America isn’t even an American ally.
FFS no, obviously not.
No.
America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests
- Henry Kissinger
That one is not his worst quote, it applies to most countries. His infamous and telling quote about this is:
“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Denmark and Canada learned this first hand.
no, it should be 3rd party status, like say India
Americas ally is money, strangely so is Europes.
Nope
Sadly, no. Too many people that don’t understand politics and are tribal so keep digging their holes deeper but won’t stop, to remain on their team. They are selfish and call it independent, and a bunch of other fables they cling to for cheap, conditional identity. They’re that desperate for belonging they stay in the abusive and conditional group, or swing back and forth w/o real thought.
Short answer : no
Hey, at least we can all agree on supporting Israel!
Spoiler: the answer is “no”. If you must fear that every four or so years, your supposed “ally” will be taken over by a traitorous, corrupt moron, you have! No! Ally!
Fool me once, fool me twice, and all that jazz.
Now geht on with it!
I think more Europeans need to realise that the only countries which care about the security of European countries are European countries.
Which is what realists have told us all along, post-cold-war optimism be damned… We were bloody naive.
Eh, not necessarily. In the last decade or two though… yeah, definitely. I don’t think the US will ever recover the good will we once had.
Canada enters the group chat.
This sentiment is a major part of the MAGA platform - just swap “European” for “American.”
Why become isolationist? It’s a weak position. What about countries like Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, etc? Just because the US sucks right now doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t work together.
I definitely think Europe should have strong relationships with good allies, like Canada and Japan. Hopefully they would both be reliable.
Mexico, potentially yes, they could be a reliable ally. As for India I’m not so sure, because India seems to want to be quite friendly with Russia (I think India buys a lot of military equipment from Russia), and Russia has been waging war against Europe for the last 12 years.
India has been a Russian ally since the West backed Pakistan in their war 60 years ago.
Just because they are purportedly a democracy doesn’t make them western allies in any way. They claimed to be neutral (3rd world) during the cold war and after, but look at their actions, look at where they buy weapons, who they trade with.
They’re mercantilist first just like China, but be under no delusion they would not hesitate to sell us out for pennies if we were foolish enough to embrace them.
This was a call for independence (particularly with regard to defense), not for isolationism. They may share some features, but are two are very different things indeed.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist. Are you simply advocating for stronger European militaries? Ironically, MAGA has also been asking for that - they want Europe to spend more on their militaries.
My position is that the stronger and more prolific the alliances are among nations of the world, the less each individual country will need to spend on militarization (a complete waste of resources). That’s not suggesting that Europe shouldn’t be spending more on their militaries in light of recent events. That’s just an unfortunate consequence of a shitty disposition of US isolationism.
Independence rhetoric does closely align with the rise of right wing nationalism we see throughout the world. I’m curious how you distance yourself from that movement.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
You’re not wrong, there are broader and narrower definitions of security. For the purposes of my posting, I used it in a more narrow, defensive meaning.
But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist.
Happy to. “Independent”, in a security/defensive context, means that you can organise your own defense if need be. This does not mean that you’re unwilling to cooperate. Like you said correctly, there are great benefits to be had from military alliances: joint development means reduced R&D and maintenance costs for everyone involved. Compatible command structures and shared strategies improve security for those inside and deterrence of those outside the alliance. But: if allegiances shift and your former partners drop out of the alliance, you’re not opening yourself up to any vulnerabilities - unlike large parts of Europe, which has entirely relied on the U.S. for things like air defense, intelligence and nuclear deterrence, but also conventional land operations, and now needs to build up these capabilities in a rush.
“Isolationism”, on the other hand, means you’re flat-out unwilling to cooperate or care. You refuse to enter alliances, be bound by treaties of any kind, and generally take no interest in getting involved with the rest of the world, including the use of soft power.
The reason you’re suspicious of the word “independence” and connect it to right-wing populism is because, like so many other words, right-wing populists love to abuse it: they say “independence” because it has a nicer ring to it, but in fact, they seek isolationism. And in doing so, they actually weaken their nations by passing up the benefits of cooperation. I dare not say whether that is up to irony or design - because they were bought by foreign powers looking to weaken the nation in question.
“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.
More spending doesn’t automatically equal stronger. Especially if you’re spending that money on highly complex equipment produced by an openly hostile third party, which can end its supply of spare parts at any moment and therefore render the capabilities purchased with that equipment all but useless.
Obviously not.
This is reaching “battered spouse” levels of delusion that the question is still being asked even.
There is no delusion… or incompetence… or stupidity… or whatever other lie voters tell themselves to explain their politicians idiocy. It’s basically always corruption.
Murican here. We aren’t even our own ally. Any country that considers us an ally is looking through rose-tinted goggles at what we could be, and clinging to that fantasy while ignoring what we are.
We need to get our shit together and actually keep it that way for at least a few decades before I’d expect any measure of trust from the global community.
Until then, yeah I wouldn’t sign any agreements with the US that extend past a presidential administration cuz as soon as a relatively good one leaves, we’re liable to put another hue-shifted Hitler in power.
Took the words out of my mouth, the USA is the enemy of its own citizens!
Also American here. The very stupid but correct answer is that America is an ally of Europe when the president is a Democrat, and America is not at all an ally when the president is a Republican. Which sadly means we cannot be a trusted ally and Europe would be wise to buy weapons elsewhere and create alliances elsewhere.
There’s a serious amount of threats and hostile actions the US has taken against Europe. And it’s not just this administration.
That’s not subjectieve.
Right now, it is ally to no one, not even itself.
‘Cause every now and then I kick the living shit outta me!’
Russia comes to mind…
But is an ally a trustworthy ally if it can be this unstable between presidents
An untrustworthy ally is an ally all the same. At least it’s unlikely to side with the enemy.
At least it’s unlikely to side with the enemy.
Is it, though? Just look at recent events.
The recent events are what has convinced me that it’s unlikely to side with the enemy.
Even in the situation where the president of USA has sided with the enemy, the US as a state has not. It has done comparatively small pro-Russia moves at the whims of its president, but those have been reverted within a week or so. With Trump in charge the US is much less of an ally that it would be without him.
But with even the president becoming a staunch supporter of the enemy the state apparatus still managed to only drop at worst to being a neutral country and in reality remaining an ally, albeit a very weak and useless ally. And that’s actually rather reassuring.
But, at the same time, USA has shown that it can really use various tools it has that amount to being kill-switches. Therefore, it is imperative to not rely on any US technology, components or intelligence. Good to have it atop our normal systems, but everything should work well enough even if USA withdraws all support.
And: Withdrawing support does not equal siding with the enemy in a war. It does of course help the enemy, but there is zero risk of USA starting to shoot tomahawks into Bankovska in Kyiv anytime soon.
