Dear Dr Smith - is it possible that your well-known (and entirely defensible, if not beyond argument) ultra-hawkish views on China have overcome your good sense and, with regard to security policy in Europe, rendered you MAGA-curious? Vance is barnstorming Germany in defense of a political party which can fairly be described as Nazi-curious and Holocaust-minimizing, and that, together with implicit flattery of Russia, is the motivating force of every disgraceful word coming out of his mouth. Hegseth chose exactly the right city in which to pitch the last pile of dirt on democracy promotion and support of postwar allies as American security policy. The point has been made that at least Chamberlain and Daladier were, in part, buying time while Trump and his goons are actively trying to ally the United States with Russia. The folly here is the belief that selling out Ukraine and cutting loose those squishy lefties in western Europe, guilty of the sins of desiring modern welfare states and worrying about avoiding World War III, is somehow going to contribute to strength and deterrence against China. Trump is busy trying to save a social media company controlled by the Chinese Communist Party! The foreign policy vision of this administration isn't a pivot to the China threat, it is classic Lindberghian America First - carve up the world into three authoritarian geographic spheres of influence - China, Russia and the United States, with devil take the hindmost for our traditional allies, which are, for the time being, mostly, you know, democracies, in spite of the fact that they-advertently-don't have First Amendments. It is a dark day indeed when you of all people are signposting American Petainism.
"is it possible that your well-known (and entirely defensible, if not beyond argument) ultra-hawkish views on China have overcome your good sense and, with regard to security policy in Europe, rendered you MAGA-curious?" <-- No, I think MAGA is bad. But I still hope they'll do the right thing with regards to Asia and China security policy, because if they screw it up, we're all in big trouble.
"The foreign policy vision of this administration isn't a pivot to the China threat, it is classic Lindberghian America First - carve up the world into three authoritarian geographic spheres of influence - China, Russia and the United States" <-- I do think that one faction within the Trump administration is definitely thinking along those lines. But it's obvious that others really do want to oppose Chinese hegemony. (And I know this from talking to some of the MAGA people.) So it's still uncertain which way things will shake out.
"It is a dark day indeed when you of all people are signposting American Petainism." <-- I think you used an ambiguous, vague word like "signposting" because you want to accuse me of *supporting* Trump's foreign policy, but rationally you know (and my other readers know) that I don't actually support most of it. So what you want to do is to make a sort of quasi-accusation of support, in order to shame me into shifting my primary focus toward full-throated condemnation of Trump. But this was not a post about Trump's foreign policy. It was a post about what Europe needs to do, for its own security. Trump isn't listening to what I write, but maybe a few European leaders will.
No-one is claiming that Noah said he's "happy about Trump's posture toward Europe." I think what Xantar and others are rightly reacting to is the paragraph in which Noah says "I’m a bit agnostic as to which of these interpretations [Trump regime telling Europe hard truth versus supporting Putin and his right-wing European friends] is correct." This is BS: the tell is that nowhere do Hegseth and Vance actually call on Europe to stand against Russian aggression. If the Trump regime wanted that it would be telling Europe what assistance it will provide if Europe commits to rebuilding its defense forces and industrial base for that purpose. Noah is right that Europe has to face hard realities either way, but that provides no justification for being agnostic about whether the Trump regime wants the Putin-friendly right to win in Europe.
I didn't read that as Noah saying he's agnostic about what they're doing or what happens, only that he's agnostic about which interpretation of what's driving the WH position makes the most sense.
I thought Noah's main point is regardless of motive, the US is clearly largely disengaging from Europe. Trump just wants some kind of settlement of Ukraine that extracts the US from there and Europe in general. Personally, I'm not sure how the US will engage in Asia either. I think Trump intends to abandon Taiwan to the PRC. I think he wants to appease a China-Rus axis in the hope it will allow the US free reign in the Western Hemisphere where he'll make like miserable for our neighbors.
Well, I do see Hegseth praising Poland a lot. Poland is the one European country that's doing enough on defense right now, and it's incredibly strongly anti-Russia.
I think Hegseth's praise for Poland comes more from the pov of them being able to carry their own weight within NATO and the broader military alliance of the western world meaning that the US does not have to worry/care about them as much. It doesn't necessarily have to directly with Russia. The Poles are (rightly) more worried about Russia while the current US administration just seems to want itself less tangled up in European affairs in general
As Noah said, it doesn't really matter what the reasons are, it's happening anyway as America simply cannot guarantee European security with the rest of the world chasing parity and modernization very quickly. You can pound the table all you want, but afterwards I suggest it's time to ramp up defense.
It's not even a 'spheres of influence' game of a century ago, it's simply a fact that the rest of the world has increased capacity and there are far more threats to far more allies than just European countries. I don't know why this is so hard to accept. The world is different than it was in WWII
It’s not like the Biden regime covered itself in glory, slow walking the Ukrainians until they froze them in a quagmire because they were worried about how angry they could make Putin. What happened to the Powell doctrine?
My thoughts were the US was simply being pragmatic. It isn’t pretty, but we supply the weapons and Ukraine supplied the dead. Ukraine and Russia fighting each other until the last man was standing weakened both, but most importantly weakened Russia.
I'm afraid that this doctrine was killed in Vietnam by Kissinger. The Ukrainian scenario is, with some obvious differences, quite similar. Let the war continue until the country is bled dry, supply weapons, etc. And then abandon the project, claiming that you have more important things to take care of. The country will be left in the middle of a war with equipment, but without fuel, ammunition or money. Devastated and depopulated, left to fend for itself.
Should Biden have sent its most powerful weapon systems into Ukraine? US troops? Even as a Putin hawk, does Noah dismiss the risk that direct, aggressive US intervention would have sparked nuclear war?
Well said . Just as I take out a paid subscription he seems to loose his mind. Looks like I will have to cancel that. I do usually appreciate his essays. But what is it with this China thing. Many of us watch with interest as to what dictator shall reign hell down on our grandkids and great grandkids. Of the the three I am tending to lean towards China. Because they don’t fucking pretend to be a democracy.
The PRC does claim to be a socialist democracy, or people’s democratic dictatorship. They are also clearly making preparations for empire. If you believe China is not a threat, you may be whistling in the dark.
Did I say China is not a threat ( without going into what do we mean by threat and a threat to what at what costs to whom , the individual or the mass). I think I said, or clumsily hinted that , if I am going to live under a dictatorship and my choice is USA styled one under Trump, a Russian one or a China one. I might prefer China. Now you might or others might wish to say something about human rights , surveillance and curtailment of free speech, and you will probably say it without any irony. Maybe my humour does not translate well. I think I get Noahs analysis and would be hard pressed to argue with him but he does a have a thing about China. I am really just curious. And I would like to know what it is we are protecting , is it the destruction of your healthcare system, your housing stock for low income people, the massive gains you made on lifting people out of poverty(that might be a cheap shot) , your freedom of speech (which I would have said your on a winner there except maybe recently your media has taken a bit of a dark turn). If there is a call to arms I would like to know what it is we are fighting for. A Trump dystopia engineered by billionaires and Christian Nationalists, not sure I am behind that one. A president who sides with an Invader. I would like to know what negotiating handbook thats from. Maybe he does the thing he does because he truly does want to provide a common prosperity for all the population. And if he pulls that off, maybe thats what we fight for.
Also, while they have strategic interests in this part of the world, they don't really seem to have political ambitions to install satellite governments here and impose their rules for internal affairs of European countries. Unlike at least one of the two other countries of this tribunal.
well, we can complain in Europe but cant say it was a surprise what the Trump administration is doing. Europe has had 2 months to come up with our own plan for stopping the war in Ukraine since Trump won the elections, have you heard anything about an agreed plan from European countries? I have not. Europe now wants a seat at the table, how many seats exactly and who is going to fill them and what is the agreed European plan? As much as I dislike whats going on, I can understand Trump picks up the phone without waiting for Europe. Its probably not going to work with sitting with many countries around the table to negotiate with Russia. I did listen to Kellogg (Trumps Ukraine envoy) in Munich, it seems the USA actually has some kind of plan and still much is possible. Lets hope for the best.
Yes, Trump is icky, but he’s correct about Europe. It’s time for Europe to grow up. Three generations of free riding are enough. A continent with a GDP almost as big as ours should be able to face down a country with 1/4 of its population and a smaller GDP than Canada. If they cannot do that, they are shitty allied and it’s their problem.
Free-riding? Much of Europe has been supporting many of America's questionable military adventures since 1991.
Regardless it is really strange how American nationalists seem to think making Europe less dependent on American military power will help its hegemony.
1) because those wars were stupid, europes help didn’t advance us interests
2) european help in the iraq war was fairly token. compare the money the us has spent defending europe to european disbursements in iraq and it isn’t close
It's not weird at all. America First accepts that other countries will put themselves first too. Liberals seem to think that means we'll be at each other's throats, but there's no reason to believe that. I want to see a strong Europe because I share cultural and historical ties with you guys. I expect Macron to be "France First" and Scholtz to be "Germany First" (for another week, then I hope it's Weidel but I know it won't be.) This doesn't bother me.
It's time for Europe to grow up. We were happy to support you after WWII -- you needed it. We probably should have pushed you out in the 80's since you've been living in our basement playing videogames for the last 40 years. But now we are, so learn to drive, get a job, do your own laundry, and start "adulting".
Both you and we will be stronger and more resilient when you do.
Do you believe that France First, Germany First, Italy First etc. add up to a strong Europe? Trump nationalists seem to be very anti-EU. But a strong Europe would seem to require coordination and integration. Just like the US probably wouldn't be a powerful nation under the Articles of Confederation.
It took a war against an empire to move America past a confederation. It was paper thin even then -- a sizeable part of the Constitutional Convention wanted to retain the Articles.
Even after 1789, "American" as an identity didn't exist. Forging that took another (failed) revolution -- the Civil War -- as Washington DC forced recalcitrant states to bend to the national will.
I hope you see where I'm going here... "European" as an identity exists even less than "American" did pre-Civil War. Only the urban, educated class would identify as European, and they really mean globalist / citizen-of-the-world. Lacking a broadly shared European identity, I don't think you can go much further than you have, and I don't think you really want Brussels to do the kinds of things that would be necessary to override European national identities completely. (As Washington DC did after the Civil War.)
So, in answer to your question, yes! I believe you get a strong Europe by having a strong Germany, a strong France, et al, and you get those from leaders who have broad democratic mandates and thus can implement policies their populations support. That doesn't mean they shouldn't work together, but the shared European policies must derive from shared interests and mutual strength.
Today in Europe, you have a ruling class in Brussels that openly uses blackmail and threats to force member countries to bend to its will, and leaders of major countries that openly despise large minorities of their population. You will never get a strong Europe until both of these are addressed.
That makes sense, especially since Trump epitomizes the "ugly American" that Europeans so enjoy making fun of.
But that wasn't what I was saying. What MAGA rejects is globalism. They think borders and culture and countries matter. Which is exactly what Orban or Meloni or LePen or Wiedel believe. And MAGA respects that -- thus there's nothing strange about an America First movement also believing in a France First or Germany First movement.
I'm sure you understand while people are slightly worried here of "Germany First" sentiment.
By the way - rich of you to say " since you've been living in our basement playing videogames for the last 40 years". Did Americans react positively to de Gaulle requesting Americans to leave and leaving NATO unified command? More recently, did Americans were happy to see French strategic independence when they refused to go to Iraq, or were they angrily eating their "freedom fries"?
This gets me confused. MAGA rejects globalism you write, what does globalism mean to MAGA or you? I thought Globalism means things like an international rules based order and organisations supporting this. Though I do agree with respect for cultural differences. And as this rules based order was mainly an invention of Western powers after WW2 based upon Western values, I support this. If MAGA, or you reject this, what is the alternative? I can respect the choice of isolationism by countries, but doubt it is in the interest of the USA and Europa. After all, China and Russia do have an alternative for what I consider the ´globalist´ rules based order and that is a world with rule by autocratic power purely based upon their own interest, including taking land by force or other means. This would be going back to how the world has been for millennia, I do not see this as an improvement.
Having said this: I think globalism has been corrupted by for example starting an UN Human rights council that accepts countries with the worst human rights records. But than the answer would be in my opinion try to root out the corruption or leave organisations that do not function but not rejecting the idea of globalism.
Well Clinton was really spooked by the 1994 mid-terms. No wonder he let the Poles and the Czechs in after their leaders threatened to support Bob Doles campaign.
I feel like a lot of these articles try to rationalise what's going on in America when fundamentally what Trump is doing is irrational. Trump decided to do a deal with Putin, and now everyone is scrambling to justify or villify this decision. It's probably a poor decision in most dimensions and it sucks for those of us with ties to the USA and Europe (im British). Now we have to decide if we live in mummy Europe's nice house with good food but poor economics or if we go to daddy Americas with sort of a chaotic environment but we get to watch TV all day and eat McDonald's.
As Noah Smith commented, freezing out large constituencies from the political process can destabilize a country. Vance spoke to the fact that parties on both the left and right had been excluded. The absence of a First Amendment doesn’t mean that the value of freedom of speech is alien to Western Europe; after all, it is part of the inheritance the US has from Europe. It isn’t necessary to spin plain meaning into a political diatribe.
If the US is "overmatched by China" (and it is), then it will need allies. Hegseth and Vance just sent our most important allies packing, with the message that there is no longer anything in their alliance with the US for them.
The reaction in the US press has been mostly that Hegseth and Vance made concessions to Russia over Ukraine before negotiations even began formally. But they are likely to have given away something much important -- our most reliable and durable military alliance.
I don't like how this is playing out, but one concession I'd make is that Europe building up its military will ultimately create more western capability against China compared to the status quo.
The question is whether the US and Europe would perceive the risks of a Taiwan takeover or other hypothetical China aggression similarly or if there's some future disagreement about the cost/benefit math of repelling China in some specific case.
We have got to convince China that it needs the West, all of it, America and Europe, and that the violent takeover of Taiwan would destroy any chance of its influence continuing. Currently China exports its surplus to all of us and we all buy it using Amazon. Instead of posturing about matching military might, we should emphasise how world trade is good for everyone.
Before WWI, there was massive trade that benefited everyone. It stopped nothing. There are many more conditions and motives than benefiting from trade. You need only look to China’s aggression against its neighbors surrounding the South China Sea. A different policy would have made them all wealthier through trade. China doesn’t care, even with the international court ruling against its claims.
We should stop kidding ourselves about Taiwan. If we don’t deter a Chinese invasion I cannot see an international order that was petrified of proxies offending Putin engaging in even limited direct military combat against the Chinese in their backyard.
A unified military hopefully also means EU defense industry spending instead of that going to the USA. And hopefully this also brings a lot of internal economic and governance reforms to make the EU operate more like a federation.
They could help us economically and logistically -- by supplementing our industrial capacity for example. In any event, it is idiotic to burn bridges with them over Ukraine, NATO and dangers in East Asia in the span of a few days. Certainly it would have been better to sit down with them quietly and talk through all of this first. The calculus that Vance in particular enunciated is that European failure to embrace its right-wing parties is a more significant threat than anything related to Asia or Russia or anything defense-related.
American administrations have asked Europe to invest more in its defense since Truman. Russia seized Crimea 11 years ago and Europe still hasn’t stepped up. At some point, there must be consequences
Sure, and if that's what Vance and Hegseth had done, they would have been in that long tradition. Saying expressly that the greatest danger is from within, visiting the AfD, etc., is not what Truman et al did. In one case the US was trying to *build up* its alliance with Europe; in the present case they are very evidently trying to *destroy* it.
The Trump administration is definitely picking ideological fights for ideological reasons and to distract populists while they cut rich peoples’ taxes. That has nothing to do with whether Europe is free riding or whether it is in our interest to defend them
I agree with your assessment of Trump and company but you completely overrate Europe’s military importance. They cannot take of themselves vis a bid Russia and are next to worthless against China.
Even Britian, whose military is of high quality but ohh so small, would not provide much. Their carriers would require US support and I doubt that they would risk them against China if threatened by Russia.
Again, I despise Trump and Vance’s actions but it really does not matter
militarily. South Korea, Japan, helping the Philippines develop its military and building alliances with places like India and Indonesia are militarily valuable
You rightly point out all the issues and dilemmas and it shows how complicated the situation is.
Some thoughts:
While I call myself a European in these discussions when comparing Europe with the US or China, truth is that Europe is not a country. We are still a patchwork of smaller countries with different cultures. There is the EU with an European parliament but ordinary citizens in Europe hardly are aware of what they decide. There is no European demos and thats what is needed to become a country. And I am afraid I dont see this changing for a long time.
So with all the talk about better and more integrated defense and economy, all true, but it will be a slow process. We simply cant copy the speed of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. On the upside: we might not copy their mistakes.
On migration: populist parties have in large part risen because of the uncontrolled migration from across the Mediterranean sea. Laws have become more strict in countries trying to bring down the numbers but I dont think it is working sufficiently. I have reached the point that I believe that European countries should leave the refugee treaties (EHCR and UN refugee convention) as these are not working anymore. Simple example: families in war torn or unsafe countries send a single family member to Europe (including minors) because they know that when accepted, they can bring their family members over (by plane) because the right of having a family life is stipulated in the EHCR. No country that signed up to the EHCR can change anything substantial in their migration laws without leaving the EHCR. And this is just one example. These treaties are not fit for purpose anymore, they keep Europe hostage.
Europe is an aging society, with a shrinking population having to pay for an increasing welfare state bill, you can only afford when migration is a net positive for the economy and society.
Having said all this, I do hope the speeches of the Trump administration in Munich this week, will be a catalyst for the issues mentioned.
But if Vance, or the Trump administration think they can export the MAGA culture wars to Europe, I think they make an error or judgement: populist parties in Europe are as much ´my country first´ as is MAGA ´America first´ and certainly not in favor of dismantling the welfare state.
The UN Refugee Convention was introduced in 1951 and extended beyond European refugees by the 1967 New York Protocol. Why (in your opinion) have those treaties become unworkable now in particular?
The way I (and I think with me the majority of my country) thinks about refugees is as follows: from time to time there can be a war, we understand you seek shelter for war, we take you in, and when the war is over you go back again to your country.
Thats not the way it works in reality though: refugees has become a continuous stream, year after year, in large numbers and they hardly go back. So its not giving a temporary shelter anymore, it has become uncontrolled migration and that is not what we want.
The reason why we cant do anything about this in my understanding (and please correct me when I am wrong) is because these treaties force us to allow any refugee, so its per definition not controlled.
Therefore I find these treaties unworkable in the current circumstances. I want to add to this that there is in large part consensus among political parties that it has become unsustainable but our hands are tied by the treaties.
We are now in the absurd situation that in Europe we are doing everything to discourage potential refugees to come to Europe because we don want them in these numbers while we are not tackling the root cause: these unworkable treaties.
And there are more examples why the current system is weird: refugees travel through several countries to reach the country of choice, that is not fleeing for shelter anymore, thats migrating to the country of choice that they selected to build a new future as they have no desire to return.
If you want the population in our countries to continue to support to accept refugees, we need to move to a system of controlled migration, with agreed numbers, not the open end migration we have now.
What do we need to do in my opinion? We need a different refugee system. For example: when there is a war somewhere, the UNHCR should give shelter to people in neighboring countries. If the war continues for years, there should be a system where all or most members of the UN accept a certain number of these people that are than being transported from these refugee camps for long term migration. This way the numbers are controlled, so there is more support in the receiving countries, and you prevent that refugees start travelling through many countries (with all the dangers) and you also prevent that non refugees from other countries join the refugees with travelling to the receiving countries in an attempt for a better future like now.
I guess what I meant to ask is "what has changed since those treaties were written such that the authors of those treaties could not have predicted the current scenario?"
I'm kind of thinking of (for how example) how the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment was written well before automatic (or even semi-automatic) firearms became a thing.
I think many people have forgotten or never learned some of the lessons of WW II. Or they say, that was 90 years ago in a galaxy far far away. But as was said history doesnt repeat; it rhymes and we saw that appeasement did not work. Not coming to the aid of the Czechs who were feisty like Ukraine did not work. Russia is a clear and present threat to the lovely european life. and while Trump's approach goes beyond a rude awakening to potential abandonment, it needs to be a wake up call.
your ending on immigration is important. all aging countries need immigration; but smart immigration. discrimination by the needs to the recipient country seems hard hearted but is necessary
"smart immigration"? You mean a system that evaluates immigrants based on how they help the host country instead of the other way around? You mean like a points system? Like Canada has?
That's exactly what the American Right has been advocating for a decade+ now. That's what those scary MAGA/Trumpistas want.
There needs be some system. There are more people wanting to come to the U.S. than are wanted or will be allowed. So what should the criteria be?
1. Random lottery for all with hard cap on total?
2. Categories with random within category?
3. Highest EV to the country?
My great grandparents came to America 🇺🇸 in 1912 from Ukraine fleeing harassment but not death and seeking opportunity. They were processed at Ellis Island and had their names shortened. So I am pro immigration. Just saying there needs to be some rules and criteria. We ration healthcare. Countries that have national healthcare like Canada and uK 🇬🇧 ration healthcare. Rationing is life.
My criteria ranking ?
1. Smart and hard working
2. Less smart and hard working
3. At existential risk of life like women from Afghanistan and Iran.
Why is evaluating benefit to accepting country scary and MAGA? My daughter lives and works in Denmark. She has a work related residence visa. I can’t just show up there and expect residency status. Won’t happen. They have rules. Are they scary MAGA?
Let’s say the U.S. has the capacity to take in 3.5 million people a year? 1% of the population. But the demand to come is 20 million? How would you do it?
My final question was actually facetious. I would do it the same way you would: a points based admission system. The only adjustments I would make:
Education and Skills -- Regardless of how hard-working, if I have a choice between a grape picker and a PhD in fab design, I'm taking the latter.
Cultural Compatibility -- I wouldn't actually use a religious test, but fundamentally, Latin American Catholics and secular Europeans should get priority over African Muslims or Indian Buddhists.
I could also live with keeping some element of "family unification" as well, but only for parents and spouses, not adult kids, aunts, uncles, 3rd cousins, etc... Because separating people from their other half or their parents is just cruel. But that limited list prevents the "chain migration" problem we have now.
But... to the Left (not Noah) that forms the core of the Democratic Party today, we're both a couple of bigots who just hate brown people.
I'm surprised to see the outright endorsement of German and Polish nuclearization, which could conceivably represent a first step down a slippery slope toward rampant global proliferation. I think you've previously made similar comments about the need for Japan and South Korea to consider arming if certain trends continue, but that these suggestions were more contingent. I think more on this topic, including the risks and why you think they're outweighed in this case, would be very interesting to read.
Without the US security umbrella, nuclear proliferation was guaranteed.
Hegseth's speech should be remembered in history as the day that umbrella dissolved.
Make no mistake, proliferation will be very wide: Europe, east Asia, even North America. In a world in which the US has returned to threatening annexation of countries, even the Canadians are figuring out how fast they can make nukes (A: less than a year).
I'm not convinced that if a country (like North Korea for example) wants nuclear weapons badly enough, it is really possible to stop them by means short of all-out war.
I don't think we'll be taking any lessons about freedoms and rights from Republican politicians - at least not now and certainly not on the issue of abortion rights. Abortion clinic buffer zones maintain the liberal principle that individuals are free to do what they want provided it doesn't impinge on others' freedoms. Health, reproductive health in particular, is a private matter. Call us old-fashioned, but we consider crowds of God-botherers trying to deter women from accessing a legal health procedure, to be an infringement of women's rights in this private matter. Contrary to Vance's claim, there is nothing in the law about not allowing people to pray in their own homes. He lies a lot, you know.
Vance is also wrong about Europe sharing core values with the US. We don't. We just have a bit more in common with you than we have with everybody else. God, guns, abortion, the death penalty, incarceration, the role of the state. You name it, we grimace at America's take on it. Part of this may be what Freud called the narcissism of small differences, but most of it is just the big difference of different differences. Nations don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. And our interests are diverging. The US doesn't need European markets any more or need us as a buffer against Communism? Fine. We don't need butt-faced, shit-kickers like Vance coming over here and lecturing us about freedom. We're all off to the Eastern Front!
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You think caring about liberty and democracy are “just having a bit more in common?” Ok maybe you would be better off dominated by Russia+China then, if freedom from dictatorship barely registers with you compared to freedom from religion - Russia and China each are similarly godless, so you can enjoy vassalage in that relationship.
Caring about liberty and democracy matters a lot. But the current US administration has been taking a lot of illegal authoritarian actions in their first few weeks, that makes one wonder whether their stated desire to overturn elections might be real.
Yes, because your versions of liberty and democracy are so different from ours. For one thing, you seem to be incapable of discussing anything without resorting to childish hyperbole. Ex hypothesi, the US is going to take care of China. So all we have to do is contain Russia. And as the Ukraine has been doing that on its own for several years (albeit with assistance), I don't think that's going to be too big an ask. It had better not be, because the days of looking to the US for leadership are gone.
I am surprised that you brought up the sources of European complacency and the population aging/lack of fertility, without drawing the relationship there. Europe is old! Old people don’t care as much about the future; old people without children certainly don’t care much about the future. Russia slowly dominating Europe matters much less to a European pensioner than the prospect of their pension getting cut - ie that they’ll have to spend their remaining years doing only 2 vacations abroad a year instead of 3.
And of course this is one of the major dangers of aging and infertility that gets overlooked: that the risk tolerance and balance of short-term vs. long-term incentives gets heavily warped when a country is majority 70 year olds as opposed to 20 year olds. It’s not just about the economics of having to support more pensioners with fewer workers; it’s also that the political decision making to so sustainably gets crippled.
That argument doesn't work when it comes to defence and war. Older people without children are more likely to favour defence and war because they don't have children to risk.
Earlier today, I had a surreal conversation with my wife that I never expected to have: should it become necessary, would we prefer to acquiesce to the US's policy to annex Canada, or to have our young military age children drafted and possibly killed? FWIW, I've lost a child before, and I don't know the answer to the question yet.
In contrast, if I was one of the so-called 'child-free', to the extent there's any dilemma, it's mostly abstract.
True, but not for all older societies. Younger societies increase the likelihood of war, but so do societies with high rates of childlessness.
Since 2012, there has been a significant increase in childlessness across nearly the whole world. The last time childlessness reached these rates was 1900-1935.
Great analysis, Noah, capturing the essential dilemmas facing Europe in this MAGA era.
However, you seem to have ignored one of your previous crucial points: USA cannot hope to match Chinese industrial strength without its allies. And MAGA has just jettisoned its European allies. How do you square this?
I hope you are right, but it certainly looks like a unique and irreversible change from a European point of view. If Europe cannot be sure of USA alliance, we must stand on our own two feet. If we succeed, the relationship at best will be on a case by case basis, rather than the democratic alliance, which has been the cornerstone of the world order for over 100 years.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised. Europe seems like they will do anything to avoid standing on their own two feet. I don't even know if they would draw the line at becoming Chinese vassal states.
Talk about re-deploying European forces to face the China threat is mostly hot air, as Trump actually wants to work with China and President Xi.
Trump has even attacked Taiwan! Who at this point really thinks Trump would stand up to China?
Something that has been clear since 2016 is that Trump is pro-Putin. European countries should have known even before this week that a Trump administration is not to be trusted. I sincerely hope they stopped sharing intelligence with the US the moment he became president but if they have not they should do so right away.
Trump's friends and by extension the US government are Putin, Xi and alt-right leaders around the world. Europe needs to face that reality. The defense of democracy and freedom from the Putin-XI-Trump axis is in your hands .
I don’t believe any American president really has the stones for fighting the Chinese in their backyard. Biden, afraid of offending Putin, was not directly fighting the Chinese.
Fighting the Chinese in their backyard is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario.
Aircraft carriers were the power projections of WWII but are floating targets in the era of long-range missile and drone warfare. And the Chinese outbuild us on both 100:1.
I am very bullish on Europe. If they can muster the reforms, I think they could emerge in a fantastic position with a unified defense force and a much stronger economy. The political will is going to be the hard one. It's going to be an interesting decade.
I have a hard time being bullish Europe on that basis given that we just watched Russia try to bring back law of the jungle, and Europe didn’t budge. All talk, no action. Hard to see how that changes now.
That isn't true; look at how much Europe has given financially and is giving. Not to mention pushing more members into NATO. They have to do more, but they have stepped up in a thousand little ways. Look at the Baltic switching power, look at the German drones starting to be produced on mass, Ukraine troop training, etc.
How much are you plugged into all the micro-stories as things start rolling forward?
I support EU acc but I question whether it is possible to have an efficient tax system when you have transfer payments of 30% of GDP. I reckon with an efficient tax system (prioritise land, carbon and consumption taxes and keep income and corporate tax to 10-15%) you can only get tax to about a quarter of GDP. That leads you to some very Lee Kuan Yew-like conclusions. https://x.com/mevrael/status/1890886547358257433?s=61&t=zAeTh4YBzbO2k3ARJ9MCMQ
shrug, not sure, I will trust *them* to figure that out :). I think you need a hard max on total taxes as, at some point, you max out the curve. But I've never seen any proof of this so-called "lack of drive due to social insurance." Everyone I know wants to work at a good job, the problem is finding a job that values you and your skillset.
My personal opinion is that the EU has problems with economic dynamism, the system has some natural and artificial limits on fast-growing companies. And limiting fast growing companies is really bad as there is where a huge portion of job grow and career growth come from. Some of that is language based, but a lot of it is artificial around hiring/firing limitations. I would love to see the EU on mass build in the labor protections at the government level instead of forcing companies to take on that huge burden and not allowing them to take more risks / less employment debt.
I think this is a great piece. As in your article about what DOGE is really up to, you are looking deeper and speaking more clearly than almost anyone else.
That said, I will suggest a (slightly) different answer to the question you begin with: are Hegseth and Vance being sincere, or just playing to their political base? May I suggest they are both doing both? There is no more basic skill in politics than convincing yourself that what is politically convenient for you is also the right thing to do.
Taking that a step further, I suggest that Hegseth and Vance are both embracing the MAGA worldview (as they must, given the positions they hold), but also trying to mold and express it in intelligent, constructive ways (which many members of the MAGA movement, including its chief, do not do). So I give them a bit if credit.
The piece on DOGE wasn't deeper or clearer, just blinkered by affinity and extremely naive.
The logic that getting rid of agencies (or functionally gutting them) is about trashing DEI - because they can't actually defund agencies - is premised on the idea that Trump will never defy Congress or the courts, or suborn the DOJ.
Because of course, there's no evidence he would ever do that. /s
I think we all know that relying solely on the US was a mistake from the start. In practice, a united Europe and the US are natural rivals on the same level as the US and China. Relying on the protection of an overseas superpower that does business with individual countries in the region and has no interest in building a united European bloc is naive, if not stupid. Intuitively, we know what this is due to: the complacency of the European elites. Now this laziness is taking its toll on us. However, I don't think that building a common European army is a realistic project. The interests of EU member states are too divergent. For example, what interest does Spain have in rearming itself in case of a conflict that will most probably unfold in CEE? Instead, we should build interoperable blocks within countries with converging interests - just as Poland and the Baltic States have started to cooperate closely in cyber defence. Joint arms projects could also be considered, but history shows that these collaborations end poorly for all those who cooperate with Germany or France.
French nuclear umbrella might be a good idea if not for the fact, that France adheres to its principle of “strict sufficiency” whereby it keeps its nuclear arsenal at the lowest possible level in accordance with the strategic context. It's estimated that they have about 290 warheads. On the other hand, their nuclear policy states that France may use nuclear weapons first in order to defend its vital interests. They would therefore have to extend this doctrine to the entire EU and sufficiently increase the number of warheads, which seems unlikely in the current situation. Unless they were offered exceptional benefits in this respect (although I don't know what could convince France to make such a move). UK can most probably be excluded from this equation. They now embody Orwell's vision of Oceania - the outpost of the US that keeps an eye on continental Europe.
The only way to get a unified European military would be for Europe as a whole to be more unified, for the military-aged in Spain to see something happening in East Europe as an attack on all of Europe or European values as a whole.
To me that's the most important. For Europe to define what it means to be European and united under the banner of those values.
My guess is that Europeans as a whole have a lot more in common than their differences.... so it starts there. Defining what exactly the commonalities are and banding together behind those.
The EU motto is "Unity in diversity" which is bullshit. We do not unite from diversity, we unite by what our commonalities are despite our diversities.
That was one of Vance's best lines: "I've had lots of conversations today about what you're defending Europe FROM, but precious few about what you're defending Europe FOR."
The national identity called "America" was forged in the Civil War and crystalized by a strong national government overriding the states by force. The EU would love to become such an entity, but the rise of AfD and RN indicate that Europe's leading populations aren't on board with that.
Dear Dr Smith - is it possible that your well-known (and entirely defensible, if not beyond argument) ultra-hawkish views on China have overcome your good sense and, with regard to security policy in Europe, rendered you MAGA-curious? Vance is barnstorming Germany in defense of a political party which can fairly be described as Nazi-curious and Holocaust-minimizing, and that, together with implicit flattery of Russia, is the motivating force of every disgraceful word coming out of his mouth. Hegseth chose exactly the right city in which to pitch the last pile of dirt on democracy promotion and support of postwar allies as American security policy. The point has been made that at least Chamberlain and Daladier were, in part, buying time while Trump and his goons are actively trying to ally the United States with Russia. The folly here is the belief that selling out Ukraine and cutting loose those squishy lefties in western Europe, guilty of the sins of desiring modern welfare states and worrying about avoiding World War III, is somehow going to contribute to strength and deterrence against China. Trump is busy trying to save a social media company controlled by the Chinese Communist Party! The foreign policy vision of this administration isn't a pivot to the China threat, it is classic Lindberghian America First - carve up the world into three authoritarian geographic spheres of influence - China, Russia and the United States, with devil take the hindmost for our traditional allies, which are, for the time being, mostly, you know, democracies, in spite of the fact that they-advertently-don't have First Amendments. It is a dark day indeed when you of all people are signposting American Petainism.
"is it possible that your well-known (and entirely defensible, if not beyond argument) ultra-hawkish views on China have overcome your good sense and, with regard to security policy in Europe, rendered you MAGA-curious?" <-- No, I think MAGA is bad. But I still hope they'll do the right thing with regards to Asia and China security policy, because if they screw it up, we're all in big trouble.
"The foreign policy vision of this administration isn't a pivot to the China threat, it is classic Lindberghian America First - carve up the world into three authoritarian geographic spheres of influence - China, Russia and the United States" <-- I do think that one faction within the Trump administration is definitely thinking along those lines. But it's obvious that others really do want to oppose Chinese hegemony. (And I know this from talking to some of the MAGA people.) So it's still uncertain which way things will shake out.
"It is a dark day indeed when you of all people are signposting American Petainism." <-- I think you used an ambiguous, vague word like "signposting" because you want to accuse me of *supporting* Trump's foreign policy, but rationally you know (and my other readers know) that I don't actually support most of it. So what you want to do is to make a sort of quasi-accusation of support, in order to shame me into shifting my primary focus toward full-throated condemnation of Trump. But this was not a post about Trump's foreign policy. It was a post about what Europe needs to do, for its own security. Trump isn't listening to what I write, but maybe a few European leaders will.
I took Noah's position as being less about how he wants US politics to be playing out and more about what the realities are on the ground.
Which parts of the article support the idea that Noah is happy about Trump's posture toward Europe?
No-one is claiming that Noah said he's "happy about Trump's posture toward Europe." I think what Xantar and others are rightly reacting to is the paragraph in which Noah says "I’m a bit agnostic as to which of these interpretations [Trump regime telling Europe hard truth versus supporting Putin and his right-wing European friends] is correct." This is BS: the tell is that nowhere do Hegseth and Vance actually call on Europe to stand against Russian aggression. If the Trump regime wanted that it would be telling Europe what assistance it will provide if Europe commits to rebuilding its defense forces and industrial base for that purpose. Noah is right that Europe has to face hard realities either way, but that provides no justification for being agnostic about whether the Trump regime wants the Putin-friendly right to win in Europe.
I didn't read that as Noah saying he's agnostic about what they're doing or what happens, only that he's agnostic about which interpretation of what's driving the WH position makes the most sense.
I thought Noah's main point is regardless of motive, the US is clearly largely disengaging from Europe. Trump just wants some kind of settlement of Ukraine that extracts the US from there and Europe in general. Personally, I'm not sure how the US will engage in Asia either. I think Trump intends to abandon Taiwan to the PRC. I think he wants to appease a China-Rus axis in the hope it will allow the US free reign in the Western Hemisphere where he'll make like miserable for our neighbors.
Well, I do see Hegseth praising Poland a lot. Poland is the one European country that's doing enough on defense right now, and it's incredibly strongly anti-Russia.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/15/us-defence-secretary-praises-poland-as-model-nato-ally-during-visit
To me, that's evidence that not everyone in the Trump administration sees Russia as an ally, though some do.
I think Hegseth's praise for Poland comes more from the pov of them being able to carry their own weight within NATO and the broader military alliance of the western world meaning that the US does not have to worry/care about them as much. It doesn't necessarily have to directly with Russia. The Poles are (rightly) more worried about Russia while the current US administration just seems to want itself less tangled up in European affairs in general
As Noah said, it doesn't really matter what the reasons are, it's happening anyway as America simply cannot guarantee European security with the rest of the world chasing parity and modernization very quickly. You can pound the table all you want, but afterwards I suggest it's time to ramp up defense.
It's not even a 'spheres of influence' game of a century ago, it's simply a fact that the rest of the world has increased capacity and there are far more threats to far more allies than just European countries. I don't know why this is so hard to accept. The world is different than it was in WWII
It’s not like the Biden regime covered itself in glory, slow walking the Ukrainians until they froze them in a quagmire because they were worried about how angry they could make Putin. What happened to the Powell doctrine?
My thoughts were the US was simply being pragmatic. It isn’t pretty, but we supply the weapons and Ukraine supplied the dead. Ukraine and Russia fighting each other until the last man was standing weakened both, but most importantly weakened Russia.
But politicians and military planners should have been well aware of the efficacy of pressing an advantage when they had it.
I'm afraid that this doctrine was killed in Vietnam by Kissinger. The Ukrainian scenario is, with some obvious differences, quite similar. Let the war continue until the country is bled dry, supply weapons, etc. And then abandon the project, claiming that you have more important things to take care of. The country will be left in the middle of a war with equipment, but without fuel, ammunition or money. Devastated and depopulated, left to fend for itself.
Well, Vietnam seems to have recovered pretty well, with greater than 6% annual GDP growth since 1975, though they are still somewhat communist.
Poland also had a great GDP increase for the last 3 decades. But it's much easier to have that growth when you start from 0.
Should Biden have sent its most powerful weapon systems into Ukraine? US troops? Even as a Putin hawk, does Noah dismiss the risk that direct, aggressive US intervention would have sparked nuclear war?
The Powell Doctrine doesn't work against a nuclear armed state.
Well said . Just as I take out a paid subscription he seems to loose his mind. Looks like I will have to cancel that. I do usually appreciate his essays. But what is it with this China thing. Many of us watch with interest as to what dictator shall reign hell down on our grandkids and great grandkids. Of the the three I am tending to lean towards China. Because they don’t fucking pretend to be a democracy.
The PRC does claim to be a socialist democracy, or people’s democratic dictatorship. They are also clearly making preparations for empire. If you believe China is not a threat, you may be whistling in the dark.
http://english.www.gov.cn/news/202412/31/content_WS6773ac22c6d0868f4e8ee674.html
Did I say China is not a threat ( without going into what do we mean by threat and a threat to what at what costs to whom , the individual or the mass). I think I said, or clumsily hinted that , if I am going to live under a dictatorship and my choice is USA styled one under Trump, a Russian one or a China one. I might prefer China. Now you might or others might wish to say something about human rights , surveillance and curtailment of free speech, and you will probably say it without any irony. Maybe my humour does not translate well. I think I get Noahs analysis and would be hard pressed to argue with him but he does a have a thing about China. I am really just curious. And I would like to know what it is we are protecting , is it the destruction of your healthcare system, your housing stock for low income people, the massive gains you made on lifting people out of poverty(that might be a cheap shot) , your freedom of speech (which I would have said your on a winner there except maybe recently your media has taken a bit of a dark turn). If there is a call to arms I would like to know what it is we are fighting for. A Trump dystopia engineered by billionaires and Christian Nationalists, not sure I am behind that one. A president who sides with an Invader. I would like to know what negotiating handbook thats from. Maybe he does the thing he does because he truly does want to provide a common prosperity for all the population. And if he pulls that off, maybe thats what we fight for.
Also, while they have strategic interests in this part of the world, they don't really seem to have political ambitions to install satellite governments here and impose their rules for internal affairs of European countries. Unlike at least one of the two other countries of this tribunal.
well, we can complain in Europe but cant say it was a surprise what the Trump administration is doing. Europe has had 2 months to come up with our own plan for stopping the war in Ukraine since Trump won the elections, have you heard anything about an agreed plan from European countries? I have not. Europe now wants a seat at the table, how many seats exactly and who is going to fill them and what is the agreed European plan? As much as I dislike whats going on, I can understand Trump picks up the phone without waiting for Europe. Its probably not going to work with sitting with many countries around the table to negotiate with Russia. I did listen to Kellogg (Trumps Ukraine envoy) in Munich, it seems the USA actually has some kind of plan and still much is possible. Lets hope for the best.
I'm not sure Kellogg matters. I think Hegseth cut the ground out from under him.
Yes, Trump is icky, but he’s correct about Europe. It’s time for Europe to grow up. Three generations of free riding are enough. A continent with a GDP almost as big as ours should be able to face down a country with 1/4 of its population and a smaller GDP than Canada. If they cannot do that, they are shitty allied and it’s their problem.
Free-riding? Much of Europe has been supporting many of America's questionable military adventures since 1991.
Regardless it is really strange how American nationalists seem to think making Europe less dependent on American military power will help its hegemony.
1) because those wars were stupid, europes help didn’t advance us interests
2) european help in the iraq war was fairly token. compare the money the us has spent defending europe to european disbursements in iraq and it isn’t close
1) Skill issue. It's America's fault if it chooses to fight stupid wars, not Europe's.
2) The British army fielded around 10% of all troops during the Iraq war. Hardly token.
3) You're forgetting European involvement in the Afghanistan war.
i’m not really interested in assigning fault. that question is only useful rhetorically. i am interested in pursuing american interests
It's not weird at all. America First accepts that other countries will put themselves first too. Liberals seem to think that means we'll be at each other's throats, but there's no reason to believe that. I want to see a strong Europe because I share cultural and historical ties with you guys. I expect Macron to be "France First" and Scholtz to be "Germany First" (for another week, then I hope it's Weidel but I know it won't be.) This doesn't bother me.
It's time for Europe to grow up. We were happy to support you after WWII -- you needed it. We probably should have pushed you out in the 80's since you've been living in our basement playing videogames for the last 40 years. But now we are, so learn to drive, get a job, do your own laundry, and start "adulting".
Both you and we will be stronger and more resilient when you do.
Do you believe that France First, Germany First, Italy First etc. add up to a strong Europe? Trump nationalists seem to be very anti-EU. But a strong Europe would seem to require coordination and integration. Just like the US probably wouldn't be a powerful nation under the Articles of Confederation.
Since you used the US as an example:
It took a war against an empire to move America past a confederation. It was paper thin even then -- a sizeable part of the Constitutional Convention wanted to retain the Articles.
Even after 1789, "American" as an identity didn't exist. Forging that took another (failed) revolution -- the Civil War -- as Washington DC forced recalcitrant states to bend to the national will.
I hope you see where I'm going here... "European" as an identity exists even less than "American" did pre-Civil War. Only the urban, educated class would identify as European, and they really mean globalist / citizen-of-the-world. Lacking a broadly shared European identity, I don't think you can go much further than you have, and I don't think you really want Brussels to do the kinds of things that would be necessary to override European national identities completely. (As Washington DC did after the Civil War.)
So, in answer to your question, yes! I believe you get a strong Europe by having a strong Germany, a strong France, et al, and you get those from leaders who have broad democratic mandates and thus can implement policies their populations support. That doesn't mean they shouldn't work together, but the shared European policies must derive from shared interests and mutual strength.
Today in Europe, you have a ruling class in Brussels that openly uses blackmail and threats to force member countries to bend to its will, and leaders of major countries that openly despise large minorities of their population. You will never get a strong Europe until both of these are addressed.
I don't think Europeans feel strongly linked to Maga Americans. It's like a distillation of all the negative stereotypes we have about you all.
That makes sense, especially since Trump epitomizes the "ugly American" that Europeans so enjoy making fun of.
But that wasn't what I was saying. What MAGA rejects is globalism. They think borders and culture and countries matter. Which is exactly what Orban or Meloni or LePen or Wiedel believe. And MAGA respects that -- thus there's nothing strange about an America First movement also believing in a France First or Germany First movement.
I'm sure you understand while people are slightly worried here of "Germany First" sentiment.
By the way - rich of you to say " since you've been living in our basement playing videogames for the last 40 years". Did Americans react positively to de Gaulle requesting Americans to leave and leaving NATO unified command? More recently, did Americans were happy to see French strategic independence when they refused to go to Iraq, or were they angrily eating their "freedom fries"?
This gets me confused. MAGA rejects globalism you write, what does globalism mean to MAGA or you? I thought Globalism means things like an international rules based order and organisations supporting this. Though I do agree with respect for cultural differences. And as this rules based order was mainly an invention of Western powers after WW2 based upon Western values, I support this. If MAGA, or you reject this, what is the alternative? I can respect the choice of isolationism by countries, but doubt it is in the interest of the USA and Europa. After all, China and Russia do have an alternative for what I consider the ´globalist´ rules based order and that is a world with rule by autocratic power purely based upon their own interest, including taking land by force or other means. This would be going back to how the world has been for millennia, I do not see this as an improvement.
Having said this: I think globalism has been corrupted by for example starting an UN Human rights council that accepts countries with the worst human rights records. But than the answer would be in my opinion try to root out the corruption or leave organisations that do not function but not rejecting the idea of globalism.
Hearing Americans, it sounds like their hands were tied when admitting countries to NATO, or perhaps they did it out of pure goodness in their heart.
Well Clinton was really spooked by the 1994 mid-terms. No wonder he let the Poles and the Czechs in after their leaders threatened to support Bob Doles campaign.
I feel like a lot of these articles try to rationalise what's going on in America when fundamentally what Trump is doing is irrational. Trump decided to do a deal with Putin, and now everyone is scrambling to justify or villify this decision. It's probably a poor decision in most dimensions and it sucks for those of us with ties to the USA and Europe (im British). Now we have to decide if we live in mummy Europe's nice house with good food but poor economics or if we go to daddy Americas with sort of a chaotic environment but we get to watch TV all day and eat McDonald's.
As Noah Smith commented, freezing out large constituencies from the political process can destabilize a country. Vance spoke to the fact that parties on both the left and right had been excluded. The absence of a First Amendment doesn’t mean that the value of freedom of speech is alien to Western Europe; after all, it is part of the inheritance the US has from Europe. It isn’t necessary to spin plain meaning into a political diatribe.
Rheeeeeeee!!
If the US is "overmatched by China" (and it is), then it will need allies. Hegseth and Vance just sent our most important allies packing, with the message that there is no longer anything in their alliance with the US for them.
The reaction in the US press has been mostly that Hegseth and Vance made concessions to Russia over Ukraine before negotiations even began formally. But they are likely to have given away something much important -- our most reliable and durable military alliance.
I don't like how this is playing out, but one concession I'd make is that Europe building up its military will ultimately create more western capability against China compared to the status quo.
The question is whether the US and Europe would perceive the risks of a Taiwan takeover or other hypothetical China aggression similarly or if there's some future disagreement about the cost/benefit math of repelling China in some specific case.
We have got to convince China that it needs the West, all of it, America and Europe, and that the violent takeover of Taiwan would destroy any chance of its influence continuing. Currently China exports its surplus to all of us and we all buy it using Amazon. Instead of posturing about matching military might, we should emphasise how world trade is good for everyone.
Before WWI, there was massive trade that benefited everyone. It stopped nothing. There are many more conditions and motives than benefiting from trade. You need only look to China’s aggression against its neighbors surrounding the South China Sea. A different policy would have made them all wealthier through trade. China doesn’t care, even with the international court ruling against its claims.
We should stop kidding ourselves about Taiwan. If we don’t deter a Chinese invasion I cannot see an international order that was petrified of proxies offending Putin engaging in even limited direct military combat against the Chinese in their backyard.
If I was a Taiwan citizen, I'd either plan on accommodating the CCP, or try to leave.
A unified military hopefully also means EU defense industry spending instead of that going to the USA. And hopefully this also brings a lot of internal economic and governance reforms to make the EU operate more like a federation.
How the hell is Europe going to help us project power into East Asian if they can’t even stop Russia?
They could help us economically and logistically -- by supplementing our industrial capacity for example. In any event, it is idiotic to burn bridges with them over Ukraine, NATO and dangers in East Asia in the span of a few days. Certainly it would have been better to sit down with them quietly and talk through all of this first. The calculus that Vance in particular enunciated is that European failure to embrace its right-wing parties is a more significant threat than anything related to Asia or Russia or anything defense-related.
American administrations have asked Europe to invest more in its defense since Truman. Russia seized Crimea 11 years ago and Europe still hasn’t stepped up. At some point, there must be consequences
Sure, and if that's what Vance and Hegseth had done, they would have been in that long tradition. Saying expressly that the greatest danger is from within, visiting the AfD, etc., is not what Truman et al did. In one case the US was trying to *build up* its alliance with Europe; in the present case they are very evidently trying to *destroy* it.
The Trump administration is definitely picking ideological fights for ideological reasons and to distract populists while they cut rich peoples’ taxes. That has nothing to do with whether Europe is free riding or whether it is in our interest to defend them
Quite right.
Less than 24 hours after Hegseth and Vance, there's this overture by the Chinese. They clearly see an opportunity for realignment.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-tells-eu-it-is-willing-enhance-communication-2025-02-15/
Yep
I agree with your assessment of Trump and company but you completely overrate Europe’s military importance. They cannot take of themselves vis a bid Russia and are next to worthless against China.
Even Britian, whose military is of high quality but ohh so small, would not provide much. Their carriers would require US support and I doubt that they would risk them against China if threatened by Russia.
Again, I despise Trump and Vance’s actions but it really does not matter
militarily. South Korea, Japan, helping the Philippines develop its military and building alliances with places like India and Indonesia are militarily valuable
You rightly point out all the issues and dilemmas and it shows how complicated the situation is.
Some thoughts:
While I call myself a European in these discussions when comparing Europe with the US or China, truth is that Europe is not a country. We are still a patchwork of smaller countries with different cultures. There is the EU with an European parliament but ordinary citizens in Europe hardly are aware of what they decide. There is no European demos and thats what is needed to become a country. And I am afraid I dont see this changing for a long time.
So with all the talk about better and more integrated defense and economy, all true, but it will be a slow process. We simply cant copy the speed of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. On the upside: we might not copy their mistakes.
On migration: populist parties have in large part risen because of the uncontrolled migration from across the Mediterranean sea. Laws have become more strict in countries trying to bring down the numbers but I dont think it is working sufficiently. I have reached the point that I believe that European countries should leave the refugee treaties (EHCR and UN refugee convention) as these are not working anymore. Simple example: families in war torn or unsafe countries send a single family member to Europe (including minors) because they know that when accepted, they can bring their family members over (by plane) because the right of having a family life is stipulated in the EHCR. No country that signed up to the EHCR can change anything substantial in their migration laws without leaving the EHCR. And this is just one example. These treaties are not fit for purpose anymore, they keep Europe hostage.
Europe is an aging society, with a shrinking population having to pay for an increasing welfare state bill, you can only afford when migration is a net positive for the economy and society.
Having said all this, I do hope the speeches of the Trump administration in Munich this week, will be a catalyst for the issues mentioned.
But if Vance, or the Trump administration think they can export the MAGA culture wars to Europe, I think they make an error or judgement: populist parties in Europe are as much ´my country first´ as is MAGA ´America first´ and certainly not in favor of dismantling the welfare state.
The UN Refugee Convention was introduced in 1951 and extended beyond European refugees by the 1967 New York Protocol. Why (in your opinion) have those treaties become unworkable now in particular?
The way I (and I think with me the majority of my country) thinks about refugees is as follows: from time to time there can be a war, we understand you seek shelter for war, we take you in, and when the war is over you go back again to your country.
Thats not the way it works in reality though: refugees has become a continuous stream, year after year, in large numbers and they hardly go back. So its not giving a temporary shelter anymore, it has become uncontrolled migration and that is not what we want.
The reason why we cant do anything about this in my understanding (and please correct me when I am wrong) is because these treaties force us to allow any refugee, so its per definition not controlled.
Therefore I find these treaties unworkable in the current circumstances. I want to add to this that there is in large part consensus among political parties that it has become unsustainable but our hands are tied by the treaties.
We are now in the absurd situation that in Europe we are doing everything to discourage potential refugees to come to Europe because we don want them in these numbers while we are not tackling the root cause: these unworkable treaties.
And there are more examples why the current system is weird: refugees travel through several countries to reach the country of choice, that is not fleeing for shelter anymore, thats migrating to the country of choice that they selected to build a new future as they have no desire to return.
If you want the population in our countries to continue to support to accept refugees, we need to move to a system of controlled migration, with agreed numbers, not the open end migration we have now.
What do we need to do in my opinion? We need a different refugee system. For example: when there is a war somewhere, the UNHCR should give shelter to people in neighboring countries. If the war continues for years, there should be a system where all or most members of the UN accept a certain number of these people that are than being transported from these refugee camps for long term migration. This way the numbers are controlled, so there is more support in the receiving countries, and you prevent that refugees start travelling through many countries (with all the dangers) and you also prevent that non refugees from other countries join the refugees with travelling to the receiving countries in an attempt for a better future like now.
I guess what I meant to ask is "what has changed since those treaties were written such that the authors of those treaties could not have predicted the current scenario?"
I'm kind of thinking of (for how example) how the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment was written well before automatic (or even semi-automatic) firearms became a thing.
I think many people have forgotten or never learned some of the lessons of WW II. Or they say, that was 90 years ago in a galaxy far far away. But as was said history doesnt repeat; it rhymes and we saw that appeasement did not work. Not coming to the aid of the Czechs who were feisty like Ukraine did not work. Russia is a clear and present threat to the lovely european life. and while Trump's approach goes beyond a rude awakening to potential abandonment, it needs to be a wake up call.
your ending on immigration is important. all aging countries need immigration; but smart immigration. discrimination by the needs to the recipient country seems hard hearted but is necessary
"smart immigration"? You mean a system that evaluates immigrants based on how they help the host country instead of the other way around? You mean like a points system? Like Canada has?
That's exactly what the American Right has been advocating for a decade+ now. That's what those scary MAGA/Trumpistas want.
There needs be some system. There are more people wanting to come to the U.S. than are wanted or will be allowed. So what should the criteria be?
1. Random lottery for all with hard cap on total?
2. Categories with random within category?
3. Highest EV to the country?
My great grandparents came to America 🇺🇸 in 1912 from Ukraine fleeing harassment but not death and seeking opportunity. They were processed at Ellis Island and had their names shortened. So I am pro immigration. Just saying there needs to be some rules and criteria. We ration healthcare. Countries that have national healthcare like Canada and uK 🇬🇧 ration healthcare. Rationing is life.
My criteria ranking ?
1. Smart and hard working
2. Less smart and hard working
3. At existential risk of life like women from Afghanistan and Iran.
Why is evaluating benefit to accepting country scary and MAGA? My daughter lives and works in Denmark. She has a work related residence visa. I can’t just show up there and expect residency status. Won’t happen. They have rules. Are they scary MAGA?
Let’s say the U.S. has the capacity to take in 3.5 million people a year? 1% of the population. But the demand to come is 20 million? How would you do it?
My final question was actually facetious. I would do it the same way you would: a points based admission system. The only adjustments I would make:
Education and Skills -- Regardless of how hard-working, if I have a choice between a grape picker and a PhD in fab design, I'm taking the latter.
Cultural Compatibility -- I wouldn't actually use a religious test, but fundamentally, Latin American Catholics and secular Europeans should get priority over African Muslims or Indian Buddhists.
I could also live with keeping some element of "family unification" as well, but only for parents and spouses, not adult kids, aunts, uncles, 3rd cousins, etc... Because separating people from their other half or their parents is just cruel. But that limited list prevents the "chain migration" problem we have now.
But... to the Left (not Noah) that forms the core of the Democratic Party today, we're both a couple of bigots who just hate brown people.
I'm surprised to see the outright endorsement of German and Polish nuclearization, which could conceivably represent a first step down a slippery slope toward rampant global proliferation. I think you've previously made similar comments about the need for Japan and South Korea to consider arming if certain trends continue, but that these suggestions were more contingent. I think more on this topic, including the risks and why you think they're outweighed in this case, would be very interesting to read.
Without the US security umbrella, nuclear proliferation was guaranteed.
Hegseth's speech should be remembered in history as the day that umbrella dissolved.
Make no mistake, proliferation will be very wide: Europe, east Asia, even North America. In a world in which the US has returned to threatening annexation of countries, even the Canadians are figuring out how fast they can make nukes (A: less than a year).
I'm not convinced that if a country (like North Korea for example) wants nuclear weapons badly enough, it is really possible to stop them by means short of all-out war.
I don't think we'll be taking any lessons about freedoms and rights from Republican politicians - at least not now and certainly not on the issue of abortion rights. Abortion clinic buffer zones maintain the liberal principle that individuals are free to do what they want provided it doesn't impinge on others' freedoms. Health, reproductive health in particular, is a private matter. Call us old-fashioned, but we consider crowds of God-botherers trying to deter women from accessing a legal health procedure, to be an infringement of women's rights in this private matter. Contrary to Vance's claim, there is nothing in the law about not allowing people to pray in their own homes. He lies a lot, you know.
Vance is also wrong about Europe sharing core values with the US. We don't. We just have a bit more in common with you than we have with everybody else. God, guns, abortion, the death penalty, incarceration, the role of the state. You name it, we grimace at America's take on it. Part of this may be what Freud called the narcissism of small differences, but most of it is just the big difference of different differences. Nations don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. And our interests are diverging. The US doesn't need European markets any more or need us as a buffer against Communism? Fine. We don't need butt-faced, shit-kickers like Vance coming over here and lecturing us about freedom. We're all off to the Eastern Front!
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You think caring about liberty and democracy are “just having a bit more in common?” Ok maybe you would be better off dominated by Russia+China then, if freedom from dictatorship barely registers with you compared to freedom from religion - Russia and China each are similarly godless, so you can enjoy vassalage in that relationship.
Caring about liberty and democracy matters a lot. But the current US administration has been taking a lot of illegal authoritarian actions in their first few weeks, that makes one wonder whether their stated desire to overturn elections might be real.
Yes, because your versions of liberty and democracy are so different from ours. For one thing, you seem to be incapable of discussing anything without resorting to childish hyperbole. Ex hypothesi, the US is going to take care of China. So all we have to do is contain Russia. And as the Ukraine has been doing that on its own for several years (albeit with assistance), I don't think that's going to be too big an ask. It had better not be, because the days of looking to the US for leadership are gone.
"With Europe, there’s always the danger that But in fact, there’s a historical precedent for European countries putting aside their"
This looks like an editing error.
Probably Napoleon's spies trying to prevent Austria from ... coalition ... blurgh.
I am surprised that you brought up the sources of European complacency and the population aging/lack of fertility, without drawing the relationship there. Europe is old! Old people don’t care as much about the future; old people without children certainly don’t care much about the future. Russia slowly dominating Europe matters much less to a European pensioner than the prospect of their pension getting cut - ie that they’ll have to spend their remaining years doing only 2 vacations abroad a year instead of 3.
And of course this is one of the major dangers of aging and infertility that gets overlooked: that the risk tolerance and balance of short-term vs. long-term incentives gets heavily warped when a country is majority 70 year olds as opposed to 20 year olds. It’s not just about the economics of having to support more pensioners with fewer workers; it’s also that the political decision making to so sustainably gets crippled.
That argument doesn't work when it comes to defence and war. Older people without children are more likely to favour defence and war because they don't have children to risk.
Earlier today, I had a surreal conversation with my wife that I never expected to have: should it become necessary, would we prefer to acquiesce to the US's policy to annex Canada, or to have our young military age children drafted and possibly killed? FWIW, I've lost a child before, and I don't know the answer to the question yet.
In contrast, if I was one of the so-called 'child-free', to the extent there's any dilemma, it's mostly abstract.
As an empirical matter, younger societies are far more likely to engage in violence internally, and war externally, than older ones.
True, but not for all older societies. Younger societies increase the likelihood of war, but so do societies with high rates of childlessness.
Since 2012, there has been a significant increase in childlessness across nearly the whole world. The last time childlessness reached these rates was 1900-1935.
Great analysis, Noah, capturing the essential dilemmas facing Europe in this MAGA era.
However, you seem to have ignored one of your previous crucial points: USA cannot hope to match Chinese industrial strength without its allies. And MAGA has just jettisoned its European allies. How do you square this?
I’ll bet 10:1 that the US hasn’t come close to jettisoning its European allies.
I hope you are right, but it certainly looks like a unique and irreversible change from a European point of view. If Europe cannot be sure of USA alliance, we must stand on our own two feet. If we succeed, the relationship at best will be on a case by case basis, rather than the democratic alliance, which has been the cornerstone of the world order for over 100 years.
All US policy seems to be driving Europe, starting with Ukraine, into the arms of the Chinese.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised. Europe seems like they will do anything to avoid standing on their own two feet. I don't even know if they would draw the line at becoming Chinese vassal states.
Talk about re-deploying European forces to face the China threat is mostly hot air, as Trump actually wants to work with China and President Xi.
Trump has even attacked Taiwan! Who at this point really thinks Trump would stand up to China?
Something that has been clear since 2016 is that Trump is pro-Putin. European countries should have known even before this week that a Trump administration is not to be trusted. I sincerely hope they stopped sharing intelligence with the US the moment he became president but if they have not they should do so right away.
Trump's friends and by extension the US government are Putin, Xi and alt-right leaders around the world. Europe needs to face that reality. The defense of democracy and freedom from the Putin-XI-Trump axis is in your hands .
I don’t believe any American president really has the stones for fighting the Chinese in their backyard. Biden, afraid of offending Putin, was not directly fighting the Chinese.
Fighting the Chinese in their backyard is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario.
Aircraft carriers were the power projections of WWII but are floating targets in the era of long-range missile and drone warfare. And the Chinese outbuild us on both 100:1.
I highly recommend checking out Accelerate Europe, whose goal is to do many of the things you sketch out:
https://www.santiago-martins.com/european-accelerationism-eu-acc.html
https://www.euacc.org/
There is also discord https://discord.com/invite/ny9heCSt6K
I am very bullish on Europe. If they can muster the reforms, I think they could emerge in a fantastic position with a unified defense force and a much stronger economy. The political will is going to be the hard one. It's going to be an interesting decade.
I have a hard time being bullish Europe on that basis given that we just watched Russia try to bring back law of the jungle, and Europe didn’t budge. All talk, no action. Hard to see how that changes now.
That isn't true; look at how much Europe has given financially and is giving. Not to mention pushing more members into NATO. They have to do more, but they have stepped up in a thousand little ways. Look at the Baltic switching power, look at the German drones starting to be produced on mass, Ukraine troop training, etc.
How much are you plugged into all the micro-stories as things start rolling forward?
It def isn't nothing.
I support EU acc but I question whether it is possible to have an efficient tax system when you have transfer payments of 30% of GDP. I reckon with an efficient tax system (prioritise land, carbon and consumption taxes and keep income and corporate tax to 10-15%) you can only get tax to about a quarter of GDP. That leads you to some very Lee Kuan Yew-like conclusions. https://x.com/mevrael/status/1890886547358257433?s=61&t=zAeTh4YBzbO2k3ARJ9MCMQ
shrug, not sure, I will trust *them* to figure that out :). I think you need a hard max on total taxes as, at some point, you max out the curve. But I've never seen any proof of this so-called "lack of drive due to social insurance." Everyone I know wants to work at a good job, the problem is finding a job that values you and your skillset.
My personal opinion is that the EU has problems with economic dynamism, the system has some natural and artificial limits on fast-growing companies. And limiting fast growing companies is really bad as there is where a huge portion of job grow and career growth come from. Some of that is language based, but a lot of it is artificial around hiring/firing limitations. I would love to see the EU on mass build in the labor protections at the government level instead of forcing companies to take on that huge burden and not allowing them to take more risks / less employment debt.
I think this is a great piece. As in your article about what DOGE is really up to, you are looking deeper and speaking more clearly than almost anyone else.
That said, I will suggest a (slightly) different answer to the question you begin with: are Hegseth and Vance being sincere, or just playing to their political base? May I suggest they are both doing both? There is no more basic skill in politics than convincing yourself that what is politically convenient for you is also the right thing to do.
Taking that a step further, I suggest that Hegseth and Vance are both embracing the MAGA worldview (as they must, given the positions they hold), but also trying to mold and express it in intelligent, constructive ways (which many members of the MAGA movement, including its chief, do not do). So I give them a bit if credit.
The piece on DOGE wasn't deeper or clearer, just blinkered by affinity and extremely naive.
The logic that getting rid of agencies (or functionally gutting them) is about trashing DEI - because they can't actually defund agencies - is premised on the idea that Trump will never defy Congress or the courts, or suborn the DOJ.
Because of course, there's no evidence he would ever do that. /s
In other words, Europe should do to confront Russia what the US should do to confront China.
At this point, it seems more likely that the US is a threat to European democracies and that it might swoop in and ruin the day.
I think we all know that relying solely on the US was a mistake from the start. In practice, a united Europe and the US are natural rivals on the same level as the US and China. Relying on the protection of an overseas superpower that does business with individual countries in the region and has no interest in building a united European bloc is naive, if not stupid. Intuitively, we know what this is due to: the complacency of the European elites. Now this laziness is taking its toll on us. However, I don't think that building a common European army is a realistic project. The interests of EU member states are too divergent. For example, what interest does Spain have in rearming itself in case of a conflict that will most probably unfold in CEE? Instead, we should build interoperable blocks within countries with converging interests - just as Poland and the Baltic States have started to cooperate closely in cyber defence. Joint arms projects could also be considered, but history shows that these collaborations end poorly for all those who cooperate with Germany or France.
French nuclear umbrella might be a good idea if not for the fact, that France adheres to its principle of “strict sufficiency” whereby it keeps its nuclear arsenal at the lowest possible level in accordance with the strategic context. It's estimated that they have about 290 warheads. On the other hand, their nuclear policy states that France may use nuclear weapons first in order to defend its vital interests. They would therefore have to extend this doctrine to the entire EU and sufficiently increase the number of warheads, which seems unlikely in the current situation. Unless they were offered exceptional benefits in this respect (although I don't know what could convince France to make such a move). UK can most probably be excluded from this equation. They now embody Orwell's vision of Oceania - the outpost of the US that keeps an eye on continental Europe.
The only way to get a unified European military would be for Europe as a whole to be more unified, for the military-aged in Spain to see something happening in East Europe as an attack on all of Europe or European values as a whole.
To me that's the most important. For Europe to define what it means to be European and united under the banner of those values.
It didn't really work for the last couple of decades. I agree with you, but I can't see a reasonable solution to this problem.
My guess is that Europeans as a whole have a lot more in common than their differences.... so it starts there. Defining what exactly the commonalities are and banding together behind those.
The EU motto is "Unity in diversity" which is bullshit. We do not unite from diversity, we unite by what our commonalities are despite our diversities.
Maybe we start with changing the motto?
Well said sir!
That was one of Vance's best lines: "I've had lots of conversations today about what you're defending Europe FROM, but precious few about what you're defending Europe FOR."
The national identity called "America" was forged in the Civil War and crystalized by a strong national government overriding the states by force. The EU would love to become such an entity, but the rise of AfD and RN indicate that Europe's leading populations aren't on board with that.