back over not wanting to be encumbered with "dead weight" in the need to move fast.

holowoodman•2 minutes ago

Old lines were never gone. All the talk about Europeans finally doing a common thing always carry some footnotes like "the Republic of France reserves the right to deviate in matters of military, security and production of sparkling wines and demands a 45% part in all tenders". Trump just needs to threaten champagne tax and France will surrender, or car tax and Germany will. Absent outside pressure, it is even worse. European treaties consist of more national exceptions than commonalities.

jcfrei•4 minutes ago

No to both in my opinion. The EU market is in reality still heavily fractured - especially in the services sector. A Hungarian construction company for example can't just easily build a bridge for a town in Italy. With Europe steadily getting older effective reforms become near impossible - especially those that would lead to large changes for workers. So Europe will forever stay in this semi broken / semi integrated state - and much higher trade barriers towards China and the US seem much more likely to me than a more competitive Europe.

iib•14 minutes ago

If by dead-weight you mean the two speed Europe, I don't think that's possible. That weight is what makes the EU such a large market.

alephnerd•14 minutes ago

This is the issue.

Both the US and China [0][1][2] are playing hardball against the EU because we both view the EU as a junior partner and tend to negotiate with individual states bilaterally.

I think a lot of Europeans also don't realize that a large swathe of Chinese decisionmakers and policymakers studied in the US since the 1980s, and they tend to operate in the American manner as well.

[0] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1361926.shtml

[1] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1362161.shtml

[2] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202606/1364526.shtml

lateralux•about 1 hour ago

Europe is finally breaking with America ? At least this time, nobody has to try invading France first ^^

twirlip•33 minutes ago

So Putin's failure in Ukraine is balanced by his wild success in the US. The eye-watering corruption of Trump and the Republican Party has irreversibly damaged relations with the democratic allies of the US.

petcat•24 minutes ago

I think the biggest issue is that Europe and the EU has gotten themselves into a position where they don't actually offer much anymore except a pretty good middle class consumer market. They've put themselves into a place where they are just very easy to squeeze, which is what is happening from all sides by Russia, China, and the US.

Trump's antics have accelerated that position, and maybe they weren't expecting it from USA, but it was probably inevitable given their long term trajectory.

josefritzishere•36 minutes ago

This was directly caused by a US regime which can only operate transactionally and cannot itself be trusted. Trust is highly perishable.

Supermancho•28 minutes ago

I think this is overly simplistic. Trump 2.0 was certainly the catalyzing event, but the issue is one of US political failure. Europe could have forgiven a corrupt regime that had an opportunity to be changed out, and was, when it became destructive to European interests. However, there is no recourse today. The US political system has demonstrated that it's corruptible and toothless in the face of authoritarian overreach, regardless of the systemic support that had to be in place for the administration to be so effectively destructive. This is the issue that is irreversible, in the long term. An authoritarian will rise again in the US, sooner rather than later.

Herring•10 minutes ago

So many people have to get burned before they realize working with a rich sociopath is a bad idea.

paulsutter•21 minutes ago

From the article:

> The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark.

Did Trump threaten to seize Greenland? The WSJ links to an article with the quotes below. The quotes reflect sheer buffoonery (as expected), but so far I haven't seen the threat to seize Greenland.

This seems to be the consensus, but its not clear to me that it happened.

From the linked article:

> During an hourlong speech at the World Economic Forum, the U.S. president said he wouldn’t deploy the military to take control of Greenland.

> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland and posted an image online of the territory with an American flag plastered across it.

> “I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”

> “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said of his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”

patwork•6 minutes ago

Europe seems to have forgotten that influence is a function of power. The leaders in the article lament their ability to influence the US on policy, but what do they bring to the table to effect that influence? Military power? Economic power? Technical innovation? The only thing they have is a small amount of cultural power that they have used to shame and criticize while entirely relying on US protection.

cmiles8•2 minutes ago

The UK found this out the hard way after Brexit. When you go from sitting at the global table as Europe to being a relatively small island nation in the North Atlantic folks tend to negotiate with you differently.