Thanks for your writing! Big fan of yours from the Eastern flank here in Latvia. We'll be the first to take a hit if shit hits the fan, so to many here this does feel existential (still not everyone, unfortunately). I personally got into FPVs this year just in case, haha. If there's one good thing that came out of this mess of a year is that it has been made very clear to Europe that it's "adapt or die" for real now. TBD if we can adapt, but at least there's no illusion left that we can just wait this out.
I live in Spain and most people seem to not take it seriously, only some people in policy space. But electorally it doesn’t seem to me that it moves anyone. If anything, people seem to be asking for more fiscal austerity.
Ireland doesn't have a proper military as it would be too much strain on the finances on a country with its tax-haven economic model.
Besides the only circumstances in which Ireland would _need_ a military are:
i) if the UK turned imperialist again (in which case historic precedent suggests a guerrilla war would be a more plausible approach than a conventional war), or
ii) if an enemy power invaded Ireland after somehow conquering all the rest of Europe including the UK (and a small country like Ireland could not possibly hope to hold off such an enemy anyway).
what do you mean corrrect for practical purposes? for the disintegration of the EU ? this is exactly why Russia will continue to probe and aggressively pursue hybrid warfare and weaken the EU because it is not a coherent entity. NATO members in name only.
And all three are governed by Free Palestine cult members, mistaking friends like Israel for foes like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Those three countries are a fifth column inside the EU, allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran's terrorist army proxies....same exact forces that help Russia against Ukraine.
It makes no sense to spend a single extra Euro on NATO if NATO won't help you. And it makes no sense to spend a single extra Euro without a completely new and coordianted approach to European defense, as I think Noah is arguing for...
For the moment maybe. But all Europeans should remember what happened to India.
The Persians and then England were able to take over the much stronger India by picking it apart, taking on separate areas one by one. India was impoverished because the separate parts of India laughed as their neighbours were taken instead of standing together.
We can imagine Russia/China doing the same to European countries, and so - Europe.
but does Europe have the will to adapt quickly and is it setup to do so or will every action have to be approved by Brussels until it won't matter anymore?
That's the question. Took way too long to move from the "it'll sort itself out somehow" to "oh shit looks like it might not and we gotta do something". Hopefully the road from here to "here's what needs to be done and how we'll do it" and "let's do it" is faster. And I mean Europe is already doing a lot of it, even if not uniformly and not fast enough, just need to do more and speed up.
It means spending more money on defense. Something Putin is betting the EU is too stupid or too stingy to really do.
Only the ex-Warsaw Pact countries--and the Baltics--truly understand what it is to live under the Russian boot.
Meanwhile, here in the US, our POTUS is either literally--or merely functionally--an FSB thrall. As in, if he wasn't actually recruited by the then KGB to serve Moscow, he sure acts the part. And being loyal GOP water-carriers, FOX News and RW media in general, have adopted a very pro-Moscow line for years.
You might mention that a major cause of the Muslim immigration into Europe is America's irresponsible wars. So American right-wingers are blaming Europeans for a problem they themselves caused.
I don't think that's correct. Of the main sources of Muslim immigration to Europe, only Afghanistan had a U.S. war. The overwhelmingly main cause of Muslim immigration to Europe is labor shortages resulting from low fertility rates.
I don't see how this can be the case when some of the top destinations are the countries with the highest unemployment rates e.g. Spain. Seems more like a soft immigration policy and proximity is the cause. China has an unemployment rate half of Spain's, but you don't see mass immigration there because they know they would just be rounded up and kicked out.
The Muslim and African migrants are going to countries with generous welfare policies and populations too soft to kick them out. Notice how they gallivanted across the Balkan states, Hungary, and Denmark (after it shut its borders and welfare off to them) to go to the nearest safe country which was...Sweden.
Since 2003, roughly 1.2 million Iraqis ended up in the EU--of the ~9 million total displaced by the war. Low birth rates may provide demand; but American wars provide a very generous supply.
Oh yes, "US Bad". It's almost as if the Syrian civil war, providing millions of refugee immigrants into the EU, has been ignored because you can't blame it on the US. Funny that.
How about pointing to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is behind civil wars in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, as well as destabilizing Sudan in its most recent civil war? I know it's very "not progressive" to lay blame on Iran for over a million dead in the Arab world and many millions more pouring into Europe as refugees, when instead you can blame the US. But just be aware that attaching "US Bad" to everything is retarded.
Who said anything about "US bad"? It's called Realpolitik, Arbee. If Iraq had had the world's third largest reserves of oranges, instead of oil, do you still think we would've invaded? They had something we wanted, and so we took it. But at the same time we're a Judeo-Christian society, and love to feel guilty about some of the shitty things we've done on the road to empire, since Manifest Destiny.
Iran is a fucking jerk, and under Bush2, we came within an inch of invading them, too. The Israelis--and by extension AIPAC--were pushing ever so hard for it as well; but Bush-Cheney de-escalated at the 11th hour. For reasons that are still unclear. But if you personally want to fight Iran or her proxies, just grow some stones and enlist in the IDF. You'll see action, for sure.
And the 1.2 million Iraqi refugees that've resettled in the EU because of us, have destabilized Europe, not us. But in a generation or two or three, they'll grow prosperous, and do their part to bring the EU closer to the Muslim world, and further isolate Israel. Assuming Israel is still doing their stupid Likudnik ethnic cleansing nonsense in the W Bank and/or Gaza.
"Iran is a jerk" is the underselling of the century. There are 1.5 million people in the Arab world who lost their lives in civil wars inflamed by Iran with arms, funding, training, including the majority of civilians who died in Iraq - those were the outcome of Iranian backed militias torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands. Just from one civil war with heavy Iranian involvement there are 6 million Syrians that went into Jordan, Turkey and the EU. "US Bad" makes you ignore 10x the casualties and displaced people and immigrants to the EU caused by Iran. That's typical for the progressives who wanted nothing more than to make allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The rest of what you wrote is a steaming pile. Israel warned the US repeatedly against invading Iraq, being fully aware that it'll unleash Iranian belligerence, and they were right. Without the Iraqis to counter them the Iranians significantly increased their involvement in starting civil wars around the world - not just Lebanon, but now Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and of course wrecking the PA and Israel's negotiations, including the bloody coup of Hamas murdering PA government officials in Gaza in 2007. You fling AIPAC around like it's an actual thing, but you only expose your paranoid antisemitism. Again, typical of a 'progressive' to find The Jooz behind everything.
"Ethnic cleansing" is fucking dumb. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. The only reason Israel is in Gaza is because your barbaric Pals started a war in October 7 2023 with the biggest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Nazis in WW2. Get your head out of your ass.
Someone who writes "Israel gave Gaza to Palestinians" is well into the other end of barbaric delusion. Israel withdrew from an occuption from Gaza (as marginal compared to it's religious / economic obsession w West Bank).
Making excuses for Hamas is sterile, so is this sort of nonsense.
I think you need to do more to substantiate that claim. Historically that was the pull but I don’t think you could tell a clear story that the current immigrants (it’s the MENA ones causing all the anxiety) are drawn to places to fill current labour shortages. Where they tend to go and where the shortages are don’t seem to line up.
Very much so: there's a reason why Muslims in Britain are mostly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, while Muslims in France are mostly of Maghrebi descent.
I'm not so sure about that: wasn't the Syrian civil war ultimately caused by a disastrous drought in the east of the country (the bit that would later be taken over by Daesh), such that if any foreign country was most to blame it would be Turkey (which had cut off much of eastern Syria's water supply by damming the Euphrates a few years earlier)?
While some of the specifics of the Syrian Civil War would likely have been different in the absence of a Western invasion of Iraq (no Daesh state spanning the border with Iraq, but perhaps instead another genocide of Kurds by a surviving Saddam regime), my point is that the war itself would still have happened regardless.
The majority of Syrian Islamists were domestically rooted, given the nastiness of the Syrian civil war that arose for ** Syrian reasons ** (i.e. the utter horribleness of the Assad regime) doesn't resolve back to American actions. DAESH would have been just a flavor of al Qaeda in the end.
please this is nonsense Europe is gonna fail because of its own immigration policies and what they are gonna do blame the US no one will care regardless because the game will be over.
Maghrebine immigration (Western North Africa) has absolutely nothing to do with USA, and Syrian civil war, the other large contributor also was not American related - it's a weird form of American Lefty displaced arrogance to devolve everything down to Things America did you dislike.
Afghan and Iraqi emmigration certainly are US connected but not really major contributors to European non-Xian population. German Turkish minority is something tied to 60s-70s, the largest portions of French Belgian and Dutch are Maghrebine, with new inputs that are sub-Saharan - essentially Sahel West Africa that are all about old French colonial connections - no real American connection at all.
The population pressure in Sahel etc. is real. The vast majority of Muslim migrants from North Africa or MENA aren't fleeing wars. IIRC the most numerous ethnic group that sails from North African smuggler sites are actually Bangladeshis.
100%. I’ve taken some interest in studying world demographic trends recently and it’s amazing how much insight that seemingly boring discipline offers to what is going on in the world right now. It’s not all about games of power and sophisticated politics; the plain and simple birth to death ratios are like a primal force of nature, the hurricane than runs wild over higher order man-made rules and policies standing in its path.
Simplistic and reductive. Does not account for the Sahel, Syria’s civil war, Yemen’s civil war, the oppression of Kurds, Iran’s internal issues driving migration, etc etc.
You're forgetting about the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention and its successors, designed to prevent another Holocaust by ensuring that the would-be victims would always be able to find refuge.
Of course they won't be: MAGA types and their European far-right allies would probably agree with Herman Göring's view that "certain populations need to be decimated". (In their case it would of course be Muslims and Africans, rather than the Slavs that Göring was thinking of.)
My point is that non-far-right politicians in Western Europe still basically see it as binding.
Corrected to "Western Europeans", as the concept of ethnostates is far less controversial in Central and Eastern Europe (perhaps because they didn't have colonial empires in the global South).
Noah, you forget the most important pillar for creating a stronger European Union: democratic legitimacy.
Too often, the European elites have tried to manufacture unity without sound foundations. Before thinking about a fiscal union, we should be thinking about democratically electing the president.
I feel it would also begin reinforcing a pan European identity, to have Europe-wide elections (not an assemblage of regional parties, but actual pan-European parties or presidential candidates, etc)
The question is: do you get a European identity merely by holding elections? I doubt it. You first need people to feel European, create a European demos, and than elections can work. I think there is a reason the European parliament works with national parties, that is the only thing that most people can identify with. And even than turnout is (much) lower than country elections. I do not know anyone that knows what the European parliament is doing on a day to day basis, it is also strangely hardly reported in my national media.
An idea might be to abolish the European parliament elections and fill it with MPs from the countries. Give them a dual mandate so people see the same MPs dealing on a national and European level.
There are definitely similarities. e.g. the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent to modify and lacked many core powers of a state like taxation and military in a similar manner to the EU. But the colonies were much more similar than European states. They all spoke the same language and there was no real animosity between any of the colonies in the same way there is between many European states. So I think further unification would prove much more difficult in Europe than in the US.
Also as a practical matter it was much simpler to merge the much smaller governments of the time vs the massive bureaucratic welfare states of modern Europe. When the US was formed, there was no income tax or government support of the poor / elderly. It's one thing to merge the governments of richer and poorer states when there are no welfare programs, but it would be an entirely different issue when that merger would suddenly result in the citizens of one country effectively making payments to another. I doubt the US would have ever formed if it had meant the citizens of the richer colonies would have had to make payments to poorer ones out of their paychecks. It wasn't until 160 years of political unification that this sort of monetary transfer program began in the US.
How do you do that, though? It took a couple hundred years for that to form in the US colonies. It wasn't until well after the actual United States was founded that we had a strong common American identity. And we had the advantage of starting basically from scratch and mostly speaking the same language. In Europe I think it would take much longer if it is even possible.
it is also worth noting that many countries in the world were made by force. Think for example former colonies like India and Indonesia, they would probably never have existed without colonization (not saying colonization is a good thing, just looking at the facts). Obviously Europe has had bad experiences with wars in the last century, almost destroying ourselves, so hopefully this will not happen again. However, forming a country from different cultures on a voluntary basis is extremely difficult.
Well, Russia’s war on Europe (via Ukraine) should be doing exactly that. In the first year after the invasion, this was clear to everyone and animated a great push towards pan-European identity.
Since then, Russia has again managed to deceive Europeans (especially in the West and South) that the war is some local ethnic quarrel with the Ukrainians. Most now see the support for Ukraine as a moral cause, a humanitarian tragedy perhaps (though most people greatly underestimate the actual scale of war crimes and deaths), but not as an existential battle where the future of Europe is at stake. They dismiss the hybrid attacks as nuissance. And they completely ignore Russia’s own internal rhetoric (extremely hostile to the idea of Europe), ideology (deeply messianistic civilisational mission), and explicitly stated strategy towards Europe (“Europe is fundamentally decadent, because liberal democracy is fundamentally week and facetious. All we need to do is to push, amplify internal divisions, paralyse, and it will fall apart.”).
Ironically, Musk’s and Vance’s attacks on Europe are helpful to Europe (I only wish more people could see the resonance of Musk’s and Russia’s messaging), because they remind Europeans that they in fact do have adversaries. And that their biggest enemy is in fact not the European Comission.
National identities are far stronger and poorly attended European parliament elections are something closer to US primaries - not serious power like actual parliamentary elections.
It would be much sensible to take a route more like early forms of the US Republic where the Parliaments of each national government - under European rules - populate the European parliament, along with the governments, and have such elections tied to national elections so the same electorates are showing up, voting.
It isn’t really clear to me what you think I’m saying.
I’m responding to a hypothetical situation.
Insofar as we’re constitutionally rewriting the EU, however, I actually disagree that it makes more sense to follow the early U.S. republic. Americans have a tendency to think that whatever happened in the US is still somehow the gold standard for democracy when it patently isn’t (and even Americans setting up democracies in countries they have conquered don’t choose their own system!).
Europe already exists as a battleground between national parliaments. Elevating this to the level of the European Parliament is A) similar to the status quo and B) the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that parties should appeal to people based on their views of what Europe should do as a single polity.
It does make sense to tie voting to the same time as national elections though.
Well first - I in no way see the early US model as The Model in general and I am typically in fact of the view it is a generally poor model on a national basis.
However, the EU problem is not a national state problem but something vaguely resembling the US colonies right after Revolution - where neither identity nor political power resides at the supra-state level (aka Federal level)
There are already Eu parliamentary elections and they're functionally borderline useless as another commentator said. Real power does not reside there, and parties appealing is just fantasy in terms of political effect (and given that real effective decisions particularly the hard ones require national parliaments, national governments to play along, it would be far wiser to stop doing Cosplay about EU parliament which merely adds decisional complexity, and take steps to better align real powers and build improved decision taking based on improved buy-in from the real stakeholders, the national levels
I live 10 km from the Polish border and I know them well. Russia will not overrun Poland; the Poles will fight like hell, they are every bit as good at war as Ukrainians are, and four or five times as rich.
But Russia can create yet another bloody stalemate there.
And IDK what is going to happen; if AfD comes to power in Germany, they may even block Western weapon deliveries to Poland in such case.
Certainly you are correct about Poland. But Germany would have to start a war against the rest of the EU to block Poland. That's not happening. Is there really any anti-Polish sentiment on the German right? My impression was that it is really just anti immigration and anti-EU mainly due to the fact that they associate the EU with the immigration policy.
You’re right that the loudest theme on the German right is anti-immigration and anti-EU in general. But there’s also an anti-Eastern European and anti-Polish layer. A lot of the rhetoric about “cheap workers from the East”, “welfare tourism”, car theft jokes (in the past), or the resentment over child benefits being paid to families living in Poland is very obviously directed at Poles and Czechs/Slovaks/Romanians, not Syrians. It’s more often coded as “Osteuropäer” rather than anti-Polish. There’s also the occasional framing of Poles as “ungrateful” or “not really ready for Europe” when they don’t line up with German preferences.
A common theme is reminding the Polish economic miracle is funded by German taxes. Which is a complex topic: the subsidies helped a lot, but German companies made fancy profits from Eastern Europe, more than what was given; and obviously the growth mainly came from instititional reforms and market access. But that’s hard to explain, so most people just see that Poland is a “net recipient” (which is an extremely unhelpful phrase).
There are also some fringe historical grievances, mostly online I think: “Danzig/Gdansk as German city”, “the nicest parts of Poland are actually former German areas”, or recently some AfD politicians suggested that “Poland provoked the Second world war”. That’s not the whole German right by any means, but those tropes are there, and they colour how some people talk about Poland. And these things can easily be activated when needed. What doesn’t help is that right-wing Poles are deeply distrustful of Germany, and happy to add fuel to any dispute. The PiS party likes to frame the EU as a German plot to dominate Poland. And the tendency of Germany to make deals with Russia is very painfully observed in Poland (justifiably so, I’d say).
But more importantly, you don’t even need Germans to hate the Poles. It’s just enough that Germans don’t see Poland as worthy of fight. “Why die for Danzig?”, you know (it will just be the Germans, not the French, who will say it this time). So the fear is they will veto or delay crucial help, citing fears of escalation, appeal to realpolitiks, point to supposed Polish corruption or nationalism. That alone would do a lot of harm, given how central Germany is in European decision-making. It’s hard to do things in Europe when Germany is not on board. That said, the Nordics and the British have made official proclamations that they would come to Poland’s aid no matter what. I’m pretty sure that in the Nordics, this will be the case regardless of who’s in power. In Britain, I wouldn’t worry about either the Tories or Labour, but I’d worry if Farage’s Reform or Polanski’s Greens won the next elections (Polanski said he’d try talking to Putin and convince him to give up nuclear weapons, lol).
Another grievance that the German far right has played on recently is opposition to climate action, and specifically the recent German law demanding that all new housing be equipped with heat pumps instead of gas boilers.
In my admittedly shallow knowledge, it seems that most European political parties define as “right wing” most anyone who threatens the status quo. There are crazies there and here, but such blanket condemnation and exclusion from the political process ignores real grievances and strengthens extremism.
I wonder if you are not overestimating the long-term effects of Trump's foreign policy positions. He was elected not to vilify Europe but because of culture war issues, unease over mass unrestricted immigration, and nostalgia for a strong industrial and manufacturing based economy.
Despite the America First rhetoric, abandoning our allies was not central to Trump's appeal. He won't be around forever. Traditional Republicans (and Democrats) still exist. Time is short, but 2028 is only three years away, and we are already seeing cracks in his hold over the party.
I appreciate Noah's wake-up call, but I question his contention that America has become an island divorced from our alliances. Trump, sure. He's not America. Thank goodness.
It seems very clear to me that even if Trump and all his cronies disappeared tonight, we still have to reckon with 80 million radicalized Americans (funnily enough, radicalized via a lot of successful electronic warfare by russia) who voted for this and are deeply in love with the disgusting ideals of the current administration.
Noah very accurately repeated verbatim in his article some very common, extreme misinformation-driven incorrect beliefs and understandings about Europe that these 80 million people have integrated into their core belief system. I work with and know a ton of these people and it was like they were jumping out of the article at me.
There is likely nothing we can do to change the ideals and beliefs of these people so long as they are alive. This has become extremely crystal clear to me over the past 10 years. So yes, we will have to contend with "Trumpism" in America for an extremely long time.
80 million radicalised Americans? Where the fuck is that coming from?
There are not 80 million radicalised Americans - if you are taking the 77 odd million who voted for Trump that's a doomerist idiocy - it is more than clear a majority of Americans voted who voted for Trump were voting based on a hodgepodge of frustrations with Democrats / Biden and not an affirmation of MAGA as MAGA (the fracttions that hate-voted) - if one wishes to deduce real support for Trump-qua-MAGA one needs to look at figures like Strong Approve / Support to Trump where Siliver Bulletin shows a hard core 20-30% (currently more like 25%) are Strong Approve.
They may be radicalised, maybe.
Calling 77 million who voted for Trump radicalised is partisan political doomerism and self-deception.
I think you’re probably right to an extent - and there’s no point giving up hope anyway.
But I’ll say, also anecdotally, it seems that even my “moderate” Trump II voters live in an appalling epistemic black hole. It really is a going to be a challenge to bring them back to reality, because the grifters who are now their political leaders are certainly not going to do it: it’s how they came up in the first place. They were the first beneficiaries.
I look to date, as personal anectdotes are nothing more than story telling.
Aggregate data shows materially significant segments of Trump voters in a variety of demographis across the sub-national electoral geographies - States - have flipped back and forth. Changing 5-10% of floating votes can swing enormous geographies. Engaging in inellectualised masturbation as "epistemic black hole" is simply nonsense. Populations hate inflation, hate rapid cultural shifts, react poorly.
Look at data on how our media consumption has become wildly differentiated and siloed, and then consider the obvious fact that new technologies have enabled us to select into algorithmically curated information environments.
It isn’t onanism to observe this. You’ve pointed to a single datum about swing voters. I’m pointing to testable realities about the information we are exposed to and supplementing that with anecdotal experience about the people who are not necessarily true believes (see your earlier comments). Your point about swing voters does not affirm or refute my point that even “moderates” have an unhealthy information diet.
I am not in the business nor give any fucks about judging others information diets. I take the market as it is.
I would certainly prefer people to be different, however they are not.
and most ordinary human beings give few fucks about what the political obsessives obsess over.
So rather than bemoaning a reality of what is the modern market, I look at the overall data
The overall data shows quite instability among materially significant portions of the electorate - and specifically geographically different.
Democrats however, being over-stuffed with eggheadism from being overweight to college educated4 yrs+ "symbolic capitlists" as Musa al Gharbi terms them, are excessively focused on idealised results and frankly a secular form of 'converting the heathen.
Sure. Without going into detail their diet consists of Fox News and Instagram / Facebook slop. It’s rage bait and opinion articles, designed to maximise engagement but not inform. No ethos of journalism is present. So when you ask them about current issues they are not just uninformed but misinformed about testable facts, and the actual area of their knowledge is usually minimal in many issues that are actually relevant (economics, foreign policy, education / health) whereas some culture war being fought in a city - e.g., a recent crime or something - on the other side of the country is more salient in their minds.
Everyone I know who voted for Trump did so mainly because of culture wars and the Dem’s rather smug attitudes. Some also liked Trump’s clear support of Israel. Maybe one or two people I know actually like the guy, but most really do not.
I think there may have been some mild muttering about Europe relying on America subsidizing NATO so heavily.
Historically it is pretty clear that only the Political class and high-motivation/engaged political activists care that much about Foreign Policy - so one way or another I don't think unless Rep party utterly flips in its political class thinking, it's probably temporary.
You're a very optimistic person! Good luck with it. I suggest you talk with any one of those 77 million - I've spoken with dozens on dozens and deeply disagree with your assessment.
Since we're swapping anecdotes, I've talked with lots of middle-class Republicans too. I'm talking about ordinary Republicans, mind you. I'm not talking about MAGA.
Those Republicans voted for Trump because they dislike wokeness, because they're concerned about rising crime rates, and because they distrust socialism. They aren't radicalized or irrational.
that's clearly a segment of the Trump vote. Among several
Other segments are the voters that demonstrably went Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump - weird seeming to political obsessives of course
Example of the materially significant percentage of Latino voters Trump peeled off - who prior rounds hadn't voted for him. By all data most were voting on pocket-book senitments mixed in with cultural reaction (not liking Woke for at best giving them impression the D were concerned principally about a cultural agenda of the college educated Professional Class, which one can say wasn't a wrong impressoin).
Not radicalised either - and as the special elections held recently showed, as in NJ a good portion of the voter set (that Latino working class segment) swung back.
Writing off the entire body of Trump voters -77 million as hard-core MAGA is some foolish combination of the logical Fallacy of Composition and complete innumeracy or blindness to what voter demographic and post election polling have reflected.
The comments conflating a hard core MAGA (maybe 20-30% - if one can deduce from Silver Bulletin "strong support core" the hard-core support - as compared with Soft Support to Mild Disapproval - is a serious error and just analyticall nonsense.
I am the opposite of "optimistic" - I am data driven.
Speaking with "any one" of 77 million voters is functionally idiotically useless, it is innumeracy, math illiteracy and journalism major type self-delusion
What is important is aggregate data. The data is quite clear, speaking to dozens of whomever is ... just innumerate silliness.
This is a complete misunderstanding of Trump and his supporters. MAGA's believe in Trump. Not his policies. If he turned around tomorrow and said actually tariffs are bad, MAGA would agree. The only issues MAGA actually cares about are immigration and wokeness.
I think you have a stronger understanding of what I think it means when I say “Americans showed they wanted Trump again” than I do.
I’m just saying they don’t hold to an alliance system they don’t understand or value. Whether Trump says “yea” or “nay” on any given day is irrelevant because - as we agree - they have very emotional and irrational priorities.
But that still speaks to the character of the American body politick and that’s what I’m referring to. Not the intricacies of MAGA ideology, such as it is (or isn’t).
It's not great (i.e., terrible), obviously, but both America and Europe will be better served by getting over it and making the best of things going forward rather than retreating into our separate spheres. Every country is imperfect, and the US is no exception to say the least. We had to be belatedly dragged into World War II - would you rather that we hadn't participated?
I broadly agree with Noah’s article. I think that Europe needs to pull its thumb out and get its shit together. It would obviously be better to do this without the U.S. committing geopolitical suicide, but there is no reason for any country in the West not to do their best in turbulent times.
You are looking at this with perfect hindsight. WWII started barely 20 years after WWI ended. Wilson had sold the US public on that war by calling it the "war to end all wars" and then sent half a million American men over to be killed or wounded. And then only 20 years later, there's another war in Europe, and not only that, it's the same damn countries fighting each other as last time. So do you really expect anyone in the US to want to go back over to Europe and lose another half million men to sort out what looks to the public like a carbon copy of the last European mess that we had nothing to do with? It's not surprising that before Pearl Harbor 80-90% of the US public was in support of entering the war.
Nobody complained about Donald Trump. I am simply pointing out that it’s difficult to claim he doesn’t represent something real and ascendant in your national character.
it was always there but circumstances unleashed it and it is not reverting back sadly, seems to also be present in Europe too although I guess that is not so surprising given european history
America had a couple of terrible choices. I'm not sure that many voters “wanted” either choice. I know a number of Trump voters and they are not happy, but would still not have voted for a re-run of Biden.
Color me a foolish optimist, but I doubt that such a unique set of circumstances will be repeated in 2028. But you know what they say about predictions. We will see.
Thank you, Noah. Always an interesting and useful read.
Not to you, I guess. I could explain it, but it probably still wouldn't make sense to you.
The dead man versus the madman. And then the dead man was replaced by a candidate chosen on the basis of her gender and racial identity, elected in a blue state hothouse, who had never faced real opposition, and couldn't string a sentence together. Who mouthed all of the policies that made her predecessor unpopular.
I'm no fan of the madman, but this was a self-inflicted wound. I hope they do better next time.
Whether the Democrats are able to prevail in 2028 depends on whether their ethos bears a stronger resemblance to Rebecca Solnit, or to Ruben Gallego. ;-)
To be fair, at least if you put any stock into Zeihan's demographic worldview, this pulling back from the post WW2 global trade system was inevitable, Trump or not. Trump is at best an accelerant, not a cause.
The cause would be the subsidized (by warships) global trade system being untenable for America economically in a population degrowth world with anemic economic & productivity growth for the foreseeable future and an actual peer enemy again (at least for a decade or two). In such a world, Europe would have to find its own path to descend gracefully if it can't get its birth rate up or solve robotics in time.
Nothing that has happened has shaken a single Trump supporter I know. Nothing can. It’s not something they were reasoned into and thus they can’t be reasoned out of it. They live in their own alternative media bubble that tells them comfortable lies that reinforce trumpist policies and priorities. We can’t talk about it anymore because we live in different universes - I’m in the real one and the trumpists are in a fantasyland of their own making. They are lost to us and if they return, it will be because they changed their own minds, not because they have been persuaded. I see no evidence this is imminent.
Knocking the racist and nativist fever swamps of the right from power generations ago took a level of institutional control and political capital that nobody on the right possesses today except for Trump. And as we’ve seen, even then they were not expelled, merely dislodged. And they’re back with vengeance.
One can see in aggregate data at Silver Bulletin the ebbing away of support to Trump, about a 5-10% decline in Strong Support over to weak, and of course the overall collapse of support to consistent deep negative.
Of course the loud-mouths are unlikely to openly change but that's why judging on personal contact is fairly useless as a means of judging overall change
It’s possible he’s experiencing declining support. It’s possible that is because people believe he has gone too far. It’s also possible people are disappointed because they think he has not gone far enough. Trump could personally see declining support, with no meaningful reduction in support for trumpism. “Oh, now *Vance*, he’s the *real* deal. He’ll *really* get rid of all of those brown people.” It would be a shame to replace Trump with a more intelligent and competent trumpist. Which is my current prediction.
It is not "possible" - the overall aggregation of multiple polls aggregated by Silver Bulletin show it very clear.
Insofar as it is not in general pattern of core partisans to flip from Strong to Weak for "not far enough" one can invent all kinds of fantasies in that area but nothing in overall statistics reflect the idea - which is really a Just So Justification to avoid engagement ith the data.
What all the surveys and polling have reflected from prior election to date is that Trump's win was based on statistically significant shifts on parts of Latin & other ethnic votes to Trump driven by frustration over inflation / cost of living and the poor political response of Biden (along with frustration with cultural agenda of the Democrats runnig against more conservative cultural preferences of the non-college majority [in literal sense, 60% odd of voting population]).
Rapid declines on Trump approval on his aggressive over-reaching on non-Inflation fronts is not from lack of action, it's the opposite (and quite typical pattern of the Political Obsessives making mistake that their agenda is actually something wider population even gives two fucks about). -- the one area where his actions have semi-aligned with a support - immigration control -- is where he has the least decline into disapproval and is only slightly underwater, where its clear over-reach is annoying people but not turning masses hard against.
This is not at all true with the people I know who voted for him. It was more of a holding their nose sort of deal because they felt the left was getting out of control.
sure, Europe should not bother too much about Trump personally, but use it as a wake up call about our diminishing economic power in the world. Even after Trump, it will still be America first and China has the same approach. What is the answer of Europe?
I do think the Trump effect on FP is probably not as strong as Noah feels, notably on assumption that Trump will continue obvious incompetence both in economic policy - on-off tariffs, fudges that raise over economic costs - that will continue to say the credibility of the overall specific MAGA view (or I'd say the Christianist Supremacist faction)
> Russia now regularly flies its drones into Europe, and is probably behind a wave of sabotage attacks on European infrastructure.
Why is Europe not violating Russia's airspace and sabotaging their infrastructure right back? Strength gets you allies and weakness gets you subjugated. The depressing fact is that Europe just isn't a valuable ally against China. As much as I personally hate Russia (I donate to Ukrainian charities buying weapons to kill them), I have to admit that they are probably a better ally against China than Europe is. Sure, it's the rotting corpse of the USSR, but it is still strategically valuable:
1. It has a land border with China to base an army on
2. It has shown a willingness to take massive risks and casualties to extend its geopolitical interests
3. It is a natural enemy of China b/c China claims (unofficially) large swaths of its eastern territory
Given that Europe is proving itself worthless, it may be the strategically correct choice here to cut them loose and basically tell Russia "you can have your sphere of influence in eastern Europe back if you ally with us against China." NATO is a threat on Russia's western frontier and China is a threat to its east. The west is clearly the more important region to Russia, so naturally they will ally with China against Europe. But if the western border is seen as secure, the natural position would be to ally with the US against China.
You are quite correct in your recommendations for how Europe should react, but they won't do it. Democratic welfare states are completely incapable of acting decisively against a long term geopolitical threat. A large majority of the general public is fundamentally isolationist and utterly incapable of thinking about geopolitical strategy in a remotely rational way. "Why are we spending money on <far away place> when we have problems here?" is the majority position of voters left, right, and center. Any large scale allocation of resources away from the welfare state or any trade policy that significantly raises costs on the consumer will be met with massive voter anger and election losses. The politicians know this well, and that's why they sit there like deer in the headlights against obvious long term threats while more decisive enemies without the same constraints grow stronger by the day.
Putting aside the moral reasons to support Europe - let alone the fact they answered article 5 the one time it was triggered after 9/11 - Russia has already made their choice.
Putin is reliant on China right now - there is no chance they will suddenly switch sides and support you against China.
Also you underestimate Europe at your peril - they are messy and often slow but when the time comes they will stand and fight
Ok well we did last time right? We were with the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan when they called on us.
Anyway this is academic at the moment - if the war in Europe spreads or an Asian front breaks out we will see who steps up or if our US allies abandon us at the first sign of difficulty.
I mean, didn't Hesgeth's announcement yesterday amount to "we're abandoning everyone right now?" I'm American and I find it shameful beyond words that the administration is abandoning goodness and foresight and all the accomplishments we worked and bled for over the last century. But apparently that's happening till Trump is out of office, and no one knows what the political scene will look like after that. Shame won't work, Europe needs to rearm.
Europe needs to do more than rearm. It needs to come to the realization that there are real existential threats that can really and truly put an end to the way of life they have come to take for granted.
Depends what more you think they should be doing. EU boots on the ground in Ukraine are coming, but seems like Trump et al are lukewarm on that idea anyway.
I'd like it to happen right now - but they will probably wait till after a ceasefire.
The immigration stuff Trump wants is not going to happen. EU is sovereign and have a different opinion on that - USA doesn't get to dictate their border policies.
The Russians don't really have the necessary capacity to dominate a "sphere of influence in Eastern Europe" (how far should that sphere of influence go, btw? Finland included?), which is fairly clear looking at the mess in Ukraine. They have a lot of capacity to cause harm and destruction, but the once-overwhelming conventional force that crushed Hitler isn't there anymore. Russian demography is every bit as terrible as Europe's.
If you tell them that they can do that anyway, and they actually try, this quest will bind all their military resources and they will be useless against China.
Finally, why should they trust you? They have been allying with China not just because China is economically and industrially strong, but also because it is politically relatively stable.
The US is not. Even if Trump tells them "go join us and let's gang up on China", the next president may well reconsider. At which point they will have a very pissed off China as their neighbor and zero allies. (Belarus doesn't count.)
Unfortunately Ukraine's demography is even more terrible, to the point that in 2017 (well before the full-scale Russian invasion of course) they launched a campaign to persuade their emigrants to return from Western Europe to their homeland.
This campaign featured a variant of the famous smash-hit "Despacito":
I'm not a military expert, but the idea of a land war with China from the Russia border seems ludicrous on every level. This is exactly where Chinese superiority in manufacturing and headcount would come into play and the border is immensely far from any valuable objectives. This idea is a complete red herring.
Every man, missile, and drone that China needs to put on its Russian border is one that it can't put on its southeastern front. And that's a lot even if there isn't an active war going on there.
In my more cynical moments I think that the stereotypical vodka-sodden Russian lifestyle has given them an advantage, because it means that few Russians live long enough to become Alzheimer's-riddled burdens on society.
There is an odd tendency in left-aligned circles to treat the morally ambiguous as evil & the actually evil as a force of nature it's not worth blaming or persecuting. Russia should be persecuted with prejudice by Europe for its actions.
A strange article which isn’t exactly sure what’s it’s arguing for or what it’s defending. It’s definitely not Europe as a civilisational space, or Europe as a group of nations - quite the opposite as it’s clearly opposed to “whiteness”, but not whatever Europeanness is. And Christianity, or post Christianity is out of the question.
Here in Britain we definitely are expected to care more about Latvia and Ukraine than the Crimea, so it looks like I have something in common with these people, so what is it? It can’t be the boundaries of Europe - which are ill defined anyway - since that includes Russia. While Noah wants is to defend Europe, it’s apparently a random space on the map whose people and culture don’t actually matter. We are to fight for Latvia but not control the borders.
His only mention of Muslim immigration is to denounce the right, but if Europe is worth defending it’s worth defending as a civilisational space, and that space includes its original peoples. It’s a fantasy that anti immigration sentiment is just because of Russian influence.
(We also apparently are at war with China, which is news to me)
And then there Maria draghi, showing exactly what is wrong with the EU. The problem isnt the EU but not enough EU. More single market, because as units of production and consumption Europeans are just not cutting it. Maybe import more immigrants.
"A strange article which isn’t exactly sure what’s it’s arguing for or what it’s defending." <-- Weird, I thought it was pretty simple. Europe is under threat from Russia, which is being supported by China. America isn't going to help Europe. So Europe has to take more drastic steps to defend against Russia.
Seems simple!
"While Noah wants is to defend Europe, it’s apparently a random space on the map whose people and culture don’t actually matter." <-- That seems obviously false. If Russia dominates European countries, they will do bad things to you and make your lives worse. It's a good idea to defend against that.
"His only mention of Muslim immigration is to denounce the right, but if Europe is worth defending it’s worth defending as a civilisational space, and that space includes its original peoples." <-- If you think so, then kick out immigrants. That's your business. You have a right to do it if you want to. But it doesn't change what I'm saying.
I hope you are wrong and that America actually would step up. Trump very unpopular, and if fighting a war to help Europe makes him more so, then it wouldn’t surprise me to see him do it.
Not to most Europeans. In any case if that’s true why care if Russia is controlling part of Ukraine or China invades Taiwan. It’s all just lines in a map, open to the strongest invader
The reason to care if Russia is controlling part of Ukraine or if China invades Taiwan is that this is the replacement of a liberal democratic government with a repressive and autocratic one.
This is nonsense Kenny. Europe didn’t become Europe in 1880, 1921, 1945, or 1989 or whenever you think the democracy was universal across Europe. If democracy is what makes a European then Japan is European and India is European. What makes Europeans Europe is history.
If you think that democracy matters though then maybe the Demos (we the people) can actually maintain our borders as sovereign peoples deciding what we want - and what we want is lower immigration.
Oh. You think Europe is worth defending *because it is Europe*? I don't care about Europe. I care about liberal democracy, and I think it is worth defending in any time or place it might be. (And speak for yourself, not "the demos"!)
What Noah is defending is clearly "Western civilization" defined in terms of freedom and democracy, rather than in ethnocultural terms as the MAGA right (and their European allies) would define it.
The reason why Ukraine is now considered part of Western civilization but Russia is not (even though both are of course descended from Kyivan Rus) is because Ukraine developed a freedom-loving tradition rooted in the Cossacks (which for them are a libertarian role model much as frontiersmen are for Americans) and the poetry of Taras Shevchenko, while Russia instead developed an identity as an autocratic imperial civilization-state: the "Third Rome" spiritual successor to the Byzantine Empire.
And of course anti-immigration sentiment isn't created out of whole cloth by Russia: Russia just picks at existing divisions in the societies that stand in the way of its imperial ambitions.
I don't know about the Cossacks, but Western Ukraine used to be part of the Habsburg empire so their culture is more European than Russian and that makes it different from Eastern Ukraine up to this day.
That’s true. But it also needs to be said that these differences are now only cultural (and the cultural diversity of Ukraine is more complex than east vs west). Politically, since 2014 and especially since 2022, there’s virtually no difference between western and eastern Ukraine. (As much as Russian propaganda keeps reposting 2010 election maps, ignoring any election maps from before or since.)
Many of the most influential current leaders of Ukraine are not from western Ukraine. Zaluzhny is from central Ukraine; Budanov from Kyiv; Zelensky from Krivyi Rih in the south; Gen Syrsky was born in Russia; one of the most influential contemporary philosophers, Volodymyr Yermolenko, is from Kyiv; probably the most famous contemporary writer, Serhyi Zhadan, is from the Luhansk oblast and lives in Kharkiv etc. Today’s Ukrainian national idea is rather universal, and draws from the intellectual tradition developed in Kharkiv, Kyiv or the Donbas, as much or much more than from Lviv or Ivano-Frankivsk…
Yes. Which is why it’s so wrong when Russians try to portray the resistance to them as something driven by Galician “banderite” nationalists. In reality, the Russians are fighting Russian speaking “eastern Ukrainians” much more than anyone else. It’s a war to suppress, not to protect “Russian speakers” in eastern Ukraine.
This is also visible in that it’s now harder to recruit people from the western parts than from the east and south. The young boys from Kyiv eagerly went to fight when Kyiv was beseiged. But they are a bit more reserved to enlist to defend Bakhmut or Kostyantinivka. Many still do, of course, because they understand the stakes. But when people try to portray this war, and attitudes to it, as a manifestation of some east/west divide in Ukraine, it just shows they know nothing about contemporary Ukraine.
While 21st-century Ukrainian nationalism is certainly not Galician-dominated, it certainly includes some Banderite affectations, such as the now ubiquitous "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes!" call-and-response, along with the Ukrainian military's official adoption of (a slightly-modified version of) the OUN's anthem.
That is likely the reason why Ukrainian nationalism is so much stronger than Belarusian nationalism: Belarus ended up entirely under Russian rule after the Partitions of Poland while Western Ukraine was under Habsburg rule.
And note also that Stepan Bandera and other famous 20th-century Ukrainian nationalists were overwhelmingly from the West.
>>And then there Maria draghi, showing exactly what is wrong with the EU. The problem isnt the EU but not enough EU. More single market, because as units of production and consumption Europeans are just not cutting it.
This is a very superficial reading of the Draghi report. It's not more Europe but more integration + less regulations to create more dynamics.
*I don’t know what the phrase “Western values” means anymore. If it still means essentially the same things as the U.S. Bill of Rights—free exercise of religion, free speech, a free press, etc.—count me in. If it means pushing the Sexual Revolution on the rest of the world, count me out.
Increasingly, “Western values” seems to mean promoting the Sexual Revolution at the expense of the Bill of Rights. If “Western values” now means the very opposite of what it meant forty years ago, I say the hell with it.*
I think you can look at Ukraine, where people are literally dying in defense of Western values. What they are dying for is definitely not trans rights or some other “sexual revolution” thing, although tellingly that’s precisely how the Russians are trying to portray it to some gullible people.
So what are the Western values Ukraine is fighting for (and Russia against)? “Free press, free speech, free religion” is a big part of it (though it’s a rather “first world” selection). But most importantly it’s the ability to govern yourself, do that according to rules and fair laws, not be a slave to a dictator, and value people even as individuals. In other words, what we would call a liberal democracy.
Another irony is that Ukraine is also a rather traditional and Christian society, with deep ties to the land, very strong appreciation of their ancient traditions and rather communal self-organising spirit (a lot of Ukrainians never had much contact with their government, but they rely on local self-organisation and civil society). While Russia is categorically not like that: it’s a deeply hollowed-out, cynical, individualistic and materialistic society with almost no church attendance (and more Muslims than church goers). An absolute folly of the anti-Ukrainian American right is that they can’t see this.
If Ukraine doesn’t show you what are the Western values that are worth fighting for, I don’t know what will.
Btw, Ukraine is also a good example because it’s a rather imperfect country, so it really shows the principles are what’s at stake, not the result. (Countries like Germany or Belgium might illustrate the opposite: the result is rather good, but the principles somewhat vacant now).
Frankly, I’m tired reading what Europe could or should or can do. I’d rather read what they have actually done. But so far more like scenario is reading about yet another thing we could have done and didn’t.
It has ever been thus - Europe is more complex than any outside commentator can understand. They will confidently effluviate anyway. Been to a disparate parish in Ireland and a few conferences in various continental capitals? Congrats! You are an expert. With your AP European History in tow, and a big map of front-line somewhere in eastern europe, you too can gurgle with the gander!
There are bad apples in the barrel, however. Orban and Hungary are a significant problem. Your plan cannot work with a large Eastern European member who is Russiaphile.
Each member has its own trading barriers. Farmers in France are hugely protectionist. France, Germany, and England individually believe they matter. As you pointed out, that is not the case.
They riot in Spain and France if the government does anything to adjust their generous social programs. Green Parties have been a stain on Europe's energy development. You are completely right. Solar panels bought from China will be a luxury facing a new Russian Empire that Putin wants to build.
There are “right-wing” parties that do not see Russia as an enemy. Europe is as big a political mess as the US is. If Trump were really a Russian Agent, what would he be doing differently?
If JD Vance were not a supporter of Putin, what would he be doing differently?
In the MAGA world, there is a belief that Russia has the best of intentions for the US economy and its world power position. They are under the delusion that an assertive, militaristic Russia is fine for America. They would be wrong. Both China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably India would love to see a diminished America. Something Trump is managing to accomplish on his own. He is the modern-day equivalent of Neville Chamberlain.
Isn't the big danger in cutting pensions and other old-age benefits that it will make the baby boomer generation more amenable to voting for pro-Russia far-right parties?
I have experience of this living in eastern County Durham: in the 2024 general election the Labour candidate won in my constituency (electoral district) with 48.9% of the vote, while Nigel Farage's Reform UK was second with 29.8% of the vote.
But in this year's local council elections, Reform UK won where I live with a whopping 65.1% of the vote, and I suspect the Starmer government's cuts to winter fuel allowance and disability benefits (forced by the UK's huge debt interest burden that resulted from a combination of Brexit, Covid and the 2022 rise in interest rates) will have been a big factor in this.
Your timing is impeccable, Noah. Even tho I’ve been following along and thinking many of the same things & reaching much the same conclusions, I was not yet ready to say the words, or more accurately, I was avoiding the truth of these words. Well you just got me across that line and there’s no going back.
——-> Dear Europe: IT IS TIME TO PANIC <——-
I love the way you provide the road map for Europeans. I’m rooting for them now. As if my own country (or the country I thought all my life existed) has ceased to exist. BECAUSE IT HAS. And this deeply, deeply sucks for me but I, along with my European friends, must finally admit and reckon with this fact. Somehow you make all this feel less catastrophic for me. I hope every American who reads this will send and post it to every European they know.
Thank you for writing this Noah, please kiss the bunnies for me!
Generally, I agree with you, Noah, but I think you overestimate what Russia can actually do in terms of invading a European country. Russia might have some success in the Baltics, but they no longer have the ground forces to overrun anyone. Without Russian troops and police in European capitals, they simply cannot exert the kind of control you suggest. Could they make it difficult for Europe? Yes.
I think what we have here is a bully that hasn't had its nose punched yet. The surest way to call Putin's bluff is for a coalition of European countries, at the request of Ukraine, to send EU forces into Western Ukraine and declare a no-fly zone west of the Dnipro River, with no direct contact with Russian personnel. The prime mission of the allies would be to take over the air defense of Western Ukraine. Considerable positive outcomes would follow.
You recommend bold moves by Europe, but what you are suggesting, while absolutely necessary, will take too long. Bold action needs to take now.
Unfortunately, with both Putin and Trump facing a limited runway of time, both are more likely to take “bold” action than Europe. Putin may create, through a third party, an incident that, in his mind, justifies military action in a location and manner that Trump ignores or considers sufficiently muddy that he can ignore US NATO obligations. Developing a land bridge to Kaliningrad is a possible basis as it is increasingly isolated now that Lithuania has cut off its trains and NATO is closely tracking the shadow fleet of tankers used to evade sanctions. Putin can run right over Belarus and may try to create a corridor to Kaliningrad through Poland or Lithuania. Moldova is another possible avenue for aggression.
It would be just like Trump to make a side deal with Putin to allow Russia to connect to Kaliningrad as an inducement to settle the war in Ukraine. Putin, of course, will continue to consume Ukraine bit by bit, regardless of any treaty. Trump knows this but, if resolving Ukraine gets him the Nobel, he will look the other way.
Yes, I could see this scenario playing out as you describe. Trump will probably reduce or stop arms and intelligence support for Ukraine in the coming months. All sorts of scenarios, all bad for Ukraine and Europe, would unfold as the EU stands by and watches from the sideline. A coalition of European countries needs to step in and seize the initiative, not directly engaging with Putin's troops, but declaring that Ukraine, at least that portion west of the Dnipro, is off limits forever, simply by placing EU troops on western Ukrainian soil (assuming Ukraine is agreeable). Putin would not have the forces to counter his action, nor could he simultaneously lay in to the Baltics. Russia is stretched too thin on too many fronts.
Your exhortations, Noah, aren't really realistic. The far right in Europe is strong for all sorts of reasons, but one of them is that Brussels tried to operate by stealth way too often and there is no real will among the European political demos to amalgamate into one super-entity. We still speak some 40 languages here and our history and political structures are very different.
If Brussels somehow tries to push further federalization by back-room deals, it will hit a wave of populist backlash. It is not the 1990s anymore and things are hard to hide.
If they do it the clean way and try contesting actual referenda ("Are you willing to transform your country into a constituent part of an European Federation"), they will lose them. The only party that openly advocates for federalization, Volt, is an electoral dwarf, barely polling above zero.
Americans who think Europe is evil and should be abandoned are spoiled little kids. They've never lived in a world where the US and Europe didn't work together. The pax Americana that has lasted since 1945 wouldn't have been possible without Europe. NATO would never have worked without it.
Very few people today remember what things were like before 1945 and have no knowledge of history. It's easy to say everything is awful when the only source of information you have is social media. It reminds me of anti-vaxxers. None of them have ever lived in a world without vaccines and so they've never suffered from any of the debilitating disease vaccines have eradicated.
The idea that the US should ignore Europe and let Russia start more wars there and everything will be fine here is beyond delusional. We tried isolationism in the 1930s. It didn't work then and it sure as hell won't work now. The economic damage alone from a full scale war in Europe makes it worth avoiding, but the US will be dragged into it, no ifs, ands or buts.
I agree with all of this but the deeper we get into Trump 2.0 the more pessimistic I get. Without Europe: the US lacks the economic might, and manpower, to stand up to China. In a war with China (without our European allies) we will likely lose, even if our Asian friends come to help us. Without the US: I am also skeptical that Europe can unite, find proper leadership, and become a true third rail on the world stage.
Trump, in short, has done the hard work for China for them. Disuniting the great Western alliance for peanuts. In my lifetime, I suspect, the US will become a comparatively poorer place which no longer worries about the world, and more actively tries to dominate its neighbors. A bleak prospect.
I very much enjoy reading Noah’s descriptions of Japan. I would like to see him relocate to France for a year, travel widely throughout Europe, and just reflect in real time (and in the years after) on what he sees there.
The good, the bad, the indifferent. The important, the trivial. The people, the economy. Just everything. Noah is the guy I would send on this mission. Hopefully he answers the call!
Thanks for your writing! Big fan of yours from the Eastern flank here in Latvia. We'll be the first to take a hit if shit hits the fan, so to many here this does feel existential (still not everyone, unfortunately). I personally got into FPVs this year just in case, haha. If there's one good thing that came out of this mess of a year is that it has been made very clear to Europe that it's "adapt or die" for real now. TBD if we can adapt, but at least there's no illusion left that we can just wait this out.
Man, I really hope this is the case
I live in Spain and most people seem to not take it seriously, only some people in policy space. But electorally it doesn’t seem to me that it moves anyone. If anything, people seem to be asking for more fiscal austerity.
Spain doesn't even meet its Nato spending targets it is an embarrassment and will suffer the consequences of its foolishness
Sadly, geography means Spain can absolutely take this the least seriously out of any eurozone country.
Technically that would be Portugal, no? Or perhaps Ireland…
All three are equally correct for practical purposes. I doubt anyone in Dublin ever expects Russian troops to set foot on their soil.
Ireland doesn't have a proper military as it would be too much strain on the finances on a country with its tax-haven economic model.
Besides the only circumstances in which Ireland would _need_ a military are:
i) if the UK turned imperialist again (in which case historic precedent suggests a guerrilla war would be a more plausible approach than a conventional war), or
ii) if an enemy power invaded Ireland after somehow conquering all the rest of Europe including the UK (and a small country like Ireland could not possibly hope to hold off such an enemy anyway).
what do you mean corrrect for practical purposes? for the disintegration of the EU ? this is exactly why Russia will continue to probe and aggressively pursue hybrid warfare and weaken the EU because it is not a coherent entity. NATO members in name only.
And all three are governed by Free Palestine cult members, mistaking friends like Israel for foes like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Those three countries are a fifth column inside the EU, allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran's terrorist army proxies....same exact forces that help Russia against Ukraine.
It makes no sense to spend a single extra Euro on NATO if NATO won't help you. And it makes no sense to spend a single extra Euro without a completely new and coordianted approach to European defense, as I think Noah is arguing for...
Spain can afford to be a "free rider" in a way Latvia can not.
For the moment maybe. But all Europeans should remember what happened to India.
The Persians and then England were able to take over the much stronger India by picking it apart, taking on separate areas one by one. India was impoverished because the separate parts of India laughed as their neighbours were taken instead of standing together.
We can imagine Russia/China doing the same to European countries, and so - Europe.
but does Europe have the will to adapt quickly and is it setup to do so or will every action have to be approved by Brussels until it won't matter anymore?
That's the question. Took way too long to move from the "it'll sort itself out somehow" to "oh shit looks like it might not and we gotta do something". Hopefully the road from here to "here's what needs to be done and how we'll do it" and "let's do it" is faster. And I mean Europe is already doing a lot of it, even if not uniformly and not fast enough, just need to do more and speed up.
It means spending more money on defense. Something Putin is betting the EU is too stupid or too stingy to really do.
Only the ex-Warsaw Pact countries--and the Baltics--truly understand what it is to live under the Russian boot.
Meanwhile, here in the US, our POTUS is either literally--or merely functionally--an FSB thrall. As in, if he wasn't actually recruited by the then KGB to serve Moscow, he sure acts the part. And being loyal GOP water-carriers, FOX News and RW media in general, have adopted a very pro-Moscow line for years.
You might mention that a major cause of the Muslim immigration into Europe is America's irresponsible wars. So American right-wingers are blaming Europeans for a problem they themselves caused.
I don't think that's correct. Of the main sources of Muslim immigration to Europe, only Afghanistan had a U.S. war. The overwhelmingly main cause of Muslim immigration to Europe is labor shortages resulting from low fertility rates.
I don't see how this can be the case when some of the top destinations are the countries with the highest unemployment rates e.g. Spain. Seems more like a soft immigration policy and proximity is the cause. China has an unemployment rate half of Spain's, but you don't see mass immigration there because they know they would just be rounded up and kicked out.
The Muslim and African migrants are going to countries with generous welfare policies and populations too soft to kick them out. Notice how they gallivanted across the Balkan states, Hungary, and Denmark (after it shut its borders and welfare off to them) to go to the nearest safe country which was...Sweden.
Also, Russia's involvement in Syria is a more direct cause than anything the US did.
Since 2003, roughly 1.2 million Iraqis ended up in the EU--of the ~9 million total displaced by the war. Low birth rates may provide demand; but American wars provide a very generous supply.
Oh yes, "US Bad". It's almost as if the Syrian civil war, providing millions of refugee immigrants into the EU, has been ignored because you can't blame it on the US. Funny that.
How about pointing to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is behind civil wars in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, as well as destabilizing Sudan in its most recent civil war? I know it's very "not progressive" to lay blame on Iran for over a million dead in the Arab world and many millions more pouring into Europe as refugees, when instead you can blame the US. But just be aware that attaching "US Bad" to everything is retarded.
Who said anything about "US bad"? It's called Realpolitik, Arbee. If Iraq had had the world's third largest reserves of oranges, instead of oil, do you still think we would've invaded? They had something we wanted, and so we took it. But at the same time we're a Judeo-Christian society, and love to feel guilty about some of the shitty things we've done on the road to empire, since Manifest Destiny.
Iran is a fucking jerk, and under Bush2, we came within an inch of invading them, too. The Israelis--and by extension AIPAC--were pushing ever so hard for it as well; but Bush-Cheney de-escalated at the 11th hour. For reasons that are still unclear. But if you personally want to fight Iran or her proxies, just grow some stones and enlist in the IDF. You'll see action, for sure.
And the 1.2 million Iraqi refugees that've resettled in the EU because of us, have destabilized Europe, not us. But in a generation or two or three, they'll grow prosperous, and do their part to bring the EU closer to the Muslim world, and further isolate Israel. Assuming Israel is still doing their stupid Likudnik ethnic cleansing nonsense in the W Bank and/or Gaza.
"Iran is a jerk" is the underselling of the century. There are 1.5 million people in the Arab world who lost their lives in civil wars inflamed by Iran with arms, funding, training, including the majority of civilians who died in Iraq - those were the outcome of Iranian backed militias torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands. Just from one civil war with heavy Iranian involvement there are 6 million Syrians that went into Jordan, Turkey and the EU. "US Bad" makes you ignore 10x the casualties and displaced people and immigrants to the EU caused by Iran. That's typical for the progressives who wanted nothing more than to make allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The rest of what you wrote is a steaming pile. Israel warned the US repeatedly against invading Iraq, being fully aware that it'll unleash Iranian belligerence, and they were right. Without the Iraqis to counter them the Iranians significantly increased their involvement in starting civil wars around the world - not just Lebanon, but now Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and of course wrecking the PA and Israel's negotiations, including the bloody coup of Hamas murdering PA government officials in Gaza in 2007. You fling AIPAC around like it's an actual thing, but you only expose your paranoid antisemitism. Again, typical of a 'progressive' to find The Jooz behind everything.
"Ethnic cleansing" is fucking dumb. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. The only reason Israel is in Gaza is because your barbaric Pals started a war in October 7 2023 with the biggest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Nazis in WW2. Get your head out of your ass.
Someone who writes "Israel gave Gaza to Palestinians" is well into the other end of barbaric delusion. Israel withdrew from an occuption from Gaza (as marginal compared to it's religious / economic obsession w West Bank).
Making excuses for Hamas is sterile, so is this sort of nonsense.
I think you need to do more to substantiate that claim. Historically that was the pull but I don’t think you could tell a clear story that the current immigrants (it’s the MENA ones causing all the anxiety) are drawn to places to fill current labour shortages. Where they tend to go and where the shortages are don’t seem to line up.
There are some colonial ties too, I would guess.
Very much so: there's a reason why Muslims in Britain are mostly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, while Muslims in France are mostly of Maghrebi descent.
I'm not so sure about that: wasn't the Syrian civil war ultimately caused by a disastrous drought in the east of the country (the bit that would later be taken over by Daesh), such that if any foreign country was most to blame it would be Turkey (which had cut off much of eastern Syria's water supply by damming the Euphrates a few years earlier)?
What power vacuum did Daesh come from, again?
While some of the specifics of the Syrian Civil War would likely have been different in the absence of a Western invasion of Iraq (no Daesh state spanning the border with Iraq, but perhaps instead another genocide of Kurds by a surviving Saddam regime), my point is that the war itself would still have happened regardless.
If that’s how you sleep at night 🤷♂️
The majority of Syrian Islamists were domestically rooted, given the nastiness of the Syrian civil war that arose for ** Syrian reasons ** (i.e. the utter horribleness of the Assad regime) doesn't resolve back to American actions. DAESH would have been just a flavor of al Qaeda in the end.
please this is nonsense Europe is gonna fail because of its own immigration policies and what they are gonna do blame the US no one will care regardless because the game will be over.
Who are you replying to
That is entirely false.
Maghrebine immigration (Western North Africa) has absolutely nothing to do with USA, and Syrian civil war, the other large contributor also was not American related - it's a weird form of American Lefty displaced arrogance to devolve everything down to Things America did you dislike.
Afghan and Iraqi emmigration certainly are US connected but not really major contributors to European non-Xian population. German Turkish minority is something tied to 60s-70s, the largest portions of French Belgian and Dutch are Maghrebine, with new inputs that are sub-Saharan - essentially Sahel West Africa that are all about old French colonial connections - no real American connection at all.
The population pressure in Sahel etc. is real. The vast majority of Muslim migrants from North Africa or MENA aren't fleeing wars. IIRC the most numerous ethnic group that sails from North African smuggler sites are actually Bangladeshis.
100%. I’ve taken some interest in studying world demographic trends recently and it’s amazing how much insight that seemingly boring discipline offers to what is going on in the world right now. It’s not all about games of power and sophisticated politics; the plain and simple birth to death ratios are like a primal force of nature, the hurricane than runs wild over higher order man-made rules and policies standing in its path.
Simplistic and reductive. Does not account for the Sahel, Syria’s civil war, Yemen’s civil war, the oppression of Kurds, Iran’s internal issues driving migration, etc etc.
This is so ridiculous. It is your borders, you have the control. This is just the fault of failing elites and naive lefty world view.
You're forgetting about the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention and its successors, designed to prevent another Holocaust by ensuring that the would-be victims would always be able to find refuge.
I don't think American right-wingers will be impressed by the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention and its successors. I am sorry.
Of course they won't be: MAGA types and their European far-right allies would probably agree with Herman Göring's view that "certain populations need to be decimated". (In their case it would of course be Muslims and Africans, rather than the Slavs that Göring was thinking of.)
My point is that non-far-right politicians in Western Europe still basically see it as binding.
Yep, and that might just be a big problem related to the whole issue. Not sure a majority of Poles see it as binding btw.
Corrected to "Western Europeans", as the concept of ethnostates is far less controversial in Central and Eastern Europe (perhaps because they didn't have colonial empires in the global South).
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/democracy-of-convenience-not-of-choice
Protecting people from a holocaust has nothing to do with economic mass migration into the US and EU.
Such interesting times! I wish I could read about them in history books instead.
History is best experienced from a safe distance.
Noah, you forget the most important pillar for creating a stronger European Union: democratic legitimacy.
Too often, the European elites have tried to manufacture unity without sound foundations. Before thinking about a fiscal union, we should be thinking about democratically electing the president.
I feel it would also begin reinforcing a pan European identity, to have Europe-wide elections (not an assemblage of regional parties, but actual pan-European parties or presidential candidates, etc)
The question is: do you get a European identity merely by holding elections? I doubt it. You first need people to feel European, create a European demos, and than elections can work. I think there is a reason the European parliament works with national parties, that is the only thing that most people can identify with. And even than turnout is (much) lower than country elections. I do not know anyone that knows what the European parliament is doing on a day to day basis, it is also strangely hardly reported in my national media.
An idea might be to abolish the European parliament elections and fill it with MPs from the countries. Give them a dual mandate so people see the same MPs dealing on a national and European level.
Could the European Union be likened to the United States under the Articles of Confederation?
There are definitely similarities. e.g. the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent to modify and lacked many core powers of a state like taxation and military in a similar manner to the EU. But the colonies were much more similar than European states. They all spoke the same language and there was no real animosity between any of the colonies in the same way there is between many European states. So I think further unification would prove much more difficult in Europe than in the US.
Also as a practical matter it was much simpler to merge the much smaller governments of the time vs the massive bureaucratic welfare states of modern Europe. When the US was formed, there was no income tax or government support of the poor / elderly. It's one thing to merge the governments of richer and poorer states when there are no welfare programs, but it would be an entirely different issue when that merger would suddenly result in the citizens of one country effectively making payments to another. I doubt the US would have ever formed if it had meant the citizens of the richer colonies would have had to make payments to poorer ones out of their paychecks. It wasn't until 160 years of political unification that this sort of monetary transfer program began in the US.
In parallel I said the same thing essentially as your last paragraph. Much more likely to see development of real politics rather than side-show
How do you do that, though? It took a couple hundred years for that to form in the US colonies. It wasn't until well after the actual United States was founded that we had a strong common American identity. And we had the advantage of starting basically from scratch and mostly speaking the same language. In Europe I think it would take much longer if it is even possible.
it is also worth noting that many countries in the world were made by force. Think for example former colonies like India and Indonesia, they would probably never have existed without colonization (not saying colonization is a good thing, just looking at the facts). Obviously Europe has had bad experiences with wars in the last century, almost destroying ourselves, so hopefully this will not happen again. However, forming a country from different cultures on a voluntary basis is extremely difficult.
Well, Russia’s war on Europe (via Ukraine) should be doing exactly that. In the first year after the invasion, this was clear to everyone and animated a great push towards pan-European identity.
Since then, Russia has again managed to deceive Europeans (especially in the West and South) that the war is some local ethnic quarrel with the Ukrainians. Most now see the support for Ukraine as a moral cause, a humanitarian tragedy perhaps (though most people greatly underestimate the actual scale of war crimes and deaths), but not as an existential battle where the future of Europe is at stake. They dismiss the hybrid attacks as nuissance. And they completely ignore Russia’s own internal rhetoric (extremely hostile to the idea of Europe), ideology (deeply messianistic civilisational mission), and explicitly stated strategy towards Europe (“Europe is fundamentally decadent, because liberal democracy is fundamentally week and facetious. All we need to do is to push, amplify internal divisions, paralyse, and it will fall apart.”).
Ironically, Musk’s and Vance’s attacks on Europe are helpful to Europe (I only wish more people could see the resonance of Musk’s and Russia’s messaging), because they remind Europeans that they in fact do have adversaries. And that their biggest enemy is in fact not the European Comission.
I agree. But, people form identities at difference scales now than they did then and the political realities are different.
I didn’t say I was optimistic lol just that Europe should press on with efforts to cultivate pan-European identity, at the margins.
That is fantasy. And bad fantasy at that.
National identities are far stronger and poorly attended European parliament elections are something closer to US primaries - not serious power like actual parliamentary elections.
It would be much sensible to take a route more like early forms of the US Republic where the Parliaments of each national government - under European rules - populate the European parliament, along with the governments, and have such elections tied to national elections so the same electorates are showing up, voting.
It isn’t really clear to me what you think I’m saying.
I’m responding to a hypothetical situation.
Insofar as we’re constitutionally rewriting the EU, however, I actually disagree that it makes more sense to follow the early U.S. republic. Americans have a tendency to think that whatever happened in the US is still somehow the gold standard for democracy when it patently isn’t (and even Americans setting up democracies in countries they have conquered don’t choose their own system!).
Europe already exists as a battleground between national parliaments. Elevating this to the level of the European Parliament is A) similar to the status quo and B) the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that parties should appeal to people based on their views of what Europe should do as a single polity.
It does make sense to tie voting to the same time as national elections though.
Well first - I in no way see the early US model as The Model in general and I am typically in fact of the view it is a generally poor model on a national basis.
However, the EU problem is not a national state problem but something vaguely resembling the US colonies right after Revolution - where neither identity nor political power resides at the supra-state level (aka Federal level)
There are already Eu parliamentary elections and they're functionally borderline useless as another commentator said. Real power does not reside there, and parties appealing is just fantasy in terms of political effect (and given that real effective decisions particularly the hard ones require national parliaments, national governments to play along, it would be far wiser to stop doing Cosplay about EU parliament which merely adds decisional complexity, and take steps to better align real powers and build improved decision taking based on improved buy-in from the real stakeholders, the national levels
yeah and what is the probability of this happening? When Russia overruns Poland?
I live 10 km from the Polish border and I know them well. Russia will not overrun Poland; the Poles will fight like hell, they are every bit as good at war as Ukrainians are, and four or five times as rich.
But Russia can create yet another bloody stalemate there.
And IDK what is going to happen; if AfD comes to power in Germany, they may even block Western weapon deliveries to Poland in such case.
Certainly you are correct about Poland. But Germany would have to start a war against the rest of the EU to block Poland. That's not happening. Is there really any anti-Polish sentiment on the German right? My impression was that it is really just anti immigration and anti-EU mainly due to the fact that they associate the EU with the immigration policy.
You’re right that the loudest theme on the German right is anti-immigration and anti-EU in general. But there’s also an anti-Eastern European and anti-Polish layer. A lot of the rhetoric about “cheap workers from the East”, “welfare tourism”, car theft jokes (in the past), or the resentment over child benefits being paid to families living in Poland is very obviously directed at Poles and Czechs/Slovaks/Romanians, not Syrians. It’s more often coded as “Osteuropäer” rather than anti-Polish. There’s also the occasional framing of Poles as “ungrateful” or “not really ready for Europe” when they don’t line up with German preferences.
A common theme is reminding the Polish economic miracle is funded by German taxes. Which is a complex topic: the subsidies helped a lot, but German companies made fancy profits from Eastern Europe, more than what was given; and obviously the growth mainly came from instititional reforms and market access. But that’s hard to explain, so most people just see that Poland is a “net recipient” (which is an extremely unhelpful phrase).
There are also some fringe historical grievances, mostly online I think: “Danzig/Gdansk as German city”, “the nicest parts of Poland are actually former German areas”, or recently some AfD politicians suggested that “Poland provoked the Second world war”. That’s not the whole German right by any means, but those tropes are there, and they colour how some people talk about Poland. And these things can easily be activated when needed. What doesn’t help is that right-wing Poles are deeply distrustful of Germany, and happy to add fuel to any dispute. The PiS party likes to frame the EU as a German plot to dominate Poland. And the tendency of Germany to make deals with Russia is very painfully observed in Poland (justifiably so, I’d say).
But more importantly, you don’t even need Germans to hate the Poles. It’s just enough that Germans don’t see Poland as worthy of fight. “Why die for Danzig?”, you know (it will just be the Germans, not the French, who will say it this time). So the fear is they will veto or delay crucial help, citing fears of escalation, appeal to realpolitiks, point to supposed Polish corruption or nationalism. That alone would do a lot of harm, given how central Germany is in European decision-making. It’s hard to do things in Europe when Germany is not on board. That said, the Nordics and the British have made official proclamations that they would come to Poland’s aid no matter what. I’m pretty sure that in the Nordics, this will be the case regardless of who’s in power. In Britain, I wouldn’t worry about either the Tories or Labour, but I’d worry if Farage’s Reform or Polanski’s Greens won the next elections (Polanski said he’d try talking to Putin and convince him to give up nuclear weapons, lol).
Another grievance that the German far right has played on recently is opposition to climate action, and specifically the recent German law demanding that all new housing be equipped with heat pumps instead of gas boilers.
In my admittedly shallow knowledge, it seems that most European political parties define as “right wing” most anyone who threatens the status quo. There are crazies there and here, but such blanket condemnation and exclusion from the political process ignores real grievances and strengthens extremism.
I wonder if you are not overestimating the long-term effects of Trump's foreign policy positions. He was elected not to vilify Europe but because of culture war issues, unease over mass unrestricted immigration, and nostalgia for a strong industrial and manufacturing based economy.
Despite the America First rhetoric, abandoning our allies was not central to Trump's appeal. He won't be around forever. Traditional Republicans (and Democrats) still exist. Time is short, but 2028 is only three years away, and we are already seeing cracks in his hold over the party.
I appreciate Noah's wake-up call, but I question his contention that America has become an island divorced from our alliances. Trump, sure. He's not America. Thank goodness.
It seems very clear to me that even if Trump and all his cronies disappeared tonight, we still have to reckon with 80 million radicalized Americans (funnily enough, radicalized via a lot of successful electronic warfare by russia) who voted for this and are deeply in love with the disgusting ideals of the current administration.
Noah very accurately repeated verbatim in his article some very common, extreme misinformation-driven incorrect beliefs and understandings about Europe that these 80 million people have integrated into their core belief system. I work with and know a ton of these people and it was like they were jumping out of the article at me.
There is likely nothing we can do to change the ideals and beliefs of these people so long as they are alive. This has become extremely crystal clear to me over the past 10 years. So yes, we will have to contend with "Trumpism" in America for an extremely long time.
80 million radicalised Americans? Where the fuck is that coming from?
There are not 80 million radicalised Americans - if you are taking the 77 odd million who voted for Trump that's a doomerist idiocy - it is more than clear a majority of Americans voted who voted for Trump were voting based on a hodgepodge of frustrations with Democrats / Biden and not an affirmation of MAGA as MAGA (the fracttions that hate-voted) - if one wishes to deduce real support for Trump-qua-MAGA one needs to look at figures like Strong Approve / Support to Trump where Siliver Bulletin shows a hard core 20-30% (currently more like 25%) are Strong Approve.
They may be radicalised, maybe.
Calling 77 million who voted for Trump radicalised is partisan political doomerism and self-deception.
I think you’re probably right to an extent - and there’s no point giving up hope anyway.
But I’ll say, also anecdotally, it seems that even my “moderate” Trump II voters live in an appalling epistemic black hole. It really is a going to be a challenge to bring them back to reality, because the grifters who are now their political leaders are certainly not going to do it: it’s how they came up in the first place. They were the first beneficiaries.
I look to date, as personal anectdotes are nothing more than story telling.
Aggregate data shows materially significant segments of Trump voters in a variety of demographis across the sub-national electoral geographies - States - have flipped back and forth. Changing 5-10% of floating votes can swing enormous geographies. Engaging in inellectualised masturbation as "epistemic black hole" is simply nonsense. Populations hate inflation, hate rapid cultural shifts, react poorly.
Look at data on how our media consumption has become wildly differentiated and siloed, and then consider the obvious fact that new technologies have enabled us to select into algorithmically curated information environments.
It isn’t onanism to observe this. You’ve pointed to a single datum about swing voters. I’m pointing to testable realities about the information we are exposed to and supplementing that with anecdotal experience about the people who are not necessarily true believes (see your earlier comments). Your point about swing voters does not affirm or refute my point that even “moderates” have an unhealthy information diet.
I am not in the business nor give any fucks about judging others information diets. I take the market as it is.
I would certainly prefer people to be different, however they are not.
and most ordinary human beings give few fucks about what the political obsessives obsess over.
So rather than bemoaning a reality of what is the modern market, I look at the overall data
The overall data shows quite instability among materially significant portions of the electorate - and specifically geographically different.
Democrats however, being over-stuffed with eggheadism from being overweight to college educated4 yrs+ "symbolic capitlists" as Musa al Gharbi terms them, are excessively focused on idealised results and frankly a secular form of 'converting the heathen.
> "even my 'moderate' Trump voters live in an appalling epistemic black hole."
Could you elaborate on this? What are the biggest delusions you see them believe? What are the most important things they fail to understand?
Sure. Without going into detail their diet consists of Fox News and Instagram / Facebook slop. It’s rage bait and opinion articles, designed to maximise engagement but not inform. No ethos of journalism is present. So when you ask them about current issues they are not just uninformed but misinformed about testable facts, and the actual area of their knowledge is usually minimal in many issues that are actually relevant (economics, foreign policy, education / health) whereas some culture war being fought in a city - e.g., a recent crime or something - on the other side of the country is more salient in their minds.
Everyone I know who voted for Trump did so mainly because of culture wars and the Dem’s rather smug attitudes. Some also liked Trump’s clear support of Israel. Maybe one or two people I know actually like the guy, but most really do not.
I think there may have been some mild muttering about Europe relying on America subsidizing NATO so heavily.
I like Western countries supporting each other.
Historically it is pretty clear that only the Political class and high-motivation/engaged political activists care that much about Foreign Policy - so one way or another I don't think unless Rep party utterly flips in its political class thinking, it's probably temporary.
You're a very optimistic person! Good luck with it. I suggest you talk with any one of those 77 million - I've spoken with dozens on dozens and deeply disagree with your assessment.
Since we're swapping anecdotes, I've talked with lots of middle-class Republicans too. I'm talking about ordinary Republicans, mind you. I'm not talking about MAGA.
Those Republicans voted for Trump because they dislike wokeness, because they're concerned about rising crime rates, and because they distrust socialism. They aren't radicalized or irrational.
that's clearly a segment of the Trump vote. Among several
Other segments are the voters that demonstrably went Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump - weird seeming to political obsessives of course
Example of the materially significant percentage of Latino voters Trump peeled off - who prior rounds hadn't voted for him. By all data most were voting on pocket-book senitments mixed in with cultural reaction (not liking Woke for at best giving them impression the D were concerned principally about a cultural agenda of the college educated Professional Class, which one can say wasn't a wrong impressoin).
Not radicalised either - and as the special elections held recently showed, as in NJ a good portion of the voter set (that Latino working class segment) swung back.
Writing off the entire body of Trump voters -77 million as hard-core MAGA is some foolish combination of the logical Fallacy of Composition and complete innumeracy or blindness to what voter demographic and post election polling have reflected.
The comments conflating a hard core MAGA (maybe 20-30% - if one can deduce from Silver Bulletin "strong support core" the hard-core support - as compared with Soft Support to Mild Disapproval - is a serious error and just analyticall nonsense.
I am the opposite of "optimistic" - I am data driven.
Speaking with "any one" of 77 million voters is functionally idiotically useless, it is innumeracy, math illiteracy and journalism major type self-delusion
What is important is aggregate data. The data is quite clear, speaking to dozens of whomever is ... just innumerate silliness.
I feel like electing him a second time shows that he kind of *is* America.
This is what your country showed the world it wanted, sadly.
This is a complete misunderstanding of Trump and his supporters. MAGA's believe in Trump. Not his policies. If he turned around tomorrow and said actually tariffs are bad, MAGA would agree. The only issues MAGA actually cares about are immigration and wokeness.
I think you have a stronger understanding of what I think it means when I say “Americans showed they wanted Trump again” than I do.
I’m just saying they don’t hold to an alliance system they don’t understand or value. Whether Trump says “yea” or “nay” on any given day is irrelevant because - as we agree - they have very emotional and irrational priorities.
But that still speaks to the character of the American body politick and that’s what I’m referring to. Not the intricacies of MAGA ideology, such as it is (or isn’t).
It's not great (i.e., terrible), obviously, but both America and Europe will be better served by getting over it and making the best of things going forward rather than retreating into our separate spheres. Every country is imperfect, and the US is no exception to say the least. We had to be belatedly dragged into World War II - would you rather that we hadn't participated?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I broadly agree with Noah’s article. I think that Europe needs to pull its thumb out and get its shit together. It would obviously be better to do this without the U.S. committing geopolitical suicide, but there is no reason for any country in the West not to do their best in turbulent times.
You are looking at this with perfect hindsight. WWII started barely 20 years after WWI ended. Wilson had sold the US public on that war by calling it the "war to end all wars" and then sent half a million American men over to be killed or wounded. And then only 20 years later, there's another war in Europe, and not only that, it's the same damn countries fighting each other as last time. So do you really expect anyone in the US to want to go back over to Europe and lose another half million men to sort out what looks to the public like a carbon copy of the last European mess that we had nothing to do with? It's not surprising that before Pearl Harbor 80-90% of the US public was in support of entering the war.
you should worry about Europe and do something and stop complaining about the Orange Menace you will be saying the same thing when Latvia is overrun
Nobody complained about Donald Trump. I am simply pointing out that it’s difficult to claim he doesn’t represent something real and ascendant in your national character.
it was always there but circumstances unleashed it and it is not reverting back sadly, seems to also be present in Europe too although I guess that is not so surprising given european history
America had a couple of terrible choices. I'm not sure that many voters “wanted” either choice. I know a number of Trump voters and they are not happy, but would still not have voted for a re-run of Biden.
Color me a foolish optimist, but I doubt that such a unique set of circumstances will be repeated in 2028. But you know what they say about predictions. We will see.
Thank you, Noah. Always an interesting and useful read.
America had a couple of terrible choices? Can you explain what you're talking about? What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Not to you, I guess. I could explain it, but it probably still wouldn't make sense to you.
The dead man versus the madman. And then the dead man was replaced by a candidate chosen on the basis of her gender and racial identity, elected in a blue state hothouse, who had never faced real opposition, and couldn't string a sentence together. Who mouthed all of the policies that made her predecessor unpopular.
I'm no fan of the madman, but this was a self-inflicted wound. I hope they do better next time.
You strike me as the one who needs to have the differences between Harris and Trump explained to him…
Oh yikes, lol. Alright
Whether the Democrats are able to prevail in 2028 depends on whether their ethos bears a stronger resemblance to Rebecca Solnit, or to Ruben Gallego. ;-)
I had never heard of Rebecca Solnit. You made me look her up. Yes, I agree 100%.
To be fair, at least if you put any stock into Zeihan's demographic worldview, this pulling back from the post WW2 global trade system was inevitable, Trump or not. Trump is at best an accelerant, not a cause.
The cause would be the subsidized (by warships) global trade system being untenable for America economically in a population degrowth world with anemic economic & productivity growth for the foreseeable future and an actual peer enemy again (at least for a decade or two). In such a world, Europe would have to find its own path to descend gracefully if it can't get its birth rate up or solve robotics in time.
Nothing that has happened has shaken a single Trump supporter I know. Nothing can. It’s not something they were reasoned into and thus they can’t be reasoned out of it. They live in their own alternative media bubble that tells them comfortable lies that reinforce trumpist policies and priorities. We can’t talk about it anymore because we live in different universes - I’m in the real one and the trumpists are in a fantasyland of their own making. They are lost to us and if they return, it will be because they changed their own minds, not because they have been persuaded. I see no evidence this is imminent.
Knocking the racist and nativist fever swamps of the right from power generations ago took a level of institutional control and political capital that nobody on the right possesses today except for Trump. And as we’ve seen, even then they were not expelled, merely dislodged. And they’re back with vengeance.
Anectdote is not data.
One can see in aggregate data at Silver Bulletin the ebbing away of support to Trump, about a 5-10% decline in Strong Support over to weak, and of course the overall collapse of support to consistent deep negative.
Of course the loud-mouths are unlikely to openly change but that's why judging on personal contact is fairly useless as a means of judging overall change
It’s possible he’s experiencing declining support. It’s possible that is because people believe he has gone too far. It’s also possible people are disappointed because they think he has not gone far enough. Trump could personally see declining support, with no meaningful reduction in support for trumpism. “Oh, now *Vance*, he’s the *real* deal. He’ll *really* get rid of all of those brown people.” It would be a shame to replace Trump with a more intelligent and competent trumpist. Which is my current prediction.
It is not "possible" - the overall aggregation of multiple polls aggregated by Silver Bulletin show it very clear.
Insofar as it is not in general pattern of core partisans to flip from Strong to Weak for "not far enough" one can invent all kinds of fantasies in that area but nothing in overall statistics reflect the idea - which is really a Just So Justification to avoid engagement ith the data.
What all the surveys and polling have reflected from prior election to date is that Trump's win was based on statistically significant shifts on parts of Latin & other ethnic votes to Trump driven by frustration over inflation / cost of living and the poor political response of Biden (along with frustration with cultural agenda of the Democrats runnig against more conservative cultural preferences of the non-college majority [in literal sense, 60% odd of voting population]).
Rapid declines on Trump approval on his aggressive over-reaching on non-Inflation fronts is not from lack of action, it's the opposite (and quite typical pattern of the Political Obsessives making mistake that their agenda is actually something wider population even gives two fucks about). -- the one area where his actions have semi-aligned with a support - immigration control -- is where he has the least decline into disapproval and is only slightly underwater, where its clear over-reach is annoying people but not turning masses hard against.
This is not at all true with the people I know who voted for him. It was more of a holding their nose sort of deal because they felt the left was getting out of control.
sure, Europe should not bother too much about Trump personally, but use it as a wake up call about our diminishing economic power in the world. Even after Trump, it will still be America first and China has the same approach. What is the answer of Europe?
I do think the Trump effect on FP is probably not as strong as Noah feels, notably on assumption that Trump will continue obvious incompetence both in economic policy - on-off tariffs, fudges that raise over economic costs - that will continue to say the credibility of the overall specific MAGA view (or I'd say the Christianist Supremacist faction)
You are living in a dream world.
Here is the problem right here:
> Russia now regularly flies its drones into Europe, and is probably behind a wave of sabotage attacks on European infrastructure.
Why is Europe not violating Russia's airspace and sabotaging their infrastructure right back? Strength gets you allies and weakness gets you subjugated. The depressing fact is that Europe just isn't a valuable ally against China. As much as I personally hate Russia (I donate to Ukrainian charities buying weapons to kill them), I have to admit that they are probably a better ally against China than Europe is. Sure, it's the rotting corpse of the USSR, but it is still strategically valuable:
1. It has a land border with China to base an army on
2. It has shown a willingness to take massive risks and casualties to extend its geopolitical interests
3. It is a natural enemy of China b/c China claims (unofficially) large swaths of its eastern territory
Given that Europe is proving itself worthless, it may be the strategically correct choice here to cut them loose and basically tell Russia "you can have your sphere of influence in eastern Europe back if you ally with us against China." NATO is a threat on Russia's western frontier and China is a threat to its east. The west is clearly the more important region to Russia, so naturally they will ally with China against Europe. But if the western border is seen as secure, the natural position would be to ally with the US against China.
You are quite correct in your recommendations for how Europe should react, but they won't do it. Democratic welfare states are completely incapable of acting decisively against a long term geopolitical threat. A large majority of the general public is fundamentally isolationist and utterly incapable of thinking about geopolitical strategy in a remotely rational way. "Why are we spending money on <far away place> when we have problems here?" is the majority position of voters left, right, and center. Any large scale allocation of resources away from the welfare state or any trade policy that significantly raises costs on the consumer will be met with massive voter anger and election losses. The politicians know this well, and that's why they sit there like deer in the headlights against obvious long term threats while more decisive enemies without the same constraints grow stronger by the day.
Putting aside the moral reasons to support Europe - let alone the fact they answered article 5 the one time it was triggered after 9/11 - Russia has already made their choice.
Putin is reliant on China right now - there is no chance they will suddenly switch sides and support you against China.
Also you underestimate Europe at your peril - they are messy and often slow but when the time comes they will stand and fight
“… when the time comes they will stand and fight…”
Counterpoint:
No they won’t.
Ok well we did last time right? We were with the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan when they called on us.
Anyway this is academic at the moment - if the war in Europe spreads or an Asian front breaks out we will see who steps up or if our US allies abandon us at the first sign of difficulty.
I mean, didn't Hesgeth's announcement yesterday amount to "we're abandoning everyone right now?" I'm American and I find it shameful beyond words that the administration is abandoning goodness and foresight and all the accomplishments we worked and bled for over the last century. But apparently that's happening till Trump is out of office, and no one knows what the political scene will look like after that. Shame won't work, Europe needs to rearm.
Europe needs to do more than rearm. It needs to come to the realization that there are real existential threats that can really and truly put an end to the way of life they have come to take for granted.
Not every threat to that is a right wing fantasy.
Depends what more you think they should be doing. EU boots on the ground in Ukraine are coming, but seems like Trump et al are lukewarm on that idea anyway.
I'd like it to happen right now - but they will probably wait till after a ceasefire.
The immigration stuff Trump wants is not going to happen. EU is sovereign and have a different opinion on that - USA doesn't get to dictate their border policies.
What does PCR stand for in this case?
They are dependent on China mostly because we put a bunch of sanctions on them. Side switches like this generally are a slow process anyway.
The Russians don't really have the necessary capacity to dominate a "sphere of influence in Eastern Europe" (how far should that sphere of influence go, btw? Finland included?), which is fairly clear looking at the mess in Ukraine. They have a lot of capacity to cause harm and destruction, but the once-overwhelming conventional force that crushed Hitler isn't there anymore. Russian demography is every bit as terrible as Europe's.
If you tell them that they can do that anyway, and they actually try, this quest will bind all their military resources and they will be useless against China.
Finally, why should they trust you? They have been allying with China not just because China is economically and industrially strong, but also because it is politically relatively stable.
The US is not. Even if Trump tells them "go join us and let's gang up on China", the next president may well reconsider. At which point they will have a very pissed off China as their neighbor and zero allies. (Belarus doesn't count.)
Unfortunately Ukraine's demography is even more terrible, to the point that in 2017 (well before the full-scale Russian invasion of course) they launched a campaign to persuade their emigrants to return from Western Europe to their homeland.
This campaign featured a variant of the famous smash-hit "Despacito":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwLi--gml8
It is absolutely terrible, no contest. These two countries can ill afford what they are doing now.
I'm not a military expert, but the idea of a land war with China from the Russia border seems ludicrous on every level. This is exactly where Chinese superiority in manufacturing and headcount would come into play and the border is immensely far from any valuable objectives. This idea is a complete red herring.
I don’t think that’s quite what he was describing.
What do you think he was describing?
Every man, missile, and drone that China needs to put on its Russian border is one that it can't put on its southeastern front. And that's a lot even if there isn't an active war going on there.
Indeed, the People's Liberation Army of 2025 is a world away from the luckless, depleted Kwantung Army that the Red Army defeated in August 1945!
what wars have they fought that suggest they are
competent xi gets a new defense official every week!
In my more cynical moments I think that the stereotypical vodka-sodden Russian lifestyle has given them an advantage, because it means that few Russians live long enough to become Alzheimer's-riddled burdens on society.
There is an odd tendency in left-aligned circles to treat the morally ambiguous as evil & the actually evil as a force of nature it's not worth blaming or persecuting. Russia should be persecuted with prejudice by Europe for its actions.
A strange article which isn’t exactly sure what’s it’s arguing for or what it’s defending. It’s definitely not Europe as a civilisational space, or Europe as a group of nations - quite the opposite as it’s clearly opposed to “whiteness”, but not whatever Europeanness is. And Christianity, or post Christianity is out of the question.
Here in Britain we definitely are expected to care more about Latvia and Ukraine than the Crimea, so it looks like I have something in common with these people, so what is it? It can’t be the boundaries of Europe - which are ill defined anyway - since that includes Russia. While Noah wants is to defend Europe, it’s apparently a random space on the map whose people and culture don’t actually matter. We are to fight for Latvia but not control the borders.
His only mention of Muslim immigration is to denounce the right, but if Europe is worth defending it’s worth defending as a civilisational space, and that space includes its original peoples. It’s a fantasy that anti immigration sentiment is just because of Russian influence.
(We also apparently are at war with China, which is news to me)
And then there Maria draghi, showing exactly what is wrong with the EU. The problem isnt the EU but not enough EU. More single market, because as units of production and consumption Europeans are just not cutting it. Maybe import more immigrants.
"A strange article which isn’t exactly sure what’s it’s arguing for or what it’s defending." <-- Weird, I thought it was pretty simple. Europe is under threat from Russia, which is being supported by China. America isn't going to help Europe. So Europe has to take more drastic steps to defend against Russia.
Seems simple!
"While Noah wants is to defend Europe, it’s apparently a random space on the map whose people and culture don’t actually matter." <-- That seems obviously false. If Russia dominates European countries, they will do bad things to you and make your lives worse. It's a good idea to defend against that.
"His only mention of Muslim immigration is to denounce the right, but if Europe is worth defending it’s worth defending as a civilisational space, and that space includes its original peoples." <-- If you think so, then kick out immigrants. That's your business. You have a right to do it if you want to. But it doesn't change what I'm saying.
I hope you are wrong and that America actually would step up. Trump very unpopular, and if fighting a war to help Europe makes him more so, then it wouldn’t surprise me to see him do it.
Democracy and liberalism are what matter. Not some lines on a map. Not some religious or racial identity.
Not to most Europeans. In any case if that’s true why care if Russia is controlling part of Ukraine or China invades Taiwan. It’s all just lines in a map, open to the strongest invader
The reason to care if Russia is controlling part of Ukraine or if China invades Taiwan is that this is the replacement of a liberal democratic government with a repressive and autocratic one.
This is nonsense Kenny. Europe didn’t become Europe in 1880, 1921, 1945, or 1989 or whenever you think the democracy was universal across Europe. If democracy is what makes a European then Japan is European and India is European. What makes Europeans Europe is history.
If you think that democracy matters though then maybe the Demos (we the people) can actually maintain our borders as sovereign peoples deciding what we want - and what we want is lower immigration.
Oh. You think Europe is worth defending *because it is Europe*? I don't care about Europe. I care about liberal democracy, and I think it is worth defending in any time or place it might be. (And speak for yourself, not "the demos"!)
Try reading the whole thing!
You are going to have to explain what you think I didn’t read.
The great news, is that I don't have to do that at all. I'm simply correct!
What Noah is defending is clearly "Western civilization" defined in terms of freedom and democracy, rather than in ethnocultural terms as the MAGA right (and their European allies) would define it.
The reason why Ukraine is now considered part of Western civilization but Russia is not (even though both are of course descended from Kyivan Rus) is because Ukraine developed a freedom-loving tradition rooted in the Cossacks (which for them are a libertarian role model much as frontiersmen are for Americans) and the poetry of Taras Shevchenko, while Russia instead developed an identity as an autocratic imperial civilization-state: the "Third Rome" spiritual successor to the Byzantine Empire.
And of course anti-immigration sentiment isn't created out of whole cloth by Russia: Russia just picks at existing divisions in the societies that stand in the way of its imperial ambitions.
I don't know about the Cossacks, but Western Ukraine used to be part of the Habsburg empire so their culture is more European than Russian and that makes it different from Eastern Ukraine up to this day.
That’s true. But it also needs to be said that these differences are now only cultural (and the cultural diversity of Ukraine is more complex than east vs west). Politically, since 2014 and especially since 2022, there’s virtually no difference between western and eastern Ukraine. (As much as Russian propaganda keeps reposting 2010 election maps, ignoring any election maps from before or since.)
Many of the most influential current leaders of Ukraine are not from western Ukraine. Zaluzhny is from central Ukraine; Budanov from Kyiv; Zelensky from Krivyi Rih in the south; Gen Syrsky was born in Russia; one of the most influential contemporary philosophers, Volodymyr Yermolenko, is from Kyiv; probably the most famous contemporary writer, Serhyi Zhadan, is from the Luhansk oblast and lives in Kharkiv etc. Today’s Ukrainian national idea is rather universal, and draws from the intellectual tradition developed in Kharkiv, Kyiv or the Donbas, as much or much more than from Lviv or Ivano-Frankivsk…
Correct: 21st-century Ukrainian nationalism is much less western-dominated than 20th-century Ukrainian nationalism was.
Even most of the Azov Regiment's commanders come from eastern regions where the Russian language was commonly spoken.
Yes. Which is why it’s so wrong when Russians try to portray the resistance to them as something driven by Galician “banderite” nationalists. In reality, the Russians are fighting Russian speaking “eastern Ukrainians” much more than anyone else. It’s a war to suppress, not to protect “Russian speakers” in eastern Ukraine.
This is also visible in that it’s now harder to recruit people from the western parts than from the east and south. The young boys from Kyiv eagerly went to fight when Kyiv was beseiged. But they are a bit more reserved to enlist to defend Bakhmut or Kostyantinivka. Many still do, of course, because they understand the stakes. But when people try to portray this war, and attitudes to it, as a manifestation of some east/west divide in Ukraine, it just shows they know nothing about contemporary Ukraine.
While 21st-century Ukrainian nationalism is certainly not Galician-dominated, it certainly includes some Banderite affectations, such as the now ubiquitous "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes!" call-and-response, along with the Ukrainian military's official adoption of (a slightly-modified version of) the OUN's anthem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgdANpB9PnY
That is likely the reason why Ukrainian nationalism is so much stronger than Belarusian nationalism: Belarus ended up entirely under Russian rule after the Partitions of Poland while Western Ukraine was under Habsburg rule.
And note also that Stepan Bandera and other famous 20th-century Ukrainian nationalists were overwhelmingly from the West.
>>And then there Maria draghi, showing exactly what is wrong with the EU. The problem isnt the EU but not enough EU. More single market, because as units of production and consumption Europeans are just not cutting it.
This is a very superficial reading of the Draghi report. It's not more Europe but more integration + less regulations to create more dynamics.
A friend of mine wrote about this from a religious perspective:
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/europes-civilizational-erasure-happened-when-it-snubbed-john-paul-ii/
*I don’t know what the phrase “Western values” means anymore. If it still means essentially the same things as the U.S. Bill of Rights—free exercise of religion, free speech, a free press, etc.—count me in. If it means pushing the Sexual Revolution on the rest of the world, count me out.
Increasingly, “Western values” seems to mean promoting the Sexual Revolution at the expense of the Bill of Rights. If “Western values” now means the very opposite of what it meant forty years ago, I say the hell with it.*
I think you can look at Ukraine, where people are literally dying in defense of Western values. What they are dying for is definitely not trans rights or some other “sexual revolution” thing, although tellingly that’s precisely how the Russians are trying to portray it to some gullible people.
So what are the Western values Ukraine is fighting for (and Russia against)? “Free press, free speech, free religion” is a big part of it (though it’s a rather “first world” selection). But most importantly it’s the ability to govern yourself, do that according to rules and fair laws, not be a slave to a dictator, and value people even as individuals. In other words, what we would call a liberal democracy.
Another irony is that Ukraine is also a rather traditional and Christian society, with deep ties to the land, very strong appreciation of their ancient traditions and rather communal self-organising spirit (a lot of Ukrainians never had much contact with their government, but they rely on local self-organisation and civil society). While Russia is categorically not like that: it’s a deeply hollowed-out, cynical, individualistic and materialistic society with almost no church attendance (and more Muslims than church goers). An absolute folly of the anti-Ukrainian American right is that they can’t see this.
If Ukraine doesn’t show you what are the Western values that are worth fighting for, I don’t know what will.
Btw, Ukraine is also a good example because it’s a rather imperfect country, so it really shows the principles are what’s at stake, not the result. (Countries like Germany or Belgium might illustrate the opposite: the result is rather good, but the principles somewhat vacant now).
Frankly, I’m tired reading what Europe could or should or can do. I’d rather read what they have actually done. But so far more like scenario is reading about yet another thing we could have done and didn’t.
because they have done very little so nothing to write about!
It has ever been thus - Europe is more complex than any outside commentator can understand. They will confidently effluviate anyway. Been to a disparate parish in Ireland and a few conferences in various continental capitals? Congrats! You are an expert. With your AP European History in tow, and a big map of front-line somewhere in eastern europe, you too can gurgle with the gander!
Noah, excellent article.
There are bad apples in the barrel, however. Orban and Hungary are a significant problem. Your plan cannot work with a large Eastern European member who is Russiaphile.
Each member has its own trading barriers. Farmers in France are hugely protectionist. France, Germany, and England individually believe they matter. As you pointed out, that is not the case.
They riot in Spain and France if the government does anything to adjust their generous social programs. Green Parties have been a stain on Europe's energy development. You are completely right. Solar panels bought from China will be a luxury facing a new Russian Empire that Putin wants to build.
There are “right-wing” parties that do not see Russia as an enemy. Europe is as big a political mess as the US is. If Trump were really a Russian Agent, what would he be doing differently?
If JD Vance were not a supporter of Putin, what would he be doing differently?
In the MAGA world, there is a belief that Russia has the best of intentions for the US economy and its world power position. They are under the delusion that an assertive, militaristic Russia is fine for America. They would be wrong. Both China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably India would love to see a diminished America. Something Trump is managing to accomplish on his own. He is the modern-day equivalent of Neville Chamberlain.
Isn't the big danger in cutting pensions and other old-age benefits that it will make the baby boomer generation more amenable to voting for pro-Russia far-right parties?
I have experience of this living in eastern County Durham: in the 2024 general election the Labour candidate won in my constituency (electoral district) with 48.9% of the vote, while Nigel Farage's Reform UK was second with 29.8% of the vote.
But in this year's local council elections, Reform UK won where I live with a whopping 65.1% of the vote, and I suspect the Starmer government's cuts to winter fuel allowance and disability benefits (forced by the UK's huge debt interest burden that resulted from a combination of Brexit, Covid and the 2022 rise in interest rates) will have been a big factor in this.
Your timing is impeccable, Noah. Even tho I’ve been following along and thinking many of the same things & reaching much the same conclusions, I was not yet ready to say the words, or more accurately, I was avoiding the truth of these words. Well you just got me across that line and there’s no going back.
——-> Dear Europe: IT IS TIME TO PANIC <——-
I love the way you provide the road map for Europeans. I’m rooting for them now. As if my own country (or the country I thought all my life existed) has ceased to exist. BECAUSE IT HAS. And this deeply, deeply sucks for me but I, along with my European friends, must finally admit and reckon with this fact. Somehow you make all this feel less catastrophic for me. I hope every American who reads this will send and post it to every European they know.
Thank you for writing this Noah, please kiss the bunnies for me!
Generally, I agree with you, Noah, but I think you overestimate what Russia can actually do in terms of invading a European country. Russia might have some success in the Baltics, but they no longer have the ground forces to overrun anyone. Without Russian troops and police in European capitals, they simply cannot exert the kind of control you suggest. Could they make it difficult for Europe? Yes.
I think what we have here is a bully that hasn't had its nose punched yet. The surest way to call Putin's bluff is for a coalition of European countries, at the request of Ukraine, to send EU forces into Western Ukraine and declare a no-fly zone west of the Dnipro River, with no direct contact with Russian personnel. The prime mission of the allies would be to take over the air defense of Western Ukraine. Considerable positive outcomes would follow.
You recommend bold moves by Europe, but what you are suggesting, while absolutely necessary, will take too long. Bold action needs to take now.
Unfortunately, with both Putin and Trump facing a limited runway of time, both are more likely to take “bold” action than Europe. Putin may create, through a third party, an incident that, in his mind, justifies military action in a location and manner that Trump ignores or considers sufficiently muddy that he can ignore US NATO obligations. Developing a land bridge to Kaliningrad is a possible basis as it is increasingly isolated now that Lithuania has cut off its trains and NATO is closely tracking the shadow fleet of tankers used to evade sanctions. Putin can run right over Belarus and may try to create a corridor to Kaliningrad through Poland or Lithuania. Moldova is another possible avenue for aggression.
It would be just like Trump to make a side deal with Putin to allow Russia to connect to Kaliningrad as an inducement to settle the war in Ukraine. Putin, of course, will continue to consume Ukraine bit by bit, regardless of any treaty. Trump knows this but, if resolving Ukraine gets him the Nobel, he will look the other way.
Yes, I could see this scenario playing out as you describe. Trump will probably reduce or stop arms and intelligence support for Ukraine in the coming months. All sorts of scenarios, all bad for Ukraine and Europe, would unfold as the EU stands by and watches from the sideline. A coalition of European countries needs to step in and seize the initiative, not directly engaging with Putin's troops, but declaring that Ukraine, at least that portion west of the Dnipro, is off limits forever, simply by placing EU troops on western Ukrainian soil (assuming Ukraine is agreeable). Putin would not have the forces to counter his action, nor could he simultaneously lay in to the Baltics. Russia is stretched too thin on too many fronts.
Your exhortations, Noah, aren't really realistic. The far right in Europe is strong for all sorts of reasons, but one of them is that Brussels tried to operate by stealth way too often and there is no real will among the European political demos to amalgamate into one super-entity. We still speak some 40 languages here and our history and political structures are very different.
If Brussels somehow tries to push further federalization by back-room deals, it will hit a wave of populist backlash. It is not the 1990s anymore and things are hard to hide.
If they do it the clean way and try contesting actual referenda ("Are you willing to transform your country into a constituent part of an European Federation"), they will lose them. The only party that openly advocates for federalization, Volt, is an electoral dwarf, barely polling above zero.
Americans who think Europe is evil and should be abandoned are spoiled little kids. They've never lived in a world where the US and Europe didn't work together. The pax Americana that has lasted since 1945 wouldn't have been possible without Europe. NATO would never have worked without it.
Very few people today remember what things were like before 1945 and have no knowledge of history. It's easy to say everything is awful when the only source of information you have is social media. It reminds me of anti-vaxxers. None of them have ever lived in a world without vaccines and so they've never suffered from any of the debilitating disease vaccines have eradicated.
The idea that the US should ignore Europe and let Russia start more wars there and everything will be fine here is beyond delusional. We tried isolationism in the 1930s. It didn't work then and it sure as hell won't work now. The economic damage alone from a full scale war in Europe makes it worth avoiding, but the US will be dragged into it, no ifs, ands or buts.
I agree with all of this but the deeper we get into Trump 2.0 the more pessimistic I get. Without Europe: the US lacks the economic might, and manpower, to stand up to China. In a war with China (without our European allies) we will likely lose, even if our Asian friends come to help us. Without the US: I am also skeptical that Europe can unite, find proper leadership, and become a true third rail on the world stage.
Trump, in short, has done the hard work for China for them. Disuniting the great Western alliance for peanuts. In my lifetime, I suspect, the US will become a comparatively poorer place which no longer worries about the world, and more actively tries to dominate its neighbors. A bleak prospect.
Not sure Europeans would be willing to move a finger in response to anything China does, sorry.
Indeed: a Europe without colonial possessions doesn't have strong natural geopolitical interests in the Pacific.
Subscriber request…
I very much enjoy reading Noah’s descriptions of Japan. I would like to see him relocate to France for a year, travel widely throughout Europe, and just reflect in real time (and in the years after) on what he sees there.
The good, the bad, the indifferent. The important, the trivial. The people, the economy. Just everything. Noah is the guy I would send on this mission. Hopefully he answers the call!
Thanks, but request denied! I have too few years of my life left. ;-)
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!