Hacker News Reader

> Instead the EU is engaging in increasingly protectionist activity to build more domestic industry.

yes, this is why it was created, it's why it exists!

I have absolutely no problem with the US deciding to re-balance its economy using tariffs, that is its sovereign right

but I have a problem with it using them as a tool of coercion against its "allies" to achieve foreign policy objectives

and not to mention the direct threats of annexation

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland.

if you assume the decoupling has completed, then the rest of the west would by definition be capable of defending itself without being subject to coercion/blackmail

(there's also the the two nuclear powers treaty bound to defend it)

> or is it only the EU that gets to decouple from a major trading partner and the US isn't allowed?

Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things.

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland.

The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers".

If the US wishes to leave that mutual defence pace (hence "two or three nuclear powers"), this is a big shift, much more than "we are sad about this", it would require a change in US law to leave, but still well short of "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things.

Decoupling does not by itself force the US out of this treaty. If the US invades despite being party to this treaty, it is a traitor. I am not certain, but I suspect that the US military will take exception to be ordered to betray their allies, and may coup instead.

If the US invades Greenland but only after leaving this treaty, which would currently be illegal under US law, Greenland still has two nuclear powers defending it.

> Decoupling is expensive, for everyone, but there's legit security reasons to do it anyway. This is only bad at the level of "we are sad about this" rather than "we are now at war". There is a huge gap between these two things.

Agreed, which is why the United States is decoupling from China and pivoting militarily away from Europe. If war is coming with China we won't be able to help much in Europe, and with European militaries outside of probably the UK and to some extent France and Poland needing massive overhaul, it's of the utmost importance that European military spending increase and training if Europe is to defend itself from Russia.

My point is that it's the hypocrisy that I at least find grating.

> The incentive is "Greenland is part of the nation of Denmark, which is party to a mutual defence pact with two or three nuclear powers".

Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.

> Those nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they'd never be used against the United States, and they'd certainly never be used in the event that the United States seized Greenland. Europe also would not go to war, and has no ability to resist the United States seizing Greenland. I don't think we should, to be clear, and I disagree with our current president's baboonish and disgusting behavior toward our allies, but any assessment to the contrary of what I wrote purely from a military point of view is just fantasy.

I believe the EU would face a "fight or die" choice if the US tried it.

Salami slicing, even for Greenland. Old British comedy, but same point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang

But not only the US. Simply failing to go straight to war in such a case would also tell the Russians that the EU and the rest of NATO is not a real threat. Were the EU to announce it was doing nothing, 10 minutes later Russian nukes would be in the air to Berlin, Paris, and London. (Or at least, their launch would be attempted, I'm not sure Russian nuclear missiles or warheads work as advertised, but unless EU leaders are really sure they don't work they'd need to assume the worst).

It's not like the Russians would fear a response from the US at that point, given the US would in this hypothetical clearly no longer be allies of NATO.

No, we'd fight, because not fighting would guarantee death almost immediately. We may have a less exciting arsenal, we may not win such a fight, but we'd certainly bloody the US's nose.

The USA would take Greenland anyways, the current USA doesn't understand or care about the concept of "friends", being or not being a friend is irrelevant.

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland.

You're saying "I had sex with my best friend's wife and now he doesn't want to see me anymore. This is stupid: if he doesn't want to be my friend, then there is no incentive for me to not have sex with his wife. He should still be my friend".

If you go like this in real life, I wonder how many friends you have :-).

I don't think that's a good analogy.

But if you want to stick with it, in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends, and don't intend to be because you both made each other really mad, and by having sex with the wife she gives you a lot of good stuff that you want and you're not really concerned with your former friend's feelings.

> in this scenario the situation would be you aren't friends

You think that the Europeans bought defense systems that depend on the US without thinking they were allies?

We are still allies. I think your comment here is just speaking to the limitation of your analogy.

On the contrary, I think it explains our disconnect. If you consider that it's perfectly fine for an ally to threaten to invade ("allies are not friends"), then it may be difficult for you to understand the reaction of people who strongly disagree (and consider that "allies are friends").

IMO, when a country threatens to invade another country, it becomes an enemy.

Back to Europe, I don't remember hearing that China threatened Europe militarily. Russia does, and the US as well. So I am not completely surprised when people in Europe say that they would rather buy Chinese products than American products. First because they haven't feared of a Chinese invasion in the last weeks, and second because China does not behave like an enemy. Rather a partner with divergent interests. When China threatens Taiwan, Europe may disagree, but they don't feel like Chinese people may kill European people in the next few days.

The US behaves like an enemy, like Russia. Are you surprised that Europeans don't want to buy Russian products? Economically, it's not good for Russia and it's not good for Europe. Just like tensions with the US are good for neither of them.

> If you consider that it's perfectly fine for an ally to threaten to invade

I don't consider it fine, but I don't think this means we're also not allies. I understand the reaction. I largely disagree with our actions. The US would still come to the defense of France, Germany, UK, &c. We are still in NATO, we still participate in and lead military exercises, we still have troops stationed throughout NATO-aligned countries, and more.

> Back to Europe, I don't remember hearing that China threatened Europe militarily.

Ha, well they're not threatening Europe they are actively providing assistance in terms of materials and equipment and other support to Russia as it continues to wage war against Ukraine and prepare for a broader war against Europe. Oh and sprinkle in some hacking, and disinformation campaigns to fuel European far-right groups too.

The main criticism I have here of the EU is that they seem to think the US should come and help Europe, provide assistance against Russia, &c. but when it comes to China all of a sudden it's "they didn't attack us, they aren't threatening us, &c" - you can't have it both ways. If you don't think China is a problem or whatever, you can't blame the United States for pulling forces and support from Europe when the US feels threatened by China. Russia isn't threatening us, not going to attack us, so maybe we should just do some good trade deals with Russia and unlock resources. This is exactly how Europe is behaving with respect to China.

I think you misunderstand the feeling in Europe.

> The US would still come to the defense of France, Germany, UK,

Pretty sure many Europeans genuinely doubt it. It's not only Greenland (though that is an actual military threat), it's also that the US government (not only Trump) has been saying repeatedly (many times to EU governments, in front of journalists) that he may not do it. Or he may, depending on how he feels on that day.

In went from "The US may not protect a NATO member anymore" to "Actually we're thinking about invading you". Maybe you see that as "words", but I strongly believe that the Europeans see that as very real threats.

> sprinkle in some hacking, and disinformation campaigns to fuel European far-right groups too.

The US has been documented to spy on EU politicians forever. Also to interfere with other countries (including European countries) for their own interest. And when it comes to disinformation campaigns to fuel European far-right groups... It's not only members of the US government who have openly been doing that, but also oligarchs like Elon Musk.

> The main criticism I have here of the EU is that they seem to think the US should come and help Europe

When the Europeans complain about the US now, it's very far from that. They think that the US should not behave like an enemy. And that's a wake-up call because until recently, they knew that the US was "interfering in their own interest", bullying and abusing their dominant position, but it was accepted "because it's an ally". But suddenly they explicitly tell to Europe that they are not allies. What remains?

> but when it comes to China all of a sudden it's

That's another thing: I don't think that Europeans see China as an ally. But this hasn't changed dramatically in the last year.

When people say they would rather buy Chinese products (and it's not only Europe, look at Canada and probably others), they react to the fact that they feel they have been betrayed by the US. And when they say that, US citizen seem to genuinely not understand because "they never considered that they were friends". Well guess what, the Europeans thought it was a friendship. Of course now they're disappointed.

> I think you misunderstand the feeling in Europe.

No, I understand it. Thanks. I disagree with it - that's different.

> Pretty sure many Europeans genuinely doubt it.

Let's just get to the point: do you want the United States to leave military bases in Europe and withdraw from NATO and other security commitments related to Europe? Because you and others seem to keep "doubting" it, so maybe we should just do what you think we're going to do then.

> The US has been documented to spy on EU politicians forever.

The EU spies on the US too. This is common practice. Don't be naive.

> That's another thing: I don't think that Europeans see China as an ally. But this hasn't changed dramatically in the last year.

Right... of course "China isn't an ally". But the EU is happy to do trade deals with China (which won't last by the way, once the products that were going to the US start going to Europe and grind Germany's manufacturing capabilities into dust while China continues to limit your access to their market) even when they are actively helping Russia invade Ukraine.

Time and time again folks like yourself and others sit here even in these comments and say things like "China isn't doing anything to Europe" and "the US is supporting Russia" and then you act surprised when Americans say fine, maybe we will support Russia when we've sitting here giving tens of billions of dollars in equipment to Ukraine, selling them weapons we also need, providing intelligence and logistical support, including active targeting of Russian assets in Russia, seizing Russian oil tankers funding their war economy, which Europe was too weak to do until the US took the lead, maintaining tends of thousands of soldiers, aircraft, tanks, and more in Europe including in the Baltic states, Romania, &c, and more.

Maybe you and others who feel like you do should be more introspective about how the EU has behaved, and how you yourself sounds to Americans. When I read comments like this, and keep in mind I think the US should have went straight to war against Russia when they invaded, it makes me want to write my Congressman and tell them to stop supporting Ukraine and leave NATO. But maybe that's your goal too. :)

This all honestly sounds sociopathic.

You cannot disagree with the feelings of someone else. Someone is sad, they are sad, period. This is "being a human 101".

"Since you already feel hurt, it makes me want to hurt you, but maybe that's your goal".

You actually scare me. Let's stop this here please.

> I don't consider it fine, but I don't think this means we're also not allies. I understand the reaction. I largely disagree with our actions. The US would still come to the defense of France, Germany, UK, &c. We are still in NATO, we still participate in and lead military exercises, we still have troops stationed throughout NATO-aligned countries, and more.

As someone living in Europe: I don't trust the USA would, that's the reality now, there were ties spanning decades which I thought would take a lot more effort from any US administration to break but alas, it's been broken, I simply do not trust any of that right now. The US definitely wouldn't come to the defence of the Baltics which would be the frontline of any start of Russian aggression towards the EU.

Sorry to say but this is not the reality anymore.

> Oh and sprinkle in some hacking, and disinformation campaigns to fuel European far-right groups too.

The US admin is cozying up with many far-right groups in Europe as well, given that China hasn't directly threatened to annex any territory from European countries we can see how between US vs China, China is becoming the more reliable partner. It's a quantifiable measure, they are predictable, it's easier to deal with.

> If you don't think China is a problem or whatever, you can't blame the United States for pulling forces and support from Europe when the US feels threatened by China. Russia isn't threatening us, not going to attack us, so maybe we should just do some good trade deals with Russia and unlock resources. This is exactly how Europe is behaving with respect to China.

How exactly is China threatening the USA? You all got into this China pivot because of how economically powerful China has become, it's just Red Scare 2.0 but against a hyper-capitalist country with a veneer of "communism" from the party's name.\

Because Russia is directly invading a country in our continent, directly threatening European countries with nukes, tell me more on how the USA is threatened by China.

Maybe you should do good deals with Russia if that's how you think, you're displaying exactly the reason why we in Europe don't really feel keen on dealing with the USA anymore.

> As someone living in Europe: I don't trust the USA would, that's the reality now, there were ties spanning decades which I thought would take a lot more effort from any US administration to break but alas, it's been broken, I simply do not trust any of that right now. The US definitely wouldn't come to the defence of the Baltics which would be the frontline of any start of Russian aggression towards the EU.

Feel free to read more about literal US troops deployed on the frontline in the Baltics, and in Eastern Europe: https://www.cfr.org/articles/where-are-us-forces-deployed-eu...

> Sorry to say but this is not the reality anymore.

Factually incorrect.

> The US admin is cozying up with many far-right groups in Europe as well, given that China hasn't directly threatened to annex any territory from European countries we can see how between US vs China, China is becoming the more reliable partner. It's a quantifiable measure, they are predictable, it's easier to deal with.

Ok so if the US is cozying up with many far-right groups in Europe as well, that means the US and China are operating the same. Ok that's neutral.

The US has threatened to annex Greenland, which, let's be honest was most likely an extremely poor, stupid, and bombastic negotiating tactic as the island is effectively undefended and if the EU is going to own it they need to increase defense spending there to levels that are satisfactory to the United States.

And while I disagree completely with the Trump admin's approach, getting really angry about that one thing, and then all of sudden pretending that is somehow worse than the Chinese helping Russia physically attack Ukraine is beyond bizarre to me. But maybe that's kind of the point - EU doesn't actually care much about Ukraine.

> How exactly is China threatening the USA?

Are you really not aware of the geopolitical confrontation between China and the United States, or are you being facetious?

> Maybe you should do good deals with Russia if that's how you think, you're displaying exactly the reason why we in Europe don't really feel keen on dealing with the USA anymore.

You're displaying the exact reason why folks in the USA have stopped caring about Europe.

> Feel free to read more about literal US troops deployed on the frontline in the Baltics, and in Eastern Europe

I'm very aware, and again: what's lost is the trust that this means anything right now. Your government is fickle and spineless, it doesn't bode well to rely on it, it has cozied up with Putin through Trump so why should I believe those troops will actually be activated? Why, exactly? Trust is lost, that's a fact.

> Ok so if the US is cozying up with many far-right groups in Europe as well, that means the US and China are operating the same. Ok that's neutral.

I never said that, don't put words in my mouth, just this week it's probably the 3rd or 4th time an American here on HN tries to do that, it's quite tiresome.

I did say that the USA is not better in that term since it's doing the same so your argument is nil. If China is bad for doing that then the USA (which includes you) as it is right now has no moral stand to use that as argument.

> The US has threatened to annex Greenland, which, let's be honest was most likely an extremely poor, stupid, and bombastic negotiating tactic as the island is effectively undefended and if the EU is going to own it they need to increase defense spending there to levels that are satisfactory to the United States.

We don't care if it was a negotiation tactic, the end result is the same: you've threatened us, there's no friendship or alliance that survives that unscathed. It was stupid, don't you think these actions have political implications? Growing dissatisfaction with the USA means electing people who will continue the trend of decoupling, this "tactic" has consequences, and the consequence is to not be so deep into the USA's influence, you've proven you don't care about that.

> And while I disagree completely with the Trump admin's approach, getting really angry about that one thing, and then all of sudden pretending that is somehow worse than the Chinese helping Russia physically attack Ukraine is beyond bizarre to me. But maybe that's kind of the point - EU doesn't actually care much about Ukraine.

The EU has spent more money to supply Ukraine than the USA, Europe has been taking over the vacuum the USA is leaving after electing Trump because the USA does not care a single yota about Ukraine, on the contrary: your administration is led by someone who continuously praise Putin, and is very likely heavily influenced by Putin and the Russian government. Don't come with "no u" onto this.

You need to accept the USA as we knew before is over, there's no coming back from MAGA-adjacent stuff for generations, the seeds have been sown, your society is MAGA, like it or not. We outside the USA need to be prepared for this new world, and detaching from your sick society is one of the required steps.

Again, China is, at the very least, predictable. You aren't, go fix your house if you want that impression to be changed.

> I'm very aware, and again: what's lost is the trust that this means anything right now.

> Why, exactly? Trust is lost, that's a fact.

Actions mean more than words. Trust isn't binary, you can lose some but not all, gain some but not have full trust, &c.

> it doesn't bode well to rely on it, it has cozied up with Putin through Trump so why should I believe those troops will actually be activated?

I understand the current administration has taken, perhaps inappropriate in my mind, overtures toward Putin for a diplomatic solution in Ukraine, and we should continue to find a diplomatic solution, but as we haven't, we've continued to supply Ukraine with logistical support, weapons, intelligence, targeting, and we are even testing new weapons in Ukraine and working with Ukrainian partners on the ground.

> The EU has spent more money to supply Ukraine than the USA

This isn't a problem, nor have I suggested that America has spent more than Europe.

The war is taking place in Europe, there's 600+ million people in Europe and 180 million people or so in Russia. It's very natural to me that the EU would spend much more than the United States here. The fact that we have spent as much as we have (plus other methods of support) is a testament to our generosity and our commitment to helping our allies and stopping Russia's war of aggression.

> because the USA does not care a single yota about Ukraine

Yet, here we are supplying weapons, loans, intelligence, targeting and intelligence support, and grants. Why would we do that if we don't care? You seem to have a disconnect with what the truth is and what you want to believe to be true.

> You need to accept the USA as we knew before is over, there's no coming back from MAGA-adjacent stuff for generations, the seeds have been sown, your society is MAGA, like it or not. We outside the USA need to be prepared for this new world, and detaching from your sick society is one of the required steps.

We got over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan pretty quick. Vietnam got over the war there from the US and from being a French colony. It seems like it doesn't take long for things to change.

> Your government is fickle and spineless,

> detaching from your sick society is one of the required steps

I'm going to ignore comments like this, but there's no need to say things like this. It doesn't add to the discussion.

> But if the EU "decouples" from the US, there's no incentive for the US to not, for example, take over Greenland.

I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland.

> But the EU is sitting here telling us it's this huge problem that Russia is invading Ukraine, yet they're happy to increase cooperation and trading with China who is providing support to Russia for their invasion?

No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first.

> Maybe increasing trade will help China stop helping Russia's war against Ukraine

Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at.

> we could just look at that activity and say, well, maybe we shouldn't help the EU here and if they really think Ukraine is a problem they should take these other actions instead, whatever they may be.

We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics.

> I dunno, I think Denmark and its remaining allies, including at least two nuclear weapons states, might be able to provide some incentive for the US not to take over Greenland.

If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. Let's not be delusional. There is absolutely no debating this.

> No, they aren't happy being backed into that by the open threat of US aggression. They weren't too happy having to ally with the USSR against the Nazis, either, but, you sometimes you have to deal with the overwhelming immediate problem, first.

To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity.

> Its not Russia’s aggression in Ukraine that the shift toward China is aimed at.

Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that China is assisting Russia in the invasion of Ukraine and further trading with China only furthers that war and Russia's aims.

> We aren't helping the EU, we are threatening an EU and NATO state (and another NATO state, and consequently an ally of many EU states) with invasion. That’s literally the source of the shift you are complaining about. Trying to use the response to justify the action it responds to is...mind-boggling mental gymnastics.

The source of the shift didn't start there, nor will it really end there. But we are helping the EU immensely even when we're having a conflict about somewhere else. You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.

> To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

No, I am suggesting that the United States, not China, poses the more immediate, direct threat to EU states and their treaty allies. Both the China and, under Trump, the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine, but that's not the comparison point.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I unconditionally disagree with that assessment.

> the US are also contributing to the problem of the Russian war in Ukraine

This is factually incorrect.

> If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it.

I can't fully parse this sentence, because the first part, "If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach", that's exactly what it looked like to us, but the second part I can't make fit with that: "and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it." - are you saying the EU couldn't stop such a thing despite France having nukes? Because to me it looks like we stopped an invasion by putting a tripwire force on Greenland and telling the US "FAFO". Or that the US wasn't taking the "damn the alliance we want Greenland approach" because France has nukes?

> To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity.

We have two immediate problems, China isn't one of them.

Important point: Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. We're friends with Ukraine, we're not as far along the path as allies, not yet.

Russia was the immediate problem because of what would happen if Ukraine lost, but the moment it started looking like the USA was about to actually invade Greenland, then the USA became an even higher priority. Because that's not "a friend", that's "us".

> You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU.

China has not threatened to invade any EU or NATO territory, which is the specific "it" that the EU is upset that the US has done.