"Therefore the question here isn’t really why America abandoned Europe, but why Trump did." Perhaps that should have been the title? Explaining why Trump did this is more simply explained by viewing Trump as a Mafia Don. He respects Putin because he is just another mafia family. And he respects Putin's territory, (Ukraine), and asks Putin for the same respect (look the other way regarding Greenland and Canada). Canada and Europe are underling mob bosses that are not giving enough respect to the Don so they are being mistreated to get them (supposedly), to fall back in line. It's a great analogy that answers a lot. Secondly, as a Canadian living in Europe, I can see and hear the backlash, not just by politicians but from companies and the public. There's organized efforts across both regions to no longer buy USA or be reliant on them. You can no longer trust America. American companies are going to lose out as Canada and Europe become more self-reliant and buy elsewhere. This did not have to happen.
I would say that even if a Democrat wins in 2028 or 2032, the damage that Trump did to American prestige has already been so great - after all the MAGA faction is so large that it already devoured the Republicans, and who can say for sure that a Republican with the same ideas of Trump would not rise to power, heck even in the next election? (Assuming that Trump couldn't just rig the election or defy the Congress, which many Americans would just ignore or agree, considering that Congress has been impotent for many years!)
The best case scenario would probably be that if Trump's anger or cholesterol, or both, does something (you know...), and there's no candidate with the same charisma as Trump to lead the MAGA movement. Even then, Europe and Canada would then be already decoupled from the US!
(I would suggest you to read about Peronism in Argentina and why it is still so popular, even 50 years after the death of Peron!)
Yes, the fact that the foreign policy establishment wasn’t able to defend the post war consensus is a terrible sign for the US. Now there’s a blueprint for a President coming in and just tearing everything down faster than Congress or the courts get involved.
If Trump suddenly kicked it, it's hard to say how young JD would fare; because he would most definitely NOT have the iron grip on his party like Trump does.
I'm betting that all/most of the GOP's currently quiescent Natsec impulses pre-Trump would at least partially resurge. At the very least, small portions of their spines would begin to reappear from the pit of utter cowardice that they've been hidden in.
But it's also worth remembering that FOX News, Sinclair, etc. have been running "Russia good--Woke-US bad" puff pieces for a decade now, convincing all/most conservatives that Putin's Russia is some sort of white Christian neocon paradise. GOP voters would be hesitant to turn on Putin. Well, not unless FOX tells them to.
Actually the grip of Trump with the GOP could be explained as "Trump became popular with GOP voters, destroyed old conservatives; then GOP leaders embraced Trump; and finally Trump used it to convert the party to MAGA". (Notice how the anti-Trump GOP groups, like the Lincoln Project, only got 5% of GOP voters voted against Trump?)
Now, if Trump did not enthroned JD as successor (considering money from the Tech Right + lesser involvement of Trump's family members) before kicking it? JD is a shrewd guy of course (from anti-Trump to one of the most vocal pro-Trump leaders), but he doesn't have enough charisma to grip the GOP voter base to repeat Trump's rise again, so...his best bet probably would be to get a shitton of money from the Tech Right (Andressen + Musk + Thiel, etc.)
P/s: Considering how GOP (or MAGA) voters only want strongmen to lead them...my advice for JD if he wants to keep powers in any situation is to hit the gym daily. After all, Hegseth and RFK Jr. were propagandized as strong leaders compared to "weak" Cabinet members of Biden, by having their shirtless pictures online!
JD doesn't need the gym to get ripped. That's what photoshop is for. But there ain't no fix for personality. JD's Dan Quayle-ishness is an albatross around his political neck.
If DT kicks it, my bet is that GOP-land will revert to its natural state as a shark tank. There'd be some who'd flock to JD...But would it be enough to avoid becoming chum?
Yeah there was a story in Politico last election, in which Trump supporters in Arizona asked themselves what should they do if Trump is no more!
I think apart from JD, other leaders in the GOP that could rise in this case include DeSantis, Vivek, possibly Haley or Rubio (if the neocon wings rise again). In Haley and Rubio cases, even though they are either sidelined or struggled with Trump, they could still emerge if there are some neocons in the GOP that haven't flocked to the Dems earlier (like Adam Kinzinger!)
(Also, I don't put JD down yet, since last VP debates with Walz showed that at least the future post-Trump might see the return of more level-headed leaders, rather than outlandish ones like Trump; but then again, it's really hard to predict that long!)
To his Satanic credit, JD seems to be really improving his abilities in Orwellian Doublespeak, spewing alternate facts with nearly Trumpian proficiency. With FOX News in his corner, what couldn't he do?
Trump will never stop being enamored of Russia, or start respecting Europe. Frankly, he appears to think Russia is “strong” because it looks big on a map.
Also, its ruler is untouchable by law and wields a militaristic state with vast internal police powers. No amount of European military might would make up for that, in Trump’s fevered mind. He thinks of “governing” like a mafia don would, or a tribal chieftain.
While I generally agree, there's one thing you might not be considering here. Trump almost certainly grew up hearing the legend of German fighting prowess, and how the Russians only beat them because of vastly greater numbers and massive American help. On some level, he probably believes that if Germany would just get serious and get tough, they'd be the top fighting nation in the world.
Yeah, that was the one thing I disagreed with as well. Trump's disdain for America's Western allies goes deeper than their military weakness and misalignment on cultural issues. He seems to actively despise liberal democracy itself. I can think of no other explanation for his and his coterie's admiration for Orban's Hungary (hardly a military juggernaut) and contempt for Ukraine, which has the largest army in Europe.
His politics is 100% vibes based and he is deathly allergic to anything even faintly left or liberal-coded. Given how much he already flagrantly lies about other countries' military expenditures (and the people around him are currently whining about Europe's rearmament being "anti-American" (lol)), I don't think it's possible for Europe to win his respect simply through rearming without sacrificing its values.
If that were the case, he'd also think Canada is strong, which he definitely doesn't. He has more respect for Mexico's president than for Canada's leaders.
True. What I find more surprising is that Europe looks at Russia as a superpower. Russia has a GDP of $2 trillion, lower than Italy alone.
In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “500 million Europeans [are asking] 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.”
Europe needs to grow up in my opinion and not look at Russia as some out of this world superpower but a country with a relatively small population and economy.
What Russia is apparently good at is propaganda how mighty they are, they are not.
GDP on PPP of Russia is actually roughly similar to Germany though, and this makes more sense when account for military spending (since soldiers' wages, manufacturing costs of weapons, etc. are lower in Russia than in Europe!)
Keep in mind, Trump’s been on the phone with Vlad, pretty much on the regular.
Putin’s no doubt regaled him with the history of how Russia got so big (namely, Muscovy’s absorption of rival Rusdoms to amass the strength to stand up to their Mongol overlords, Ivan the Terrible’s conquests in all directions to give Russia “defense in depth”, Timofeyevich’s destruction of the Siberian Khanate, the Cossack raids into Siberia, etc.)
Not that Trump would remember or comprehend most of it, of course. But he would likely take away one thought: This is a country that fucks. And fucks people up, solely to warn others against messing with them.
Russia’s size, in that respect, is inextricably tied up in their image as a monstrous, nasty motherfucker you don’t mess with. Canada, for all its size, has neither that origin story nor that brand. Especially not in Trump’s foul, pickled peabrain.
Well, as a Quebecer, I'm really proud of our history. I think we're awesome, if only because we've managed to keep existing as a French-speaking society even 265 years after being conquered by the British (much longer than we'd existed pre-Conquest), despite being surrounded by anglophone North Americans who were at best indifferent, if not outright hostile. And culturally, we punch above our size as a small nation. But of course, Trump doesn't care about any of that.
Canadians and Quebecers also have a proud martial history. We've fought, and often defeated, the British and the Americans, and we've played an important role in the liberation of Europe during World War II. Shall we tell Trump about Léo Major, the liberator of Zwolle? Though of course, Canada doesn't have a history of conquering other nations (other than Indigenous peoples). Still, there would be a lot to tell about how Canada became so big.
In recent years, of course, Canada is perceived by the American Right as a sort of "Wokistan", a warning of what could befall the US if they don't fight back. Which is always funny to me, since from my point of view woke is very much an American thing (that we are influenced by, since the whole world is under American cultural influence). To be sure, Quebec has gotten in some centre-right publications the reputation of being the last rampart against woke in Canada, but this is largely because much of the woke language prescriptions are very much an anglo North American thing that non-anglophones and non-North Americans find bemusing. Woke is so ill-defined that you could think of Quebec as the wokest or least woke part of North America, depending on how you define it. Anyway, I guess none of this is going to be of any help in front of Trump.
Quebecers aren't being bribed. What Albertans typically complain about (other than the fact that they perceive that the federal government isn't reponsive to their needs as a mostly hydrocarbon extraction-based economy -- whether this perception is accurate or not is, as always, a matter of opinion) is the equalization program. How it works is that, from federal funds, amounts are being transferred to provinces with a lower ability to raise taxes (meaning whose citizens are lower-revenue). In Canada, the provinces with economies based on resource extraction such as Alberta and Saskatchewan tend to have the highest revenues, Ontario and Quebec, with their manufacturing and services-based economies, have revenues closer to the Canadian average (Ontario typically a bit wealthier than Quebec), and the Atlantic provinces tend to have the lowest revenues. So Alberta and Saskatchewan typically do not receive equalization, Ontario sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, while Quebec usually does, as do the Atlantic provinces, who receive the largest amount per capita.
Equalization being transferred from federal funds means that the money comes from federal tax revenue, meaning every Canadian (who pays federal tax) does contribute to the equalization fund. So why do Albertans complain that "they" are paying it? Well, the idea is that having higher revenue, they contribute more per capita, so they could probably stand to see federal tax being lowered more than other Canadians could without the services they count on worsening too much. But it's not like equalization is a liquidity that Albertans can be said to directly "pay". And why do Albertans single out Quebec as the recipient of equalization, when the Atlantic provinces receive more per capita? Well, Quebec being the second largest Canadian province by population, is receiving the largest total amount. And here I may be going out on a limb, but I also feel that (and it's what largely determines my own political beliefs) anglophone Canadians in general are annoyed by that French-speaking province that they don't really understand and that they feel sticks out like a sore thumb out of their otherwise great country. Albertans and other Western Canadians especially feel that the whole debate about language in Canada doesn't apply to them (it did historically, but they managed to largely drive out the French language from their territory, and even largely from their memory, so they now believe it has no relevance to them), so they start off as annoyed with Quebecers -- whom they know very little about anyway -- and are easy to nudge into outright hostility and blame.
Now the most interesting question would be why Quebec is somewhat poorer than Ontario, whose economy should be largely similar. (Alberta isn't a very good comparison for either Quebec or Ontario.) I don't know enough about economics to really know the answer, but it's certainly true that Quebec, being largely French-speaking, is at a certain disadvantage from largely English-speaking Ontario in North America. At the very least, someone like me had to learn English as a second language to be able to read Noah's blog and post in his comment section, which the typical (native-born) Ontarian wouldn't have had to do. For this reason, Ontario also attracts more immigrants, at least from non-French-speaking countries (immigrants to Quebec tend to come more from French-speaking countries, and also from Latin America). In any case, the current premier of Quebec has made it his goal to help close the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario, and I remember seeing economic indicators being encouraging in this regard.
As to why Quebec hasn't declared its independence from Canada? The reason is status quo bias, not anything having to do with a "bribe" (which doesn't exist anyway). Canada isn't a country you would create today if it didn't already exist, so the only reason why it exists is because history has made it so. Most people don't want things to change, especially in ways that can be scary; the reason why Trump won is at least in part a backlash against "wokism" which people perceived as a change being foisted on them that they didn't want, and now even Trump voters are scared by the radical changes Trump's administration is imposing on the United States. Quebec becoming independent is certainly a scary change, especially when the country is largely at peace, but despite this the independence movement managed to get nearly 50 % of the vote in the 1995 referendum, and today independence still polls in the 30 % to 40 % interval. Uncertainty caused by the Trump administration and its threats towards Canada has caused that number to dip a little bit (because people are flocking towards the status quo), but if Trump causes so much uncertainty that it makes the status quo untenable, you could easily see a change in the other direction. Some Albertans have convinced themselves (maybe because of Main Character Syndrome) that "they" are "bribing" Quebecers who then decide to stay in Canada only because of that, but it's not the case. Not even close.
I can’t see any grand strategy in the actions of Trump and co. It’s incoherent, Trump, Vance, Musk and others have their own agendas that are only vaguely related to American national interest. On a good day (for them) they are aligned in party political interest.
So it seems to me that America has abandoned Europe simply because those in charge of America barely register national interest, never mind formulate strategy aimed towards it.
I appreciate Noah's efforts to force crazy stuff into a recognizable shape. However, the idea that Trump is thinking about the 19th century order just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh.
I think at one point they did - or rather, the brains on the American right did when they were trying to rationalize things - have a narrative that is at least coherent and sensible. Whether the current administration is thinking along those lines, I don't know (probably not).
It's unfortunate that the elites on both left and right had been downplaying the costs and consequences of globalization (which fall unfairly on lower middle class mostly) for so many years. Brexit and Amerixit are abhorring, but not surprising.
One of the key inconsistencies is one I've been fascinated going back decades. Conservatives think Europe is weak for allowing Muslim immigration; but the conservative religious values of those immigrants are actually closer to their own than the latte-sipping atheist Europeans they despise.
Yes, and the flip side of that coin is how secular lefties despise Christian conservatives who oppose gay marriage, yet somehow view Muslims who favor throwing gays off rooftops as salt-of-the-earth types. A similar dynamic plays out domestically between Democrats and the black community, and Republicans with rural whites. Culturally, the black community (religious, masculine, honor-oriented) has a lot in common with rural white culture. Insult someone from either group, and you're likely to get your ass kicked. Insult an upper-middle-class white liberal, though, and they'll simply storm off in a huff.
I think the way to "make it all make sense" is that ideological inconsistency is never a barrier to forming an alliance for building political power. Throw as many gays off the roof as you want as long as you vote for the good guys.
As a Vietnamese, it's quite amusing to see that only now do Europeans and Canadians think that Americans would stab them by the back; after all in VN case Nixon just negotiated peace directly with North VN and retreat from the South, and not only did the South fell afterwards but it also lost Paracel Islands to China (something we Vietnamese have been looking to take back ever since!)
Was this because they believed too much in NATO and "Special Relationship" with the Americans? Or was this because they thought that since they are rich and Caucasians, they would have a better relationship compared to other US allies in the Third World?
(Americans have been spying on Europe and other countries in the Five Eyes ever since the Cold War, not to mentioned Operation Gladio and their attempts to block communists into power in France and Italy. Oh, and in Australia the US was allegedly involved in the ousting of PM Gough Whitlam in 1975 too, so why Europeans never really thought about American betrayal?)
I will first say that Trump is a fool, I despise him and I believe he is weakening us, but I also blame the Democrats for the position they have put us into. They need to wake up from the progressive navel gazing crap rather than play the Possum. Now, another reason I believe the right despises European liberal elites is that they have been living an illusion at the expense of the United States. We have indirectly subsidized their welfare states by providing them a defense guarantee. A dollar not spent on self defense is spent on universal healthcare, free education and etc and they smugly believe they have earned and built these systems all themselves and as you say smugly rub our noses in it. I do not agree with how he is going about things -Trump is rug pulling them - but they needed to wake up to the dangers on their doorstep. Trump is doing it, but not intelligently.
No trade deficit with Australia (the opposite, actually). Not sending fentanyl or immigrants. Not even especially left wing -- the right wing has been in power for something like 23 of the past 30 years.
Unlike Canada and the EU, Australia hasn't even done any retaliatory tariffs!
Also, you might like this description of Australia from The Chaser (a group of Australian comedian): "a proud, independent nation with a British head of state, a Chinese-run economy and an American-led military" :)))
Many Australians have said that after 1975 (when Australian PM Gough Whitlam, who used to threaten the US to leak secret actions from the CIA in Australia, was removed from power), Australia has been an American stooge (and even before that though, Harold Holt (another PM) even said his policy of intervention in Vietnam as "All the way with LBJ!")
I'd like to see Europe step up and become a superpower in its own right. Europe has 400 million educated people, strong shared values, infrastructure and industry, a solid economy, good geography and position, natural resources, etc. There's no reason besides beaurocratic mumbo jumbo and perceived differences between countries that Europe can't become a superpower to rival the US.
I'd like to see that, too, but particularly looking at how poorly EU and member state institutions have managed to respond to various crises and other failures like the big financial crisis spreading from the US, the Eurozone one, the constant pressure of immigration (but especially around 2015–2016), right-wing/nativist populism, energy and tech policy, etc.
Actually, I guess already the failure of the Lissabon treaty was the high water mark for Eurofederalism as a political project. Then, while various kinds of crises have historically induced closer integration, the Eurozone crisis and its aftermath have showed us that there really is still too much distrust and fragmentation for serious steps towards fiscal coordination, let alone a fiscal union.
And really, it's not much of a puzzle either. While political trends and currents do cross borders easily (maybe US-derived ones especially), national languages and cultures are a very real hindrance still. There is no real directly shared “common” European space of publicity or media, for example. People know and care little of EU politics and lawmaking despite its significant effects on national laws and politics. Bigger EU nations are insufferably insular, and the smaller ones are much more attuned to and integrated with the US media and cultural sphere than to that if each others'.
I wish it were true what you write, but Europe is culturally fragmented, politically divided (we have populists too), economically we are stagnating (hardly any productivity growth while the population is aging and shrinking), we completely missed the boat on tech that can compete with big tech in the USA and unfortunately we are depended on energy from other countries (no oil or gas).
Becoming a superpower also means a mindset shift, you need to do power politics, make your hands dirty, and though in this world I am afraid we have little choice, but I wonder what it will do to us as a society as we can see what it does to the USA.
I don't think the EU should be written off just yet, but it's not going to be easy. One thing I'm worried about is that rearming European nations could become problematic in combination with the resurgence of right wing nationalist politics. Our history isn't exactly peaceful, and a country like Poland, and others in the east, still live with certain levels of resentment and trauma for the many times they've been treated like shit.
But, well, besides the political difficulties it also depends on the availability of resources of course. For the next few decades that should be fine, but once the world starts running out of things to dig or pump up into the economy everything will change anyway.
Worth remembering that democracies don’t go to war with democracies. Much as tensions might become inflamed in Europe, war within the EU is unthinkable and even logistically too much of a nightmare to contemplate.
Natural resources? Like cheese and wine? Europe is starved of energy because its coal, oil and gas are running out and the governments don’t want to even think about trying to develop more fossil fuel resources, and also hate nuclear. The most important resource is energy, and solar and wind are not reliable, so Europe is dependent on who can supply their energy.
Natural resources like stone, wood, agricultural land, etc are reasonably plentiful.
In addition, there is oil, natural gas etc, plus the appetite could (and should) shift positive towards nuclear. Besides Europe is leading on renewables, there's even geothermal in places like Iceland.
Spain just found a lithium deposit, for battery production.
Point is, Europe has plenty of natural resources, lack of resources is not the reason it is not a superpower.
Calling thousands of years of conflict "perceived differences" and the unsustainable mess of the EU "mumbo jumbo" is very reductive. These are really hard problems to solve and it's not clear that there is a solution.
True, it is a gross oversimplification, but many of the differences are minor compared to the shared similarities. The history of humanity is conflict and conquest, Europe is not unique in that.
The mumbo jumbo came about due to an awful lot of compromise and the non-federal aspects of the EU (27 member states interacting with each other without an actual federal government). If the desire were there, it could be cleared up pretty quickly.
Everything I know about the EU suggests nothing happens pretty quickly, let alone a constitution for a supra national government. I'm not saying it's impossible (and a unifying enemy in Putin/Trump certainly helps) but it's not simple or easy.
They don't have the energy to add more heavy industry. Germans need to get their heads out of their asses and fire up their nuke fleet, (us as well) or go on a crash course to roll out SMR's. You can't make tanks, arty, ships on solar panel output.
I don't expect Europeans to necessarily be experts in American history but the "since 1776" bit in the tweet up top is completely wrong. Washington's farewell address to the nation stresses that America should AVOID European entanglements, and the country would heed his advice until the 1940s, with a brief interruption in 1916-1918.
You’re failing to acknowledge the simple fact that resources are limited and China is by far the biggest enemy of the U.S. Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe. It’s been 80 years and it is time that Germany lead Europe to its own defense. It makes no sense any longer for US troops to be in Europe. The US needs Russia on its side …or at least neutral is in forthcoming battle w China. So all your hand drinking about the US having a reputation is an unreliable ally is just not true. The US is making a strategic pivot, which is in the same order of magnitude as what happened when the Berlin wall fell. It is necessary
"Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe." Really? How many said that when Germany invaded Poland? I agree, Europe needs to be able to stand on its own. But the way this has been done has burned bridges. Rather than Europe buying US weapons it will now build their own. It didn't have to be this way. And the US needs Russia on its side, but not Europe? An economy that is more than 10 times the size of Russia and shares (at least until recently), the same values? Because the way Trump is handling Europe, he's losing it. I hear you Greg, the shift in Europe had to take place, I just think it could have been handled so much better and differently.
This would make sense if Trump's posture was: "We love you, Europe, but we've been telling you for decades we're stepping back and now it's time." If we said we were ending Ukraine support and pulling all troops out of Europe in 18 months, but will continue with a security alliance. If we signaled that we're totally committed a strong western bloc, in which we work together to build non-Chinese supply chains. If we didn't capriciously antagonize all of our allies, including those that have nothing to do with Europe (...Canada.) If we demonstrated that we still had more affinity to Europe than Russia.
“U.S. Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe. It’s been 80 years and it is time that Germany lead Europe to its own defense.”
This is hilarious. At least wait until Russia finishes rolling up all the former SSRs until you make this claim.
Three of those former SSRs are in NATO (Ukraine of course is not, a deliberate decision made by the West), so if Russia moves on them, that will be a true decision point for Europe and the US.
I suspect that not very many Americans are aware that their sons and daughters are pledged to fight for Lithuanian (and Latvian and Estonian) soil as if it were their own.
So when Trump reneges on that pledge, I think he will have a lot of popular support.
You say America. Really, it's this US Gov administration, taking a reflexive ideological posture against the EU.
Is it a permanent realignment by the USA? Time will tell, but the wrecking ball this US government is taking to its own economy may collaterally discredit this line of thinking if economic conditions worsen substantially in the near future. The public will turn against them: this administration campaigned on prices and are doing little about them. Jobs reports are softening and tariffs are not helping.
It's early days, and there are many more whiplash events to come.
The mirror of this is that Europe has realised that it must so things differently in the future.
It's easy to stereotype Europe but is has considerable strengths as well:
Trump is from Queens, he’s always felt, and made feel, inferior to Manhattanites. Fred Trump probably railed against the New York elites, because he felt his wealth as C level real estate rental asset hoarder, should’ve given him more respect. It’s why Donald went for skyscrapers. This is all about his fragile ego, Putin the KGB manipulator pushing his buttons and his romantic fantasies (noted above about being a Mafia Don as he had to pay to play to get his buildings constructed so respected their use of threatened violence).
Also, this country didn’t vote for Project 2025. Trump disavowed it, “knew nothing about it.” Americans didn’t vote for any of what’s transpired in the first two months of Trump Round Two. They might’ve tired of, and opposed “woke.” But they didn’t vote to have him induce a stroke to the economy.
It does feel like the post-WWII spell has been broken, as you said in a previous post.
But I think there's reasons for optimism about the US-European partnership in the longer term , because, though neither is perfect, we're still the only regions who are any good at striking the balance between the individual and the collective that's required to make a success of modernity. That leaves the other major regions struggling to keep up which is humiliating for them, creates resentment and makes them want to cheat or destabilize us to get back on terms - hence China's protectionism and IP theft, Russia's industrial scale drug-cheating in sport, the Skripal poisonings, election interference. One of the major regions playing permanent catch-up is in Europe's neighbourhood, the other is in America's. Just as Trump is currently making common cause with Russia, there are murmurings in Europe that perhaps we should make overtures to Beijing. That can't last. Churchill quipped that America could always be relied on to do the right thing . . . after it had tried everything else. And much the same could be said of Europe. After all we gave colonialism a fair shake before realising it was a horrible mistake. So perhaps the current crisis is best looked on as an experiment. A wander around the grounds before getting back to the house and back to work.
But in the short-term, there are important questions to be asked such as, why on earth, would anyone have beef with Canada?! Seriously! They're delightful.
Another question for you Noah, why do you think the American right just has so much nostalgia to the 1870-1913 era? Unless if they mean "the rich", then the lives of Americans have been tremendously better: better income, housing and jobs, with good labor protections and good - though inadequate - welfare state!
If this question is asked to an Argentine or a Brazilian, the answer would probably be "yes" and it's reasonable too (after all, this is the era where their standing in the world stage is the greatest), but for Americans - that doesn't make any sense, especially if you are a common person!
Probably the same reason that if anyone ever imagines themselves in a zombie apocalypse, they’re a survivor, not a zombie. If they imagine the feudal era, they’re nobility, not a peasant in the muck.
When Trump says "mag again" he's just making a populist appeal to a sense of decay, not wanting to bring the US back to any particular time. The Obama-Trump voter who was hurt by globalization is probably just thinking that their parents had it easier, not that America was great 100 years ago.
Likewise "America First" is another populist appeal, I'm very dubious that Trump was aware that Wilson coined it. Lots of populist parties all over the world have similar slogans.
It's an interesting question, but so far I don't feel the US 'betrayed' us that badly, it's more that Trump & co do seem to move in that direction. A lot of the long term effects will probably depend on how successful Trump (& Elon) will be at breaking down the federal state. But if there's still a somewhat operational public service, a next administration, assuming they will be reasonable people, could rebuild broken ties based on existing networks (or make new ones, as the EU is likely to remain cautious of too much dependency for the next decade, and will this strive for a different type of relationship). If too many of the people and infrastructure are gone it'll probably take much longer. As long as American military aggression is avoided any betrayal can probably be mended. I truly don't know how hawkish Trump's people are, or how much of the Greenland and Panama stuff is just to look tough for negotiations. I'm a little afraid that with all their blustering they will cross some line they didn't even know was there, and will irreversibly push the world towards a path of chaos. So far it didn't happen, but 4 years of this is quite a long time...
Man, here we are two days later and I'm already regretting what I said. He seems to take both the Panama and the Greenland stuff serious. This guy apparently wants to betray anyone who once was a US ally. Guess he didn't enjoy his comfortable life of riches, and now wants for the future generations a much better life of hardship and war, or something like that.
Far too many Americans have always been remarkably thoughtless and short-sighted, and support for Trump proves this in a number of areas, not just in foreign policy. It began with the southern colonies’ refusal to form an independent nation without slavery, a decision which cost their grandchildren over 300,000 deaths and great destruction, resulted in the assassination of our greatest president and thousands of black deaths over the following years, and bequeathed to us much of the racism that still plagues our political lives.
There are numerous other examples, but the current thoughtless and short-sighted delusion on the part of an entire political party, that Trumpism will somehow ‘save American greatness’ because an economic ignoramus, malignant narcissist, and would-be-tinpot dictator (and his machete-wielding accomplice) who lies as easily and almost as often as he breathes says so, is running headlong into yet another era of chaos, and is costing us in ways we can already see, and others we have not yet imagined.
I would add to the list of shortsighted Americans today's Democrats in office, who insisted on tripling down on the racist and misogynist policies that drove many classical liberals like me (I've been a registered Democrat for 50 years) to start voting against them for every possible office.
I’m going to have a few disagreements. I have a different perspective, not because Noah is wrong in his observations.
First, Trump only admires strength, and Noah is dead on. Those of us who even look at foreign policy have been warning about the deteriorating industrial base. The story about the manufacturing line that made Stinger missiles was closed in 2007. When we gave our stocks to Ukraine and wanted to replenish them, apparently, no one was left at the company who knew how to build them.
It is not anyone’s fault; we had enough in storage, and you don’t just keep on building them to keep the memory of how to. Our military shrank in terms of percentage of GDP from the decades of the Cold War. It was a peace dividend. That said, we spent an awful lot of money on the Pentagon.
It was spent improperly and, most notably, in two areas. The Navy and the Air Force. We were concentrating on building up special forces, not in building submarines. The Joint Strike Fighter program has cost us too much money. It may not be a great plane, but the Pentagon wanted to build the same aircraft to fit different missions for different military branches.
Anyway, bloat, bad decisions have plagued the Pentagon and it now leaves us having the wrong weapons, not enough of the right weapons and a crappy military industrial complex.
This situation actually calls for greater dependence on collective security, not less. There is no such animal as Fortress America. Not being able to project overwhelming force means that without allies, we cannot respond to regional conflicts and prevent despots from overwhelming our allies.
We can rectify this, but since our profligate politicians have been more interested in mismanaging our nation's finances in order to fulfill populist notions, we have few tools.
Trump cannot dictate which industries come to America. TSMC may come and build here but would Mitsubishi build a shipbuilding manufacturing facility? We need greater capacity.
Anyway, Trump has the wrong prescription for our economic defense security. Collection security is the only card to play. Integration of weapons manufacturing with other countries is imperative if America and its allies are to survive.
Meaning our alliances cannot deliver what they need. Protection.
"Therefore the question here isn’t really why America abandoned Europe, but why Trump did." Perhaps that should have been the title? Explaining why Trump did this is more simply explained by viewing Trump as a Mafia Don. He respects Putin because he is just another mafia family. And he respects Putin's territory, (Ukraine), and asks Putin for the same respect (look the other way regarding Greenland and Canada). Canada and Europe are underling mob bosses that are not giving enough respect to the Don so they are being mistreated to get them (supposedly), to fall back in line. It's a great analogy that answers a lot. Secondly, as a Canadian living in Europe, I can see and hear the backlash, not just by politicians but from companies and the public. There's organized efforts across both regions to no longer buy USA or be reliant on them. You can no longer trust America. American companies are going to lose out as Canada and Europe become more self-reliant and buy elsewhere. This did not have to happen.
I would say that even if a Democrat wins in 2028 or 2032, the damage that Trump did to American prestige has already been so great - after all the MAGA faction is so large that it already devoured the Republicans, and who can say for sure that a Republican with the same ideas of Trump would not rise to power, heck even in the next election? (Assuming that Trump couldn't just rig the election or defy the Congress, which many Americans would just ignore or agree, considering that Congress has been impotent for many years!)
The best case scenario would probably be that if Trump's anger or cholesterol, or both, does something (you know...), and there's no candidate with the same charisma as Trump to lead the MAGA movement. Even then, Europe and Canada would then be already decoupled from the US!
(I would suggest you to read about Peronism in Argentina and why it is still so popular, even 50 years after the death of Peron!)
Yes, the fact that the foreign policy establishment wasn’t able to defend the post war consensus is a terrible sign for the US. Now there’s a blueprint for a President coming in and just tearing everything down faster than Congress or the courts get involved.
If Trump suddenly kicked it, it's hard to say how young JD would fare; because he would most definitely NOT have the iron grip on his party like Trump does.
I'm betting that all/most of the GOP's currently quiescent Natsec impulses pre-Trump would at least partially resurge. At the very least, small portions of their spines would begin to reappear from the pit of utter cowardice that they've been hidden in.
But it's also worth remembering that FOX News, Sinclair, etc. have been running "Russia good--Woke-US bad" puff pieces for a decade now, convincing all/most conservatives that Putin's Russia is some sort of white Christian neocon paradise. GOP voters would be hesitant to turn on Putin. Well, not unless FOX tells them to.
Actually the grip of Trump with the GOP could be explained as "Trump became popular with GOP voters, destroyed old conservatives; then GOP leaders embraced Trump; and finally Trump used it to convert the party to MAGA". (Notice how the anti-Trump GOP groups, like the Lincoln Project, only got 5% of GOP voters voted against Trump?)
Now, if Trump did not enthroned JD as successor (considering money from the Tech Right + lesser involvement of Trump's family members) before kicking it? JD is a shrewd guy of course (from anti-Trump to one of the most vocal pro-Trump leaders), but he doesn't have enough charisma to grip the GOP voter base to repeat Trump's rise again, so...his best bet probably would be to get a shitton of money from the Tech Right (Andressen + Musk + Thiel, etc.)
P/s: Considering how GOP (or MAGA) voters only want strongmen to lead them...my advice for JD if he wants to keep powers in any situation is to hit the gym daily. After all, Hegseth and RFK Jr. were propagandized as strong leaders compared to "weak" Cabinet members of Biden, by having their shirtless pictures online!
JD doesn't need the gym to get ripped. That's what photoshop is for. But there ain't no fix for personality. JD's Dan Quayle-ishness is an albatross around his political neck.
If DT kicks it, my bet is that GOP-land will revert to its natural state as a shark tank. There'd be some who'd flock to JD...But would it be enough to avoid becoming chum?
Yeah there was a story in Politico last election, in which Trump supporters in Arizona asked themselves what should they do if Trump is no more!
I think apart from JD, other leaders in the GOP that could rise in this case include DeSantis, Vivek, possibly Haley or Rubio (if the neocon wings rise again). In Haley and Rubio cases, even though they are either sidelined or struggled with Trump, they could still emerge if there are some neocons in the GOP that haven't flocked to the Dems earlier (like Adam Kinzinger!)
(Also, I don't put JD down yet, since last VP debates with Walz showed that at least the future post-Trump might see the return of more level-headed leaders, rather than outlandish ones like Trump; but then again, it's really hard to predict that long!)
To his Satanic credit, JD seems to be really improving his abilities in Orwellian Doublespeak, spewing alternate facts with nearly Trumpian proficiency. With FOX News in his corner, what couldn't he do?
I agree with everything but the last paragraph.
Trump will never stop being enamored of Russia, or start respecting Europe. Frankly, he appears to think Russia is “strong” because it looks big on a map.
Also, its ruler is untouchable by law and wields a militaristic state with vast internal police powers. No amount of European military might would make up for that, in Trump’s fevered mind. He thinks of “governing” like a mafia don would, or a tribal chieftain.
While I generally agree, there's one thing you might not be considering here. Trump almost certainly grew up hearing the legend of German fighting prowess, and how the Russians only beat them because of vastly greater numbers and massive American help. On some level, he probably believes that if Germany would just get serious and get tough, they'd be the top fighting nation in the world.
Yeah, that was the one thing I disagreed with as well. Trump's disdain for America's Western allies goes deeper than their military weakness and misalignment on cultural issues. He seems to actively despise liberal democracy itself. I can think of no other explanation for his and his coterie's admiration for Orban's Hungary (hardly a military juggernaut) and contempt for Ukraine, which has the largest army in Europe.
His politics is 100% vibes based and he is deathly allergic to anything even faintly left or liberal-coded. Given how much he already flagrantly lies about other countries' military expenditures (and the people around him are currently whining about Europe's rearmament being "anti-American" (lol)), I don't think it's possible for Europe to win his respect simply through rearming without sacrificing its values.
> Frankly, he appears to think
> Russia is “strong” because
> it looks big on a map.
If that were the case, he'd also think Canada is strong, which he definitely doesn't. He has more respect for Mexico's president than for Canada's leaders.
True. What I find more surprising is that Europe looks at Russia as a superpower. Russia has a GDP of $2 trillion, lower than Italy alone.
In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “500 million Europeans [are asking] 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.”
Europe needs to grow up in my opinion and not look at Russia as some out of this world superpower but a country with a relatively small population and economy.
What Russia is apparently good at is propaganda how mighty they are, they are not.
True and as Noah pointed out their performance in Ukraine has underwhelmed at best.
GDP on PPP of Russia is actually roughly similar to Germany though, and this makes more sense when account for military spending (since soldiers' wages, manufacturing costs of weapons, etc. are lower in Russia than in Europe!)
Keep in mind, Trump’s been on the phone with Vlad, pretty much on the regular.
Putin’s no doubt regaled him with the history of how Russia got so big (namely, Muscovy’s absorption of rival Rusdoms to amass the strength to stand up to their Mongol overlords, Ivan the Terrible’s conquests in all directions to give Russia “defense in depth”, Timofeyevich’s destruction of the Siberian Khanate, the Cossack raids into Siberia, etc.)
Not that Trump would remember or comprehend most of it, of course. But he would likely take away one thought: This is a country that fucks. And fucks people up, solely to warn others against messing with them.
Russia’s size, in that respect, is inextricably tied up in their image as a monstrous, nasty motherfucker you don’t mess with. Canada, for all its size, has neither that origin story nor that brand. Especially not in Trump’s foul, pickled peabrain.
Well, as a Quebecer, I'm really proud of our history. I think we're awesome, if only because we've managed to keep existing as a French-speaking society even 265 years after being conquered by the British (much longer than we'd existed pre-Conquest), despite being surrounded by anglophone North Americans who were at best indifferent, if not outright hostile. And culturally, we punch above our size as a small nation. But of course, Trump doesn't care about any of that.
Canadians and Quebecers also have a proud martial history. We've fought, and often defeated, the British and the Americans, and we've played an important role in the liberation of Europe during World War II. Shall we tell Trump about Léo Major, the liberator of Zwolle? Though of course, Canada doesn't have a history of conquering other nations (other than Indigenous peoples). Still, there would be a lot to tell about how Canada became so big.
In recent years, of course, Canada is perceived by the American Right as a sort of "Wokistan", a warning of what could befall the US if they don't fight back. Which is always funny to me, since from my point of view woke is very much an American thing (that we are influenced by, since the whole world is under American cultural influence). To be sure, Quebec has gotten in some centre-right publications the reputation of being the last rampart against woke in Canada, but this is largely because much of the woke language prescriptions are very much an anglo North American thing that non-anglophones and non-North Americans find bemusing. Woke is so ill-defined that you could think of Quebec as the wokest or least woke part of North America, depending on how you define it. Anyway, I guess none of this is going to be of any help in front of Trump.
Quebecers aren't being bribed. What Albertans typically complain about (other than the fact that they perceive that the federal government isn't reponsive to their needs as a mostly hydrocarbon extraction-based economy -- whether this perception is accurate or not is, as always, a matter of opinion) is the equalization program. How it works is that, from federal funds, amounts are being transferred to provinces with a lower ability to raise taxes (meaning whose citizens are lower-revenue). In Canada, the provinces with economies based on resource extraction such as Alberta and Saskatchewan tend to have the highest revenues, Ontario and Quebec, with their manufacturing and services-based economies, have revenues closer to the Canadian average (Ontario typically a bit wealthier than Quebec), and the Atlantic provinces tend to have the lowest revenues. So Alberta and Saskatchewan typically do not receive equalization, Ontario sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, while Quebec usually does, as do the Atlantic provinces, who receive the largest amount per capita.
Equalization being transferred from federal funds means that the money comes from federal tax revenue, meaning every Canadian (who pays federal tax) does contribute to the equalization fund. So why do Albertans complain that "they" are paying it? Well, the idea is that having higher revenue, they contribute more per capita, so they could probably stand to see federal tax being lowered more than other Canadians could without the services they count on worsening too much. But it's not like equalization is a liquidity that Albertans can be said to directly "pay". And why do Albertans single out Quebec as the recipient of equalization, when the Atlantic provinces receive more per capita? Well, Quebec being the second largest Canadian province by population, is receiving the largest total amount. And here I may be going out on a limb, but I also feel that (and it's what largely determines my own political beliefs) anglophone Canadians in general are annoyed by that French-speaking province that they don't really understand and that they feel sticks out like a sore thumb out of their otherwise great country. Albertans and other Western Canadians especially feel that the whole debate about language in Canada doesn't apply to them (it did historically, but they managed to largely drive out the French language from their territory, and even largely from their memory, so they now believe it has no relevance to them), so they start off as annoyed with Quebecers -- whom they know very little about anyway -- and are easy to nudge into outright hostility and blame.
Now the most interesting question would be why Quebec is somewhat poorer than Ontario, whose economy should be largely similar. (Alberta isn't a very good comparison for either Quebec or Ontario.) I don't know enough about economics to really know the answer, but it's certainly true that Quebec, being largely French-speaking, is at a certain disadvantage from largely English-speaking Ontario in North America. At the very least, someone like me had to learn English as a second language to be able to read Noah's blog and post in his comment section, which the typical (native-born) Ontarian wouldn't have had to do. For this reason, Ontario also attracts more immigrants, at least from non-French-speaking countries (immigrants to Quebec tend to come more from French-speaking countries, and also from Latin America). In any case, the current premier of Quebec has made it his goal to help close the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario, and I remember seeing economic indicators being encouraging in this regard.
As to why Quebec hasn't declared its independence from Canada? The reason is status quo bias, not anything having to do with a "bribe" (which doesn't exist anyway). Canada isn't a country you would create today if it didn't already exist, so the only reason why it exists is because history has made it so. Most people don't want things to change, especially in ways that can be scary; the reason why Trump won is at least in part a backlash against "wokism" which people perceived as a change being foisted on them that they didn't want, and now even Trump voters are scared by the radical changes Trump's administration is imposing on the United States. Quebec becoming independent is certainly a scary change, especially when the country is largely at peace, but despite this the independence movement managed to get nearly 50 % of the vote in the 1995 referendum, and today independence still polls in the 30 % to 40 % interval. Uncertainty caused by the Trump administration and its threats towards Canada has caused that number to dip a little bit (because people are flocking towards the status quo), but if Trump causes so much uncertainty that it makes the status quo untenable, you could easily see a change in the other direction. Some Albertans have convinced themselves (maybe because of Main Character Syndrome) that "they" are "bribing" Quebecers who then decide to stay in Canada only because of that, but it's not the case. Not even close.
I can’t see any grand strategy in the actions of Trump and co. It’s incoherent, Trump, Vance, Musk and others have their own agendas that are only vaguely related to American national interest. On a good day (for them) they are aligned in party political interest.
So it seems to me that America has abandoned Europe simply because those in charge of America barely register national interest, never mind formulate strategy aimed towards it.
I appreciate Noah's efforts to force crazy stuff into a recognizable shape. However, the idea that Trump is thinking about the 19th century order just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh.
I think at one point they did - or rather, the brains on the American right did when they were trying to rationalize things - have a narrative that is at least coherent and sensible. Whether the current administration is thinking along those lines, I don't know (probably not).
It's unfortunate that the elites on both left and right had been downplaying the costs and consequences of globalization (which fall unfairly on lower middle class mostly) for so many years. Brexit and Amerixit are abhorring, but not surprising.
One of the key inconsistencies is one I've been fascinated going back decades. Conservatives think Europe is weak for allowing Muslim immigration; but the conservative religious values of those immigrants are actually closer to their own than the latte-sipping atheist Europeans they despise.
Yes, and the flip side of that coin is how secular lefties despise Christian conservatives who oppose gay marriage, yet somehow view Muslims who favor throwing gays off rooftops as salt-of-the-earth types. A similar dynamic plays out domestically between Democrats and the black community, and Republicans with rural whites. Culturally, the black community (religious, masculine, honor-oriented) has a lot in common with rural white culture. Insult someone from either group, and you're likely to get your ass kicked. Insult an upper-middle-class white liberal, though, and they'll simply storm off in a huff.
I think the way to "make it all make sense" is that ideological inconsistency is never a barrier to forming an alliance for building political power. Throw as many gays off the roof as you want as long as you vote for the good guys.
First you lump all muslims together with the most extreme examples. Second you mistake tolerance for approval.
I guess that is sort of the null hypothesis...
As a Vietnamese, it's quite amusing to see that only now do Europeans and Canadians think that Americans would stab them by the back; after all in VN case Nixon just negotiated peace directly with North VN and retreat from the South, and not only did the South fell afterwards but it also lost Paracel Islands to China (something we Vietnamese have been looking to take back ever since!)
Was this because they believed too much in NATO and "Special Relationship" with the Americans? Or was this because they thought that since they are rich and Caucasians, they would have a better relationship compared to other US allies in the Third World?
(Americans have been spying on Europe and other countries in the Five Eyes ever since the Cold War, not to mentioned Operation Gladio and their attempts to block communists into power in France and Italy. Oh, and in Australia the US was allegedly involved in the ousting of PM Gough Whitlam in 1975 too, so why Europeans never really thought about American betrayal?)
I will first say that Trump is a fool, I despise him and I believe he is weakening us, but I also blame the Democrats for the position they have put us into. They need to wake up from the progressive navel gazing crap rather than play the Possum. Now, another reason I believe the right despises European liberal elites is that they have been living an illusion at the expense of the United States. We have indirectly subsidized their welfare states by providing them a defense guarantee. A dollar not spent on self defense is spent on universal healthcare, free education and etc and they smugly believe they have earned and built these systems all themselves and as you say smugly rub our noses in it. I do not agree with how he is going about things -Trump is rug pulling them - but they needed to wake up to the dangers on their doorstep. Trump is doing it, but not intelligently.
Fabulous comment David.
How about "why did Trump betray Australia"?
No trade deficit with Australia (the opposite, actually). Not sending fentanyl or immigrants. Not even especially left wing -- the right wing has been in power for something like 23 of the past 30 years.
Unlike Canada and the EU, Australia hasn't even done any retaliatory tariffs!
sad
Also, you might like this description of Australia from The Chaser (a group of Australian comedian): "a proud, independent nation with a British head of state, a Chinese-run economy and an American-led military" :)))
Many Australians have said that after 1975 (when Australian PM Gough Whitlam, who used to threaten the US to leak secret actions from the CIA in Australia, was removed from power), Australia has been an American stooge (and even before that though, Harold Holt (another PM) even said his policy of intervention in Vietnam as "All the way with LBJ!")
1. Trump and co. believe that granting exemptions to Australia created a bad precedent that would undermine his tariff regime;
2. Trump now has all branches of government beneath him, so no one could actually restrain him for now;
3. A bit jokingly, but some X users have demanded Trump to annex Australia as a state, since "they don't have guns anymore!"
(His refusal for tariff exemption actually went into the first page of ABC in Australia!)
I'd like to see Europe step up and become a superpower in its own right. Europe has 400 million educated people, strong shared values, infrastructure and industry, a solid economy, good geography and position, natural resources, etc. There's no reason besides beaurocratic mumbo jumbo and perceived differences between countries that Europe can't become a superpower to rival the US.
I'd like to see that, too, but particularly looking at how poorly EU and member state institutions have managed to respond to various crises and other failures like the big financial crisis spreading from the US, the Eurozone one, the constant pressure of immigration (but especially around 2015–2016), right-wing/nativist populism, energy and tech policy, etc.
Actually, I guess already the failure of the Lissabon treaty was the high water mark for Eurofederalism as a political project. Then, while various kinds of crises have historically induced closer integration, the Eurozone crisis and its aftermath have showed us that there really is still too much distrust and fragmentation for serious steps towards fiscal coordination, let alone a fiscal union.
And really, it's not much of a puzzle either. While political trends and currents do cross borders easily (maybe US-derived ones especially), national languages and cultures are a very real hindrance still. There is no real directly shared “common” European space of publicity or media, for example. People know and care little of EU politics and lawmaking despite its significant effects on national laws and politics. Bigger EU nations are insufferably insular, and the smaller ones are much more attuned to and integrated with the US media and cultural sphere than to that if each others'.
I wish it were true what you write, but Europe is culturally fragmented, politically divided (we have populists too), economically we are stagnating (hardly any productivity growth while the population is aging and shrinking), we completely missed the boat on tech that can compete with big tech in the USA and unfortunately we are depended on energy from other countries (no oil or gas).
Becoming a superpower also means a mindset shift, you need to do power politics, make your hands dirty, and though in this world I am afraid we have little choice, but I wonder what it will do to us as a society as we can see what it does to the USA.
I don't think the EU should be written off just yet, but it's not going to be easy. One thing I'm worried about is that rearming European nations could become problematic in combination with the resurgence of right wing nationalist politics. Our history isn't exactly peaceful, and a country like Poland, and others in the east, still live with certain levels of resentment and trauma for the many times they've been treated like shit.
But, well, besides the political difficulties it also depends on the availability of resources of course. For the next few decades that should be fine, but once the world starts running out of things to dig or pump up into the economy everything will change anyway.
Worth remembering that democracies don’t go to war with democracies. Much as tensions might become inflamed in Europe, war within the EU is unthinkable and even logistically too much of a nightmare to contemplate.
> Worth remembering that democracies don’t go to war with democracies.
The War of 1812 says hi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies
Natural resources? Like cheese and wine? Europe is starved of energy because its coal, oil and gas are running out and the governments don’t want to even think about trying to develop more fossil fuel resources, and also hate nuclear. The most important resource is energy, and solar and wind are not reliable, so Europe is dependent on who can supply their energy.
Natural resources like stone, wood, agricultural land, etc are reasonably plentiful.
In addition, there is oil, natural gas etc, plus the appetite could (and should) shift positive towards nuclear. Besides Europe is leading on renewables, there's even geothermal in places like Iceland.
Spain just found a lithium deposit, for battery production.
Point is, Europe has plenty of natural resources, lack of resources is not the reason it is not a superpower.
Wait ‘til Canada joins lol
Calling thousands of years of conflict "perceived differences" and the unsustainable mess of the EU "mumbo jumbo" is very reductive. These are really hard problems to solve and it's not clear that there is a solution.
True, it is a gross oversimplification, but many of the differences are minor compared to the shared similarities. The history of humanity is conflict and conquest, Europe is not unique in that.
The mumbo jumbo came about due to an awful lot of compromise and the non-federal aspects of the EU (27 member states interacting with each other without an actual federal government). If the desire were there, it could be cleared up pretty quickly.
Everything I know about the EU suggests nothing happens pretty quickly, let alone a constitution for a supra national government. I'm not saying it's impossible (and a unifying enemy in Putin/Trump certainly helps) but it's not simple or easy.
Agreed, everything about the EU has been a slow evolution
In order to be a superpower you need to have a culture of having babies first.
They don't have the energy to add more heavy industry. Germans need to get their heads out of their asses and fire up their nuke fleet, (us as well) or go on a crash course to roll out SMR's. You can't make tanks, arty, ships on solar panel output.
I don't expect Europeans to necessarily be experts in American history but the "since 1776" bit in the tweet up top is completely wrong. Washington's farewell address to the nation stresses that America should AVOID European entanglements, and the country would heed his advice until the 1940s, with a brief interruption in 1916-1918.
You’re failing to acknowledge the simple fact that resources are limited and China is by far the biggest enemy of the U.S. Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe. It’s been 80 years and it is time that Germany lead Europe to its own defense. It makes no sense any longer for US troops to be in Europe. The US needs Russia on its side …or at least neutral is in forthcoming battle w China. So all your hand drinking about the US having a reputation is an unreliable ally is just not true. The US is making a strategic pivot, which is in the same order of magnitude as what happened when the Berlin wall fell. It is necessary
"Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe." Really? How many said that when Germany invaded Poland? I agree, Europe needs to be able to stand on its own. But the way this has been done has burned bridges. Rather than Europe buying US weapons it will now build their own. It didn't have to be this way. And the US needs Russia on its side, but not Europe? An economy that is more than 10 times the size of Russia and shares (at least until recently), the same values? Because the way Trump is handling Europe, he's losing it. I hear you Greg, the shift in Europe had to take place, I just think it could have been handled so much better and differently.
John I agree.
This would make sense if Trump's posture was: "We love you, Europe, but we've been telling you for decades we're stepping back and now it's time." If we said we were ending Ukraine support and pulling all troops out of Europe in 18 months, but will continue with a security alliance. If we signaled that we're totally committed a strong western bloc, in which we work together to build non-Chinese supply chains. If we didn't capriciously antagonize all of our allies, including those that have nothing to do with Europe (...Canada.) If we demonstrated that we still had more affinity to Europe than Russia.
I might agree with you.
"Hand drinking"?
*hand wringing
“U.S. Ukraine was a one off thing and Russia poses no danger to Europe. It’s been 80 years and it is time that Germany lead Europe to its own defense.”
This is hilarious. At least wait until Russia finishes rolling up all the former SSRs until you make this claim.
Three of those former SSRs are in NATO (Ukraine of course is not, a deliberate decision made by the West), so if Russia moves on them, that will be a true decision point for Europe and the US.
Donald Trump is not coming for Lithuania or Taiwan.
I suspect that not very many Americans are aware that their sons and daughters are pledged to fight for Lithuanian (and Latvian and Estonian) soil as if it were their own.
So when Trump reneges on that pledge, I think he will have a lot of popular support.
No.
Your second sentence is hilariously wrong. The rest of your argument is also wrong but less funny.
Maybe stop the “hand drinking”.
I confess I had to Google "hand drinking" but still couldn't figure what you meant by that.
You say America. Really, it's this US Gov administration, taking a reflexive ideological posture against the EU.
Is it a permanent realignment by the USA? Time will tell, but the wrecking ball this US government is taking to its own economy may collaterally discredit this line of thinking if economic conditions worsen substantially in the near future. The public will turn against them: this administration campaigned on prices and are doing little about them. Jobs reports are softening and tariffs are not helping.
It's early days, and there are many more whiplash events to come.
The mirror of this is that Europe has realised that it must so things differently in the future.
It's easy to stereotype Europe but is has considerable strengths as well:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/03/07/europe-heavy-industry-trump-us-competition/
Trump is from Queens, he’s always felt, and made feel, inferior to Manhattanites. Fred Trump probably railed against the New York elites, because he felt his wealth as C level real estate rental asset hoarder, should’ve given him more respect. It’s why Donald went for skyscrapers. This is all about his fragile ego, Putin the KGB manipulator pushing his buttons and his romantic fantasies (noted above about being a Mafia Don as he had to pay to play to get his buildings constructed so respected their use of threatened violence).
Also, this country didn’t vote for Project 2025. Trump disavowed it, “knew nothing about it.” Americans didn’t vote for any of what’s transpired in the first two months of Trump Round Two. They might’ve tired of, and opposed “woke.” But they didn’t vote to have him induce a stroke to the economy.
It does feel like the post-WWII spell has been broken, as you said in a previous post.
But I think there's reasons for optimism about the US-European partnership in the longer term , because, though neither is perfect, we're still the only regions who are any good at striking the balance between the individual and the collective that's required to make a success of modernity. That leaves the other major regions struggling to keep up which is humiliating for them, creates resentment and makes them want to cheat or destabilize us to get back on terms - hence China's protectionism and IP theft, Russia's industrial scale drug-cheating in sport, the Skripal poisonings, election interference. One of the major regions playing permanent catch-up is in Europe's neighbourhood, the other is in America's. Just as Trump is currently making common cause with Russia, there are murmurings in Europe that perhaps we should make overtures to Beijing. That can't last. Churchill quipped that America could always be relied on to do the right thing . . . after it had tried everything else. And much the same could be said of Europe. After all we gave colonialism a fair shake before realising it was a horrible mistake. So perhaps the current crisis is best looked on as an experiment. A wander around the grounds before getting back to the house and back to work.
But in the short-term, there are important questions to be asked such as, why on earth, would anyone have beef with Canada?! Seriously! They're delightful.
Trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild
I hope you are right Jon.
Me too...
I'm in an upswing at the moment! :-) Probably down again next week.
Me too!
Another question for you Noah, why do you think the American right just has so much nostalgia to the 1870-1913 era? Unless if they mean "the rich", then the lives of Americans have been tremendously better: better income, housing and jobs, with good labor protections and good - though inadequate - welfare state!
If this question is asked to an Argentine or a Brazilian, the answer would probably be "yes" and it's reasonable too (after all, this is the era where their standing in the world stage is the greatest), but for Americans - that doesn't make any sense, especially if you are a common person!
Probably the same reason that if anyone ever imagines themselves in a zombie apocalypse, they’re a survivor, not a zombie. If they imagine the feudal era, they’re nobility, not a peasant in the muck.
Main Character Syndrome.
When Trump says "mag again" he's just making a populist appeal to a sense of decay, not wanting to bring the US back to any particular time. The Obama-Trump voter who was hurt by globalization is probably just thinking that their parents had it easier, not that America was great 100 years ago.
Likewise "America First" is another populist appeal, I'm very dubious that Trump was aware that Wilson coined it. Lots of populist parties all over the world have similar slogans.
It's an interesting question, but so far I don't feel the US 'betrayed' us that badly, it's more that Trump & co do seem to move in that direction. A lot of the long term effects will probably depend on how successful Trump (& Elon) will be at breaking down the federal state. But if there's still a somewhat operational public service, a next administration, assuming they will be reasonable people, could rebuild broken ties based on existing networks (or make new ones, as the EU is likely to remain cautious of too much dependency for the next decade, and will this strive for a different type of relationship). If too many of the people and infrastructure are gone it'll probably take much longer. As long as American military aggression is avoided any betrayal can probably be mended. I truly don't know how hawkish Trump's people are, or how much of the Greenland and Panama stuff is just to look tough for negotiations. I'm a little afraid that with all their blustering they will cross some line they didn't even know was there, and will irreversibly push the world towards a path of chaos. So far it didn't happen, but 4 years of this is quite a long time...
Heck we aren’t even four months in yet.
Man, here we are two days later and I'm already regretting what I said. He seems to take both the Panama and the Greenland stuff serious. This guy apparently wants to betray anyone who once was a US ally. Guess he didn't enjoy his comfortable life of riches, and now wants for the future generations a much better life of hardship and war, or something like that.
Far too many Americans have always been remarkably thoughtless and short-sighted, and support for Trump proves this in a number of areas, not just in foreign policy. It began with the southern colonies’ refusal to form an independent nation without slavery, a decision which cost their grandchildren over 300,000 deaths and great destruction, resulted in the assassination of our greatest president and thousands of black deaths over the following years, and bequeathed to us much of the racism that still plagues our political lives.
There are numerous other examples, but the current thoughtless and short-sighted delusion on the part of an entire political party, that Trumpism will somehow ‘save American greatness’ because an economic ignoramus, malignant narcissist, and would-be-tinpot dictator (and his machete-wielding accomplice) who lies as easily and almost as often as he breathes says so, is running headlong into yet another era of chaos, and is costing us in ways we can already see, and others we have not yet imagined.
I would add to the list of shortsighted Americans today's Democrats in office, who insisted on tripling down on the racist and misogynist policies that drove many classical liberals like me (I've been a registered Democrat for 50 years) to start voting against them for every possible office.
And the Republicans are not racist and misogynists?
And when the leopards eat our faces, you'll be one of the ones that deserved it instead of one of the ones that didn't deserve it. :(
It was leopards or hyenas, I went with the leopards.
Well, good luck with that.
I’m going to have a few disagreements. I have a different perspective, not because Noah is wrong in his observations.
First, Trump only admires strength, and Noah is dead on. Those of us who even look at foreign policy have been warning about the deteriorating industrial base. The story about the manufacturing line that made Stinger missiles was closed in 2007. When we gave our stocks to Ukraine and wanted to replenish them, apparently, no one was left at the company who knew how to build them.
It is not anyone’s fault; we had enough in storage, and you don’t just keep on building them to keep the memory of how to. Our military shrank in terms of percentage of GDP from the decades of the Cold War. It was a peace dividend. That said, we spent an awful lot of money on the Pentagon.
It was spent improperly and, most notably, in two areas. The Navy and the Air Force. We were concentrating on building up special forces, not in building submarines. The Joint Strike Fighter program has cost us too much money. It may not be a great plane, but the Pentagon wanted to build the same aircraft to fit different missions for different military branches.
Anyway, bloat, bad decisions have plagued the Pentagon and it now leaves us having the wrong weapons, not enough of the right weapons and a crappy military industrial complex.
This situation actually calls for greater dependence on collective security, not less. There is no such animal as Fortress America. Not being able to project overwhelming force means that without allies, we cannot respond to regional conflicts and prevent despots from overwhelming our allies.
We can rectify this, but since our profligate politicians have been more interested in mismanaging our nation's finances in order to fulfill populist notions, we have few tools.
Trump cannot dictate which industries come to America. TSMC may come and build here but would Mitsubishi build a shipbuilding manufacturing facility? We need greater capacity.
Anyway, Trump has the wrong prescription for our economic defense security. Collection security is the only card to play. Integration of weapons manufacturing with other countries is imperative if America and its allies are to survive.
Meaning our alliances cannot deliver what they need. Protection.
The F-35 they eventually ended up was actually good. It just took much longer and cost much more money than it should have.
I have a response that fits your comment. No Sh*t
I guess we're in agreement! Good airplane; absolutely terrible project management.