European sentiments towards the US hit an all-time low
ecfr.euI think its interesting that they Estonia has both the biggest swing against increasing defence spending (+23 to +1, from middle of the pack to second last), and the highest rate of blaming their own government for fuel prices. I wouldn’t have expected either result.
speaking about defending ourselves: there's a huge gap between "willing to defend" and "actually be able to defend" ourselves
Those are not different things, "willing to defend" is just the prerequisite of "actually be able to defend". Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves. Look at Iran, how resilient they are despite decades of sanctions and their shitty regime.
When things start moving people can move mountains, suddenly the unemployment goes to %0 like it happened with Russia, market forces get dominated by state forces, moats like network effect or IP go to the trash.
Ukraine is essentially acting as a human shield for the EU right now. My friends in the SBU/ National Guard are terrified, even though they haven’t even seen combat yet. They’re stationed in a city that’s essentially 50% Russian. Even a civilian could shoot them in the back.
Ukrainians don't act as a human shield for EU, if they wanted to be part of Russia they could have joined them(like Crimea and Donbas tbf, but since there wouldn't be claims on the Ukrainian territory anymore it wouldn't be a war).
EU doesn't force anyone to fight for them, it enables those countries that are not part of Russia, don't want to be part of Russia and are willing to fight Russian aggression to eventually be independent countries and member of EU.
May I ask from which country you are, you are talking of position that implies that Ukrainians don't have agency. It's a Russian talking point(that is "Ukrainians couldn't have chosen to join NATO and EU by themselves since they don't have agency, EU tricked them or NATO forced them to fight Russia, therefore Russia isn't the agressor but the defender here against the EU/NATO aggression").
What does free will have to do with it? I know a lot of Ukrainians, and many of them are disappointed in the EU’s support. Let me say it again: I have friends who are fighting, and they often blame the EU for the lack of support—there aren’t enough people, you see. It’s a meat grinder; they need more equipment and automated systems! Just imagine how hard it must be for them right now, with Russian FPV-drones flying all over the city.
I don't think your friends are being reasonable, why would they think that EU should send manpower to fight Ukraine's war? I agree that EU should do more but EU also doesn't even have army. EU is currently doing things that it isn't even build to do, if eventually EU becomes a superstate then they can help more substantially but unfortunately EU isn't there yet.
People expect EU to do much more that EU can do by design, EU is bunch of sovereign states that coordinate and only some of those states have considerable military power but even those countries politics wouldn't allow much. AFD is pro-Russian party that is the most popular political power in Germany which means EU doesn't have the power and Germany is divided and this goes for almost all countries. Just recently in Bulgaria(which sent substential military help to Ukraine in early days of the war) the pro-Russian political power won in a landslide and today they announced that they cut all the support for Ukraine(they will keep selling though).
EU isn't the thing many people believe it is.
No one is saying that the EU should send troops, but you need to understand that your security depends directly on all the aid you provide to Ukraine. Specifically, on the people who are dying and holding Russia back with their very lives! If they stop doing so, Ukraine will lose territory, and once it loses enough of it, Estonia, for example, will be next. And by then, you and I might even be fighting against the Russians.
I agree with you, Ukraine is essential for the European security and EU should do whatever they can to make Ukraine win but unfortunately EU isn't as integrated as USA yet, countries are still nationalistic entities and EU still needs huge reforms.
The American betrayal(as it is perceived) may push EU into becoming that but it's not there. At it's current form EU does the most it can.
Oh ... well the EU is not actually giving Ukraine much money at all. They are loaning money to them. The reward for Ukrainians' services and lives will be a century of paying back loans to the EU. Still better than being part of Russia, I guess, but.
Why "free will" is critical, is because before Russia attacked, the Ukrainian government had the sense to not in a million years accept such a terrible deal from the EU. As to how free that will really is when constantly under fire with Europe refusing to help it (despite things like the Budapest memorandum) ... is not being discussed.
This has caused a number of EU countries, like Poland and Finland, to decide that a nuclear program to get working ICBMs is a lot cheaper than counting on EU and US goodwill when they're attacked.
Ukraine is also doing a "Chinese-style" nuclear program. The idea is to get every component of ICBMs working. Ukraine, for historical reasons, needs uranium enrichment (it's either that or rebuilding two dozen nuclear reactors). So Ukraine is getting into China's/Japan's position right before they got nukes. Ukraine also has engineers that have actually designed working nuclear bombs. Meaning they're getting to the point that they "don't have nukes, BUT ..."
With the unspoken part being that they're getting to the point where they can have 100 working ICBMs ready to launch by next month.
So we'll have the Ukrainian government, armed with nukes, and a huge involuntary and very unfair war debt to the EU.
Should be interesting negotiations.
But the free will part is critical because without the "free will under pressure" Ukraine would never make itself so incredibly indebted to the EU. And we'll get to see nuclear interest-rate negotations!
I think we need you to provide the numbers about what you consider "very unfair war debt" to the EU.
The 90B€ loan is just the latest mechanism for financial aid, there have been a lot of equipment transfers/donations from member-states, direct financial support for purchase of equipment, countries like Germany and Sweden even changed national laws to allow direct financial support (donations) to Ukraine.
The vast majority of the financial support for Ukraine has been donations, I'm not sure why you think otherwise so sharing the hard data you have could be a good start.
> EU is not actually giving Ukraine much money at all
You are confusing the latest 90B loan with all the other help. Also EU found a way to go around the vetoes by individual countries sending Ukraine help under EU coordination. The grants vs loans is more like 65 to 35 as a ratio.
Also lots of other half truths and unfair commentary, whatever...
Which country are you from?
> Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves.
How can you type such nonsense? Look at 2014 Crimean annexation - thats "how good they defended themselves" without western training and billions in weapon aid. After four years they have million plus dead but "this is fine" for the west.
There was no fight in Crimea, Russians rented a base there and one day decided not to extend the rental agreement and that they own Crimea now. Most of the Ukrainian soldiers switched sides and joined Russia and it was over without a bullet fired.
So US may decide that they now own Germany because they have the Ramstein Air base but I don't think it will go as smoothly.
There are old videos from the time on Youtube, check it out.
[citation needed] - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain..., the only source that says that there are more than 1 million killed and wounded (!) Ukrainian soldiers is the Russian Ministry of Defense, which I wouldn't consider very trustworthy...
Fair. I stand corrected. First casualty of war is always the truth so both sides will lie.
But we're now spending and working on this gap like crazy.
And we will end up using those weapons against eachother, again.
As if we haven't seen that film before.
Or even worse, keep selling them to Israel as Germany is doing, because one genocide was not enough and two wrongs make a right.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately.
If he's being downvoted for his "selling weapons to Israel" comment, I just want to highlight that even a majority of Germans is against it, with 80% not wanting to send weapons [1]. Of course there are different polls, and others find that "only" 30% say "stop them", plus another 43% saying "limit them [2]. Either way, only a small minority is pro "send all the weapons".
[1]: https://www.plan.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/80-proz... [2]: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1615302/umfra...
Follow the Yugoslavia model and ship soldiers from each country to live and work with each other in their first years in military service.
Then again… Yugoslavia maybe not the best example here…
> I don't understand why this is being downvoted.
Wars and military matters are literally life and death. I try not to speculate about downvotes, but here I expect there are people who are primed to get quite emotional when someone tells them they shouldn't start arming up.
By defending ourselves you mean defending my own family or being some pawn in politicians game dying for their wishes?
I am willing to defend my family.
I am certainly not even willing to defend ANY country just because local politicians are afraid of incoming new management, no matter whether it's my home country or country where I currently reside, I have no allegiance to any country, only to my family. Sadly majority of people are brainwashed, if there were more people like me there would be zero wars, just local crimes.
The history of not defending against incoming new management is not good for zero wars - google Sudetenland for example. If you want zero wars you're probably better being like Switzerland - defend your own country but don't go fighting abroad.
Incoming new management works only because some willing to fight for greater good, safety... whatever establishment propagate.
Not sure why you mention Sudetland?
It was an area they let Hitler effectively occupy without going to war. The Donetsk People's Republic of its day. Not fighting over that only delayed the main war a little.
Fighting over that might kill my grandparents.
Psychologically, becoming a soldier will be difficult for everyone; if Russia launches an offensive against the EU, the regular army alone will not be enough.
> if Russia launches an offensive against the EU
With what?
Russia has been wringing itself out to find enough soldiers to continue the war in Ukraine, and while they haven't been driven out just yet, I think it would be somewhere between "a massive stretch" and "flat-out untrue" to say they're winning.
And by and large, the rest of Europe is farther away, has a much worse/less clear casus belli from Russia's point of view, and, crucially, is part of NATO, and thus will not be fighting alone (and yes, I know Ukraine is getting a lot of support from Europe, but support isn't the same as boots on the ground).
If Russia launches an offensive against the EU, there's a damn good chance that offensive boomerangs right back around into its face.
Don't underestimate the potential for a Russian dictator to cause suffering for his own people.
The war in Ukraine is currently in stalemate and for Russia the most deadly war since WW2, but Russia until now didn't execute full mobilization and full scale war. The cost of full scale war would be terrible, deaths in WW2 were counted in millions (for both soldiers and civilians). Russia didn't launch an offensive against the Europe (especially Baltic states and Poland), because they are still under US nuclear umbrella.
> Don't underestimate the potential for a Russian dictator to cause suffering for his own people.
Oh, I don't, believe me! But the thing is, Putin is already doing this.
AIUI, he has been conscripting soldiers to fight in Ukraine for quite some time—to the point that he's had a hard time finding more conscripts already. I don't think there's much more he can do to force Russians onto the battlefield for him, wherever that battlefield is.
But he's been careful not to conscript from the big cities, for political reasons. He could raise a lot more conscripts... but there would be political consequences that he probably wouldn't like.
So there are real constraints on what Putin is able (or at least willing) to do.
Also, AIUI (and I could well be wrong), he at least says that he's not sending the conscripts to actually fight in Ukraine. Whether that's actually true... I have no data.
He's got barely tapped reserves in NK and PRC.
I guess the operative warning here would be "Don't underestimate the potential for the Russian people to cause problems for Putin."
Using Geran drones, missiles, and aerial bombs, for example. I think you need to understand that the EU’s air defense system isn’t designed to engage so many low-value targets with such expensive air defense systems. We need fundamentally new, mobile systems, and we need to recruit more people and train them. It’s not that simple.
Yeah that Schrodinger Russia again: it is being stuck for years, unable to take some small village in Donetsk region, and simultaneously is a grave threat that looms over Europe, ready to quickly overrun their capital cities.
It’s not that Russia is strong because of its economy or its military. The point is that it is strong like a criminal, a mugger with a knife on the streets of Frankfurt. Or, if you will, a pigeon playing chess with you—it will scatter all the pieces and defecate on the board, then strut around like a winner with its chest puffed out. That’s Russia for you; it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to. Also look at the EU’s military exercises—the soldiers aren’t really ready for drone attacks yet.
> it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to.
In 21st century warfare, what exactly is considered a 'dirty', and what is considered an 'honorable' tactic? Is there an objective definition?
Thank you for proving my point. Great example of double-think!
Yup, they still haven't run out of those washing machine chips they use, Russia must be washing machine superpower.
...at least if you believe EU/UA propaganda.
It's funny how they yesterday or day before yesterday annouced 21st round of Russian sanctions.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Imagine you are so dumb, you do it 21 times and expect voters will take yous eriously and keep supporting if they paid it 21 times from their own wallets.
I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.
France and UK have a nuclear arsenal. France specifically has said they are willing to extend their policy to cover other EU countries.
The long term viability of the UK nukes does rather depend on support from the US though - they use our own fissile material, but the warhead designs are believed to largely be based on the US W76 and the actual Trident missiles come from a pool controlled by the US.
France has an independent nuclear deterrent.
I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?
> I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3
That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.
And I think even before 1950 there was a feeling, particularly in the US, that it was good to have the Germans on-side in a military conflict due to their recent experience fighting the Soviets.
With access to Internet in my late teens came the exposure to an intellectual, cultured leftist America I did not know existed. Now 20 years later, it really does not exist anymore. The US is a business,not a country, and it hates its own citizens.
"X is a land of contrasts" is a cliche, but: America is a land of contrasts. It manages to have elements both of shining city on the hill and squalid banana republic (resource extraction economy with poor rule of law) adjacent to each other.
But yes, the main natural predator of Americans is other Americans.
Those contrasts only exist among the general population, which Americas political class have not represented for generations.
Can you give any examples of major corporations who do not have a verifiable history of corruption or anti-consumer/worker actions, not named costco?
Can you name more than 10 politicians over the last 50 years who would be considered leftist in the rest of the Anglo world?
Kind of a misleading title, but an interesting article. It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Some of these opinion polls are not particularly useful though, as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US. I’m not sure it’s all that relevant how much a western EU country feels about the prospect of being attacked, as I don’t see how Portugal or Spain or France are at much geopolitical risk compared to the eastern flank.
> It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Look at the Denmark graph (adversarial going up). I do not think in that case it is about "the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks" but about the US itself doing that.
It's also interesting that, while the "ally" curve is going down for all included countries, in some countries the "partner" (which is a weaker form of ally) curve is going up to partly compensate for that, while in others (mostly southern European, plus Switzerland and, of course, Denmark), it's also going down.
One could argue B implies A :p
You can hardly expect the guy attacking you to have your back.
> as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US
The current US administration has made it very clear over and over again that deals, contracts and agreements don't mean shit to them.
Who are these Europeans with these sentiments? I recently spent about 10 days in France and the UK, I saw no sentiment in gen pop, at least towards my own person. I also saw no AI anything anywhere, which was also very refreshing.
I hope the EU population understands that Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance. If the EU wants Ukraine to shield it from drones, send more air defense systems. If the EU wants to end the war, give Ukraine more long-range missiles. If you want Ukraine to hold on, then spend money on rebuilding its infrastructure. But as we see, the EU is not rushing to help. It still supplies goods to Russia or buys from it because it benefits the EU’s economy. Ukraine is the EU’s only ally that will protect you. What other military threats does Europe face besides Russia?
I think it's more they lean towards the 'great powers' viewpoint that they are great and so have the right to bully smaller countries near them.
> Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance.
This is highly delusional. Don't you think that if the US and Russia were an alliance, the US would provide intelligence and communication to Russia, and not to Ukraine?
Because the U.S. has reached an agreement with China and Russia regarding the wars they will wage in the near future, so as not to interfere in each other’s affairs. I realize this is a stretch to call it an alliance, but it’s “kind of a military alliance.” This doesn’t mean the U.S., Russia, and China won’t keep each other in check; it’s simply a matter of spheres of influence.
Don’t even have to be non American to feel that way.
> Worryingly, European populists are espousing more assertively anti-Ukrainian views. Viktor Orban focused his unsuccessful election campaign to remain Hungarian prime minister on that theme. Meanwhile ECFR’s polling shows that voters of the far-right Freedom Party in Austria (FPÖ), the AfD in Germany, two far-right parties in Poland, and the governing and populist Progressive Bulgaria all see Ukraine as chiefly a “rival” or “adversary”.
Of course, note that Orban _lost_. I suspect that the far-right's Putin-fetishism is a marketing mistake on their part; "Russia is good, actually" may resonate with their base but is a very hard sell to anyone else.
I think the far-right's pro Putin stuff is much more down to the Russians willingness to give them money in various forms than anything to do with their voters preferences.
> Of course, note that Orban _lost_.
...to a former member of his party Magyar, who was his colleague 2 years ago in 2024. It's amusing how some people see Magyar as some big change coming to Hungary after Orban.
I don't think anyone genuinely likes Russia, it's more about stop pretending we suddenly like Ukraine, you know you can dislike them both at same time, right?
He seems not to be a Russian asset. That’s a big change.
Magyar is a big change. It's down to not being an Putin employee.
"Russia is good, actually" is a hard sell to anyone who has been indoctrinated by a lifetime of Western Russophobia. Is I think what you meant.
Western influence isn't necessary. Eastern Europe has experienced the Soviet Union and doesn't want to go back.
>anyone who has been indoctrinated by a lifetime of Western Russophobia
or who turns on the TV and sees which atrocity they've committed this week.
Technically true but it's also a hard sell to normal people who don't like wars of aggression, poisoning political opponents, and shooting down airliners.
The problem is that if you look at Russia's actions they are mostly rational and predictable. And by Russian standards Putin is a moderate. The Western wet dream is to "Yugoslavia" Russia. Balkanize it, load it with debt and take all of its assets. They had their man in Yeltsin, but he was such an egregious drunk that even the CIA couldn't get him reelected. In many ways, if you look at things objectively, there may not be a Russia without Putin.
(and you show me a major country where they aren't poisoning political opponents, conducting significantly less relevant wars than the one in Ukraine, and all kinds of other things)
I have no words for what I just read.
Oh yeah, the West is so russophobic that Russian elites all sent their kids there to study and bought million-dollar villas and penthouses there...
The Russian public are victims of Putin just as much as the Ukranians. This is almost all on him and his party apparatus, just as it was under Stalin.
> Worryingly, European populists are espousing more assertively anti-Ukrainian views. Viktor Orban focused his unsuccessful election campaign to remain Hungarian prime minister on that theme. Meanwhile ECFR’s polling shows that voters of the far-right Freedom Party in Austria (FPÖ), the AfD in Germany, two far-right parties in Poland, and the governing and populist Progressive Bulgaria all see Ukraine as chiefly a “rival” or “adversary”.
Yes, because Russia's propaganda, espionage and corruption arm has been focusing on the far-right parties for the past two decades, breaking from their previous focus on the far left.
Russia doesn't really differentiate between right and left when it comes to trying to destabilize Europe, they throw random shit against the wall and then focus on what sticks.
They used to though. Russian money was destined exclusively for the far-left before 2015 or so.
Yes that's where the phenomenon of tankies came from (at least the ones of modern times)
There is credible evidence that Trump — that bastion of the far-left — has been a Russian asset since the 1980's...
Yes. Trump is a New Yorker. What do you think his party was when growing up? By the way, he has swapped political parties like he probably showers: every few years. Trump has been a democrat, registered, donor, everything you want, multiple times.
> What do you think his party was when growing up?
This is indicative of Americas mental illness epidemic. You believe the neoliberal pro-corporate oligarchy party, that hasn't had a leftist president since Carter, is "the left"... without even a hint of irony.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
[citation needed] - I thought there was significant proven bribery across the German political spectrum?
Only in one sense. You get Russian money if you're extreme. Left, right, muslim extremist, anarchist, ... doesn't matter. As long as you're willing to sabotage Germany. But the CDU (and even Die Linke for that matter, everyone vaguely "normal") has to get it's Russian bribes the old fashioned way: with large industrial projects. No freebies.
You’re absolutely right, but I’d also add that Russia’s cultural right and left are essentially just the right wing by U.S. or European standards.
I didnt know that communist are consired right wing now.
You may be confusing the Soviet Union (disbanded in 1991) with Russia. The Soviet Union (USSR) was communist, but Russia existed before and after the Soviet Union. Russia was a monarchy before 1917 and became a semi-presidential republic (under Putin) after the fall of the Soviet Union. I would also describe modern Russia as an oligarchy and certainly seems to be far-right in terms of politics.
Do you have any evidence that Russian espionage backed the far left before 2006?
Are you really disputing that the Soviet Union used to back the far left in the west monetarily? Seriously?
And no, they didn't really change who/how they backed for 20+ years.
The Soviet Union ended in about 1991.
The comment is just asking for evidence. I am curious too.
> The comment is just asking for evidence. I am curious too.
Given "before 2006" includes the entire history of Soviet espionage, that's kinda like demanding evidence that the sun rises in the East. It's very obvious that Soviet espionage would have supported far-left groups in the West, so if you want evidence you should probably do your own research.
Now the post-Soviet period in that range, 1991-2005, is a different question.
That's kinda what i was going to. I had the impression that post soviet russia was much more geopolitical - support anyone destabilizing west. That included often completely contradictory support.
Russia != Soviet Union, even though Russia was the Soviet political-administrative center, contemporary Russia Federation is very different to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.
Russia was also communist in Soviet times, and it's not like the slate was completely wiped clean when the Soviet Union fell. IIRC the Russian Federation also is officially the successor state to the Soviet Union, and took on its treaty obligations, etc.
any country should see any other country as rival, no matter whether it is Ukraine, US, China, Germany or Uganda, it is just common sense, you dont need any propaganda for that, especially considering cheap unregulated UA products flooding European markets destroying farmers livelihood while EU farmers have to obey much stricter standard and are then unable to compete on price without subsidies (just to be clear I would prefer to abolish all subsidies)
Stop with your DW diet please. It is fucking your brain.
The difference between modern german press and the soviet pravda, is that soviet citizens were aware the Pravda was propaganda.
Yes all russia's fault. It has nothing to do with european governments and the EU caring more about climate change than the economy. More about third worlders than local population. More about policing racism than violent crime. More about extending the war instead of ending it.
"More about extending the war instead of ending it." Clearly this is Russia's fault. Russian troops could just leave Ukraine's international recognised area. Easy peasy.
This is an oversimplification, I would not consider Orban far right and PB are more populist left if anything. And it's not all Russia's fault, in Bulgaria the pro-Russian government came into power after five years of self-proclaimed pro-Western politicians attacking the institutions for their own political gain. Well, it misfired.
So Orbán is not far-right, but somehow American far-right politicians and influencers like J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson loved him as a shining example of the kind of nationalist illiberal state they want to create. Hmm.
Well it's because of the overton window. In Holland when the fascist PVV joined the coalition it was a huge embarrassment for the other parties so they rebranded "extreme right" to "radical right" in all media so they didn't seem like sellouts. This happened literally the day they took office. Clearly a coordinated effort.
I'm sure the same applies to orban. People in power don't like to be called extreme so they rebrand to launder their ideology. It's still the same crap but now more hidden.
I think we all know why. No need to say his name.
Ammon McNeff
As a European I'd say my sentiments are low more towards Trump and friends. I imagine things with the the US will go back to normal once he leaves office.
My neighbors (Switzerland) sometimes joke about how we're all going to be fighting Putin (Russian army) in the streets someday.
The interesting french delusion that donald is an outlier
> Europeans embrace self-reliance and are clear-eyed about Donald Trump—but do not expect a permanent break from the US.
That's a wrong analysis IMO. I think NATO as it was is completely dead. Europeans need a nuclear arsenal too (french and UK nukes are for those two countries only; that does not protect several hundred millions people). Russia is threatening escalation every day, including using nukes. Europeans need their own nukes here - relying on a corrupt orange man acting like a russian asset, is a losing strategy. Even having another guy act and roleplay as president, won't really change this fundamental problem.
For what is worth, France offered to extend its nuclear umbrella to protect other European countries, offer accepted by 9 countries so far. Okay it's not permanent, doesn't necessary mean deployments in those countries, but still things are moving and the direction is obvious.
NATO is an alliance of 32 democracies. You have to expect those to elect duff leaders from time to time but the thing goes on.
Europe also needs to be in a position where it can quickly deploy the anti-coercion instrument[0] should a foreign power interfere in elections or threaten territorial integrity. The last time it was on the table didn't give me confidence they could.
Russia is already influencing your elections through propaganda.
Not for this guy from Germany traveling across the US for the World Cup
In the UK this feels like the least popular world cup in years. Even after Russia and Qatar, it feels like more of a FIFA corruption circus.
That’s echoed on X. UK folks grumbling while tourist from other countries are having a blast.
Yes, I bet the Senegalese are loving it ...
Face it, the Trump World Cup is going to be a shit show ... appropriate for what they've done to the US ... turned it into, and I quote the orange dildo himself, a shit hole.
Seems like it's going okay...
"McDonald’s earnings beat estimates as chain’s value push pays off"
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/11/mcdonalds-mcd-q4-2025-earnin...
Same energy ... intensely successful at low quality produce.
Yeah, fck that piece of sh ... this particular World Cup has about the same amount of value to me as the FIFA Peace Prize.
It's sad. We begged Europe to contribute more for years, they chose to laugh and make fun of our healthcare compared to theirs instead. Didn't have to go this way. Euro's being euros they'll blame us for it all instead of being introspective. They love to gripe at us about how bad we are/they don't share values with us/etc so they'll just say todays poor US behavior proves their point (ignoring their previous behavior that contributed to things/lead here).
They'll say we are corrupt/capitalist/evil yet they are the ones that refused to pay their share because they thought they didn't have to worry about the damage from their actions/choices. They undercut American businesses and legally tolerated practices like tax deductions for overseas bribes while the supposedly "evil capitalist" U.S. imposed criminal penalties for similar conduct. They negotiated reciprocal agreements, such as mutual recognition of aviation certifications, then failed to uphold them disadvantaging American companies.
Europe legally tolerated/profited from corruption for decades. Europe refused to uphold parts of its own agreements. Europe laughed when the U.S. raised these complaints. I'm not sure why Europe chose this path. My best guess is that it did so because America tolerated that behavior for so long they assumed there would never be consequences. Maybe they thought the US was stuck with whatever Europe chose to do.
It's like my British ex-friends that were surprised when I ended the relationship because all they wanted to do was gripe at me. I'm not spending money/hours cooking only to be treated miserably. If every interaction is just complaints and contempt while I'm expected to keep investing my time and effort eventually I gonna stop showing up.
--reactionary thoughts from an unthoughtful American. They are more reactionary than productive, and I wish I had different ones.
Atlanticist polls are probably more interesting (if there even is such a thing) when considering which questions they didn't even ask, rather than the questions they asked confirming all the establishment positions anyway.
Is there an establishment in the room with us right now?
Let me know, because I want to make sure that I'm aligned with this mystical Western Atlantacist Anglo-Saxon (insert Russian propaganda snarl-word du jour) hive mind.
To understand what I'm talking about listen to the WEF speech by Canadian PM Mark Carney from a few months ago,
Would this make a difference though? The USA abandoned Europeans already before Trump. You only have to look at the polls. Thus, it makes sense to completely cut the ties, build up a nuclear arsenal and offset the mafia in Moscow. It makes no sense for Europeans to want to depend on the USA here; I have no idea who came up with that idea. Most likely the USA as it helped them project power. See how many bombing campaigns started from US bases in Germany, most famously from Ramstein.
Of course. If the US builds military bases in your country, it profits THEM, not you.
It's a protection racket, except now we get to cut our health care so we can own the knife on our throat.
Well the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power, then business as usual can continue. Beyond that broad agreement with US - EU alignment on foreign policy (NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, China) must continue even under Trump. Trump is even seen as an opportunity to convince Europeans to increase its own "NATO compatible" military spending.
What I meant was it would be more interesting to see any opinions that conflict with that above establishment consensus. For example on negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war vs. continuing the forever war. Like where do Europeans disagree with the strategic interests of the US, do they really 100% align as this poll makes it appear? How is that possible?
> the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power
Is it? This is not entirely clear. And if it seemed the case, it's increasingly not looking realistic. It won't fully go back to normal, now that it's clear that the US is one election away from not only backing away from commitments, but itself threatening invasion of supposed allies.
A defense partner that sometimes announces that it's no longer an ally isn't really a defense partner, since The Enemy has the choice of when to attack and an understanding of game theory.
And as a reliable trading partner the US apparently has very poor guardrails for suddenly not honoring deals and established norms.
Turns out that the only checks&balances in the US political system is impeachment (which, as we know, is a political and not judicial process), and it's apparently impotent to protect against a rogue executive branch.
"This era could see the alliance seriously weakened – or irreparably changed" from the EU Parliament report "The Near-term Future of the Transatlantic Relationship". There's also https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2026/0...
Yeah I agree. As the saying goes: trust is built in drops and lost in buckets. A lot of time needs to pass while the US behaves as a proper ally if they want to go back to the status quo. At least IMHO as this is how I feel as an EU citizen.
I'm not saying that is realistic either, I just think EU leadership thinks it will return to "normalcy" after Trump is gone and they are acting accordingly. There has been no break from the US, they are as aligned on foreign policy as always, EU countries are acting to protect US interests, first and foremost, not to restore their own national sovereignty.
The one part that is brilliant maneuvering now is the EU spending increases on their own militaries: You keep the dependency, US military bases and surveillance installations, including US nuclear weapons on your soil (or even more bases like in the case of Greenland), you align on every military intervention under the sun (including Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the greater Israel project) and you get a perfect pretext to do large scale austerity? It is quite incredible they were able to sell all that with a straight face to the europeans.
You know I would have asked the Europeans if they are okay with another migrant crisis as a result of another US intervention in the middle east, or if they think it's fair they have to spend on their own defense but don't get to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts if that goes against US interests. The rules based order is dead, might is right has truly won and Europeans can lick the boot that crushes them is the truth.
All of that to say there is a reason EU is falling victim to far-right fascist parties if that's the only alternative to this clusterfuck that is afforded to them.
When Trump lefts the office, there is still the younger generation to replace him (JD Vance, Rubio). Europeans still remember the 2025 JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference, the message was clear: The centrist governments in Europe are not partners for Republican party, only the far-right parties.