It wouldn't make any strategic sense for Europe to wait it out and see what happens next, and no doubt it has been a wake-up call to see how quickly the US can pivot from friend to adversary.
Once Europe has severed reliance on US, then it is hard to see them reverting.
We're paying a very high cost, but it's not something that regular Americans will notice in their day-to-day lives, which will likely mean that perception of the problem will likely fall across ideological lines.
Either way, we're in an age of decline and fracture.
So Putin's failure in Ukraine is balanced by his wild success in the US. The eye-watering corruption of Trump and the Republican Party has irreversibly damaged relations with the democratic allies of the US.
Hopefully, Europe has learned its lesson. The way it was handled post-WW2 is pointing in the right direction.
WW2 was the direct result of that "historically consistent belligerence". Simplified history: lots of tension in Europe -> WW1 -> screw you Germany, we won -> Hitler: we are not having it! -> Germans: that's the guy we need! -> Oops -> WW2.
That why they did it differently post-WW2, focusing more on international collaboration (and a little indoctrination, you don't want to miss an opportunity do you?).
Also, Europe is not the center of the world anymore, they have better things to do than infighting.
After the cold war has ended, the western nations focused on not giving a fuck about military strength, allies or facing opponents the size of Russia or China. Instead some small-time infantry campaigns like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were started and then basically abandoned without any decisive result or even with a total failure. But even back in the 2000s, there were no common goals and no real alliances, just some commitments to save face and keep up appearances.
So now, Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Persian Gulf have called the bluff that is Western military power and decisiveness. I'm guessing those were just the first instances of a long line of wars that should have been prevented by the US-lead West, that are now possible because the West is fractured and aimless.
Interesting choices, to frame the US-Iran war in the same terms as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as if Iran was the aggressor, and to frame the invasions ("small-time infantry campaigns") of Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to millions of lives lost, in the same terms as the comparatively minor US intervention in Syria.
The common thing is that there were no desired results because the west decided to do some half-assed thing and just go with the minimum amount of force and troops. Also, some parts of the west decided to start/intervene/participate, while others abstained. In short, nobody cared enough about the goals and about their respective western allies to go in with a heavy force, accept some losses and do the job properly.
Of course circumstances, reasons, participants and histories beyond that were different.
I think the biggest issue is that Europe and the EU has gotten themselves into a position where they don't actually offer much anymore except a pretty good middle class consumer market. They've put themselves into a position where they are just very easy to squeeze, which is what is happening from all sides by Russia, China, and the US.
Trump's antics have accelerated that position, and maybe they weren't expecting it from USA, but it was probably inevitable given their long term trajectory.
> The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark.
Did Trump threaten to seize Greenland? The WSJ links to an article with the quotes below. The quotes reflect sheer buffoonery (as expected), but so far I haven't seen the threat to seize Greenland.
This seems to be the consensus, but its not clear to me that it happened.
From the linked article:
> During an hourlong speech at the World Economic Forum, the U.S. president said he wouldn’t deploy the military to take control of Greenland.
> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland and posted an image online of the territory with an American flag plastered across it.
> “I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
> “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said of his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
>> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland
So the problem seems to be your reading comprehension. It seems like you're focusing on the things you want to hear from this double-talking conman, while forgetting all of the things he's said that you don't want to have heard.
(and preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite)
Well it's just the evidence you yourself brought. If you're looking to get to the truth of the matter, it's odd to reject the possibility of something that is then directly referenced in what you're quoting, no? That is why I responded somewhat harshly.
But back to the truth of the matter:
> earlier had declined to rule out using the military
That's a concrete, testable claim. It could certainly be false! But I don't see a reason to assume it is false, and so I would ask what is your reason for simply assuming it is false?
A few minutes of digging, and I came up with this:
> Asked if he would use force to seize Greenland, the president said, “No comment,” in a brief telephone interview with NBC News.
Unfortunately this is vague as well on what exactly was asked. It would be nice to see a transcript of that phone call! But I'd say that quote does tighten the bound of mischaracterization, in that it would have to be gross misrepresentation on the part of NBC news to have the thrust of that statement be incorrect.
> I'm a member of the grey tribe, and very disappointed with "both" factions right now.
Since we're talking about where we're coming from: I'm a libertarian who had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until 2020, when I voted actually-conservative aka Democrat. I'm certainly disappointed in sensationalist blue media, prevailing blue groupthink, and most certainly disappointed in the "solutions" championed by the Democratic party. But I also don't see that there is any middle ground to be had - we're up against the law of excluded middle with supporting Trumpism (radical reactionary populism) or not. So while I've been staunchly against the status quo bureaucratic authoritarianism basically my whole life, I'm certainly not eager to throw it away in favor of autocratic authoritarianism.
Yes, he definitely refused to rule out use of military force!
But that really and truly is not a threat to use military force.
Here's a hypothetical to demonstrate that:
- * IF * the questioner had followed up with, "Are you threatening to use military force?" and
- * IF * Trump answered "of course not"....
Would that be a contradiction? Not at all!
This is literally strategic ambiguity combined with bad statesmanship. But if you look up any and every time he has been asked whether he would rule out the use of military force, I would expect that in every case he declined to rule it out. Of course he's a buffoon, so he might not have adhered to that correctly.
This is exactly the kind of sophistry I addressed in the postscript to my first comment:
> preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite
When the topic is the use of military force against allies, it is a leader's job to unequivocally reaffirm the partnership. Trump's non-denial is not some technically-correct "strategic ambiguity". Rather it is an implicit threat that military force may be used. The reactions of everybody (at least everybody who still isn't trying to shoehorn 4d-chess) were entirely justified.
> "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace," he wrote
> I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way
This all adds up to an unambiguous threat to use military force. You are essentially acknowledging this, but characterizing it as "strategic ambiguity". What is the point of this "ambiguity" if not to carry the implicit threat?
I’ve read your other comments. You’re obviously a word man and not technical, even if you work in a technical role (unclear). Still I would think that a word man would understand plain english, but you seem to live in soup of confused associations.
You should know the reason the question was phrased the way it was phrased. You should know the reason that there was no attempt to clarify. The goal, as always, was hysterical headlines.
But you actually believe every bit of it. It’s so weird.
Trump has so many actual shortcomings, why not just focus on those?
The trillion dollar question is if Euro nations are going to foster fertile grounds for domestic American/Chinese competitor companies to grow, and at this point, grow rapidly. The second question is if this will be done jointly, or if old lines will come back over not wanting to be encumbered with "dead weight" in the need to move fast.
No to both in my opinion. The EU market is in reality still heavily fractured - especially in the services sector. A Hungarian construction company for example can't just easily build a bridge for a town in Italy. With Europe steadily getting older effective reforms become near impossible - especially those that would lead to large changes for workers. So Europe will forever stay in this semi broken / semi integrated state - and much higher trade barriers towards China and the US seem much more likely to me than a more competitive Europe.
Old lines were never gone. All the talk about Europeans finally doing a common thing always carry some footnotes like "the Republic of France reserves the right to deviate in matters of military, security and production of sparkling wines and demands a 45% part in all tenders". Trump just needs to threaten champagne tax and France will surrender, or car tax and Germany will. Absent outside pressure, it is even worse. European treaties consist of more national exceptions than commonalities.
The challenge for Europe is if it can actually deliver. It’s been highly dependent on the US economically, technically, militarily and otherwise for decades. Posturing on sovereignty has ramped up again but it’s not fundamentally new.
A lot of folks would take Europe more seriously if there was more substance behind the talk. If it wants to replace US tech it needs to be competitive with US tech. Today it’s light years off.
It's hard for an addict to stop being dependant upon a dealer - not least because the dealer wants to maintain that dependency. We've been suckered, and fallen for it hard, but now that Trump has made it clear that the US will never again be a reliable partner, the scales are falling from even our leaders eyes.
The headline has it right - there is no going back.
Europe is not a country. If you mwant the EU, it is also not a country.
You are comparing the US to a bloc.
Each memeber state will likely take a different approach to independence from the US, and the bloc as a whole may offer some incentives in that direction.
One thing is for sure, any talk about independence from the US 10 years ago would be looked at with complete skepticism. People that said anything in that direction was looked at as a crank.
Now it is a much more palatable position. Change starts like that.
Will it hold? I can tell. I think it will be very unlikely for things to go back to the previous state.
I mostly agree. Europe’s biggest weakness is that many nations still carry grudges against each other, rooted in hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of years of conflict. These old prejudices usually only get pushed aside when there is a serious external threat, such as the ever present possibility of a devastating war on the continent.
The US has a much more unified culture, enormous scale, and a geographically protected position, with access to vast resources. Europe has the technical talent, but much of its technology has often been bought by US firms, partly because VC funding is far weaker here. I think that is largely cultural.
At the same time, Europeans were sold the idea that the US is their friend. It is an ally, but not a friend, and that distinction matters. Now that illusion has started to break, there is finally an incentive to change.
If the EU becomes strategically protectionist in the same way the US already is, for example by preventing key IT companies from being sold overseas, it could gradually move critical infrastructure back under European control. It can do this partly by copying already proven solutions, such as AWS. Of course, this would not be easy, but Europe does not need to spend billions discovering a completely new product category from scratch. The models already exist.
Surely the first problem I mentioned will be the biggest obstacle for all of this as it is for everything. We will see what happens, but at least something has started to move.
European's should unironically thanks the hollow head currently leading US, because he simply didn't understand that European dependence on US is a weapon, not a burder.
Who says that copying AWS is any good. Some version of it sure is useful but the rest is nothing but arm twisting half of the world into idea that they should be paying huge rent to a giant corporation for the things that can and should easily be done without. Corporations like this are a threat to security.
> If it wants to replace US tech it needs to be competitive with US tech
There has been the age-old argument of how Linux can only replace windows on the desktop if it is "good enough".
In reality it has been good enough almost from the very beginning (I've been using a company-issued work laptop with Linux since around late 1994 so I feel comfortable saying that). What people really mean when they say that is that they want it to be exactly the same as windows where everything works exactly the same and can't be bothered to do anything differently.
Which of course it won't be exactly the same. To use a different platform you have to accept some differences. That's a feature, not a bug. Monocultures are terrible, the more diversity the more resilient the ecosystem.
So no, Europe should have completely different (but RFC-compliant compatible) tech stack, not simply an identical clone of US tech. That would be a strength, not just for Europe, but for interoperability across the world.
Let's remember, that's how it used to be! Systems on the Internet might be SunOS or IRIX of HP-UX or AIX (if you were weird), or even a VAX, or any of a long tail of smaller lesser-known manufacturers. It all worked together, but different.
Europe is already competitive, or leading, in many areas.
The US only has leverage over ASML due to other ties. If those are broken the leverage disappears and without ASML Americas tech industry suffers greatly.
Similarly Rolls Royce engines and BAE manufacturing are critical to the US military. The F-35 cannot be built without critical parts made only in the UK and which have no second supplier.
Europe doesn’t need to math the US military and wouldn’t want to in 2026. Look at what Ukraine is doing to Moscow. The US military is a machine built for a war that never came and now which never will. No one wants 11 carrier groups anymore because fighting that way is the past.
Europe is in many ways a mess, and I say that as a native born European with American citizenship who’s spent my adult life in the California tech scene.
However America is totally dependent on Chinese manufacturing, global supply chains and European partners and bases. America can’t produce N95 masks, nitrile gloves, or a chip fab to compete with Taiwan despite billions in government funding to accelerate these projects as critical.
Americas situation is as messed up as Europes and the US has fewer people, less land and fewer resources as a whole.
Europe seems to have forgotten that influence is a function of power. The leaders in the article lament their ability to influence the US on policy, but what do they bring to the table to effect that influence? Military power? Economic power? Technical innovation? The only thing they have is a small amount of cultural power that they have used to shame and criticize while entirely relying on US protection.
Europe isn't as bad as you might think. Though they may not be no.1 in military economic or innovation they are still quite strong.
Ukraine is an example - when that oval office thing happened Trump thought he could cut aid to Ukraine and force it to surrender with a cut of the spoils to the US/him but Europe took over and since then have probably been doing better - I note Russia's largest refinery 2000 km from Ukraine blew up last night.
Not much will be done: Europe will not manage to become sovereign and independent from the US. Things change slowly and a next Dep POTUS will come again closer to Europe. My opinion, not advice for investment.
US wants Greenland, Russia wants Ukraine, China wants Africa, etc. This reminds me of the intro to Fallout games, the one with "war, war never changes". The fight for the last of Earth's resources enters endgame phase.
50 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] threadIt wouldn't make any strategic sense for Europe to wait it out and see what happens next, and no doubt it has been a wake-up call to see how quickly the US can pivot from friend to adversary.
Once Europe has severed reliance on US, then it is hard to see them reverting.
Either way, we're in an age of decline and fracture.
WW2 was the direct result of that "historically consistent belligerence". Simplified history: lots of tension in Europe -> WW1 -> screw you Germany, we won -> Hitler: we are not having it! -> Germans: that's the guy we need! -> Oops -> WW2.
That why they did it differently post-WW2, focusing more on international collaboration (and a little indoctrination, you don't want to miss an opportunity do you?).
Also, Europe is not the center of the world anymore, they have better things to do than infighting.
The last 80 years have been exceptionally peaceful compared to the rest of history, so I hope it continues despite America's loss of hegemon status.
More fault lines and pirates and no one to police them.
After the cold war has ended, the western nations focused on not giving a fuck about military strength, allies or facing opponents the size of Russia or China. Instead some small-time infantry campaigns like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were started and then basically abandoned without any decisive result or even with a total failure. But even back in the 2000s, there were no common goals and no real alliances, just some commitments to save face and keep up appearances.
So now, Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Persian Gulf have called the bluff that is Western military power and decisiveness. I'm guessing those were just the first instances of a long line of wars that should have been prevented by the US-lead West, that are now possible because the West is fractured and aimless.
Of course circumstances, reasons, participants and histories beyond that were different.
Trump's antics have accelerated that position, and maybe they weren't expecting it from USA, but it was probably inevitable given their long term trajectory.
> The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark.
Did Trump threaten to seize Greenland? The WSJ links to an article with the quotes below. The quotes reflect sheer buffoonery (as expected), but so far I haven't seen the threat to seize Greenland.
This seems to be the consensus, but its not clear to me that it happened.
From the linked article:
> During an hourlong speech at the World Economic Forum, the U.S. president said he wouldn’t deploy the military to take control of Greenland.
> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland and posted an image online of the territory with an American flag plastered across it.
> “I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
> “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said of his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
>> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland
So the problem seems to be your reading comprehension. It seems like you're focusing on the things you want to hear from this double-talking conman, while forgetting all of the things he's said that you don't want to have heard.
(and preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite)
Thank you. I meant to include that item. When a buffoon speaks that's the sort of thing you expect.
You obviously belong to "the other" faction. If that's the best you can come up with, then no, the buffoon never threatened to invade Greenland.
I'm a member of the grey tribe, and very disappointed with "both" factions right now.
But back to the truth of the matter:
> earlier had declined to rule out using the military
That's a concrete, testable claim. It could certainly be false! But I don't see a reason to assume it is false, and so I would ask what is your reason for simply assuming it is false?
A few minutes of digging, and I came up with this:
> Asked if he would use force to seize Greenland, the president said, “No comment,” in a brief telephone interview with NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
Unfortunately this is vague as well on what exactly was asked. It would be nice to see a transcript of that phone call! But I'd say that quote does tighten the bound of mischaracterization, in that it would have to be gross misrepresentation on the part of NBC news to have the thrust of that statement be incorrect.
> I'm a member of the grey tribe, and very disappointed with "both" factions right now.
Since we're talking about where we're coming from: I'm a libertarian who had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until 2020, when I voted actually-conservative aka Democrat. I'm certainly disappointed in sensationalist blue media, prevailing blue groupthink, and most certainly disappointed in the "solutions" championed by the Democratic party. But I also don't see that there is any middle ground to be had - we're up against the law of excluded middle with supporting Trumpism (radical reactionary populism) or not. So while I've been staunchly against the status quo bureaucratic authoritarianism basically my whole life, I'm certainly not eager to throw it away in favor of autocratic authoritarianism.
But that really and truly is not a threat to use military force.
Here's a hypothetical to demonstrate that:
- * IF * the questioner had followed up with, "Are you threatening to use military force?" and
- * IF * Trump answered "of course not"....
Would that be a contradiction? Not at all!
This is literally strategic ambiguity combined with bad statesmanship. But if you look up any and every time he has been asked whether he would rule out the use of military force, I would expect that in every case he declined to rule it out. Of course he's a buffoon, so he might not have adhered to that correctly.
> preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite
When the topic is the use of military force against allies, it is a leader's job to unequivocally reaffirm the partnership. Trump's non-denial is not some technically-correct "strategic ambiguity". Rather it is an implicit threat that military force may be used. The reactions of everybody (at least everybody who still isn't trying to shoehorn 4d-chess) were entirely justified.
Did he hint at the use of the military? YES
Was that extremely offensive on both sides of the atlantic? YES
Did he actually threaten to use the military? NO
You’re like a bundle of reflexes, it’s pointless to argue with you. Trump’s utter lack of character really doesn’t change the meaning of his words.
As quoted by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/donald-trump...
> "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace," he wrote
As quoted by NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/world/americas/trump-gree...
> I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way
This all adds up to an unambiguous threat to use military force. You are essentially acknowledging this, but characterizing it as "strategic ambiguity". What is the point of this "ambiguity" if not to carry the implicit threat?
I’ve read your other comments. You’re obviously a word man and not technical, even if you work in a technical role (unclear). Still I would think that a word man would understand plain english, but you seem to live in soup of confused associations.
You should know the reason the question was phrased the way it was phrased. You should know the reason that there was no attempt to clarify. The goal, as always, was hysterical headlines.
But you actually believe every bit of it. It’s so weird.
Trump has so many actual shortcomings, why not just focus on those?
A lot of folks would take Europe more seriously if there was more substance behind the talk. If it wants to replace US tech it needs to be competitive with US tech. Today it’s light years off.
From 2024: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...
[0] - https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/business/20250916-mario...
The headline has it right - there is no going back.
You are comparing the US to a bloc.
Each memeber state will likely take a different approach to independence from the US, and the bloc as a whole may offer some incentives in that direction.
One thing is for sure, any talk about independence from the US 10 years ago would be looked at with complete skepticism. People that said anything in that direction was looked at as a crank.
Now it is a much more palatable position. Change starts like that.
Will it hold? I can tell. I think it will be very unlikely for things to go back to the previous state.
The US has a much more unified culture, enormous scale, and a geographically protected position, with access to vast resources. Europe has the technical talent, but much of its technology has often been bought by US firms, partly because VC funding is far weaker here. I think that is largely cultural.
At the same time, Europeans were sold the idea that the US is their friend. It is an ally, but not a friend, and that distinction matters. Now that illusion has started to break, there is finally an incentive to change.
If the EU becomes strategically protectionist in the same way the US already is, for example by preventing key IT companies from being sold overseas, it could gradually move critical infrastructure back under European control. It can do this partly by copying already proven solutions, such as AWS. Of course, this would not be easy, but Europe does not need to spend billions discovering a completely new product category from scratch. The models already exist.
Surely the first problem I mentioned will be the biggest obstacle for all of this as it is for everything. We will see what happens, but at least something has started to move. European's should unironically thanks the hollow head currently leading US, because he simply didn't understand that European dependence on US is a weapon, not a burder.
Who says that copying AWS is any good. Some version of it sure is useful but the rest is nothing but arm twisting half of the world into idea that they should be paying huge rent to a giant corporation for the things that can and should easily be done without. Corporations like this are a threat to security.
They probably exists but usere still not accepted them as an standard.
There has been the age-old argument of how Linux can only replace windows on the desktop if it is "good enough".
In reality it has been good enough almost from the very beginning (I've been using a company-issued work laptop with Linux since around late 1994 so I feel comfortable saying that). What people really mean when they say that is that they want it to be exactly the same as windows where everything works exactly the same and can't be bothered to do anything differently.
Which of course it won't be exactly the same. To use a different platform you have to accept some differences. That's a feature, not a bug. Monocultures are terrible, the more diversity the more resilient the ecosystem.
So no, Europe should have completely different (but RFC-compliant compatible) tech stack, not simply an identical clone of US tech. That would be a strength, not just for Europe, but for interoperability across the world.
Let's remember, that's how it used to be! Systems on the Internet might be SunOS or IRIX of HP-UX or AIX (if you were weird), or even a VAX, or any of a long tail of smaller lesser-known manufacturers. It all worked together, but different.
The US only has leverage over ASML due to other ties. If those are broken the leverage disappears and without ASML Americas tech industry suffers greatly.
Similarly Rolls Royce engines and BAE manufacturing are critical to the US military. The F-35 cannot be built without critical parts made only in the UK and which have no second supplier.
Europe doesn’t need to math the US military and wouldn’t want to in 2026. Look at what Ukraine is doing to Moscow. The US military is a machine built for a war that never came and now which never will. No one wants 11 carrier groups anymore because fighting that way is the past.
Europe is in many ways a mess, and I say that as a native born European with American citizenship who’s spent my adult life in the California tech scene.
However America is totally dependent on Chinese manufacturing, global supply chains and European partners and bases. America can’t produce N95 masks, nitrile gloves, or a chip fab to compete with Taiwan despite billions in government funding to accelerate these projects as critical.
Americas situation is as messed up as Europes and the US has fewer people, less land and fewer resources as a whole.
Ukraine is an example - when that oval office thing happened Trump thought he could cut aid to Ukraine and force it to surrender with a cut of the spoils to the US/him but Europe took over and since then have probably been doing better - I note Russia's largest refinery 2000 km from Ukraine blew up last night.
I figure there will be some going back when Trump goes. He's an unusual president.