Hacker News Reader

Comment by Chance-Device | Hacker News Reader

I think I’ll use this thread to make a prediction.

At the end of Trump’s term:

- Europe will still be using F-16s and F-35s

- The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance

- European defense spending will be massively higher, with manufacturing and supply chains that are far less easily disrupted

- The US forces deployed to Europe will still be there, but will be bolstered by more European troops

- Russia will have maintained its status as simultaneously a threat and a non-threat

- Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.

All of which will nicely serve the broader long term interests of the United States.

As it always is, no matter who is in the White House.

View on HN

> - The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance

This is already gone: "US ‘to cease all future military exercises in Europe’" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/08/us-to-cea...

I wasn’t aware that Trumps term had ended after only three months.

Ah yes, we'll end our participation and pull out all troops and then send them all back, in opposite land.

They haven’t been pulled out. Just like they weren’t pulled out during his last term. He’s “threatening” to redeploy troops to Eastern Europe from Germany. “Threatening” to do exactly what happens to make the most strategic sense. But it’s a threat. Honest.

> - Whatever the outcome in Ukraine, suddenly, nobody will care. The media won’t talk about it, people will have largely forgotten, and some other controversy or distraction will be the story of the day.

I'm sure the Ukrainians will care, and most of us in Europe will too.

I certainly agree that the Ukrainians will care about it very much, but you, unless you are in an Eastern European country, most likely will not.

The reason that you care right now is because it is in US interests that you care. As soon as that changes, you won’t. You’ll be too busy caring about something else.

Probably accurate for the coming 4 years.

In the middle to long term though, Europe should and will decouple from the US in defense and tech. US influence will be reduced. European almost made a fatal mistake with Galileo that the US wanted to kill [0] and I don't think they will make that mistake again. F-35, Starlink, air defense will be built by European companies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)

One more prediction: a number of our allies will test domestically built nuclear weapons, including Germany, Poland, and South Korea.

Unlikely. Nuclear independence threatens US hegemony. It won’t be allowed to happen. The US wants Europe stronger, not independent.

The US has no power to stop it anymore. Nuclear non-proliferation relied on America guaranteeing security and coordinating the rest of the world to ostracize any country that didn't play by its rules - that's out the window. Countries that feel immediately threatened will go for the bomb, and other countries will do nothing to interfere so they keep their own options open.

Poland has already announced it's looking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Do you have reasoning to support this improbable conjunction, or are you just seeking to bet money?

The strategic interests of the US stay the same. All of this is posturing which will only improve the alliance which the US leads. Carrot or stick, this president or that president, certain things don’t change. All that changes is the implementation.

John Bolton, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Wesley Clark, and Justin Trudeau seem to be unanimous in their assessment that the things you are saying "don't change" just changed. Of course they could be wrong, or lying, but they certainly aren't acting in concert.

Look what’s happened: the Europeans are now unanimous on the idea that European rearmament is necessary for survival, and have a political environment that allows them to sell that idea to their electorates. Electorates that historically have been opposed to spending on military over healthcare and social programs.

And once that rearmament happens, or is underway to an extent that it’s irreversible, what is the US going to do?

They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance. And the Europeans will say, thank goodness the US is back. Aren’t we all safer now.

> They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance.

As a practical matter, if things deteriorate to the point that the office of NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe stops being held by the commander of US European Command - it looks like things might be trending in that direction now that NATO countries are holding meetings without the US and intelligence sharing is starting to break down, never mind whatever the US means when it talks about "withdrawing" from Europe - Humpy Dumpty is broken. Whatever organization the US might join again in the future, or even somehow attempt to "lead," will be fundamentally different than what has gone before.

You seem to be assuming that the US will automatically do the things that are in its strategic interest, as if it were not only a conscious being but a skilled strategist, even as you point out how the internal political dynamics of European countries do not result in such an outcome. I don't think the future is so predictable, and particularly not with that model.

I agree that what I predict is speculative, as predictions usually are, but I think this is the most likely outcome.

It’s interesting the point you make about political dynamics - elections mainly, and indeed that is a core part of my thesis: American democracy does not cause meaningful changes to the long term strategic direction of the country. Some things are decided by elections, but these things are not.

All highly speculative, yet we will see how it plays out in time.

They weren't; that's Lofgren’s thesis in a https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/. But you may be aware that upending that order was a major part of the bullshitter's electoral platform, because the same institutions that maintained that long-term strategic direction were opposed to his candidacy. We will see if they are able to regain control from him, but the prospects don't look good so far.

I don't feel fantastic about having sort of predicted this outcome in my other comment below:

Trump admin considers giving up NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-adm...

I don't think the author was interested in fully exploring what this news really means.

Honestly, my gut feeling tells me the same. Time will tell...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com