Ukraine is never going to retake the territory they've lost without European soldiers on the ground. Macron famously said that he would have to send troops to Odesa and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine. Meanwhile Putin has captured even more land and is now actively bombarding Kyiv.
It is painfully obvious that Europe lacks the political will to do any kind of substantial intervention. The war is at a complete standstill and it will last for another horrible decade if no concessions are made.
It's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
There is a slight hope that the current Russian regime will collapse before then and be replaced by one that doesn't want to continue the war. (Though, that said, it could equally well be replaced by a regime that's even more ultranationalist than the current one.)
While Europe certainly does lack the political will to make a substantial intervention, it's not just a question of political will. There is the small matter of not starting the third world war to consider.
Ukraine rightly has no interest in ceding land to achieve a temporary ceasefire to allow Russia to re-arm and then attack again.
Meanwhile it is also important that we don't have two nuclear armed states (France and Russsia) officially at war.
I mean what are the alternatives? Ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some, but later, when several more millions of Ukrainian men would be grabbed by Ukrainian gestapo from the streets like rabid animals and killed?
Because with current support from the EU (that is less then EU support for Greece during economic crisis), that is the only alternative.
Consider these points: - US withdrawing it's "Intel support" just as Russia started a major offensive last year. - US starting the war on Iran clearly to help their pal Putin on oil prices, now they try to use Ukraine as a scapegoat for "attacking Russian oil export infrastructure" - Another "side effect" of war in Iran. No more patriots or modern weapons for any country that ordered them from the USA in recent years and was expecting deliveries just about now. - US committing actual act of war (threatening force has been considered an act of war for centuries) against the EU by talking about invading Greenland (most certainly if Russia attacked Estonia US would try their luck with Greenland on same day, does it remind you anything from history?) - US essentially waging an economic war on the rest of NATO. - US companies with full support of the state trying to deny computing hardware to the rest of the world in hope they manage to monopolise compute capability using AI as cover (yes China is a real ally in this).
And much more.
Yes, the US is a much higher threat to the EU than China now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
Side-by-side with, for example, itemized Israeli aid, it's pretty clear which conflict the US is putting on the back-burner.
BTW, Zelenskyy supports the Iranian opposition, possibly due to the fact that the current Iranian regime is sending Shaheds to Russia. The US has attacked Shahed factories during the current Iran war.
Don't be ridiculous. The US literally provides targeting information to Ukraine, including for long-range missile strikes deep inside Russia earlier this year.
No way that's true.
China is main ally of Russia. China have a huge economic exchange with Russia, China is the sole gateway to technology for Russia, and provide a great amount of political support for Russia.
Even if we are comparing USA and EU in those aspects, EU's support of Russia is way bigger. EU spends huge amounts of money for purchasing energy resources from Russia, EU spends far less money on help against Russian invasion than US (although EU's population is larger, and that issue is way more pressing for them).
I mean look at the numbers: EU spends on confrontation with Russia less money, than they have spent on economic crisis in Greece or something. That is how they perceive this problem and how "important" it is to them.
(When is the first war going to be started purely downstream of social media beef? Was it arguably the Iran war?)
And AFAIK the US has not even claimed Greenland.
It's true that MAGA craziness has pushed Europe aways from us. But, ironically, Europe increasing defense spending and standing up an independent military machine will actually make some MAGA people like Europe more.
But either way, the best thing for both the US and Europe is to figure out a way to reconcile. The alternative is a Europe-China alliance (which would be bad for Europe) or a US-China alliance (which would be horrific for Europe).
Meanwhile China exports cheap stuff, is leading the world efforts developing green technologies, is leading the efforts democratizing AI technologies, and doesn't bully people around with their army.
Sure the US, with its bipartisan system, is barely more democratic than China, but should also judge countries by their actions not just their deliberation process.
If you "rationally" decide to kill me, I'd rather you had been told by "god" not to kill me, even if I don't believe in god and generally think that non-theistic morality is better and more democratic.
They all consider China to be the aggressor because they are. E.g., Tibet or India.
China? It wants to sell its cars here, and thats about it. Incomparable.
Ask/look around in places that dared to stood apart or directly up to whatever US wanted, the story is everything but nice and bloodless. Ask those that fought for them, and were completely abandoned to be then murdered one by one (vietnam, afghanistan).
Rest of your post is just wishful thinking, US is in semi-lawless state now with new oligarchy ruling the country based on emotions and whims and hardly any laws, so prior experiences do not guarantee any form of future. I personally would literally, objectively, trust Xi more than trump if I had to choose (which I don't, nobody does), any day any night.
It's friendly to Europe most of the time, and hostile at times. It's culturally closer, and functionally democratic. You quite obviously don't like the latter statement, but it is, and it is verifiable claim.
1) Can an American sue the country's gov't and win?
2) Is said gov't changeable by the way of elections?
3) How easy it is to participate in political debates for electoral outcomes?
On all 3 USA gets pretty high score. In high contrast against the backdrop of China. Like, if you prefer a world hegemon who is actively imperialist, and contra democracy, cause you're so outraged by the orange man - that's your choice, of course. But let's not pretend the choice is well-thought. Were HN a Chinese place, and you dared to criticize Chinese imperialism your account would not remain unpunished for long, for instance.
I think it’s fair to say the U.S. and Russia are Europe’s principal geopolitical adversaries, today, while for anyone in Asia or Oceania it’s China. (Africa and South America are being weirdly carved up—it’s not particularly clear who is trying to colonize versus trade with them.)
Very similar pressures in reality.
In the way slavery and employment are similar, sure. In practice they’re very different things, even if one—when taken to the extreme—can turn into the other.
See what happened to countries in the 18th and 19th centuries which didn't want to participate in the British economic system
But I've learnt that iPhones and social media is American imperialism, but thousands of troops in dozens of military bases on European soil is not, somehow.
Presence of allies is not colonialism. Threat to annex Greenland is. Threat to annex Canada is. Keeping pet dictator in Venezuela and taking their oil is.
On the other hand, when Germans, France and other European soldiers came to Greenland to defend against an American threat, it was not colonialism. It was being allies.
> and withdrawing troops from European soil, the response is outrage.
The response to withdrawing troops from European soil was mockery and frustration from army that is loosing valuable bases. Either way, it is not an anti-colonial thing.
> When Trump talks about doing the anti colonial thing
Trump is modern colonialist. He is not talking about doing "the anti colonial thing" ever, instead he is bragging about making America colonial.
------
Trying to frame Trump as somehow anti-colonial is really new level of post-fact dishonesty. It does not work, because his appeal is based on dominance, violence and willingness to steal.
To me the question is crystal clear: No country should want to have foreign troops permanently stationed on their soil, no matter how good friends they are.
America was a trusted, respected and liked allied nation. It was not a threat. Then Trump supported by people like you turned into a threat to Canada (another former ally), Greenland, democracy and freedom. So, America is not respected or liked, except by neo-nazi it supports. There is no double think involved here.
> To me the question is crystal clear: No country should want to have foreign troops permanently stationed on their soil, no matter how good friends they are.
It is irrelevant what you think about what other countries should or should not want. The question is what is colonialism.
The Americans are there as a front of US empire (IIRC Rammstein is being used for Iran war).
Mostly from the US serving politicians scared of losing power.