Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

The funny thing is that if you listen to Trump and the MAGA folks, they explicitly do not believe that the world would be screwed without the US and USD, and further do not believe that the US should care if they were. Trump's whole schtick with NATO is that Europe should be defending itself, not relying on the US.

So while the left and center of the US largely views this whole saga as a catastrophic loss of the US brand and foreign policy aims, this kind of rearmament is exactly what Trump promised his base he'd make happen.

View on HN

That sounds true to me, at least related to the MAGA-adjacent people I know from the US.

The thing is that I never expected the US to just willingly throw away what I (and many others) perceived to be its actual greatest source of strength. The US had built, along with its impressive military, an equally impressive web of friendly nations that allowed it to project its power to a degree that was impossible to match. Even in a world where China kept rising, they would have trouble to compete with the US in this field, because the window of opportunity to build this was like 70 years ago.

China was trying for the next best thing, wooing countries in Africa and Latin America to slowly build a web of friendly nations of its own. Not the same, if you ask me.

That the US would freely squander all their multi-decades investments in a matter of months was unthinkable.

I personally enjoy what is happening. As someone that lives in an EU country, I thought the EU needed this kind of nudge to further integrate, and the US influence always irked me. I am cautiously optimistic for the next few years here.

We understand the schtick, it just seems like a grave miscalculation of the return on investment for the US.

This is largely what I believe to be true also.

"We have a lot of leverage, and even if we don't, then we don't have to pay to be the worlds police" - is largely how I (also a european) have seen Trumps actions.

The "issue", is that this is a populist take.

It's weirdly not in Americas interest to take that stance, because they are a defacto world government with the amount of soft power they are able to exert, militarily and in trade.

So, the GP is quite right, people are waking up to the idea that this soft power was running kinda deep and we shouldn't just allow ourselves to get soft too.

Just like an insurance company will find a way not to pay: the US may never have actually come to the aid of Europe; and nobody thought about that, they just accepted most of what the US was asking in the hope that they would.

The lesson will be painful in the short-term, but I'm also hopeful that we take it seriously and start investing in ourselves.

> So while the left and center of the US largely views this whole saga as a catastrophic loss of the US brand and foreign policy aims, this kind of rearmament is exactly what Trump promised his base he'd make happen.

It's a catastrophic loss of influence. It's a good thing for Europe but terrible for the US. I think that Trump will end up fulfilling his promise is co-incidental. Trump's a lose cannon who's alienated all of America's friends, that he achieved some relatively minor goal is like being proud of losing weight because you have cancer.

Europe has a chance here to become a political superpower, strongly eroding the US centric world view and having influence though something other than brute force of money or military power, which is what China and US are trying to project.

Saved monies can be used to reduce taxes, to rearm or rebuild.

Also, military spending can be reduced by reducing military costs in the USA. Wait until DOGE gets it's scalpel on the Pentagon's budget: likely much can be saved there.

Remember Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex"

https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=military+i...

The defense industry has run rampant since long before Eisenhower's presidency. Trump is likely to make some serious cuts in the defense budget, deeper than we've seen in decades.

> scalpel

This suggests a cautious, surgical approach. So far DOGE seems to be wielding a chainsaw instead.

One promise i would love to see him keep is turning the liabilities in europe into an asset. Instead of paying for european security, if we can charge them for security and sell them weapons and tech from our big contractors, the US wins.

Yeah, that's not happening. Summarily burning down bridges is a great way to stop people from mooching off you, but that's because they now know they can't rely on you to be a stable foundation.

If they can't trust us not to break our previous promises, why in the world would they trust us with their national security-critical business?

because we have bases and f22's in europe. Why is it burning bridges by telling europe to meet UN mandates?

How is it not burning bridges to threat a trade war and annexation of one of the member state's territory?

You really expect EU to stay friendly with the US when it is an active threat to its integrity?

What threat to its integrity? The 40 bases that have kept peace for the last 80 years? The massive amounts of funding that we have sent to aid europe through USAID and other orgs? The tech, and drugs and discoveries?

We do not have to protect you forever, and us forcing you to step up military spending to comply with the UN mandates as there is an active war on your doorstep? Ensuring equal tarrifs from both sides?

I don't know why the US taking itself off massively taxing it's citizens and increasing government revenue through tarrifs, is called a "Trade war".

People seem to be so reliant on the US that the slightest sign that we aren't going to continue to hand out everything, people start getting hysterical.

> What threat to its integrity?

Annexation of Greenland. It is part of Denmark as of now, even if it is not exactly a part of EU. The fact that you don't even seem to know that shows that you sre either arguing in bad faith or is ill informed.

> We do not have to protect you forever

Then leave. This arrangement benefits primarily the US.

> I don't know why the US taking itself off massively taxing it's citizens and increasing government revenue through tarrifs, is called a "Trade war".

You don't seem to understand how tariffs work either. Honestly, having this conversation with you is a waste of time.

> People seem to be so reliant on the US

Pehaps not anymore. We shall see. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

this could have happened if he tried to get this worked out behind closed doors. doing this shit he’s doing it would be a political suicide for any country to go along with it. if our former allies are no longer such, they won’t come to US to pay for shit - they will go elsewhere

He already got germany to increase their US grant from $1B to $2B a year. So, he's actively working it.

That's the position the US was already in. The US was at peak "selling expensive weapons to Europe".

EU will not rely on a foreign hostile nation for its defense. Part of the 800B package is that the contractors have to be European.

But i think the states should take responsibility of the casualties of the wars they started. The people seeking shelter here wouldnt knock on our door if foreign people funding their rebel groups or religious extremists. Ever wonder why they got so many weapons and ammo? Russia and china was also interfering there so they grab the assets. We provided airbases and barracks for the us-army, time to cash in the rent for so many years. We dont have to take the risk getting our cities bombed because our lords and saviours found it funny to start a war in a foreign country... I would suggest Trump should seek another country housing his war gear...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com