US Crusade against the EU: 2025 National Security Strategy of the US
First there was the speech in Munich by JD Vance. Now the attack is written down as national strategy.
The Paper
Especially if you are an EU citizen or a citizen of UK or Ireland, I would urge those interested in geopolitics to read the actual short (30 page) document itself and not rely on just the commentaries about it:
National Security Strategy of the United States of America
If you have gotten through the praises of the glorious achievements of president Trump (which remind me of an academic paper from the Islamic Republic of Iran praising Allah on every page), you might have noticed that the real threat, mentioned many times, are the "evil" trans-national organizations doing their "evil" elitist stuff against the US. The sinister trans-national organizations and their threat to sovereign nation states with their elitist agendas is mentioned in several parts.
In the part named "Promoting European Greatness", the rant that JD Vance started at Munich is continued with inconsistencies like wanting to Europe to stand on its feet and increase defense spending, but then Europe having to be saved from the current path... basically by anti-EU parties. Even if the EU isn't mentioned, it's quite easy to connect just what trans-national organization is in the crosshairs of Trump regime. Also NATO enlargement is off the table, which has been the first priority for Russia in it's military doctrine. So, again a surrender deal from Trump (which now isn't anything new). In the more crazy stuff, the paper seems to believe in the replacement theory that is so dear to the far-right.
The European commentators response has been quite clear: that the US is an untrustworthy ally or even worse, while the leading countries have officially simply been silent, at least in public. Even EU foreign minister has responded by saying that the US is still Europe's most important ally. This tactic has worked well for example in the case of Denmark, where the territorial demands made by Trump were treated with a silence and inaction that made the tiny country hold on to Greenland in the first Trump presidency. Perhaps this too is one of those hilarious policy papers coming from zealous ideologues in the White House and hence should be left in the dustbin.
Some might hope that when the Democrats regain the White House, it will be a return back to normalcy, when there are adults in the room. Just to show how different the Trump Security Strategy is, here's the previous Strategy paper made by the Trump administration (see 2017 National Security Strategy). For those who don't want to read the whole documentary, here's the part about Europe from the previous administration, note that it was BEFORE the Russian conventional attack in 2022:
Yet likely it isn't going to be so.
The Impact
Behind the curtains the obvious is totally evident. The notes obtain by the German Der Spiegel from a conference call between European leaders show just how little if any trust there is with the Trump team (see "We Must Not Leave Ukraine and Volodymyr Alone with These Guys"). Naturally they won't come out publicly with these views, perhaps only when Trump really invades Greenland with US Marines landing in Nuuk.
What has really happened? I think this really shows the end of US being a Superpower: with joy in Moscow and Beijing, the US destroys itself the tight alliances it has enjoyed and hence looses it's role in the World. Why would this create a void, isn't the US wanting Europe to stand on it's own feet? Because European defense is built on trans-national organizations like NATO and EU. The whole integration process was because of WW1 and WW2: not to have inter-European wars between nation states anymore. This is something that the White House mob doesn't seem to get and here lies the inconsistency. But if one is totally ignorant of the reasons why Europeans have chosen integration, why there exists an EU, then perhaps this paper makes sense. People who are ignorant about this will read the Strategy paper above and find no inconsistencies at all.
But what do you think?
Is the Trans-Atlantic link now permanently eroding? I think it will limp onwards, because there's still too much invested in the relationship. Even if you think this isn't worth commenting, I really urge to take the time a read what the Trump administration seriously thinks the guidelines ought to be for US security policy.
The Paper
Especially if you are an EU citizen or a citizen of UK or Ireland, I would urge those interested in geopolitics to read the actual short (30 page) document itself and not rely on just the commentaries about it:
National Security Strategy of the United States of America
If you have gotten through the praises of the glorious achievements of president Trump (which remind me of an academic paper from the Islamic Republic of Iran praising Allah on every page), you might have noticed that the real threat, mentioned many times, are the "evil" trans-national organizations doing their "evil" elitist stuff against the US. The sinister trans-national organizations and their threat to sovereign nation states with their elitist agendas is mentioned in several parts.
In the part named "Promoting European Greatness", the rant that JD Vance started at Munich is continued with inconsistencies like wanting to Europe to stand on its feet and increase defense spending, but then Europe having to be saved from the current path... basically by anti-EU parties. Even if the EU isn't mentioned, it's quite easy to connect just what trans-national organization is in the crosshairs of Trump regime. Also NATO enlargement is off the table, which has been the first priority for Russia in it's military doctrine. So, again a surrender deal from Trump (which now isn't anything new). In the more crazy stuff, the paper seems to believe in the replacement theory that is so dear to the far-right.
The European commentators response has been quite clear: that the US is an untrustworthy ally or even worse, while the leading countries have officially simply been silent, at least in public. Even EU foreign minister has responded by saying that the US is still Europe's most important ally. This tactic has worked well for example in the case of Denmark, where the territorial demands made by Trump were treated with a silence and inaction that made the tiny country hold on to Greenland in the first Trump presidency. Perhaps this too is one of those hilarious policy papers coming from zealous ideologues in the White House and hence should be left in the dustbin.
Some might hope that when the Democrats regain the White House, it will be a return back to normalcy, when there are adults in the room. Just to show how different the Trump Security Strategy is, here's the previous Strategy paper made by the Trump administration (see 2017 National Security Strategy). For those who don't want to read the whole documentary, here's the part about Europe from the previous administration, note that it was BEFORE the Russian conventional attack in 2022:
Europe (Trump NSS 2017)
A strong and free Europe is of vital importance to
the United States. We are bound together by our
shared commitment to the principles of democracy,
individual liberty, and the rule of law. Together, we
rebuilt Western Europe after World War II and
created institutions that produced stability and wealth
on both sides of the Atlantic. Today, Europe is one
of the most prosperous regions in the world and
our most significant trading partner.
Although the menace of Soviet communism is
gone, new threats test our will. Russia is using
subversive measures to weaken the credibility
of America’s commitment to Europe, under
mine transatlantic unity, and weaken European
institutions and governments. With its invasions
of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its
willingness to violate the sovereignty
of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate
its neighbors with threatening behavior,
such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment
of offensive capabilities.
Yet likely it isn't going to be so.
The Impact
Behind the curtains the obvious is totally evident. The notes obtain by the German Der Spiegel from a conference call between European leaders show just how little if any trust there is with the Trump team (see "We Must Not Leave Ukraine and Volodymyr Alone with These Guys"). Naturally they won't come out publicly with these views, perhaps only when Trump really invades Greenland with US Marines landing in Nuuk.
What has really happened? I think this really shows the end of US being a Superpower: with joy in Moscow and Beijing, the US destroys itself the tight alliances it has enjoyed and hence looses it's role in the World. Why would this create a void, isn't the US wanting Europe to stand on it's own feet? Because European defense is built on trans-national organizations like NATO and EU. The whole integration process was because of WW1 and WW2: not to have inter-European wars between nation states anymore. This is something that the White House mob doesn't seem to get and here lies the inconsistency. But if one is totally ignorant of the reasons why Europeans have chosen integration, why there exists an EU, then perhaps this paper makes sense. People who are ignorant about this will read the Strategy paper above and find no inconsistencies at all.
But what do you think?
Is the Trans-Atlantic link now permanently eroding? I think it will limp onwards, because there's still too much invested in the relationship. Even if you think this isn't worth commenting, I really urge to take the time a read what the Trump administration seriously thinks the guidelines ought to be for US security policy.
Comments (58)
A way forward for Europe would have anyway involved this decoupling from the US in favor of a more horizontal relationship.
But that's the end of the good news.
Brussels is one giant Trans-Atlanticist lobby, and the European Union will likely suffer a severe crisis of legitimacy when the Americans stop greasing pockets.
Instead, it appears Washington will start fueling the ensuing political chaos by finally blowing the lid of the grand reservoir of justified criticism of the EU and its leaders which has been bubbling beneath the surface for decades.
The EU is an undemocratic, untransparant abomination (the document is completely right about that) that is then unlikely to be capable of the far-reaching reforms that it requires to become a viable independent European super state.
The more gloomy question to ask however, is 'why' and 'why now'?
It's clear the geopolitical situation in the world is coming to a head, and we must assume this decoupling from Europe is a piece to Washington's puzzle vis-á-vis how it intends to sow chaos in Eurasia, which is its only feasible strategy in maintaining hegemony.
Not only must it seek to defeat China, but it must also stop other Eurasian nations from rising up as 'laughing thirds' - nations like Russia and Europe, for example.
This is of course why the decoupling is taking place - Washington's intention is to embroil Russia and Europe in a war with each other, the rotten seed for which it has diligently started sowing since 2008.
Europe and Europeans on their part are geopolitically completely and utterly ignorant, as evidenced by the war-fueling rhetoric of European leaders (who are just towing the Washington line), and the stark lack of pushback from the European people themselves. This lack of understanding of the risks makes Europe infinitely more vulnerable.
A geopolitical storm is coming, and it will be insitgated by the US as it senses it is losing global control to BRICS. (The idea in the document that US is 'pulling back' is an obvious lie that shouldn't be taken seriously) Europe is not ready for it, but staying under Washington's yoke was no option either, and would have just given the Americans even more freedom to sacrifice Europe in whichever way it saw fit.
If Europe had instead started kowtowing to Washington even harder (I suppose it still might), the price for it will be militarization and fueling nationalism - two obvious ingredients for conflict down the line.
Luckily NATO didn't go away, because Russia chose the irrational and destructive path of imperialism and clinging on to a lost empire and not the obvious solution of transforming and adapting to the post-empire situation as UK, France or Spain had. It had the CIS, could have been a stabilizing force, but then came Putin the gambler who saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as an unfortunate accident that could be repaired. Countries like Sweden and Finland would have been all too happy to enjoy their situation between the West and Russia, but Putin's bellicose actions forced them to use the NATO option.
Quoting Tzeentch
?
On the contrary.
First of all, Brexit showed every EU member just how much it sucks to go outside the common market. The disaster that faced UK hasn't gone unnoticed in other countries. There's no 'wonderful freedom' and economic bliss out there as an non-EU member, which many EU critical parties have now understood. Other countries aren't so rich as Norway and Switzerland. And if the bellicose actions of Russia have brought NATO countries together and NATO back to it's roots, the vilification of the EU by the US will just strengthen the lines in the EU. Of course they are those clinging on the Trump train, but they are few and have to understand that there's no advantage in having that "special relationship" with Trump.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quite a conspiracy theory. In truth Trump is eager to get those big bribes for those lucrative contracts that Kirill Dimitriev is dangling in front of him. It's similar to the promises of a Trump hotel earlier, now just the money is in the billions. The Trump regime is one of the most corrupt administrations (if not the most) that has ever been in power in the US.
Quoting Tzeentch
Now your confusing. What do you want? An European super state? Jeesh, how undemocratic would that be! First and foremost, EU contrary to it's name is a de facto confederation of independent states and good that it stays so. It will be always a loose confederation and the what I abhor are the lunatic and utterly damaging ideas of it becoming a federation like the US. That will never happen and good so. That we have EU elections is enough, because I don't want the EU to challenge anymore than now the authority of the state Parliament. Yes there should be more transparency, but that's a minor issue.
Quoting Tzeentch
What line are you talking about? The Washington line above sees Europe itself as the obstacle for the [s]surrender[/s] peace in Ukraine! Obviously they aren't towing the Washington line. Did you read the National Security Strategy paper???
Quoting Tzeentch
BRICS is even a more loose group than the various G(pick a number 7 to 20) groups. China and India have had border wars and really aren't allies at all (especially when China is the closest ally to Pakistan). Brazil and South Africa have their own problems and have few things in common with China or India. The US can loose it's place a the sole Superpower, but look at the facts @Tzeentch, nothing will replace it. There's just this huge void left, which will create a giant vortex of various players trying to carve their place in the post-US world, but nothing and nobody will replace the US. And "the fall" of the US isn't going to be so dramatic. It won't be the sole Superpower, just the largest Great Power around.
Whoopee.
Our views are too far apart to have this broad of a discussion, but I've got the following offer: if you have a small, bite-sized subject where you believe our views differ in interesting ways, point it out and we can go into it in detail.
But we also need to see that the republicans and the Trump regime is eating their own tail. They won’t be able to sustain their path for long and Trump will eventually die. Will other republicans be so eager to rely on the other openly white supremacist ghouls who aren’t popular? I think there’s a growing group within the republicans who have recognized that if Trump and his people don’t go away, it will doom the entire party. So I think there’s lots going on behind the curtains of planning to rid the party of all these christo-fascist extremists.
This also means that we will likely go back to a form of healing idea between the EU and the US.
I would bet that campaigns later on will focus much on healing the bad blood, to shake hands and show that we are healing as an Atlantic collaboration. It will be part of the opposition against Trumps type of people, and spawn a new era of the same kind of “hope” posters that boosted Obama into power. It doesn’t matter if there’s actual progressive politics going along with it, but there’s a win for anyone who’s about to fight dirty and point with their whole hand at the problems Trump caused and who speaks for “healing what was lost”.
It’s the kind of shit that gets campaigns exploding and people rallying. Since Trump has moved so hard in this extremist direction, there will be an equally powerful reaction. Politics and sociology works within the same entropic form of energy dispersion. With a lot of powerful actions comes an equally powerful reaction.
It’s why I like the Hegelian political interpretation of society through thesis, antitheses and synthesis, even if it’s a bit cliché. And what has happened is that with the rise of the internet, the polarization has grown more violent and large compared to traditional processes that formed a synthesis in political ideas and previously hold ideologies.
We’ve essentially already entered a World War III in ideas and ideologies. It’s sped up before militaries had time to lock and load. It might even be that the movement of clashing ideologies that previously led to war moves so fast that we already enter a synthesis phase before anyone has properly fired a bullet.
The war in Ukraine is for instance not because of ideology, it’s out of the delusion of a despot. The problems we have are that representatives of the extremes have gained powers through the speed of the internet, but that also means these ideas are all shot at the same time in large quantities of ammunition. Rather than slowly building itself into much more rigid frontlines that usually ends up in actual world war. So actual world wars aren’t really starting because of it, because the ideas are already being tested and dissected on the world stage. The public of the world behaves like the intellectualization after World War II, without the war happening.
We’re already dissecting the problems before they grow.
It might be hard to see in all of the stupid noise we experience today, but I can’t shake the idea that this is a temporary dark point, and we’re letting all these christo-fascists, right wing extremists, and Putinists blow their load all in one go, making them deeply unpopular in the future.
When people get fed up with the current status of things, they want change. And if most things look bad today, people want to change most things.
I don’t think any attempts to stay in office by Trump will succeed. He’s lacking serious strategy and there is too much resistance to it in the US. He’s not far off finished.
Yes, the US is a very divided country, yet Europeans won't forget that Americans have now two times elected Trump as President. That tells something about the US. And it seems like the part of the paper on Europe was written by JD Vance (or someone similar thinking). Many commentators do note this: this isn't just going to go away when Trump is out of the picture.
Yes, there are other inconsistencies in the paper, like bragging about having huge "soft power" when you have closed down USAID and the Voice of America. Or that the US has to lead basic scientific R&D when the administration has cut severely R&D. Or no mention of North Korea. Or bragging about ending conflicts that either weren't armed conflicts or are still underway.
Many will see this paper stating the US being the ally of Russia against Europe. That's not going to happen, there's a vast majority of Americans who do see the traditional stance of the US beneficial, yet Trump is the one who calls the shots.
Quoting Tzeentch
Fair enough, @Tzeentch. I'll keep that in mind. Interesting also are the subjects that we would agree on.
This is what I also anticipate. Already the commentary is hardening: not with the leaders that have to meet Trump, but with other politicians and political commentators. Likely the outcome will be that EU will take a more central role with a NATO that has become more European. "Coalitions of the willing" is what we will have, just as we now have with the European countries assisting Ukraine.
Quoting Christoffer
How did we get rid of nazism? Or Fascism in Italy? Why weren't there really were no "Werewolf" units fighting for the Third Reich after the surrender in 1945? Because the whole Nazism thing had been a total, utter disaster for Germany and everyone knew it.
An ideology will die only if it will end in a total failure that nobody cannot deny. But if the end isn't so catastrophic, many people will remember the positive aspects. The next three years of Trump will likely be similar as this year, yet likely it won't end up in a TOTAL catastrophe. And hence I think that the MAGA movement will just shed it's skin as populism is so tempting as an ideology to many. Those damn elitists!!!
Let's take the example of Russia.
We have to think just why Putin sees the fall of the Soviet Union as this greatest misfortune ever to happen. The reason why Soviet Union collapsed so utterly and quickly (that it left also us Finns simply dumbfounded) is because the leader of Russia itself, Boris Yeltsin, hated Gorbachev and wanted Soviet Union to be destroyed. The Putsch didn't kill him. It would be as the English would have had enough of the whole UK stuff and wanted to be independent. Scotland wouldn't object to that and Whales and Northern Ireland wouldn't (and basically couldn't) then uphold the mantle of UK by themselves. That's what happened with Soviet Union.
So when there were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down (meaning it wasn't the ultimate catastrophe), many Russians have also positive feelings about the Soviet Union and the Empire. Obviously the economic planning didn't work, but anyway, Yuri Gagarin, the Great Patriotic War!
And so it is with these right-wing extremists and MAGA people. I'm not sure they will go away. It might not be so temporary.
Yes, this is a big and long lasting change and Europe has woken up and will secure their own security and future.
But with Trump gone, or muzzled the Republican party will likely be in turmoil for a while, so there will be a democrat government for the next term. Presumably the Russian invasion will have finished by the end of that term. Also Europe will be well on the way to ensuring their security and will probably play a leading role in NATO by then.
There is a cognitive dissonance in the U.S. when Trump sides with Putin. Remember the MacCarthy period, and the Cold War. Many people in the US won’t like the idea that the president, pretty much on his own has defected to the other side.
This is a hostile act against nation sovereignty and should be met with resistance. Best way would be to shut down social media that’s based in the US, but since that won’t happen, the EU should install laws that makes it illegal to try and change algorithms for political purposes and that Meta and other social media sources need to comply with transparency about their algorithms. If they don’t they will have to pay billions to the EU in damages.
And we need to block European politicians to get funding from American sources that aim to fund the political campaigns of American puppets.
And we need to block American companies to establish themselves within the economy of EU nations. Not block trade, but block the purchase of EU companies that have influence in a nation or in the EU. We’re already doing this with China and Russia.
In essence we need to treat the US as China, Hungary, Belarus, and Russia, as a dictatorship that acts just like they do. Trying to control other nations and infiltrate wherever they please.
At least reading this paper, he obviously has done it. This strategy paper is really gives on a platter what Russia wants:
a) Stops NATO enlargement (even the possibility of it)
b) ends transatlanticism
c) attacks the EU and sees the EU as basically a threat
Those above are the primary objectives for Russia. Without the EU (or anything similar), Russia is stronger to any individual European country. And the Russian response is very enthusiastic:
That really the EU is the threat can be seen from example the statement of Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state on X:
The statement coming from a high official of the Trump administration should make it clear what is the target of the US.
And it should be noted, just how utterly different this is from even the 1st Trump administration. There obviously the paper were still be written by "adults in the room" like McMaster.
Quoting Christoffer
Err... how do we treat those various countries? Hungary is part of the EU, China is an important trading partner, the only one which is truly ostracized is actually Belarus.
Would it simply be better to simply to assist the Democrats in the US? Assist every group that opposes Trump?
* * *
CORRECTION: Earlier I wrongly stated the quote from the past NSS was from the Biden administration. Naturally the 2017 NSS was made by the 1st Trump administration (and I've corrected it). This just underlines how radical as nothing else before this paper is.
If the U.S. can’t anymore sell arms to Europe, they might start to sell them to countries like India, Argentina etc. Also there will be chaos if the U.S. has to move their troops out of Europe. Trump could order that with a click of his fingers at any time.
That would an absolute disaster. The last thing is to refrain from selling armaments and support to countries that can perfectly make the aircraft and weapons themselves. Of the 20 largest military spenders in the world half are NATO members. And the effects of Trump can already be seen: Canada is thinking about shrinking it's order of F-35s and replace the order partly with Swedish Gripen E fighters. France doesn't buy American weapons and the UK and large EU countries are totally capable making every kind of weapon system America has. The choice is for Trump to push them to do this or not.
What also has to be remembered that many NATO countries have designed their armed forces for NATO. No Nordic country or Benelux country is preparing for a possible NATO neighbor attacking them. That's btw Article 1 of the NATO charter, something very important and mainly forgotten (except perhaps with the case of Greece and Turkey). No other alliance has the kind of integration and interoperability as the NATO countries. India, poor Argentina or even the Gulf States militaries are designed a) for internal security missions and b) to fight their neighbors.
Hence when people float ideas of other alliances (or organizations like BRICS being military alliances), they totally forget this. What basically exists is an axis of Russia-North Korea-China with the Russia North Korea alliance being a classical military alliance. But did these countries come to the help of Iran? No way.
Quoting Punshhh
The Congress is already pushing back at this development:
What has to be understood (and what many Americans are incapable of seeing in their hubris) is that Trump is actually weakening American power. The idea that the US could change it's allies to vassals and change NATO to become more of a Warsaw Pact is simply a ludicrous idea, which even the vast majority of Americans want. This all is just serving the interests of who genuinely see the US as a threat, namely China and Russia. But especially Russia is all too happy of this self immolation. Putin can naturally promise deals in the billions for Trump on this. It's peanuts for Russia achieving it's objectives.
It's now only a matter of time when European politicians will start openly speaking to their voters in a similar way. Usually a National Security Strategy paper interests only the policy wonks, but now this is reaching quite wide in the European media.
Yes I noticed that, which is why I mentioned the mid term elections. If the Republicans lose control of Congress (or the Senate), it will weaken Trump and hopefully he will become a lame duck.
In the meantime, he could initiate an emergency, such as war with Venezuela and exercise plenary powers to withdraw troops out of Europe, or something else equally stupid.
It seems to me if anything Europe will follow the same direction with a couple of years delay, and the EU will fracture or will be drastically reformed.
Quoting ssu
It will erode if Europe sticks to liberalism and the current form of the EU.
When there in their sixties and seventies, yes. The American voters are far too enthusiastic to choose octogenarians to the places of power. And stagnant political systems as the US system is also
But I tend to agree with this. Yet it isn't just liberalism (being replaced by crony-capitalism), but basically the collapse democratic structures of the Republic also. The Trump administration is simply just one long constitutional crisis and people are Ok with it, or simply passive about it. This is a real lurch to something that has been commonplace in Latin America.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Europe will likely stick to the rules based international order and liberalism, hence it will be an ideological nemesis towards American right-wing populism of the MAGA-movement. Hence it's no wonder that the Trump administration is so eager to get right-wing populist into power in Europe to dismantle the EU. I believe that Trump, as the ignorant idiot he is, truly thinks that the EU was formed to compete with the US. This ignorant view I guess can be popular in the US and the real reason, the two absolutely catastrophic World Wars that killed tens of millions of Europeans, is totally sidelined. Yet when you actually read the history, the actual reasons are obvious. Think just why the integration process in the Shuman declaration, was started from steel and coal production.
Now for those that don't know this, here's part of the actual text of the French foreign minister Shuman declaration from 1950, which started the European integration process:
Hence the regulation/supervision of coal and steel production meant that either side could not just start to rearm itself.
The union was successful in preventing intra-European war, and that was a fine idea at the time, but its disfunctions and those of liberalism become clearer with the day.
For Trump getting rid of the EU and the global liberal elites that come with it, makes sense from a domestic politics point of view, because it weakens his political adversaries.
I don't think this particular rules based order can survive the most powerful country and architect of it, leaving it behind. And the EU can't maintain it on its own, and so will be forced to adapt sooner or later.
I wish Europeans weren't so slow in realising where this is going.
It's a fine idea EVEN NOW. Never underestimate the importance of this. Just like with NATO, which has Article 1 and when the armed forces train together, operate together and make their warplans together, it's not just words on paper. As I've said again and again, without NATO I bet we would have seen perhaps a couple of border wars between Greece and Turkey. Without NATO/EU, there might be tension between Hungary and Romania too.
The real "dysfunction" has been the immigration policy, which de facto lead to UK to leave the union and have it's disastrous Brexit, which showed to every EU country extremely clearly how leaving the union would an absolute disaster in economic terms. Hence immigration, not economics, has been the real issue that has giving strength to the anti-EU anti-immigration populists.
But many Americans, including the Trump team, have not noticed the change that has happened. It hasn't been JUST Hungary, it's now been many countries like Greece, Poland and, heck, my own country, that have not let asylum seekers and immigrants inside. We have shut down the border with Russia: nobody except wildlife is crossing the border now and that's hard even to them in the south, because there's a long fence there now. This policy change was implemented also by the world hugging, climate change conscious, multicultural social democrats, so the idea that to change immigration policy you have to start supporting far-right populist is bonkers.
But if the US wants to support the "MAGA-revolution" and really entangles itself in domestic politics of EU countries, you will get a response you likely didn't anticipate. You'll just end Pax Americana and destroy your own position as the pack leader.
Another 'mistake' is the monetary union that took away the power from the states to have their own monetary policies that suited their situation, and was very bad for the likes of Greece for instance.
And look, the biggest selling point, aside from it being a force for peace within Europe, was its free internal market and the economic prosperity that would bring. Maybe that was true for some time, but now we have to conclude that the European economy isn't doing that great. We basically missed the whole digitalisation/AI train, aren't creating any new companies that can compete on the world stage, and are even loosing more and more existing industries we used to be world-leaders in.
If you find yourself utterly dependent on other countries for your security, for your energy and natural resources, and more and more for basically most of your goods production and digital services, then something has gone wrong right?
Ah yes, the bureaucracy. I think the US has a lot of it too, actually.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
First of all, not all EU countries are in the monetary union. It wasn't only UK that was out of the euro, just look how many EU countries have still their own currencies (the map has non-EU countries too, but anyway):
There are true benefits with the monetary union, not just that it has made travel more easy. First of all, one notable aspect has been that the interest rates of small countries like Greece and Finland came down as there wasn't anymore the "country risk". When we had our Finnish 'markka' as our currency, in the 1990's economic depression we had interest rates in the 12%-14%. So basically at better times the country risk meant that the interest rates came down 5%-7% at least. That's something of a benefit that many ordinary people have gotten. This also meant that irresponsible countries like Greece could take loans and create a debt bubble and when that burst, we had the Greek crisis.
Basically the euro acts in the euro zone as a gold standard. If you have a poor economy that performs badly, you get shafted as you cannot devalue your currency. Yet the ability of devaluation supports only a segment of the economy, those in the export industries. Usually the inflation devaluation creates eats the positive effects quickly away.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
One can argue that perhaps the EU has been too lax in giving US firms this playground of ours freely. Usually any European company trying to get into the US market will face the "not invented here, not from here" treatment. Especially now they will feel the wrath of Trump.
Yet the whole 400 million people single market and union is not at all anything similar to the 300+ million US market. First of all, there is the language barrier, even if we talk as a second language (at least) English. Then, moving from Finland to Spain isn't something like moving from Minnesota to Florida (even if Minnesotans and Floridians might think otherwise). The European single market is still a divided market based on totally natural issues. It isn't the language barrier, it's also the culture barrier. We are independent sovereign countries with their own cultures and history. That isn't going anywhere.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
You haven't then planned for any crisis and certainly not for war time if you have problems when a war or a pandemic erupts.
But let's think about what you just said.
Let's take UK as an example. When was the last time that England/Scotland and Whales could feed their populations with just the food they produced on their island?
Perhaps in the Bronze Age. The UK only came close to self sufficiency during in the Napoleonic Wars with intense focus on bringing agriculture to speed, but once industrialization kicked up for real, there was no way for the UK to feed itself without depending on international trade. This is simply a law of economics: when the city of Rome in Antiquity had 1 million inhabitants, the whole Italian Peninsula didn't produce enough to feed 1 million: it had to rely on exports from North Africa. With a city like London, this was true for the UK centuries after. Hence with a larger and stronger submarine force in WW1 or WW2, the would have been starvation and famine in the British Isles during the wars. Hence the need for a strong navy.
The fact is that our prosperity today is based on globalization. How utterly dependent are we of other countries? Utterly dependent is my answer. The real answer here is just to be independent ENOUGH for the time when that pandemic / war / asteroid strike / supervolcano eruption hits and erases the global trade system for a while.
The idea of total self-dependence sounds reasonable at first for the ignorant, but is a huge disaster if really taken as economic policy.
Brexit was as a result of Russian friendly populists playing the race/immigration card. The links to the Kremlin are slowly coming out. A former leader of the Reform party in wales. Is starting a 10yr jail term for accepting Russian bribes. The Conservative Party was awash with Russian money through the Conservative friends of Russia association.
That's probably true, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Bureaucracy, especially because of its lack of accountability, tends to grow over time and develop its own internal logic and goals that aren't aligned with what benefits the people of the countries.
Quoting ssu
I'm not sure you disagree with me here. The issue is that it takes away agency from countries to make their own policies so that they can react to their specific circumstances. For instance the austerity policy we had after the 2008 crisis was probably really bad for a lot of countries, it maybe really only made sense from a German perspective.
Quoting ssu
It think the issue is we had this dogmatic free market ideology being pushed on member states where all barriers needed to be torn down, also to companies outside of the EU, and a lot of state aid from countries for their industries became illegal. But then the EU didn't really put something in place of that on a European level. We don't have European financing and investment banks for instance. Meanwhile China, but also the US, did subsidize their industries heavily or did have capital investment structures.... and that basically created an uneven playingfield for European companies.
So this is kind of a recurring theme. We take some measures to unify some or another policy domain, but then don't go all the way, or only take care of one side of the equation... and end up with a system that doesn't really work. If you're going to take away agency from the states, you have to make sure you organise that agency effectively on a European level.
Quoting ssu
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with this. It only works, especially for strategic sectors and resources, if you assume everything will go well for the rest of time and countries will keep having good enough relations going forward. It's fragile and temporary.
And I think it's naïve to think that would be the case, because we know from history that geo-politics is a ruthless game that won't go away.
Maybe some amount of interdependence is unavoidable, I would agree with that, but the issue is that the balance is totally skewed so that the US and China have a lot of leverage over us while we have little leverage over them.
I agree with you. The real problem is that Brussels has copied the French way of bureaucracy. Basically the US administration would be far more transparent and open (now with Trump isn't). There are things to improve in the EU, but in my view these problems aren't so large that we have to do away with the EU altogether.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This is something that basically has to be viewed from country basis. In large, the EU practices do prevent totally reckless behavior, but then again especially when it comes to the large members, they do what they want. Yet joining the EU has done wonders to some countries. The perfect example was the economic growth of Poland compared to Ukraine as both countries started from a similar level once the Soviet system collapsed.
No wonder Ukraine and Ukrainians have wanted to be in the EU sphere, btw.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I think Europe simply underestimates how much leverage it has, because seldom it acts as a solid block. In the end, it's a confederacy of independent states. Only someone like Putin threatening us can bring us together.
There's the classic quote from Kissinger: "If I want to talk to Europe, where do I call?".
In security issue it has been actually Washington earlier. But now I guess Trump is disgusted to speak on the phone about European issues.
Sure, it needs to be reformed ideally. But maybe it can't be reformed because of the forces that resist that or lack of consensus, and then it will probably have to go. My main issue is that the Commission has to much power, it should be under the Council and the Parliament which are more accountable to the people.
Quoting ssu
Ok but this has very little to do with the monetary policies it seems to me. Poland and other eastern European countries did receive a lot of development funds from the EU for one. And second their workers and companies had a competitive advantage on the internal market because they had a lower standard of living and lower wages. All of sudden a lot of building and similar jobs in Western Europe were done by Poles who came here to earn money to ultimately take it back to Poland where they invested it. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that, good for Poland, but it did undercut workers and companies here and wasn't necessarily on average a good thing for Western Europe.
Quoting ssu
Maybe Europe could have more leverage, but this only proofs my point that there are serious problems with its organisation no? Foreign policy was for the longest time not a European competency, but a competency of the members states, but then security and intelligence are for the most part dealt with within NATO etc. Again this is the point, that everything is splintered and spread over different levels of government while these things are related and should inform each other. The end result is that you basically just don't have a proactive and unified foreign policy.
Well, I support that my countries own parliament has power and that isn't given to the EU Parliament. Perhaps the problem is that the whole structure of EU is a bit difficult to grasp:
Behind the comission are the member states. Now, if you replace the member states directly with EU voters, then actually just how aloof will Brussels be then? Then they don't have to give a shit with the member states and just say that their power comes directly from the EU citizens.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
A monetary union is 100% monetary policy. It's totally different thing from a risk point for a foreign investor to buy a Greek loan in Drachmas (with the threat of devaluation) than giving a loan to German with the Bundesbank behind the Deutsche Mark. This was the thinking when the monetary union happened and that lowered the interest rates considerably. That is something every person feels.
Yes, Poland has gotten aid, just as have the Southern countries.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
EU member states are independent sovereign states with their own history, culture and sense of patriotism. You simply cannot deny this. EU will be, always, really a confederacy, not a federalist union. Sorry, but Finns will be Finns, Swedes will be Swedes and the French will be the French.
If we just assume we can replace this fact, we are lying to ourselves.
The only real way would be the English model of inventing "Britishness" and "being British" for being European. Hard thing to do and just making a flag and taking Beethoven's Ode to Joy to be the union anthem won't do it. But then to create that new sense of Europe, you would need people like Bismarck or Napoleon. I'm not sure I want that kind of EU. The democratic structures of the EU itself makes this impossible. We just have to understand our limitations and then build from there up.
He also explains well just why US prosperity is dependent on the dollar being the reserve currency (and why this is related to the Superpower status that the US held) and how the NSS is chipping this away.
The important thing to realise is that the Commission has the initiative for legislation. Before things get to Parliament and the Council of leaders, there's a whole proces where draft legislation get discussed with the administrations of the different member states. When there is eventually a final draft this get sent to the Council and Parliament for approval. In practice this means that the Commission sets the agenda and largely get to decide what the legislation consists of. Because of the byzantine nature of the proces and complexity of the legislation usually the Council and parliament just approve things. It's a bit like with congress in the US, where de facto the president and his administration gets to decide for the most part and congress just approves things. The difference is that the president in the US is elected whereas the Commission is not.
This is to illustrate the essential bureaucratic nature of the EU. I would rather have an elected excecutive because that has more democratic legitimacy.
Quoting ssu
The aid was not the most important part, it's the access to the free market that was very beneficial for them.
Quoting ssu
I'm more than fine to respect the cultural heritage and sovereignity of the states where that makes sense. But I don't think it does make a lot of sense on foreign policy, certainly not when it pertains to geo-politics or international trade, because de facto the security and intelligence is already organisated on the supra-national level of NATO, or for trade in larger European trade-agreements.
If we think we can still have an effective foreign policy on the level of the member states, while the states have very little competencies left that are related to that, I think we are lying to ourselves.
Things change. Percentage of world GDP goes down, debts go up... the US was already in the process of losing its position of global hegemon. At some point you have to face reality, the longer you deny it, the harder the fall.
For the uninitiated:
Reform UK and Russian bribes: a Nathan Gill timeline (Nov 21, 2025)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thenerve_news/status/1992520819403370645[/tweet]
Somewhat related:
Exclusive: Voters Should Be 'Worried' About Farage Becoming PM, Says Cabinet Minister (Dec 16, 2025)
Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares?
Secondly, if the Comissars are elected even nationally, the Comission isn't responsible to the. And just for what position are they electing?
Perhaps Estonians (1,37 million) can be happy that their former president is now (to the anger of Trump & Putin) the High Representative for EU, but would that position be decided by voters? Surely not.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yep. That's the intention in having the common market. It was also very beneficial to Germany. Countries that don't have competitive economies, it isn't so great.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity.
I wonder just how much is the Kremlin budget for international bribes. It effects are quite awesome compared to constructing new tanks.
Quoting ssu
And it's playing into the hands of adversaries. Seems like the Coalition of the willing works well as a supplement.
Ok I agree that it would be difficult to find a good formula, but it's not as if nation states have more sovereignty by remaining subservient to an unelected bureaucracy.
Quoting ssu
Coalition of the willing will always be reactive. There's no way to project power proactively like that, and so you will effectively be at the mercy of other great powers. The choice is not between sovereignty or Brussels, but between Brussels or Washington... or Peking or Moscow.
Quoting ssu
No, older generations have left the younger generations without perspective.
That way countries can run their own affairs as they have successfully done for centuries, while still enjoying collective security.
Europe does not need the US in ANY capacity, and to have a distant great power meddling in security affairs on the European mainland is a recipe for disaster - as disaster which is already starting to unfold before our eyes and which will have a singular destination: war with Russia and the destruction of Europe, the beneficiary of which will be the US (as it was during WW2).
The other 150+ countries seem to be getting by just fine.
That is the worrisome thing. Yet the case of Nathan Gill shows just how this works: Gill has publicly stated that he is for Ukraine and against the Russian invasion, but then did speak on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukrainians that bribed him. So a small bribe goes so far.
With others, those who are basically Western talking heads of Putin and reurgitate the Kremlin line and never, ever speak anything negative about Russia and Putin are obviously on the payroll. Perfect example of this is prof Jeffrey Sachs, who earlier was actually a professor focused on global poverty and now is a full on Kremlin spokesperson.
Yet what do you get with the big money? Already the White House has basically given Russia what was their main goal in their military doctrine and Russia is extremely happy with the National Security Strategy.
Quoting jorndoe
It's the result when the US abandons it's allies. Even if after Trump the democrats take power and steer back the US to the traditional alliances, the damage has been already done.
Quoting Tzeentch
Doesn't make sense. What will happen that NATO without US will come closer to the EU. Already you have things like the European Defence Industry Program in the EU, which benefits hugely the NATO without the US. Then there's SAFE (Security Action for Europe), which even Canada has joined!
Many agree that the EU should be improved, be more transparent and seriously tackle corruption and bureacracy, yet those arguing for the dissolution of the European Union now usually are the Putinists.
Well, lets then opt for those 'other' types of agreements, rather than the abomination that is the EU.
Besides, I think by now it is corrupt and porous beyond redemption. Reform is a pipe-dream, especially with these clownish leaders who jump on every opportunity to declare crises, so they can seize even more power.
I object to the framing that anyone who wants to get rid of the EU is one the side of Putin. The fact that Putin or Trump happen to want a similar thing shouldn't prevent us from evaluating something on its own merits.
This is a tactic that has been shown to been dangerous and contra-productive, for instance in the case of immigration where any discussion of the topic has for the longest time been made virtually impossible because of various accusations of racism, fascism or Nazism and the like as soon as the issue was brought up.
You should know better.
"Now usually" doesn't mean the same as "anyone".
I've been myself a eurosceptic before, but especially after Brexit, the dissolution of EU doesn't make much sense. Criticism about the EU has existed far more longer than the present era, naturally. And criticism of the present is a healthy important part in a democracy, especially if it is constructive and helpful.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Wokeness is a perfect example of this also. But as @Punshhh said, that wasn't our intent.
Yet when two large countries basically make it policy to be against the EU and intervene in matters of the union members, it's noteworthy and shouldn't be disregarded. And likely the outcome is different than they anticipated. Europe has to stand up against this. It doesn't stand up if it does what the bullies want it to do.
Actually the Chinese learnt that this kind of "diplomacy" works against the objectives. From the 2010's until the early 2020's Chinese adapted a style of Wolf Warrior diplomacy, an inherently hostile, offensive and coercive style of diplomacy. It quickly backfired: basically the hostility just made US warnings about China more credible. Now you can see that China isn't hostile against the EU (and likely won't be so hostile towards Trumps administration after this NSS).
Of course this is now the standard rhetoric from Russia, the latest with Putin himself calling Eu leaders "little pigs/swines" alongside accusing of Biden “consciously” unleashing the war in Ukraine.
But then again, he has already said a long time that Russia is at war with NATO (and EU). Attacks on the EU will likely make EU like even more the EU... perhaps with the exception of the Greeks. Btw notice that Americans do like the EU, just as they approve helping Ukraine and don't have such love for Russia as the Trump administration has.
From 2025 polls:
Should the EU split up. There will be hybrid war with each individual country with the intention of installing Russia friendly governments, to further destabilise the block.
Here is how I think this plays out.
Russia does want to dissolve the EU and is actively supporting various people in our societies to further their goals.
Since we are, if not directly at war with Russia, at least supporting the party that is at war with Russia, Russia is perceived to be the enemy. And since they are the enemy, supporting a goal that is aligned with the goals of Russia is often perceived as a kind of treason.
This is how group dynamics work, if there is a perceived threat to the group, you get cries to rally around a flag that is in opposition to that threat. This dynamic then get used to silence those who might support goals that are aligned with a goal of the enemies.... propaganda on both sides.
What this does is you effectively push those opinions that don't necessarily have anything to do with being pro-Russia underground, and risk radicalising them to the point that might eventually end up being pro-Russia, or at least more anti-establishment.
This also prevent any further public discussion on the merits of the EU itself or the war in Ukraine, effectively preventing people from forming a more secure reasoned-out position on these issues... it mostly becomes a matter of supporting the group then.
If people would have a more secure position on these issues, Russian propaganda would become less effective in swaying opinions. If opinions are mostly a matter of supporting the group Russian propaganda has to potential to flip people to their side if they manage to pierce through some of the half-truth that are promoted by the West.
People have favourable views on the EU now partly because the cries to rally around the flag, but that could change pretty quick if they are based on nothing more substantial.
Anyway, Russia wanting something is in my opinion not a good reason for just doing the opposite. It's reactive, narrowly defined in opposition, and I think It's better to look to be proactive, and look at things in their whole context.
Exactly.
Every European country, be it Germany, France or Luxembourg, is vis-a-vis weaker to Russia. Thus Putin's Russia desires this outcome so eagerly.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Basically this is totally similar to the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
Yet even then, as Western allies were democracies, those speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union and praising it were tolerated. They weren't traitors as there was no actual war, only a Cold War. A functioning democracy is able to withstand the propaganda of those that are hostile against it. It comes with free speech. It truly has to become outright slander and threats against people or individuals were we have to draw the line just where free speech ends and what are open threats and defamation.
And needless to say, many leftists even some older PF members, who were (are) Marxists, but did criticize even back the Soviet Union. Yet there were many of those leftists that saw Marxism-Leninism as the way forward also for the West-European countries and who saw nothing bad in the Soviet Union and saw it as a victim. That these parties are people got money from the Soviet Union was hardly a surprise to anyone. What then has changed?
What is laughable is when the populists that are in power claim that they are for free speech, because they openly attack anybody that is against what they themselves say. Hence it's no surprise just how low Hungary or the US are in the indexes when it is about the freedom of the press.
The US in place 57, Victor Orban's Hungary at 68.
Russia is quite low in this one, at 171.
I would have guessed Ukraine lower, being under invasion, yet at 62.
Palestine was included at 163.
What has changed is that we feel less secure in our ideals now. And additionally the challenge to the establishment isn't coming from the left this time. After WWII certain factions from the right have always been systematically excluded from public debate and political power.
If we talk about fascists and authoritarian parties, certainly. And for a reason. Otherwise I think that the left is far too eager to paint nearly in the right to be part of the "extreme-right".
In my view, the basic problem is that populism emphasizes the "us-them" dichotomy, increases political polarization and basically opposes democracy. Why?Accusing a certain group of people being The argumentation is that democracy has lead to "the elite" to control, and this can be only replaced by strong leaders and a new elite made up by the populists themselves. Hence political corruption isn't fought against transparency and reinforcing the institutions, but with a populist takeover lead by a strong leader.
The irony of then Russian propaganda talking about the loss of freedom of speech in the EU. Remembering just how many reporters have been killed in Russia, in a country where simply saying a war being a war can get you jailed, for starters...
I take on board your criticism, I don’t normally get involved in tit for tat comments, although in this occasion this did happen after I pointed out to Tzeentch that I perceive a clear anti European bias.
I would say though, that we are in a rarefied space inhabited by deep thinking, knowledgeable philosophers, who are already well versed in the arguments. As such I would expect there to be a serious intellectual consideration of the issues by everyone and that the full range of issues and positions should be on the table. With contributors expecting their positions to be challenged and to in turn challenge their interlocutors.
Don't take it to personally, it was as much me wanting to make a point about current discourse more generally, than criticising anyone in particular.
The EU and Europe are not one and the same. Anti-EU doesn't necessarily mean anti-Europe, though Putin and Trump being specifically disparaging of the EU and its associated elites does complicate things further.
It's tempting to view this merely as cynical power plays of authoritarian leaders to further their authoritarian causes... divide et impera. And then the natural response would seem to be that we have to unite and defend the EU.
But aside from geo-political interests there's also a deeper ideological battle going on for what the future direction of 'the West' should be. It think it would be a shame if we pigeonholed ourselves into merely defending the current system when there might be good reasons to criticize it.
Ok but it has been the case for decades now that democracy hasn't delivered governments that align with the will of the people on key issues, immigration of course being the prime example.
And then if this keeps happening over and over, if the institutions of the system don't seem to deliver, you will get a call for populists to take over and dismantle the institutions because they are perceived to be a part of the problem.
The underlying problem seems to be that institutions don't seem to work anymore and that there doesn't seem to be another way to deal with that.
In the Nordic countries this isn't the case.
The change in immigration policies is obvious and the change has been done for example in Sweden by the Social Democrats themselves. Danish and Finnish immigration has been limited also. Basically Europe isn't Angela Merkel's Europe anymore, but naturally the populists keep totally silent about this and portray there to be rampant totally unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries to Europe.
Immigration to Sweden: Notice the trend after 2017.
The only possible way to make a forecast that Sweden is becoming Muslim is simply to extrapolate the trend that ended in 2017 and assume similar (50 000 or more) refugees coming to Sweden. Because otherwise you simply don't get a 8% - 10% minority to grow to become the majority as forecasting several generations into the future is very difficult.
Immigration policies may have changed over the last couple of years, but I don't see how you stop this ongoing process without measures most would rather avoid. And wherever one may fall on this issue, I think it is pretty save to say it will cause a lot of problems down the road.
Yes, there is change in the air as a result of world events and the politicians are very slow to catch up. In many cases, they seem to ignore it and stick doggedly what they used to do in the past.
There is a broader shift going on though, with big tectonic plates within society moving and we don’t know where we are going, how to get there, or where we will end up. I think more blame can be laid at the door of the financial crisis of 2008 than on the issues around migration, or the growth of social media. Especially in the U.K., where the Tory’s dominance in the political sphere since Thatcherism was built on the idea of tight fiscal policy, reducing taxes, privatisation and freeing the markets. This backfired spectacularly with the financial crisis, throwing this whole ideology and the Tory party into chaos ( I’m working on the assumption that Blair and Brown continued Thatcherite policies 1997-2010). Privatisation was throwing up all sorts of profiteering and failed services. Then Austerity starved institutions of funds to the point that they now don’t work, as you say.
I’m very much of the opinion that the Tory politicians and their wealthy backers came to a realisation that capitalism was broken, we had passed the peak in 2008 and from now on it was about extracting as much wealth out of the population as possible over the next decade and run for the hills. This was compounded by the disastrous decision to have an EU referendum on a 50/50 majority.
Now we have populists filling the void left by the implosion of the Tory party and the rise of culture wars. I do see your concerns over immigration, but the issue is definitely being inflated by populist rhetoric and used as a means to getting them into power. However it is important to address the issue of immigration and hopefully Starmer is going to get a grip of it eventually. He repeatedly says that Reform are a one trick pony and take the immigration issue away and they have no other policies.