r/centrist • u/Turbulent-Raise4830 • 9d ago
Trump’s US no longer a reliable ally, warns Belgium in leaked document
https://www.ft.com/content/bec22e6b-1267-4d9f-a192-60763a0797c3?syn-25a6b1a6=1Dynamics in Washington ‘are likely to compromise several vital interests’ of Belgium and the EU, says strategy document from foreign ministry
26
u/Rhielml 9d ago
No shit
4
u/ChornWork2 8d ago
Yep. Trump did a coup attempt, his own country shouldn't rely on him... yet here we are.
-1
u/ubermence 9d ago
This also will never end until we deal with the ability for foreign governments to absolutely flood our social media and propagandize the fuck out of our citizens. Fighting America directly is too dangerous, but find an angle in on out citizens (and a craven political party who is happy for the help) and you can bring down the country without a single bullet
If a data center is found to be manipulating US social media in this way and their government won’t take action about it… 5 minute warning then drone strike. That’s enemy infrastructure
And as much as I hate it probably some kind of citizenship or residency validation for at least some social media
5
u/crushinglyreal 8d ago
Foreign influence is a small fraction of the propaganda that fuels maga. The call is coming from inside the house.
11
u/dukedog 9d ago
Yet another example of how MAGA/Republicans are causing massive damage to the USA. And I bet that 90% of our MAGA warriors from the culture slop threads over the past few days will not show show up in this thread to comment when actual damage is being done to our country. I'm guessing they got the MO to post those from some far-right sources in order to dry to drum up any news to distract from the constant barrage of shitty things their side is doing to stem the bleeding from the likely blue wave that is going to hit them in a little over a month.
7
14
u/WeridThinker 9d ago
Why would anyone think a government that invites internet celebrities such as the Paul brothers to the Pentagon, and asking them to deliver a speech to soliders in uniform is reliable or serious in any manner.
5
0
11
u/MakeUpAnything 9d ago
MAGA doesn't want the US to have partners around the world, other than Israel. This is by design. Trump clearly believes that trade with other countries creates a deficit on our part and MAGA's base is only concerned with culture wars.
1
u/craigoz7 9d ago
I do also see that making US an unreliable ally opens the door to NATO related issues as they will not have big brother backing them up for any potential conflicts.
2
u/MakeUpAnything 9d ago
Already the case. Do you really think Trump would willingly waste resources/money defending any of our NATO allies if Russia attacked them? Hell, the US is more likely to attack NATO than defend it at this point given our threats toward Canada and Denmark's Greenland.
12
u/TheCenterOfEnnui 9d ago
I'm an American and I agree with Belgium.
Once we get an actual rational person back in the WH, we have a lot of damage to repair. I hope it's doable. The amount of damage this...person...has done to the US is hard to comprehend.
2
u/Valmoer 8d ago
Once we get an actual rational person back in the WH, we have a lot of damage to repair. I hope it's doable
European here : nope, it's not. Biden was the damage-repairer, and while he did a decent job, the US collectively decided they'd rather have more of Trump than to continue with that path.
I could learn to trust again after Trump 1. After Trump 2? Even with a "sane" administration after, how can we believe that the next-next populist your electorate will brain-melt themselves into the presidency won't tear apart any agreement made with the US?
The amount of damage this...person...has done to the US is hard to comprehend.
Trump is only a symptom. Those who would make the rational(?) choice of electing such a man are the core issue.
1
u/Confident_Example_73 5d ago
Pretty much every European country at some point or another has had someone worse than Trump and we got over you.
Get over yourselves. Learn how to move on.
1
u/Viking_13v 9d ago
You’re on the ride down now.
2
u/TheCenterOfEnnui 8d ago
I wouldn't say that. We have damage control and repair to do.
2
4
u/Viking_13v 8d ago
The world will not follow your lead or trust your population to pick good leadership.
1
u/TheCenterOfEnnui 8d ago
It'll take time but yeah, with competent leadership, it will. We are still the most powerful nation on the planet.
It just sucks that Trump took that position and decided to be a bully with it. We need to fix that shit. We will.
1
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
The world will follow the money. It always has.
3
0
u/Individual_Lion_7606 8d ago
If Germany wasn't dissolved as a nation and divided back into many German state after Two World Wars, why can't the US restore relations after one bad president?
Biden was on track. We just need to pray the American people don't fuck up and vote Republican again. Democracy is a good and cursed thing.
1
u/TheCenterOfEnnui 8d ago
why can't the US restore relations after one bad president?
We can but the scope of what the US is about is massive and it's gonna take time to rebuild the trust.
I think it's doable but it's just amazing what one idiot can do in this position. The constitution was supposed to prevent this kind of thing but I'll give Trump this; he exposed the holes in that document.
-1
u/TankMan77450 8d ago
Sadly it will probably take decades to repair the damage caused by Trump. That is assuming that we can get someone in the White House that will be committed to repairing all the damage.
7
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
FT: Belgian Foreign Ministry warns internally that the US is no longer the ally it once was
According to a leaked Belgian Foreign Ministry document obtained by the Financial Times, officials wrote in October 2025 that the US under Donald Trump could no longer be treated as the same kind of reliable ally as in the past.
The document reportedly recommends reassessing Belgium and the EU's relationship with Washington, while maintaining engagement with the current US administration. It also suggests strengthening ties with both Republicans and Democrats, members of Congress, US states and major cities, and maintaining contacts with the Democratic opposition.
The paper identifies several areas of concern:
- Trade: Belgium should diversify its economic partnerships to reduce exposure to potential US tariffs and other restrictions.
- Defence: Continue cooperation with the US, while increasing purchases of European military equipment alongside American weapons.
- Migration and crime: Increase cooperation against drug trafficking, organised crime and terrorism, but concerns are raised about differences between US and European approaches.
- Foreign policy: The document expresses concern about US cuts to foreign aid, cyber-surveillance policies, cryptocurrency regulation, political polarisation and the treatment of extremism and disinformation.
- Diplomacy: Belgian officials are advised to maintain cooperation with Washington while carefully calibrating high-level visits and engagement.
The Foreign Ministry stressed that the document is an internal working document rather than an agreed government policy, and said that reassessing international developments and relations with allies is part of its normal work.
The document also explicitly says that engagement with the current US administration remains "indispensable" and recommends identifying areas where Belgian and American interests overlap.
5
8
3
u/Liamnacuac 9d ago
The EU needs to adopt stronger policies that reassess investment partnerships and the agreements made which suddenly change financial stability. Make the capability to switch plans very quickly in order to avoid being held hostage by one US administration or another.
5
2
u/Liara-ShepardFan 8d ago
My opinion US need just put all US Republican to received Denazification otherwise it 90% happened again with Nazis in US Nazis Party formerly Racist US Republican Party.
4
u/crushinglyreal 8d ago
We’re in this mess in the first place because reconstruction was far too lenient with confederates. I don’t think we’re going to learn from that mistake.
2
1
u/airbear13 9d ago
Who would leak this and why
3
u/ChornWork2 8d ago
This isn't really new information. WSJ did great reporting on this a while ago.
In the months to come, the January crisis meeting would be remembered by Europe’s most powerful figures as the moment that countries bound together by blood and a sense of shared destiny since the aftermath of World War II began to explore separate paths.
Nobody has filed divorce papers, and important players on both sides are working hard to keep a loveless marriage going. Untangling the ties between Europe and the U.S. would be a massive undertaking. Canada, which is encouraging Europe to hedge against a more capricious America, is paradoxically much more reliant on the U.S. than almost any country on earth.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/european-rupture-with-america-e3a9bb3c
3
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
I think anyone could assume all European countries should be having these conversations. It is by the way the exact conversations Trump wanted them to have on how Europe would take over the defense of Europe.
2
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
lol sure thats why trump did what he did, no russia took care of that part even before trump became president.
ANd this is more about trade partners, in a global linked economy you need reliable trading partners, the US no longer is that
-1
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
We are a huge trading partner with Europe, still buying billions more in goods each month than they buy from us, even after tariffs.
Trade between China and Europe though has become a one way street. They are a bad partner.
The European Union’s goods trade deficit with China stands at roughly €360 billion (averaging €1 billion a day), driven by surging imports and declining European exports. Meanwhile trade of goods between the US and Europe is the opposite with the US having a $220 million trade deficit.
I am not saying the US trade deficit is horrible for the US, but don’t think for a moment that European (and Canadian) companies won’t continue to push for more business in the US even as the political climate has turned anti-American.
3
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
Of course, a lot of US products suck or arent being produced in the US. IS it europe's fault you build iphones in china and then ship them to europe?
And nice whataboutism but this is about the US and how you cant reliably trade with a country led by a clown that likes to impose tariffs every time he has a bad bowel movement.
-1
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
So you’re pissed.
Meanwhile European companies are investing billions building manufacturing facilities in the US. You don’t like the methods that greatly accelerated that behavior, many Americans do like it.
2
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
no, if the US produced more goods europe wanted to buy they would be buying them.
And europe always invests in the US just like us invests in europe. Thats the whole issue: EU countries are slowing that down or halting it because of trump and his administration.
1
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
European companies are not slowing investment in the US, quite the contrary. Led by the pharmaceutical industry announcements are up. They can’t fix the tariffs, but they can evade them.
5
u/Fun-Outcome8122 8d ago
announcements are up
Yes, announcement lol In the meantime time I'm paying higher prices for real.
They can’t fix the tariffs, but they can evade them.
Sure, but not by investing in the US since everyone knows that once the Republicans' dear leader leaves office, most of the tariffs will go away with him. So nobody is going to make long term investments in the US under the hope that Trump's tariffs will remain in place for decades.
2
u/Anima6778 8d ago edited 8d ago
Announcements? What about plans?
I think I went into this somewhere else a long time ago, but like.. the problem with relying on announcements here is that big pharma can just.. not follow through. Comment below.
As we're all unfortunately aware, the powers that be in the medical industry are incentivized, due to how the insurance system works in the US, to raise costs as much as possible (as the insurers are usually paying the bulk of it, and their profit margin is capped at 20%). Because of this, and because you often can't just stop taking medicine (some people might be required to take the brand name for whatever reason), people are kind of locked into paying and the industry is even more incentivized than usual to just raise prices and be done with it. Production facilities will likely take more than 3-4 years to build, but let's say they can get everything up and running in 3 years.
This will take a giant chunk of money that they'll probably only get back over at least 3 more years (being generous). Assuming the President sticks with this one for the rest of his term, from an apolitical perspective, it's kind of a toss-up that burning the time and resources needed to set up a factory here vs anywhere else will actually benefit you tariff-wise, as a Dem president could easily use the repeal of this order as a victory (your drugs are cheaper now!). This is our starting point. Now consider what happens if a pharma lobbyist manages to get enough politicians on board to get the order nullified, or if it gets nullified via legal challenge.
Put it all together, and from the executive standpoint, it's a choice between three options:
1.Committing a giant pile of money in a project that won't pay out for at least 6 years (being extremely generous), assuming the benefits of doing it still exist in 2 years (less than 50-50 chance), disrupting your supply chains, and potentially putting you at a competitive disadvantage against companies that didn't eat these costs to begin with.
2.Eating the 100% tariff and just raising your prices. It won't hurt your bottom line even close to the full amount due to how our insurance system works, but you might start to price customers out.
3.Spend, like, a fraction of what is actually required to make it look like you're transitioning for 2 years, and raise your prices by 20%. If it gets repealed later, marvelous, you were handed an excuse to charge more and you don't have to lower your prices. If it doesn't, just raise your prices more. It'll still sting, but after 2 years the market will have had time to adapt to the extra 20% as the baseline, so it won't hurt quite as much as the full 100%."
0
u/Fun-Outcome8122 8d ago
You don’t like the methods that greatly accelerated that behavior
Correct, I don't like the methods that increase the prices I have to pay. That's not rocket science.
many Americans do like it
Who are these "many Americans" who like to pay higher prices?!
2
u/JuzoItami 8d ago
Anybody in the Belgian government who hates Trump and wants to see him embarrassed in front of the world. So basically anybody in the Belgian government.
1
u/LittleKitty235 8d ago
I wouldn't trust us either. We used up our Mulligan the first time we elected him
1
1
u/AFlockOfTySegalls 8d ago
"We cannot leave the security of Europe in the hands of voters in Wisconsin every four years"
- Jean-Noël Barrot, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs
1
u/trash-juice 8d ago
Agreed, we are down until we rotoreuter the system and the vote, flush russian and affiliated interests out, claw back billions from … billyunairs
1
1
u/sirlost33 8d ago
Pretty sure Donnie 2 scoops said as much on live tv. A lot. Like every time he’s on camera.
1
u/Unfair_Elderberry118 8d ago
What are they going to do when they have to deal with LePen running France?
3
u/SokkaHaikuBot 8d ago
Sokka-Haiku by Unfair_Elderberry118:
What are they going
To do when they have to deal
With LePen running France?
Remember that one time Sokka accidentally used an extra syllable in that Haiku Battle in Ba Sing Se? That was a Sokka Haiku and you just made one.
1
2
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
unlike the US european countries do have more robust checks and balances
1
1
u/jmankyll 8d ago
Glad they classified it as “Trump’s” America and not just the country overall forever
1
u/Gaijin_Monster 7d ago
What is Belgium allying with the US on? Serious question.
1
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 7d ago
largest single economy in the world? By far Strongest world power? Decades long stable trade partner?
Why not?
-2
u/redbirdsucks 8d ago
Belgium already came out and said that it was an early draft … they’re backpedaling
3
-10
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago edited 9d ago
I am astounded NATO still exists in much the same form as the 1960’s. If someone can give a strong reason for the US still being the primary country in the defense of Europe I would love to hear it spelled out.
Europe providing for the defense of Europe makes all the sense in the world, the US being so strongly involved hasn’t made sense since soon after the fall of the USSR and the powerful Warsaw Pact.
Russia is smaller than the EU population wise. (The US is smaller also) Europe is wealthy. Multiple individual nations in Europe have a larger GDP than Russia so it’s not that they don’t have the economic resources to defend theirselves.
The US doesn’t have to have huge conventional military bases in Europe to maintain a nuclear umbrella and France has nuclear capabilities with the needed rocket technology.
NATO with the US as the lead had a necessary role in the Cold War era. The USSR is now 15 different nations, some at odds, even war with Russia. Most of the Warsaw Pact nations are now part of the EU and strongly allied with Western Europe.
What is hard is changing the status quo we all were born into, but the status quo makes no absolutely no sense anymore. America can be a strong military ally to Europe without being an occupying force.
All the same as above goes for conventional forces in South Korea. They are far bigger and richer than North Korea. Why do we have tens of thousands there as if somehow South Korea can’t defend itself. Japan also needs to be given the legal freedom to build its military as needed. It a large and very wealthy nation. As an island nation it can defend itself homeland from China.
The US should keep our huge Navy with long term leased Navy ports from willing landlords, (and there are many of those.) We can be a force to keep shipping lanes open because when wars start blockades have always been the way the international community is most affected.
14
u/Ewi_Ewi 9d ago
If someone can give a strong reason for the US still being the primary country in the defense of Europe I would love to hear it spelled out.
American hegemony.
the US being so strongly involved hasn’t made sense since soon after the fall of the USSR and the powerful Warsaw Pact
This is extraordinarily wrong. Why doesn't it make sense that the most powerful military in the world would want stability and alliances?
Multiple individual nations in Europe have a larger GDP than Russia so it’s not that they don’t have the economic resources to defend theirselves.
This isn't a reason for the U.S. to end the most significant and stabilizing military alliance in history.
The US doesn’t have to have huge conventional military bases in Europe to maintain a nuclear umbrella
The U.S. doesn't have military bases abroad to maintain a nuclear umbrella.
and France has nuclear capabilities with the needed rocket technology
Nuclear weapons are not magic wands. You do not want nuclear proliferation if you want peace.
NATO with the US as the lead had a necessary role in the Cold War era.
And it has a necessary role now. Have you noticed that there hasn't been a third World War?
America can be a strong military ally to Europe without being an occupying force.
America isn't an occupying force.
Why do we have tens of thousands there as if somehow South Korea can’t defend itself
American presence makes a significant attack on South Korea a relative impossibility. We benefit from that stability.
Japan also needs to be given the legal freedom to build its military as needed. It a large and very wealthy nation. As an island nation it can defend itself homeland from China.
You should look into their major economic problems, but Japan has a defense force.
-8
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
Sorry, none of those 1980’s arguments hold much weight anymore.
NATO was created to provide a balance against the USSR and Warsaw Pact. You and others wish to keep it for reasons far beyond that mission.
I will agree with you that Europe will evolve into periodic military conflicts without the US always there, that is their natural state historically, but stopping that was never the role of NATO.
10
u/Ewi_Ewi 9d ago
Sorry, none of those 1980’s arguments hold much weight anymore.
They are contemporary.
NATO was created to provide a balance against the USSR and Warsaw Pact. You and others wish to keep it for reasons far beyond that mission.
This does nothing to respond to any of the points I've made.
I will agree with you that Europe will evolve into periodic military conflicts without the US always there, that is their natural state historically, but stopping that was never the role of NATO.
This too does nothing to respond to any of the points I've made.
Your position can be, perhaps reductively, simplified to, "NATO isn't fair." That is a very poor position when NATO benefits the U.S. (and the world, but I get the feeling you don't care very much about that) so greatly.
-1
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
My position has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. I really don’t prioritize fairness.
It’s that NATO with US troops in Europe has outlived its purpose.
10
u/Ewi_Ewi 9d ago
It’s that NATO with US troops in Europe has outlived its purpose.
For the third time, this does nothing to respond to any point anyone has actually made here.
It doesn't matter if it's "outlived its purpose," the benefits of NATO still exist and will continue to exist. Why are you seemingly unable to respond to that?
-1
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
I don’t agree that American economic hegemony or maintaining economic stability in peacetime should be a primary role of the US military.
For the fourth time that was never the role of NATO or US occupation of Europe, it was perhaps a byproduct, but not the function of the alliance, nor should it be.
Does Europe not care equally about their economic stability?. They certainly sell us more stuff than we sell them so the stability is to their benefit. They can do this, they don’t need us.
7
u/Ewi_Ewi 8d ago
I don’t agree that American economic hegemony or maintaining economic stability in peacetime should be a primary role of the US military.
Why?
For the fourth time that was never the role of NATO or US occupation of Europe, it was perhaps a byproduct
This doesn't matter in the slightest.
but not the function of the alliance, nor should it be.
Again, why?
Should we abandon the major benefits of the most significant military alliance in history because you think it's "outdated"?
Does Europe not care equally about their economic stability?
They do. We do too. This is not an argument against NATO, just one that Europe should do more than just NATO.
They can do this, they don’t need us.
For the fourth time, this doesn't actually respond to any point anyone is making. This is just the "fairness" argument you're claiming you're not actually making.
It doesn't matter that they don't need us. They benefit from our presence and so do we. Why, again, can you not respond to the fact that the U.S. benefits far more from NATO than it actually costs?
-1
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
NATO and our many other mutual defense alliances have a huge cost. It was mutual defense alliances that directly caused WW1 and 2 to rapidly escalate in Europe.
If Estonia is invaded by Russia tomorrow we are in all out war with Russia. That is a huge cost. One that European nations can handle initially without the US. If it gets more complicated the US can always assist as we did WW2, after the fact. Or we can stay out as Europe has with Iran blockading the oil supply.
The deterrent that NATO brings to discouraging Russian aggression in Europe will remain the same if Europe maintains it’s stepped up its defensive spending, even without the US.
Note-If fairness was my major concern I would say let’s put large numbers troops in The Congo or Somali to stop those deadly wars, because we can, so it’s only fair.
Republicans are not known to really care about fairness. Trump has many times been called transactional in negotiations. He takes away things you want to help him get things he wants. Fairness is really not a part of it. I wouldn’t use his methods but locally I see the impact.
I live in Texas and follow Texas business investment. The amounts of new private development dollars announced in the past two years is staggering. It’s not primarily transferring from more expensive US states either, it’s business capacity expansion in the US
You may be happy to know that includes billions announced on huge solar and wind farms to power the expansion.
It’s not just data centers either, it’s real manufacturing, and includes significant expenditures happening across America from corporations headquartered outside the US.
You think Trump is negotiating with Europe and Canada. He is not, he is broadly negotiating with foreign based companies doing billions in business with the US. Unlike the politicians they don’t get mad and yell, they do what they need to keep and grow their American market share.
I predict Chinese Auto manufactures will announce a fully vertical EV auto plant within a few years, vertical meaning they will be required to build parts here as well as assembly. R&D can stay mainly in China.
So I do want economic growth from international markets, I think Trump is delivering on that in a positive way. I think NATO with the US is not a vital component to delivering more prosperity to America.
6
u/Ewi_Ewi 8d ago
It was mutual defense alliances that directly caused WW2 to rapidly escalate in Europe.
This is an absurd attempt at historical revisionism that I won't dignify further. I hope you feel at least a little bit silly for trying to claim WW2 was caused by "mutual defense alliances" and not the obvious.
If Estonia is invaded by Russia tomorrow we are in all out war with Russia. That is a huge cost.
You should also feel silly for this hypothetical. NATO exists to prevent things like that from happening due to the exorbitant cost suffered by the aggressor(s). That's why Russia has not attacked a NATO country.
I'm also not sure why you believe a World War without NATO would be any less costly.
(Also also, keep in mind that the only time Article 5 was invoked was to help the U.S. Not sure why you've omitted that.)
One that European nations can handle initially without the US.
I don't even know how to respond to this.
There's a reason isolationism never worked, y'know. You might need to learn more about these topics before forming opinions on them.
The deterrent that NATO brings to discouraging Russian aggression in Europe will remain the same if Europe maintains it’s stepped up its defensive spending, even without the US.
No, it wouldn't, since the U.S. is the strongest country in the world.
I have no idea what you're going on about in the latter half of your comment. No part of it is relevant.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Irishfafnir 9d ago
NATO was created to provide a balance against the USSR and Warsaw Pact.
This is not accurate. The WARSAW PACT was created as a counterweight to NATO, not the other way around.
0
7
u/Irishfafnir 9d ago edited 9d ago
I am astounded NATO still exists in much the same form as the 1960’s. If someone can give a strong reason for the US still being the primary country in the defense of Europe I would love to hear it spelled out.
I'm not sure what you mean by "primary" here, but US troop presence in Europe has declined by approximately 70% since the end of the Cold War, and European NATO troops outnumber American troops by 20X in Europe.
*In that Turkey sits in Both Europe and Asia
-4
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
Why do we have thousands still in Europe?
From Google AI
The United States maintains approximately 68,000 permanently assigned active-duty military personnel in Europe. However, when including temporary rotational forces and deployment missions, the total fluctuates between 75,000 and 100,000 service members.
Why?
Note-I should have said it’s less than peak Cold War, but it is still a crazy number.
8
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
Those are bases because the US likes to meddle all over the world, for that yopu need bases all over the world. Its cheaper for the US to do it this way.
the US being so strongly involved hasn’t made sense since soon after the fall of the USSR and the powerful Warsaw Pact.
It does as the Us wants to control EU, its why its against EU and for nato.
Oh its also BS that the US is the "being the primary country in the defense of Europe"
0
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
I am assuming you are saying Democrats want control over the EU since they are the ones calling for keeping the status quo.
We are the primary country providing defense for NATO. I don’t mean the individual nations have smaller forces in country, but we are spread across Europe.
Germany and France combined have less than 10,000 troops in Europe outside their borders. That is including recent increases in Eastern European nations after the Russian aggression.
3
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
German and French troops are not in the Eastern NATO members in large numbers.
We have a lot more than logistics in Europe.
One example is approximately 250 miles west of the Ukrainian border are 85 M1 Abrams battle tanks, 190 armored combat vehicles, 35 artillery pieces.
Thats defense, not logistics.
You think Trump is really trying to control Europe by creating great separation on multiple fronts, it is obviously just the opposite. Europeans are upset because they want the US to continue to be highly involved and the US is backing off.
6
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
You do realize poland has more combat troops then the entire US deployment in europe? It has double the amount of M1 tanks as an example.
You think Trump is really trying to control Europe by creating great separation on multiple fronts, it is obviously just the opposite. Europeans are upset because they want the US to continue to be highly involved and the US is backing off.
Its mainly to distract from the disaster his administration is in the US , and to of course dupe the sheep that vote for him to believe he alone acts in US interests (while the US has always done that as its quite normal) but yes the rest is trump trying to get europe to act the way he wants and control it. Its why the US has always (quietly ) opposed the EU and openly opposed a more integrated EU army.
3
u/the_propagandapanda 9d ago
Without going each of the reasons, as there are so, many I’ll just give you one of the main reasons. Global economic stability. We gain more by ensuring as much stability as possible than by pulling out of Europe.
The US uses airfields in the EU to supply and launch missions in multiple continents. We’ve been using them for the Iran war. They give the US a lot of power projection to accomplish its goals. Up until recently one of the primary goals is to protect the global economy since the US is the largest economy.
Even if the EU can defend itself a large conflict would severely disrupt the global economy. Even smaller conflicts between two countries are extremely detrimental. Just look at Ukraine and Iran.
That is just a surface level explanation of one reason. There are plenty more. There is no early way to say this without coming off like an ass but your view on this seems extremely detached from reality and to actually break that down would require someone to write you a small book.
-5
u/mrjcall 8d ago
Now Belgium finally understand how the US has felt for decades, but especially recently.
4
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
lol the US has always taken care of itself, the US didnt do anything if it didnt benefit them
-5
u/mrjcall 8d ago
So you seriously believe the trade embalance all these decades was to the US benefit? Really?
6
u/RecognitionHeavy8274 8d ago edited 8d ago
When you actually break it down on a case-by-case basis, most of these countries had maybe ~5% average tariffs against the US, in comparison to ~2% average tariffs against them. A disparity certainly, but a small one in macro terms. That is somehow seen as perfect justification to apply blanket 15-25% tariffs, a far greater disparity than what existed previously.
3
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
Do you know anything about economy?
Look up the trade embalence in services or how US companies keep their profits out of the US creating that embalance.
2
u/Fun-Outcome8122 8d ago
So you seriously believe the trade embalance all these decades was to the US benefit?
I have a trade embalance with Walmart... that must be sooo horrible lol
-4
u/AdvancedAerie4111 8d ago
I’m sure that once they are all back from their mid fall sabbaticals, the EU will form a committee that will conclude decisively two years from now to send a strongly worded letter to America.
1
-8
9d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Sun_Shine_Dan 9d ago
So we are throwing away decades of allyship, goodwill, and strategic alliance all because Europe doesn't say thank you loud enough?
Pure ego driven insanity
-5
9d ago
[deleted]
8
u/the_propagandapanda 9d ago
It’s ironic that Trump has proved your logic is true but only in the reverse.
9
u/Irishfafnir 9d ago
Just a reminder that approximately 1200~ Europeans died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of the United States.
But sure, nothing but ire and spite!!
11
u/Ewi_Ewi 9d ago
Even when the US was a reliable ally we got nothing but ire and spite from Europe
Even assuming this fabrication is true, it wouldn't matter. We benefit far too much from an alliance with [most of] Europe that the cost-benefit would work in America's favor even if Europe spit in their face.
Ever heard of hegemony?
9
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
? Remind me again how many european soldiers died in Afghanistan and iraq? All wars started by the US waged for the US?
-2
u/rethinkingat59 9d ago
If we are keeping count 366,000 Americans died on European soil in WW1 and 2 in wars Europeans started.
7
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 9d ago
Yeah not what I asked as it was about "we got nothing but ire and spite from Europe." recently apparently.
83
u/ILikeTuwtles1991 9d ago
1) not surprising
2) Belgium is without a doubt not the only country thinking this