"Donald Trump is wrecking U.S. alliance with Europe"

[Jeremiahcp]

Instead of celebrating, however, America and Europe are experiencing their most significant crisis in decades. President Trump’s recent visit to NATO and the EU was the least successful of any U.S. president in seven decades, exposing deep ideological divisions and a widening gulf of trust across the Atlantic.

Last weekend’s terrorist attacks in London had the same effect. Trump repeatedly criticized London Mayor Sadiq Khan for telling citizens not to be alarmed by the attacks, when Khan actually said they should not be alarmed by a heavy police presence. Trump’s tweets did not go down well in stoic Britain, where the World War II maxim, “keep calm and carry on,” still holds.

The policy differences alone are profound. European leaders want a historic free trade agreement with America, but Trump’s nationalist economic strategy led him to reject it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is determined to maintain tough EU and U.S. sanctions on Russia over its occupation of Ukraine. Trump appears more interested in a rapprochement with Russian President Vladimir Putin

The chasm is deepest and most emotional on climate change. Trump’s announcement that America will pull out of the historic 2015 Paris Agreement is deepening distrust among European citizens and their governments, which consider it an urgent priority

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...chasm-between-us-and-europe-column/102516256/

Good job on electing the world's biggest troll.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...chasm-between-us-and-europe-column/102516256/

Good job on electing the world's biggest troll.

From England, with love....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good job on electing the world's biggest troll.

Turns out in this case the American people, who the Founders were afraid of having the ability to directly elect more than a handful of officials, new better than those charged with the responsibility of formally electing the president.

 

[Stevicus]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...chasm-between-us-and-europe-column/102516256/

Good job on electing the world's biggest troll.

Trump won't be in office forever. I think the writer of this article is grossly overstating things. These are relatively minor disagreements and differences of opinion, and yet, this writer is making it sound like America and Europe are on the verge of war. From the article:

That is why the current crisis is far more threatening to the long-term future of the alliance than past disagreements. Trump’s ambivalence about NATO and skepticism about the EU are seen by European leaders as an open break with 70 years of U.S. commitment to the continent.

How would one characterize these 70 years of U.S. commitment to Europe? It almost seems like every U.S. President since Truman has been some kind of lapdog for Europe, favoring their interests at the expense of our own. Sure, it's been great for Europe, since the U.S. helped them rebuild and recover from WW2, while we've carried the bill for their own defense as well as to try to maintain stability and order in the post-colonial mess they left around the world. It's drained our economy, caused mountains of insurmountable debts for us, and put us in a much more precarious situation - all because of this mentality in America regarding our "need" to defend democracy, to protect Europe, and to intervene in every little hot spot around the world because our "allies" are too weak and incompetent to be able to fight their own battles. So, therefore, it becomes our obligation, our "commitment."

What did Europe ever do for us that we owe them some kind of "commitment"? This whole relationship has been one-way for all this time, with the US giving Europe a virtual blank check. What's in it for us?

The heart of the problem is Trump’s view of Europe, and Germany in particular, as an economic competitor rather than a strategic partner. This is a sea change in American attitudes towards Europe. All of Trump’s predecessors dating to President Truman have prized Europe’s political and military alliance with America.

The fact is, Germany has been an economic competitor more than a strategic partner. Germany is the whole reason why we ended up in Europe in the first place. With their Kaiser and their Hitler - they really don't have much room to talk in criticizing another nation's choice of leader. And people now are comparing Trump to Hitler, but I actually think Trump is more like the Kaiser.

And it's not even that much of a "sea change in American attitudes towards Europe." Plenty of Americans have grown weary of this whole situation, and the writer of the article should have known this.

On nearly every important U.S. global priority, Europe is a key partner. We need the United Kingdom, France and Germany to persuade Iran to adhere to the 2015 nuclear deal.

This isn't entirely true. Russia and China would have a lot more pull with Iran these days, so a closer relationship with those countries would help persuade Iran far more effectively than the UK, France, or Germany.

Trump may soon ask Europe to contribute additional troops to NATO’s Afghan mission.

If it's NATO's Afghan mission, then let NATO fight it. Why does Trump have to "ask Europe" to do anything here? If Europe doesn't want to fight there, then let's all pull out and cancel the mission.

The U.S. fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will be seriously undermined without British and French support.

Why is it the "U.S. fight"? Again, if Britain and France don't want to solve a problem in their former colonies that they are the root cause of, then why should we feel obligated to do anything about it?

Why would we need to go to Britain and France, hat in hand, and beg them for support for a fight that they should be responsible for in the first place?

The writer of this article is making too many assumptions.

America needs NATO allies to hold the line against Putin’s territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe.

America "needs" what, now? It seems that if Putin really does have territorial ambitions (which are not entirely certain), then it would be our NATO allies in Europe who would need America, not the other way around.

All this argues for a White House reassessment of its dramatic distancing from Europe. Trump was right to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf States on his first foreign trip. But our alliance with Europe is far more important to us. In contrast to Arab authoritarian leaders, we share with Europe a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Despite their persistent, public spin to the contrary, the more experienced White House hands have to realize the magnitude of the problem Trump has created.

Our alliance with Europe has always been more important to Europe than it has been for us. While it might seem like they're doing us a "favor" in cooperating with and supporting the US efforts made for the sake of defending European interests, it really isn't. After all, if they don't want to do it, why should we?

Sure, Trump is a bonehead and a blowhard, and maybe Americans will have to suffer a fool for the next four years. We've endured worse, so this isn't the end of the world. If Europe wants to ashcan a 70 year relationship over a few boorish slights and some disagreements from our temporary Head of State, then that would be fine by me. It just goes to show that our relationship couldn't have been that great to begin with if it's threatened over such minor things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I expect the Europeans will do fine without our handouts and freebies. They are a hardy and industrious group of people. Just look at what they've accomplished with their grand European Union!

 

[metis]

What did Europe ever do for us that we owe them some kind of "commitment"?

How about the French helping us to become independent of England? How about helping us to defeat the Germans and Japanese, which if we all had lost, this would have presented us with a serious threat here in the States?

This whole relationship has been one-way for all this time, with the US giving Europe a virtual blank check. What's in it for us?

No, it is not "one-way". For example, the post-WWII Marshall Plan helped to stimulate manufacturing here in the States, thus helping to create us as being the world's number one superpower.

I expect the Europeans will do fine without our handouts and freebies. They are a hardy and industrious group of people. Just look at what they've accomplished with their grand European Union!

"No man is an island", and nowadays neither is any country an "island" unto itself. Isolationism, such as that which we took both prior to WWI and afterword, allowed the rise of fascism that led to WWII.

History has shown that it would be a colossal mistake on our part to somehow think that we would be better off if we go it alone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"No man is an island", and nowadays neither is any country an "island" unto itself. Isolationism, such as that which we took both prior to WWI and afterword, allowed the rise of fascism that led to WWII.

History has shown that it would be a colossal mistake on our part to somehow think that we would be better off if we go it alone.

Going it alone isn't the same as always being on the losing end of the deal.

Beware. My skills at quickly and efficiently dismantling strawmen is unparalleled.

 

[metis]

Going it alone isn't the same as always being on the losing end of the deal.

But you're assuming that we always or most of the time are, and I simply am not going to buy into that assumption.

As a country, we obviously don't always make the best of moves, but we are really not quite that stupid so as to make moves that are not in our own self-interest at least most of the time.

Beware. My skills at quickly and efficiently dismantling strawmen is unparalleled.

Is that because you use them so often yourself?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But you're assuming that we always or most of the time are, and I simply am not going to buy into that assumption.

But you're willing to buy into other assumptions. We're using different assumptions. Your's don't square with my experience and perception of the world. I expect many of mine don't with you.

Is that because you use them so often yourself?

I employ all tools at my disposable. The difference between me and most other people is that I do it with full awareness and for specific reasons.

But, yes, having employed such tools has given me greater skill at quickly identifying them when other people use them - as crudely as they do.

 

[metis]

But you're willing to buy into other assumptions. We're using different assumptions. Your's don't square with my experience and perception of the world. I expect many of mine don't with you.

Not "assumptions"-- study. I started out teaching American history, but shortly thereafter switched over to teaching political science for the next 25 or so years.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not assumptions-- study.

A purely objective exercise, no doubt.

 

[metis]

A purely objective exercise, no doubt.

At least largely so.

At the end of each semester, I had students fill out a confidential survey, and I asked them which political party, if any, that I was more attached to, and the results pretty much came out in a general three-way tie the vast majority of the time: Republican, or Democratic, or independent/don't know.

BTW, then they'd ask me to tell them which it was, but much to their chagrin, I wouldn't answer them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

At least largely so.

At the end of each semester, I had students fill out a confidential survey, and I asked them which political party, if any, that I was more attached to, and the results pretty much came out in a general three-way tie the vast majority of the time: Republican, or Democratic, or independent/don't know.

BTW, then they'd ask me to tell them which it was, but much to their chagrin, I wouldn't answer them.

Sounds like an expected random distribution resulting from everybody guessing.

 

[metis]

Sounds like an expected random distribution resulting from everybody guessing.

Hey, you can believe anything you want about what I did or didn't do, and I find your statements to be insulting. I didn't and don't do this to you, but apparently your attitude is not mutual.

So, ...

 

[Stevicus]

How about the French helping us to become independent of England?

Well, a lot has happened since that time. The French weren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They were already enemies with England, so they would have been willing to do anything to hurt their enemy. Besides, the French weren't exactly our friends when they backed Maximilian in Mexico, so that cancels whatever help they gave us in the Revolutionary War. We also helped them in both World Wars, so it's not as if we owe them anything at this point.

How about helping us to defeat the Germans and Japanese, which if we all had lost, this would have presented us with a serious threat here in the States?

They were helping themselves more than they were helping "us." If anyone helped us, it was Russia who helped us far more than all the other European powers combined. Why would we treat Russia so shabbily while falling all over ourselves trying to kiss the backsides of other European powers? What do we owe Europe that we don't owe Russia, at least regarding defeating the Germans and the Japanese?

No, it is not "one-way". For example, the post-WWII Marshall Plan helped to stimulate manufacturing here in the States, thus helping to create us as being the world's number one superpower.

Manufacturing was stimulated in the U.S. by the war itself, as well as being the only major industrial power which wasn't in tatters at the end of the war. I still don't see how it's helped America for the long term, nor does it imply any obligation for a permanent commitment to Europe. I don't see that Europe has done much of anything to help Americans at all. Many Europeans often complain about American militarism, but they're they ones who created the need for American militarism. If Europeans would stop pressuring us and stop obligating us to have some sort of "commitment to Europe," then the US government would not be able to justify its military adventurism, and they would get no public support for such.

"No man is an island", and nowadays neither is any country an "island" unto itself. Isolationism, such as that which we took both prior to WWI and afterword, allowed the rise of fascism that led to WWII.

We were never "isolationist." "Isolationism" is what North Korea is now, or what Albania was during the Cold War. We were neutral, not isolationist. There's a big difference that has to be noted.

Our relationships with most countries were friendly and cordial. We had ties of trade and commerce, as well cultural exchanges, free flow of communication/travel. We were never closed off to the world; the main difference was that we didn't play favorites between nations, and we didn't want any foreign entanglements or permanent alliances.

And really, I don't see why the US should be blamed for supposedly "allowing" the rise of fascism. If the Allies had stayed faithful to Wilson's 14 Points, instead of what they ended up with at Versailles, then the conditions leading to the rise of fascism would have been minimized. If only Britain and France would have agreed to "peace without annexations or indemnities," then so much turmoil which followed WW1 could have been avoided. But no, they just had to have their pound of flesh, didn't they?

Ironically, it was that same treaty which led to British and French control of former territories of the Ottoman Empire which are prominent hot spots in the news these days. They screwed that up, too.

History has shown that it would be a colossal mistake on our part to somehow think that we would be better off if we go it alone.

Go it alone against what? Prior to our permanent alliances with European nations, when/where did America have any real enemies to worry about? The only European power to invade American soil was England itself, but after the War of 1812, we both realized we didn't want to be enemies anymore. For the remainder of the 19th century and up until WW1, other than the Indian Wars and Civil War, the only wars we fought with outside powers were the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, which was only limited to attacking Spanish colonies, not Spain itself.

We did our best to stay out of European wars, such as the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, etc. We didn't really need to get involved in those affairs. It was the same for the Russo-Japanese War, although we did serve as neutral mediator to help bring that war to an end. We even tried to stay out of WW1 at first, but a combination of factors led us to enter that war.

But it was our involvement in that war and the aftermath that left a bitter taste in Americans' mouths that may have further reinforced the idea that America would be far better off to stay out of European affairs. That was part of the reason we didn't ratify the Versailles Treaty or join the League of Nations.
But we can't be blamed for the rise of fascism in Europe, which was really just a more extreme version of the same malignant nationalism which had been pervading that continent for over a century or more. It's hard to play "what if" and hypothesize about what might have happened if the US joined the League of Nations and put more teeth into those trying to thwart German aggression.

 

[metis]

Why would we treat Russia so shabbily while falling all over ourselves trying to kiss the backsides of other European powers?

When it has been well established as of now that they definitely were meddling in our last election, to not treat Russia "shabbily" would be the biggest question. They also invaded Crimea, supported and still support and assist enemies of the Ukraine, and previously invaded Georgia.

I don't see that Europe has done much of anything to help Americans at all.

I seriously cannot understand how you take this position based on how much interaction of all sorts of types we have with our European allies.

We were never "isolationist." "Isolationism"

Relatively speaking, we definitely were: Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hey, you can believe anything you want about what I did or didn't do, and I find your statements to be insulting. I didn't and don't do this to you, but apparently your attitude is not mutual.

So, ...

It was just a neutral observation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We were never "isolationist."

For awhile isolationism was the policy, pretty much from around the end of WWI until America's getting involved in WWII. Not very long lived, but it was there.

With their Kaiser and their Hitler - they really don't have much room to talk in criticizing another nation's choice of leader.

How many Germans alive today were even members of the Nazi party? It's time we quit holding Germans responsible and guilty, because only a handful or so remain who were even a part of it.

I don't see that Europe has done much of anything to help Americans at all.

Europe put us non-natives here.

 

[Stevicus]

When it has been well established as of now that they definitely were meddling in our last election, to not treat Russia "shabbily" would be the biggest question. They also invaded Crimea, supported and still support and assist enemies of the Ukraine, and previously invaded Georgia.

Yes, I realize what they've done, but there are two sides to every story. It always takes two to tango. I'm not saying we should give Russia a pass here, but we should also realize that the Soviet Union broke up rather precipitously and left quite a number of loose ends.

I seriously cannot understand how you take this position based on how much interaction of all sorts of types we have with our European allies.

Well, we can always have interaction. But the point is, whose interests are benefiting? We're the ones losing money and in a state of decline.

Relatively speaking, we definitely were: Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian

I can see why some might refer to it as "isolationism," but I never saw it as such, since "isolationism" implies something far more extreme than what we were actually doing. And we weren't really that isolationist anyway. We already took sides, even if we had not formally entered the war. If we were totally isolationist, Japan never would have thought of us as a threat and never would have attacked us. It's because Japan didn't believe we were all that isolationist that they felt they had no other choice.

 

[Stevicus]

For awhile isolationism was the policy, pretty much from around the end of WWI until America's getting involved in WWII. Not very long lived, but it was there.

At the time, Americans would have called it "normalcy," indicating a desire to return to the way things were before WW1. I'm not disputing what our actual policy was, although I think "isolationism" is a misnomer, since we still had diplomatic relations, trade, travel, and cultural exchange with other countries.

How many Germans alive today were even members of the Nazi party? It's time we quit holding Germans responsible and guilty, because only a handful or so remain who were even a part of it.

I'm not holding Germans responsible, although if they're going to start criticizing U.S. policy, it might be relevant to point out how and why that policy originated in the first place. Europeans can't just point their finger of judgment at us and act like they're innocent.

Europe put us non-natives here.

Well, actually, a lot of our non-native ancestors were driven out of Europe. Many wanted to get away from the turmoil, war, oppression of European countries and come to America to live some semblance of a free and peaceful life. Many did not leave Europe on good terms, so it wasn't as if the European governments were doing America any favors, at least not intentionally.