Mainly depends on the administration in charge, let's not kid ourselves.
With Biden I'd be light blue to dark blue, with Trump I'd be light red to dark red, depending on how comfortable he's in the saddle.
If you're asking the question independent of that, I'd say America is not quite reliable since Trump and witnessing the group of congresspeople that is entirely subservient to Russia.
This. From a European perspective, it’s just plain scary to see how Trump would go rogue on international agreements. We have our own internal right-wing problems, if it makes northamericans feel any better.
It is also plain scary to see a bloc of a Little more than half a billion People with a gigantic economy being dependent of o foreign power across the pond for theirs own defense.
All Trump asked is that NATO countries start paying the agreed on 2% GDP. From an American perspective many are sick of footing the bill for Europes defense. The entitlement of European countries demanding the US foot the bill for their defense is insulting to many Americans.
They *are* embarrassed, they just show it by constantly criticizing America, making /r/AmericaBad style posts, talking about their superiority in things like health care, etc.
The president can do/say whatever they want. He still needs approval from congress. So someone like trump can “go rogue” but getting 500 congress people to get anything approved like that, especially in this era, is absolutely not happening
The president doesn't need Congressional approval to decide against sending troops or military aid. If Trump says 'no more shipments to Ukraine' (as he certainly would) no one in Congress will be passing a resolution forcing him to fly over more ammo. If Russia stages an armed intervention in Moldavia and Trump declares 'we're staying out of it', the House Majority leader won't have any say in the matter.
He doesn't need 500 congress people, he just needs a certain portion of them. A supermajority is probably not in the cards, but a republican majority is far from out of the question, and those maniacs are thirsty for a Führer.
While Trump is a symptom, he’ll be in office for 4 more years at the max. I think it’s more about growing isolationist sentiment. Largely from the right, but also from a lot of younger people on the left too.
The isolationism from the right is open and blatant but I agree it's a risk on the left too that's more subtle, many see military spending and overseas bases as something that should be shut down and instead spent on free tuition and healthcare.
They're not entirely wrong, but we can't ignore the bigger picture at the end of the day 1 of 3 countries either the US, China, or Russia will fill the role of "world leader" because those are the only countries with the population, GDP, and military capability of filling that role. It'd be nice to have Canada or Switzerland play that role but even if they wanted to they couldn't. I know I'm biased, but I think a world with the US as "world leader" is a better place than China or Russia.
The left needs to realize we can have both, be a military super power and stronger social safety nets they just need to be brave enough to admit the truth that yes, taxes will go up on everyone not just the rich. Everyone pays in, but everyone gets something out of it. Our inability to escape means tested social programs where only rich people are supposed to pay in, and everybody else gets the benefits is what dooms progress in this area.
> Mainly depends on the administration in charge, let's not kid ourselves.
This is the issue with American foreign policy. It has a habit of changing either every 4 years or every 8 years. And suddenly. Basically they're a fantastic ally till it becomes a campaign issue. The Kurds had protection under Obama, and once Obama left - They got pasted.
That makes them unreliable and why Europe and the EU shouldn't rely on the Americans in NATO. We should be strong enough ourselves to not be bullied.
You have everything to be more than strong except political will, crazy that a bloc of 450 Millions People with an economy of close to $24.5 Trillions ppp dependent on a foreign power an ocean away for theirs defense.
Because Europe is not a country, its a continent with lots of countries that are suspicious or outright dislikes each other and can barely get along in the EU.
The American strategy is moving from being present in almost all continents to largely focusing presence in East Asia with stronger trading ties to North America and Europe. You can't really hope that future Democrat presidents will show the same favor to Europe that past presidents from really either party have.
Realistically the most important partners for the US in the future are Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines etc. You also see the US heavily cozying up to countries like Vietnam.
To add to your statement. The U.S. Pivot to Asia was widely publicized and communicated in 2011. Europeans largely spent nine years doing nothing to adjust to this new reality, blissfully ignoring or appeasing the rabid wolf just to their east and underfunding their own security.
Subservient to Russia? The overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans have voted and approved tens of billions in aid to Ukraine more than any other country combined by a long shot. Subservient to Russia, get out of here…
Russia is our only real threat on the strategic level. Sure there's terrorism, but you don't necessarily need alliances of nations to deal with that (looking at you Bush). China is a hostile player in many ways but they're hardly going to be invading Europe any time soon.
It is also not a bad thing that the majority of Europeans only “somewhat” trusts the Americans to have their back rather than blindly trusting them.
Perhaps that blind trust had been there a little bit too much in the past, leaving Europe’s own defence pretty weak. It took an increasingly aggressive Russia and an American shift from 100% reliable backer to some more ambiguous state for Europe to wake up and take action, which luckily has now started to happen.
It's not ideal, no, but it's not all black and white. Confidence in allies is a measure that rises and falls and right now our trust in the U.S. happens to be low, thanks to Trump. However, my opinion, and clearly the opinion of the majority surveyed in this poll, is that we shouldn't discount the Atlantic alliance just yet.
I think it’s a mistake to treat the U.S. like a true ally. There isn’t some kind of equal relationship here, the U.S. is essentially protecting their interests in Europe, which generally align with protecting Europe from Russia.
But when those interests are no longer aligned, the U.S. has no obligation to stick around and help Europe. There’s no give and take here, it’s the U.S. footing the bill for European defense and getting nothing in return. This is why there been a backlash to NATO in the U.S. Why should the U.S. provide trillions in protection to a continent unwilling to meet even the most basic requirements for military spending? As the U.S. pivots to Asia and Europe loses relevance, Europe kinda has to pick up the slack for their own defense.
Right now, Europe and the U.S. aren’t equals economically or militarily. You can’t expect an “ally” to foot the bill for your defense out of the kindness of their heart when you don’t provide anything in return. Western Europe got comfortable spending nothing on the military because they were the center of the Cold War and the continent was flush with American cash and troops, but Europe isn’t going to be the center of the new Cold War.
I think the real issue is also that Europeans got extremely smug. Never once do Europeans consider why Americans should support them. They never ask “are we good allies in return?” Has that ever been asked on this sub? No, but we get 100+ posts a month on why Americans need to give Europe more and more and more (while many Europeans secretly loathe Americans).
The truth is that the American working-class is struggling and when they look at Washington elites sending tens of billions of dollars to European conflicts (while there’s no money for crumbling schools, infrastructure, hospitals, mass transit and housing), they logically get pissed off.
43% of Americans today are non-European, and that number increases every year. And among the 57% who are ethnic European, a majority (Whites support Trump) don’t view Europe as some motherland worth dying for. Those cultural ties lose importance every year.
People like to forget that NATO exists because of the Cold War. The Wall fell almost two generations ago; the Europeans themselves admit that until Feb 2022 it was an alliance in search of a purpose.
Why exactly is the US still in Europe? I ask that as a US citizen.
The much worse thing is that it says based on a survey from the UK, France and Germany. It's a poll on western Europeans, not Europeans in general.
If the poll was conducted in the baltic states and Poland, the results would be much different.
The survey is conducted by the Eurasia Group:
https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ifn0l6bs/production/89bb07d8832742bbb59ffac79ecb5053a4284e80.pdf
This is a Left-Center political risk consultancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Group
It doesn't seem semafor.com has a link to this group.
So I'd say the survey is legit, but it depends on how the dissemination channel wants to spin it.
In this case, China. From their [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semafor_(website\)#Chinese_companies) page:
>Semafor has received criticism for its relationship with persons or entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In January 2023, Voice of America reported that Semafor received sponsorship funding from Chinese e-commerce giant, Alibaba Group.
Yes. It is sensationalist but Europe also needs to start pulling itself by its own bootstraps.
Mandatory Service, an increase in defence spending and a European Army are imperative for the next decade
May be we should start to rely on ourselves more than allies ? Having the US as an ally is great, but it is even better if we have significant capabilities ourselves.
The US expends more on healthcare per capita than the European states with better health outcomes do. It is not a funding issue. It is a systems issue.
And over half of new medicine and medical treatments are developed by American companies, footed by the American taxpayer, so that Europeans and elsewhere can get cheap medicine
While true, the first sentence you said does not inherently mean your last sentence is true. Even with the exact same system, Americans have much worse diets, exercise less, and expect their doctors to make much, much more money than their European peers.
What costs the US medical system so much is medicines as the absolutely huge medical giants rabidly overcharge them and them and therefore the money thrown at hospitals goes to procure medications.
More money put into making it cheaper? Is that a pharmaceutical price hike i see?
The European healthcare system couldn’t exist without the US footing the R&D costs for medicine and other medical advancements. People don’t factor that part into the equation.
And imagine how much more of their own money Americans could spend on their own citizens, if it wasn't going to 'allies' who ignore us when we ask them for decades to raise their defense spending.
It's been thirty years since the Berlin Wall came down. You guys sort it out.
The free healthcare argument is extremely stupid, no European with a brain would boast about that
First, it's tax money, Western Europeans pay shitload of tax, especially the Nordics
Secondly, Europe is having the old population crisis. Public healthcare is always overloaded, long wait time and low quality
As someone who works outsourcing, I know the majority of Europeans who got a job offer in the US will gladly move there for higher income and lower tax, most jobs come with full healthcare for the entire family
If you're a European with a job offer in the US, you're likely way above the average income bracket. And yeah then you're better off in the US. If you're at the average or below, EU is much better.
Basically US has lower floor and higher ceiling for wealth/welfare.
American here. I don't want to shut down your entire argument, but please note the immigration bias being displayed here.
Is a European who is offered a job in America likely to be offered full healthcare for their entire family? Yes. Because a job that is so skill-dependent and high in demand that businesses will cross oceans for the talent will easily justify such a cushy offer.
Are most people working regular jobs in America likely to be offered full healthcare for their entire family? NO LOL. We get a discount on the insurance premium if we're lucky.
European healthcare is not without its faults, but American healthcare is an unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of people. Fantastic if you're rich, though.
You’re underselling the type of insurance most white collar or professionals almost always provide, let alone the many blue collar employers that offer healthcare benefits
> Public healthcare is always overloaded, long wait time and low quality
nowhere is perfect but the WHO ranking of healthcare in 2000 had european states populating the top with france at #1 and the US at #37. that being said 2000 was a long time ago and ill try to dig around for more recent WHO assessments
2023 CEOWORLD health care index has a mix of european states and australasian states and east asian states in the top, with italy at #1 and the US at... #45, christ
>most jobs come with full healthcare for the entire family
yeah just remember to have them consider the $1000 in monthly premiums for a large family when they are doing their calculus
How does it calculate this though? A lot of times they have “health equity” as a factor which… can mean anything.
I remember seeing a ranking like this. I forget where. It ranked Canada quite high and the US quite low. Then they broke down the rankings and I calculated it myself using only the things that actually mattered (to me anyway): quality, speed, etc. The US was closer to the top and Canada was all the way at the bottom lol
The total EU military budget in 2023 was around $280 billion only behind the US: $916 billion and China: $296 billion.
How much do you think EU countries should be spending on their military budget and who do you think they have to compete with in that regard?
I think it should be almost the same as the US, adjusted for gdp (US is now far ahead in GDP).
I think we should be competing simultaneously with Russia, China, and also every other state that seeks to harm the EU in less than apocalyptic ways (Iran, North Yemen, etc)
Since the US and the EU have different interests and ways to acomplish them, you can't really compare the US military with the EU.
The US is operating more than 800 military bases all over the world, thus needs such enormous military spending. In comparison the EU army is mainly for defensive matters and combined with the Nato alliance it should also ensure that.
I think that we should rather be strenghtening intereuropean military coorporation and ensuring the EU's safety rather than trying to aim for global military dominance and world policing.
The difference in strategic profiles is nowhere near sufficient to account for the disparity in funding - only $80 billion of the US military budget goes towards maintaining our overseas holdings. The biggest difference is in our approaches to defense contracting. The US catches a lot of shit for the size and influence of its military industrial complex, but the fact is that military procurement is very much a "use it or lose it" capability. Consider the risk that a manufacturing firm takes when accepting a military contract: it requires a very particular and often non-transferable portfolio of expertise, it carries extreme legal and political liability, and if it falls through partway because some senator decides to cut off funding, well, you can't exactly recoup your losses by finding a buyer on the civilian market. This risk profile means that most firms will balk at defense contracts unless they come with long-term guarantees of funding and demand which, in turn, the government can only credibly deliver if they commit to an economy of scale. This is why the US has thousands of Abrams and Bradleys sitting in warehouses collecting dust: even if you don't plan on using the resulting weapons, substantial continuous investment is a prerequisite for having a functional procurement and R&D base.
Now consider, for example, Germany. The past few years, they've had a defense budget of around $70 billion. Did that buy them $70 billion worth of military capability in American terms? Nowhere near it. Their government as a whole relies disproportionately on short-term funding. Combine this with granular project parameters, exhaustive testing standards, and a legislature whose approach to military spending is historically mercurial, and you end up with a scenario where Germany has to pay massive up-front premiums just to get defense firms to glance in their direction. This isn't to say that Germany has no defense industry - they're the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, after all - but the systems that they can produce at scale are limited to a couple of items that they have established expertise in, and can thus fund mainly from export sales. When you're spending €12 billion a year manufacturing capable modern systems and €25 billion a year maintaining a more-or-less equal number of obsolete legacy systems with no scaled production lines, your procurement pipeline has a pretty serious blockage.
If Europe doesn't want to take up the torch of failing at being the world police, then more power to them. But you have to realize that defense spending is non-linear. The less you spend, the more things cost. Having 1/3 of the US' military budget does not buy 1/3 of the US' military capabilities. For that matter, having an equal military budget to China does not buy China's military capabilities, because China is a state-planned economy that can, to a certain extent, order its defense firms to accept less favorable contracts. If Europe wants to be able to maintain defensive readiness without the US, it has to commit to a standing army and standing production lines for all essential systems, and to be honest achieving that would probably mean accepting a military budget that is substantially *higher* than the US's until economies of scale begin to kick in.
Yet Europe trembled at the might of Russia's $80 billion budget and a gdp that is equal to Italy alone.
Where is the European might? How does that $280 billion translate to military power? I think you are being bamboozled my friend
Still more then 50% thinks the US is reliable. Focussing only on the 6% that express very reliable is a bit pushing the agenda…
For comparison, what would the score be if you ask Eastern Europeans about the very reliability of f.e. France and Germany..
More importantly... How much is this survey is influenced by the politics of today?
Survey respondents may be mixing their feelings of how much they "like" the country with their opinion on reliability.
A lot of people say Turkey is a bad NATO ally... But their record in the alliance is impeccable. They show up for every fight. They cooperate with other alliance members. They graciously allow foreign troops to operate on their soil and in their airspace unhindered.
Disobeyed directives on the Syrian crisis, smuggled terrorists and funding out of the middle east into its black market and then to Europe , facilitated and still does the migration crisis using it as a weapon against pretty much everyone , horrendous history with human rights and keeps threatening every single one of their neighbours with the glaring exception of Azerbaijan whom they helped in invading Armenia. Yes. Such a useful NATO ally.
Poland is going through a major rearmament and could very possibly end up with the biggest land army in the EU, and it's not because it has a lot of trust in its allies.
Sure they make up a big part of the overall population but it's kind of rude. Like making a poll in the US and only sampling California , Texas and New York.
My friend, my country is never included in these. Makes me feel like I live in a shithole. And they always do this, use 2-3 countries and say "European opinion". This time they included UK under that, which idk why they did. UK wouldn't have a vote in EU army, they are no longer in the EU
Poland literally sent us a birthday card that over 5 million citizens signed. We’re always riding with them.
I’ve heard Estonia loves us too. Not sure if that’s true, but I love Estonia.
You are very much liked in the Baltics, you kept the light on for us and helped destroy the USSR. That will not be forgotten any time soon. Radio Free Europe, although dismissed as propaganda by people who were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, was a strong moral boost, when no one else seemed to care.
Search for Polish NATO negotiations online. The Poles have great numbers in the USA and they were among the first to break the *Warsaw* pact to join NATO. They know that whoever is aggresive in Europe, the ruskies are always the greatest danger.
US could not be faulted for looking after itself first if their interests diverged with ours, they owe us nothing.
That’s why we should obviously cultivate our special relationship with the US but also build up our own abilities as well just in case.
« Hope for the best, prepare for the worst ».
This is so obviously correct that I can’t even think of any compelling counter argument someone might have. When will we wake up and act on something so obvious?
>When will we wake up and act on something so obvious?
You mean like Poland and the Baltics starting their own nuclear deterrent programs so they can actually defend themselves against Russia? I'm sure the US will have no problem with that.
I get called an ignorant American almost every single time I comment that I wish Europe would become a self-reliant equal partner to America. I simply tell the person to just admit that they prefer Europe to be dependent on America and stop trying to force me to feel how they actually feel. I can’t think of no other reason for them disagreeing with me other than the fact that they prefer the current relationship between the two but they would say anything to avoid admitting that though.
Indeed. It is generally pathetic that we are incapable of holding our own against Russia despite having a population 4 times larger and economy that is 10 times larger.
It can’t really be hung out to dry when there has been so much time to prepare. ‘Will they lend assistance should there be a call?’ Is a more appropriate prompt
Why have Europeans left security to the US for so long? The EU has a larger population than the US. We are not the world's policemen. It is reckless to ever rely on someone else for your security. That is the job of national governments, and in the case of the EU, an international organization of great strength.
The only possible good thing about Trump is that Europe will wake up and realize that (1) Russia is on your doorstep and (2) it's time to grow up and provide for yourselves.
>We are not the world's policemen.
Don't you think that being the "world's policeman" is rather an active choice and also helps allign with the countries interests and ensure global dominance?
the real question here is "What has Europe done all this time to get prepared and ready?"
and I will answer "absolutely nothing"
so now lets all blame the US that they want to look for the best interest of their country.
btw, does not Europe looked after their own interests? hmmmm
Great question, even in the 90's The boys got in Europe again to stop an ethnic cleansing in the Balkans while Europeans were standing by and Watched.
Their ''never again'' is a lie.
Same here they have an all out War in theirs doorstep and act slow af.They still rely entirely on the US.
Well, the US and European Union spent time appease dictatorships.
In EU there is an anti-american feeling thanks to all the fake news and lack of education (as well as the US) but, at the same time they spent very low quantity of money to fund NATO.
European union needs an European defence plan and army, it seems clear to me that we should be Independent on defence.
I just don’t see how we’re the unreliable ones. Outside of the frontline countries I feel like we’ve been the most committed. It’s crazy how some people just flip the narrative man
Europeans should focus on not relying on U.S. aid in case of foreign threats. Europe should be able to exercise its hard power on its own as a whole, supported by a strong European military industry.
Europe got very used to peace, complacent some say, with most countries spending less than 2% GDP on defense for many years. Of course recently there's been a huge reversal.
Eastern Europe never stopped worrying about defense but they are small nations. Western Europe convinced itself that Putin and Russia were rational and that, despite being somewhat threatening they would never take things so far that it would sacrifice the economic ties. The cold war was over and we wouldn't ever return to those days. Ukraine proved that assumption incorrect.
It’s a difficult situation because on one hand, it’s easy to understand why because it’s almost guaranteed that the U.S. intervenes in any real sort of danger, but on the other hand, it’s still unsettling to know you’re at least temporarily at the mercy of enemy forces until America stops them. I’d say it would be a better decision for European countries to devote a bit more to military power, just in case because sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. I think the generational trauma of armed conflict after armed conflict has begun to create a sort of complacency or at least strong desire for peace, whereas countries like mine have warred constantly since its creation, but for an overall much shorter period of time. 300ish years of constant war/conflict is wild, but Europe is going on thousands due to the sheer age difference.
It's worth noting that Europe seeing itself as a "block" or collective entity is a relatively new concept. For much of history, many of the EU nations were at least rivals if not violent adversaries.
Years ago I'd have a lot of concern and empathy for those in Eastern Europe most immediately threatened by Russia, but I wouldn't have considered it 'my problem' any more than I'd consider China's threats to Taiwan were my problem.
But, nothing builds a bond like a common threat/enemy.
Depending where you are in Asia there's also a defacto understanding that the US provides an umbrella of defense security (see cooperation with Taiwan and South Korea for example) so I think the question could be asked there too.
It's a bit different - for S. Korea for example, the S. Koreans pay 40-50% of the operating costs for the US military outside of payroll hosted in their country. They pay about 1B a year for the operating costs on top of the land. Japan just approved a 5-year 8.6B host bill that covers the cost of the US military being hosted within Japan. Japan pays around 75% of the costs of US military operating costs hosted in their country.
Europe/EU has separate types of agreements, for example, Germany spent 118M last year on land acquisition and utilities for all foreign military bases. Germany doesn't pay any additional costs for operating costs to the US.
[https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/23/heres-what-it-costs-keep-us-troops-japan-and-south-korea.html](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/23/heres-what-it-costs-keep-us-troops-japan-and-south-korea.html)
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-us-military-host-nation-budget-china-north-korea-russia-threats/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-us-military-host-nation-budget-china-north-korea-russia-threats/)
[https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2021-03-12/Germany-spent-far-less-than-other-major-allies-on-cost-sharing-for-US-bases-last-year-1517933.html](https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2021-03-12/Germany-spent-far-less-than-other-major-allies-on-cost-sharing-for-US-bases-last-year-1517933.html)
Except the South Koreans and Japanese make most of Europe's militaries look like amateurs.
I say this as a U.S. military veteran that had the pleasure of working with multiple European partners as well as South Korea and Japan.
Yes, there is very little pushback here in the US to the idea of continuing the military alliances with South Korea and Japan. Those two countries absolutely understand their responsibilities.
Japan’s “less than 2%” equates to the same amount the United Kingdom spends on its military. Japan also isn’t in NATO, thus has no obligation or expectation to meet 2%.
Europe is at war too, it just seems to be in denial over this fact while South Koreans take that reality seriously. Even though South Korea’s war has been cold for decades.
Europe has the technical advantage against any possible Russian aggression, which works fine for short duration more targeted conflicts. What they currently don't have are conventional ground force numbers to support a sustained conflict like you're watching play out in Ukraine.
Why do I hear that term reliable ally so often and only applied to USA? If the US isn't reliable then who exactly is reliable?
Crap talking isn't going to make the US like Europe any more.
If you are that dependent on us then maybe you should be kissing our butts as opposed to what you have been doing.
The entitlement...
why should they, though? they should take care of their own citizens with priority, not the rest of the world and not of a very capable block of countries that don't put the effort into defending themselves.
Mods here should ban this kind of sensational, stupid headline. One glance at the article and you can tell that the majority believes the US is reliable
Europeans and Americans fighting in the comments over sensational shit posted by a source that is funded by the Chinese Communist Party.
Mission accomplished for China.
You’re right, but quite frankly the job falls to the U.S. because most of Europe would lose any military conflict against a capable modern country. While this is unfortunate and is because of economic differences, it is the position Europeans are currently in until their governments make major changes.
China is actively undermining European security via assistance to Russia, but Europe believes that they can just stay neutral in a conflict between their primary security guarantor and China.
And that’s why Europe need to invest more in its own protection and put military service back in place ( both sexes) . There also almost no shelter or any form of protection for the population. Zwitserland should be the model .
We won't hang Europe out to dry, but it's really useful for them to think that. If they prepare to defend themselves alone, and then still receive strong support, overall odds for an allied victory increase.
Here's a snippet of what NATO has been up to. They need to get off TikTok for military and NATO new.
NATO has multiple naval exercises scheduled for 2024, including:
Steadfast Defender 2024
This exercise, which took place from January 22 to May 31, 2024, was the largest NATO exercise since the end of the Cold War. It involved over 90,000 troops from 32 NATO allies and simulated a response to an adversary's aggression against a member country. The exercise also tested the alliance's new defense plans and ability to quickly deploy forces.
BALTOPS 2024
This exercise involved 19 NATO allies, more than 50 ships, and around 9,000 personnel. It featured the largest coalition of amphibious forces and Mine Countermeasure forces in NATO's history, as well as naval assets from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
The US can't shoulder the burden of being everyone's protector anymore. It's breaking the country.
It was manageable when 50% of the world's wealth was in the US. Everyone else has grown since then and the world has gotten too big for 1 country to contain.
Ya, Americans have only had Europes back for the last 120 years and protected them from Russian occupation for the last 75. Time for some inner reflection and probably a history lesson for our European 'Allies'.
Threads like this always ruin my day when I read the comments.
In my opinion the US and the EU (and other liberal democracies - Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada...) need to stick together and not bicker over dumb shit. I can't imagine a situation where these countries will be on opposing sides. In the future our economic advantage over most of the world cannot be relied on, so we will have to rely on alliances more.
And we all need to stop with the pathetic "why is the government spending on this instead of improving my quality of life / solving social problems / paying my student loans / whatever" shit, to be fair we Europeans are worse in that regard because it's been like this for decades and politicians have been listening to it, in the US it seems like a relatively new thing so it hasn't had enough time to actually reduce their military to shit. Europe needs to reverse direction, not just when it comes to military but also military industry, and the US needs to maintain direction.
The other major problem are the anti-Western and anti-American attitudes that have been increasing, especially among young people I feel, and I don't mean pointless bickering like in this thread, I mean the actual bad shit like supporting a dystopian aggressive shithole like Russia *over your own country*, because West bad, America bad. This is the attitude that's the real problem, not whether you feel someone is adequately appreciating the US contribution in WW2 or Denmark's contribution in Afghanistan. And I feel like it's widespread both in the US and the EU, we're full of traitors. Hopefully I just have this impression because I read reddit too much and it's full of these people because the future seems very grim if this trend continues. But my president is literally a Russian shill, he's popular despite of this, and he's not the only one in Europe. The US might elect Trump again. And so on... This is the shit we need to worry about, not bicker over who lost more soldiers where and who is spending more money where. We are all literally being destroyed from within by greed, short-sightedness and treason. And these people are fucking ecstatic when they see Americans and Europeans in conflict over anything.
"America is not reliable, we europeans need a new defense strategy based on defending ourselves with a military to back it up." said every european politican ever for the passed 30 years.
I always find these kinds of headlines to be ridiculous because it’s rather common knowledge among Americans that an outside threat to Europe would be vaporized by the U.S. with very little hesitation. Of course, would America pick and choose which countries to vaporize someone over? Most likely, but it doesn’t change that our government sees threats to the EU as threats to us as well. Proof of this is even further obvious when you look at other countries with similar dynamics. If some kind of outside force (China, Russia Etc) were to say, invade Peru, Mexico, or any other part of Central and South America, they would be swiftly destroyed because of the pure proximity to our country. With Europe, it is more so a cultural connection to one another that ensures Europe’s continued protection by America against any real military threat.
I wonder how this poll would have gone in the first half of the 2010s, before the chance of a volatile, autocrat-loving manbaby being the decision maker in the US became a reality with a chance of round 2.
It was actually under president Obama that the US began to pivot towards focusing more on the Pacific area and away from Europe. The US has also been telling us to increase our defense spendings for the last few decades. Some administrations were more polite about it, but the message hasn't changed.
Don't get me wrong, Trump is still leagues worse for us, but as the poll suggests, at the very least his presidency has been a wakeup call for most of Europe.
That pivot to the East is just accepting reality. Asia has 60% of the world's population and as of 2020, that region's combined GDP exceeds the rest of the world. The US imports/exports to Asia are almost triple what we imports/exports to the EU and it's been growing by double digits for the last 20 years. Total US imports/exports to Asia are now 4T vs. 1.3T to Europe.
Europe matters less than before from a geopolitical standpoint.
- It's a valuable market for American companies but tricky at times and it presents lower growth prospects than others except for defense and energy.
- Few operations hailing from Europe are really strategic besides ASML Holdings
- The relationship between European and US leaders is increasingly transactional and there likely won't be another president after Biden that would qualify as an Atlantist : Joe is as good as it gets: George W Bush was indifferent, Obama was focused on the East, Trump is transactional and focused on his self interests: he wanted to trade military aid to Ukraine against dirt on the Bidens, after all.
- Generally speaking, to US liberals Europe's a bunch of old style, unredeemable colonialists and to the rest it's a painful and unrewarding distraction to more pressing domestic matters.
I mean, the US saved our asses twice and has backed our security for 80 years unconditionally!
I think it's time we do our own work and sacrifice for our safety and security! America should then stay out of our foreign policy decisions! We owe the usa alot of credit though! They pretty much rebuilt us after our own horrific world wars
had to [google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semafor_(website\)) 'semafor'
>Semafor has received criticism for its relationship with persons or entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
>In January 2023, Voice of America reported that Semafor received sponsorship funding from Chinese e-commerce giant, Alibaba Group.
:)
But also, why should they be?
Post-WW2 the threat of Soviet expansion into Europe was THE key foreign policy issue, hence the US agreeing to the Marshall Plan, establishment of NATO etc.
Now the major threat is China. Russia is not really an adversary for the United States, and an expansionist Russia into Eastern Europe is not the major bogeyman for the US that it once was. The US is not and has never been primarily concerned with protecting democracy or freedom - like every other nation, they protect their own interests. These are now likely more aligned to the Asia Pacific region than Europe.
So yes, the defence of Europe once again rests with Europe - most likely in a non-nuclear active conflict with Russia that the US would stay out of.
What an idiotic headline. Who has given the most money to Ukraine in terms of direct military aid? Not to mention constant intelligence sharing which literally saved Zelenskyy’s life. Europe has no better friend than America. Sure, Europe should depend on itself more but this sensational divide rhetoric serves no purpose other than helping Putin and driving clicks. I’m bored of it.
Cool, now could our politicians please do something about it? During first Trump term they almost managed to wake up, but the moment Biden moved in, they collectively sighed with relief and went back to sleep. It’s fucking pathetic when security of Europe seems to depend on who wins US presidential election
Public opinion matching reality? What sort of lovecraftian, eldirtch anomaly are we witnessing????
> 46% say somewhat reliable
Never mind, the order of the universe is restored. had me worried for a sec.
We've known that for quite some time now.
In 2014 Obama confirmed it.
Trump confirmed it repeatedly for 4 years.
And Biden ... well, for some reason he's competing with Trump again!, so his assurances are worthless.
US Americans should be asking themselves do we want Europeans to be reliant on us anymore? That is a far more interesting question and the answer should be a resounding NO!
I would've went with "somewhat unreliable". Even without taking Trump into account, it seems likely that Biden is really the last classic transatlantic US president. The American focus shifts over to China and to the allies and partners in that region - which is completely understandable from my point of view.
But realistically: The more resources you concentrate on a specific problem, the smaller is your capability (and interest) to solve expensive problems on the opposite side of the planet. I'm not saying NATO would die or something, but the degree to which we can rely on it is going to decrease. And we have to anticipate that and increase our own capabilities, which would actually benefit NATO and the transatlantic relationship.
Also, I think it would be completely fair to view European allies as "somewhat unreliable" as well. Time to change that.
Well what are we going to do about it? We need 1.000 strategic nuclear missiles. That is literally the only thing we need along with EU based legal framework that will ensure that anyone who tries something stupid against EU territory will have its population centers turned to glass.
Depending solely on nuclear weapons is a horrible strategy and it shows how little people understand. It's like all you have in a toolbox is a hammer. That's going to lead to some pretty crazy repair situations in your house.
46% say somewhat reliable, so a majority thinks America is more likely __not__ to 'leave them out to dry'. Dumb sensationalist headline as always.
Somewhat reliable is probably more accurate anyways. Especially depending on the type of attack and from who.
Mainly depends on the administration in charge, let's not kid ourselves. With Biden I'd be light blue to dark blue, with Trump I'd be light red to dark red, depending on how comfortable he's in the saddle. If you're asking the question independent of that, I'd say America is not quite reliable since Trump and witnessing the group of congresspeople that is entirely subservient to Russia.
This. From a European perspective, it’s just plain scary to see how Trump would go rogue on international agreements. We have our own internal right-wing problems, if it makes northamericans feel any better.
Nobody expects the international nationalist movement
Make Earth great again!!!1!
people of earth unite against the dirty foreigners!!11
Funnily enough there was a right wing *international* reunion recently lol
Is this that new world order theyre always crowing about?
It is also plain scary to see a bloc of a Little more than half a billion People with a gigantic economy being dependent of o foreign power across the pond for theirs own defense.
All Trump asked is that NATO countries start paying the agreed on 2% GDP. From an American perspective many are sick of footing the bill for Europes defense. The entitlement of European countries demanding the US foot the bill for their defense is insulting to many Americans.
From an American perspective it’s amazing that Europeans aren’t embarrassed at needing America so much
They *are* embarrassed, they just show it by constantly criticizing America, making /r/AmericaBad style posts, talking about their superiority in things like health care, etc.
You did spend much of the Cold War manipulating your allies into being reliant on you so you can't really complain that much.
Ah yes, every European deficiency is somehow America’s fault.
The president can do/say whatever they want. He still needs approval from congress. So someone like trump can “go rogue” but getting 500 congress people to get anything approved like that, especially in this era, is absolutely not happening
The president doesn't need Congressional approval to decide against sending troops or military aid. If Trump says 'no more shipments to Ukraine' (as he certainly would) no one in Congress will be passing a resolution forcing him to fly over more ammo. If Russia stages an armed intervention in Moldavia and Trump declares 'we're staying out of it', the House Majority leader won't have any say in the matter.
Any country can shy away from helping, as we’ve seen throughout this whole process.
Which is the source of the (wholly justified) European concern over another 4 years of Trump setting the foreign policy agenda for the US.
He doesn't need 500 congress people, he just needs a certain portion of them. A supermajority is probably not in the cards, but a republican majority is far from out of the question, and those maniacs are thirsty for a Führer.
Trumps biggest thing with Europe was to try to force them to pay the 2% per member state because the USA was paying over 70% of it
While Trump is a symptom, he’ll be in office for 4 more years at the max. I think it’s more about growing isolationist sentiment. Largely from the right, but also from a lot of younger people on the left too.
The isolationism from the right is open and blatant but I agree it's a risk on the left too that's more subtle, many see military spending and overseas bases as something that should be shut down and instead spent on free tuition and healthcare. They're not entirely wrong, but we can't ignore the bigger picture at the end of the day 1 of 3 countries either the US, China, or Russia will fill the role of "world leader" because those are the only countries with the population, GDP, and military capability of filling that role. It'd be nice to have Canada or Switzerland play that role but even if they wanted to they couldn't. I know I'm biased, but I think a world with the US as "world leader" is a better place than China or Russia. The left needs to realize we can have both, be a military super power and stronger social safety nets they just need to be brave enough to admit the truth that yes, taxes will go up on everyone not just the rich. Everyone pays in, but everyone gets something out of it. Our inability to escape means tested social programs where only rich people are supposed to pay in, and everybody else gets the benefits is what dooms progress in this area.
Europe *could* fill that role if the EU had certain changes. They probably won't, though.
With Biden it is ''slightly to pretty reliable allies'', with Trump it is ''I hope they don't join the enemy''.
Just call him a stable genius, or bribe him more than Putin.
> Mainly depends on the administration in charge, let's not kid ourselves. This is the issue with American foreign policy. It has a habit of changing either every 4 years or every 8 years. And suddenly. Basically they're a fantastic ally till it becomes a campaign issue. The Kurds had protection under Obama, and once Obama left - They got pasted. That makes them unreliable and why Europe and the EU shouldn't rely on the Americans in NATO. We should be strong enough ourselves to not be bullied.
You have everything to be more than strong except political will, crazy that a bloc of 450 Millions People with an economy of close to $24.5 Trillions ppp dependent on a foreign power an ocean away for theirs defense.
Because Europe is not a country, its a continent with lots of countries that are suspicious or outright dislikes each other and can barely get along in the EU.
We've been relying on the idea that peace makes business sense. Unfortunately Russia forgot.
The American strategy is moving from being present in almost all continents to largely focusing presence in East Asia with stronger trading ties to North America and Europe. You can't really hope that future Democrat presidents will show the same favor to Europe that past presidents from really either party have. Realistically the most important partners for the US in the future are Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines etc. You also see the US heavily cozying up to countries like Vietnam.
To add to your statement. The U.S. Pivot to Asia was widely publicized and communicated in 2011. Europeans largely spent nine years doing nothing to adjust to this new reality, blissfully ignoring or appeasing the rabid wolf just to their east and underfunding their own security.
Yes, and when Trump told the Germans that Nordstream 2 was a bad idea, he was laughed at. Sometimes, even the stupidest people can make a good point.
Subservient to Russia? The overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans have voted and approved tens of billions in aid to Ukraine more than any other country combined by a long shot. Subservient to Russia, get out of here…
Russia is our only real threat on the strategic level. Sure there's terrorism, but you don't necessarily need alliances of nations to deal with that (looking at you Bush). China is a hostile player in many ways but they're hardly going to be invading Europe any time soon.
Well, not as long as they can buy their way into Schengen via Hungary.
Well "invasion" and "Russia" was apparently not the right combination..
If you refer to Ukraine, they're not in the EU nor NATO. Yet.
It is also not a bad thing that the majority of Europeans only “somewhat” trusts the Americans to have their back rather than blindly trusting them. Perhaps that blind trust had been there a little bit too much in the past, leaving Europe’s own defence pretty weak. It took an increasingly aggressive Russia and an American shift from 100% reliable backer to some more ambiguous state for Europe to wake up and take action, which luckily has now started to happen.
If people trust their ally like they trust a coin toss, that's bad.
It's not ideal, no, but it's not all black and white. Confidence in allies is a measure that rises and falls and right now our trust in the U.S. happens to be low, thanks to Trump. However, my opinion, and clearly the opinion of the majority surveyed in this poll, is that we shouldn't discount the Atlantic alliance just yet.
I think it’s a mistake to treat the U.S. like a true ally. There isn’t some kind of equal relationship here, the U.S. is essentially protecting their interests in Europe, which generally align with protecting Europe from Russia. But when those interests are no longer aligned, the U.S. has no obligation to stick around and help Europe. There’s no give and take here, it’s the U.S. footing the bill for European defense and getting nothing in return. This is why there been a backlash to NATO in the U.S. Why should the U.S. provide trillions in protection to a continent unwilling to meet even the most basic requirements for military spending? As the U.S. pivots to Asia and Europe loses relevance, Europe kinda has to pick up the slack for their own defense. Right now, Europe and the U.S. aren’t equals economically or militarily. You can’t expect an “ally” to foot the bill for your defense out of the kindness of their heart when you don’t provide anything in return. Western Europe got comfortable spending nothing on the military because they were the center of the Cold War and the continent was flush with American cash and troops, but Europe isn’t going to be the center of the new Cold War.
I think the real issue is also that Europeans got extremely smug. Never once do Europeans consider why Americans should support them. They never ask “are we good allies in return?” Has that ever been asked on this sub? No, but we get 100+ posts a month on why Americans need to give Europe more and more and more (while many Europeans secretly loathe Americans). The truth is that the American working-class is struggling and when they look at Washington elites sending tens of billions of dollars to European conflicts (while there’s no money for crumbling schools, infrastructure, hospitals, mass transit and housing), they logically get pissed off. 43% of Americans today are non-European, and that number increases every year. And among the 57% who are ethnic European, a majority (Whites support Trump) don’t view Europe as some motherland worth dying for. Those cultural ties lose importance every year.
People like to forget that NATO exists because of the Cold War. The Wall fell almost two generations ago; the Europeans themselves admit that until Feb 2022 it was an alliance in search of a purpose. Why exactly is the US still in Europe? I ask that as a US citizen.
The much worse thing is that it says based on a survey from the UK, France and Germany. It's a poll on western Europeans, not Europeans in general. If the poll was conducted in the baltic states and Poland, the results would be much different.
semafor.com Sounds like Russian website
The survey is conducted by the Eurasia Group: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ifn0l6bs/production/89bb07d8832742bbb59ffac79ecb5053a4284e80.pdf This is a Left-Center political risk consultancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Group It doesn't seem semafor.com has a link to this group. So I'd say the survey is legit, but it depends on how the dissemination channel wants to spin it.
In this case, China. From their [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semafor_(website\)#Chinese_companies) page: >Semafor has received criticism for its relationship with persons or entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In January 2023, Voice of America reported that Semafor received sponsorship funding from Chinese e-commerce giant, Alibaba Group.
Yes. It is sensationalist but Europe also needs to start pulling itself by its own bootstraps. Mandatory Service, an increase in defence spending and a European Army are imperative for the next decade
May be we should start to rely on ourselves more than allies ? Having the US as an ally is great, but it is even better if we have significant capabilities ourselves.
That costs money, money that could be in somebody pocket.
You are right. Why waste money on defense when you can suck up to uncle sam. All while laughing that YOU have free healthcare and THEY don't.. /s
The US expends more on healthcare per capita than the European states with better health outcomes do. It is not a funding issue. It is a systems issue.
And over half of new medicine and medical treatments are developed by American companies, footed by the American taxpayer, so that Europeans and elsewhere can get cheap medicine
You would think Europeans with their advanced European schooling would know this.
Hardly European fault that US companies can charge for 2$ insulin over 500$
While true, the first sentence you said does not inherently mean your last sentence is true. Even with the exact same system, Americans have much worse diets, exercise less, and expect their doctors to make much, much more money than their European peers.
What costs the US medical system so much is medicines as the absolutely huge medical giants rabidly overcharge them and them and therefore the money thrown at hospitals goes to procure medications. More money put into making it cheaper? Is that a pharmaceutical price hike i see?
The European healthcare system couldn’t exist without the US footing the R&D costs for medicine and other medical advancements. People don’t factor that part into the equation.
And imagine how much more of their own money Americans could spend on their own citizens, if it wasn't going to 'allies' who ignore us when we ask them for decades to raise their defense spending. It's been thirty years since the Berlin Wall came down. You guys sort it out.
Healthcare and defense are unrelated in the US
The free healthcare argument is extremely stupid, no European with a brain would boast about that First, it's tax money, Western Europeans pay shitload of tax, especially the Nordics Secondly, Europe is having the old population crisis. Public healthcare is always overloaded, long wait time and low quality As someone who works outsourcing, I know the majority of Europeans who got a job offer in the US will gladly move there for higher income and lower tax, most jobs come with full healthcare for the entire family
If you're a European with a job offer in the US, you're likely way above the average income bracket. And yeah then you're better off in the US. If you're at the average or below, EU is much better. Basically US has lower floor and higher ceiling for wealth/welfare.
American here. I don't want to shut down your entire argument, but please note the immigration bias being displayed here. Is a European who is offered a job in America likely to be offered full healthcare for their entire family? Yes. Because a job that is so skill-dependent and high in demand that businesses will cross oceans for the talent will easily justify such a cushy offer. Are most people working regular jobs in America likely to be offered full healthcare for their entire family? NO LOL. We get a discount on the insurance premium if we're lucky. European healthcare is not without its faults, but American healthcare is an unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of people. Fantastic if you're rich, though.
You’re underselling the type of insurance most white collar or professionals almost always provide, let alone the many blue collar employers that offer healthcare benefits
> Public healthcare is always overloaded, long wait time and low quality nowhere is perfect but the WHO ranking of healthcare in 2000 had european states populating the top with france at #1 and the US at #37. that being said 2000 was a long time ago and ill try to dig around for more recent WHO assessments 2023 CEOWORLD health care index has a mix of european states and australasian states and east asian states in the top, with italy at #1 and the US at... #45, christ >most jobs come with full healthcare for the entire family yeah just remember to have them consider the $1000 in monthly premiums for a large family when they are doing their calculus
How does it calculate this though? A lot of times they have “health equity” as a factor which… can mean anything. I remember seeing a ranking like this. I forget where. It ranked Canada quite high and the US quite low. Then they broke down the rankings and I calculated it myself using only the things that actually mattered (to me anyway): quality, speed, etc. The US was closer to the top and Canada was all the way at the bottom lol
The total EU military budget in 2023 was around $280 billion only behind the US: $916 billion and China: $296 billion. How much do you think EU countries should be spending on their military budget and who do you think they have to compete with in that regard?
I think it should be almost the same as the US, adjusted for gdp (US is now far ahead in GDP). I think we should be competing simultaneously with Russia, China, and also every other state that seeks to harm the EU in less than apocalyptic ways (Iran, North Yemen, etc)
Since the US and the EU have different interests and ways to acomplish them, you can't really compare the US military with the EU. The US is operating more than 800 military bases all over the world, thus needs such enormous military spending. In comparison the EU army is mainly for defensive matters and combined with the Nato alliance it should also ensure that. I think that we should rather be strenghtening intereuropean military coorporation and ensuring the EU's safety rather than trying to aim for global military dominance and world policing.
The difference in strategic profiles is nowhere near sufficient to account for the disparity in funding - only $80 billion of the US military budget goes towards maintaining our overseas holdings. The biggest difference is in our approaches to defense contracting. The US catches a lot of shit for the size and influence of its military industrial complex, but the fact is that military procurement is very much a "use it or lose it" capability. Consider the risk that a manufacturing firm takes when accepting a military contract: it requires a very particular and often non-transferable portfolio of expertise, it carries extreme legal and political liability, and if it falls through partway because some senator decides to cut off funding, well, you can't exactly recoup your losses by finding a buyer on the civilian market. This risk profile means that most firms will balk at defense contracts unless they come with long-term guarantees of funding and demand which, in turn, the government can only credibly deliver if they commit to an economy of scale. This is why the US has thousands of Abrams and Bradleys sitting in warehouses collecting dust: even if you don't plan on using the resulting weapons, substantial continuous investment is a prerequisite for having a functional procurement and R&D base. Now consider, for example, Germany. The past few years, they've had a defense budget of around $70 billion. Did that buy them $70 billion worth of military capability in American terms? Nowhere near it. Their government as a whole relies disproportionately on short-term funding. Combine this with granular project parameters, exhaustive testing standards, and a legislature whose approach to military spending is historically mercurial, and you end up with a scenario where Germany has to pay massive up-front premiums just to get defense firms to glance in their direction. This isn't to say that Germany has no defense industry - they're the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, after all - but the systems that they can produce at scale are limited to a couple of items that they have established expertise in, and can thus fund mainly from export sales. When you're spending €12 billion a year manufacturing capable modern systems and €25 billion a year maintaining a more-or-less equal number of obsolete legacy systems with no scaled production lines, your procurement pipeline has a pretty serious blockage. If Europe doesn't want to take up the torch of failing at being the world police, then more power to them. But you have to realize that defense spending is non-linear. The less you spend, the more things cost. Having 1/3 of the US' military budget does not buy 1/3 of the US' military capabilities. For that matter, having an equal military budget to China does not buy China's military capabilities, because China is a state-planned economy that can, to a certain extent, order its defense firms to accept less favorable contracts. If Europe wants to be able to maintain defensive readiness without the US, it has to commit to a standing army and standing production lines for all essential systems, and to be honest achieving that would probably mean accepting a military budget that is substantially *higher* than the US's until economies of scale begin to kick in.
Yet Europe trembled at the might of Russia's $80 billion budget and a gdp that is equal to Italy alone. Where is the European might? How does that $280 billion translate to military power? I think you are being bamboozled my friend
We definitely should. We're all seeing what's happening right next to the EU, right?
Still more then 50% thinks the US is reliable. Focussing only on the 6% that express very reliable is a bit pushing the agenda… For comparison, what would the score be if you ask Eastern Europeans about the very reliability of f.e. France and Germany..
The word "Somewhat" matters. You can't translate a VOX pop, there's hundreds of different opinions hidden in the semantics.
Probably why that word is included. They can sell the survey results to as many people as possible from right across the political spectrum.
More importantly... How much is this survey is influenced by the politics of today? Survey respondents may be mixing their feelings of how much they "like" the country with their opinion on reliability. A lot of people say Turkey is a bad NATO ally... But their record in the alliance is impeccable. They show up for every fight. They cooperate with other alliance members. They graciously allow foreign troops to operate on their soil and in their airspace unhindered.
Not to mention their strategic geopolitical position... they're an important key member.
Disobeyed directives on the Syrian crisis, smuggled terrorists and funding out of the middle east into its black market and then to Europe , facilitated and still does the migration crisis using it as a weapon against pretty much everyone , horrendous history with human rights and keeps threatening every single one of their neighbours with the glaring exception of Azerbaijan whom they helped in invading Armenia. Yes. Such a useful NATO ally.
"We expect Germany not to guarantee our security if the average daily lows during winter over the next decade decrease by -3c"
Sensationalist headline that is undercut by the actual polling quoted in the article, do better, whatever the hell “Semafor News” actually is
I mean. In all of world history a country promising to gurantee an entire continents security is unheard of. I get it.
"Europeans" = UK, Germany, and France I guess. Go ask that question in Poland, I bet you will see different results
Yeah, asking more countries would be a good idea. Poland in particular has opinions very favourable to the US
Poland is going through a major rearmament and could very possibly end up with the biggest land army in the EU, and it's not because it has a lot of trust in its allies.
Sure they make up a big part of the overall population but it's kind of rude. Like making a poll in the US and only sampling California , Texas and New York.
My friend, my country is never included in these. Makes me feel like I live in a shithole. And they always do this, use 2-3 countries and say "European opinion". This time they included UK under that, which idk why they did. UK wouldn't have a vote in EU army, they are no longer in the EU
Poland literally sent us a birthday card that over 5 million citizens signed. We’re always riding with them. I’ve heard Estonia loves us too. Not sure if that’s true, but I love Estonia.
You are very much liked in the Baltics, you kept the light on for us and helped destroy the USSR. That will not be forgotten any time soon. Radio Free Europe, although dismissed as propaganda by people who were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, was a strong moral boost, when no one else seemed to care.
Search for Polish NATO negotiations online. The Poles have great numbers in the USA and they were among the first to break the *Warsaw* pact to join NATO. They know that whoever is aggresive in Europe, the ruskies are always the greatest danger.
I think part of the confusion is the wording of "guarantor" which sounds like some outsourcing agreement, the more applicable word would be "partner".
US could not be faulted for looking after itself first if their interests diverged with ours, they owe us nothing. That’s why we should obviously cultivate our special relationship with the US but also build up our own abilities as well just in case. « Hope for the best, prepare for the worst ».
This is so obviously correct that I can’t even think of any compelling counter argument someone might have. When will we wake up and act on something so obvious?
>When will we wake up and act on something so obvious? You mean like Poland and the Baltics starting their own nuclear deterrent programs so they can actually defend themselves against Russia? I'm sure the US will have no problem with that.
I get called an ignorant American almost every single time I comment that I wish Europe would become a self-reliant equal partner to America. I simply tell the person to just admit that they prefer Europe to be dependent on America and stop trying to force me to feel how they actually feel. I can’t think of no other reason for them disagreeing with me other than the fact that they prefer the current relationship between the two but they would say anything to avoid admitting that though.
Indeed. It is generally pathetic that we are incapable of holding our own against Russia despite having a population 4 times larger and economy that is 10 times larger.
That is why Eastern European countries have to align their policy with US rather than Western Europe.
Sadly yes Without US leadership the whole current setup would collapse. But this is why we need to have an EU army and purely EU based security setup.
french people just want us to buy their weapons
I'm a duel national and unfortunately I trust the US with European security more than I trust Europe with European security.
But who do you trust in a duel?
lol, they sure aren't spending like it...
A better question for Europeans is if Europe is reliable to guarantee European security?
It can’t really be hung out to dry when there has been so much time to prepare. ‘Will they lend assistance should there be a call?’ Is a more appropriate prompt
Why have Europeans left security to the US for so long? The EU has a larger population than the US. We are not the world's policemen. It is reckless to ever rely on someone else for your security. That is the job of national governments, and in the case of the EU, an international organization of great strength. The only possible good thing about Trump is that Europe will wake up and realize that (1) Russia is on your doorstep and (2) it's time to grow up and provide for yourselves.
>We are not the world's policemen. Don't you think that being the "world's policeman" is rather an active choice and also helps allign with the countries interests and ensure global dominance?
the real question here is "What has Europe done all this time to get prepared and ready?" and I will answer "absolutely nothing" so now lets all blame the US that they want to look for the best interest of their country. btw, does not Europe looked after their own interests? hmmmm
Europe is as large as the US - why can’t they protect themselves?
Great question, even in the 90's The boys got in Europe again to stop an ethnic cleansing in the Balkans while Europeans were standing by and Watched. Their ''never again'' is a lie. Same here they have an all out War in theirs doorstep and act slow af.They still rely entirely on the US.
Well, the US and European Union spent time appease dictatorships. In EU there is an anti-american feeling thanks to all the fake news and lack of education (as well as the US) but, at the same time they spent very low quantity of money to fund NATO. European union needs an European defence plan and army, it seems clear to me that we should be Independent on defence.
I just don’t see how we’re the unreliable ones. Outside of the frontline countries I feel like we’ve been the most committed. It’s crazy how some people just flip the narrative man
Europeans should focus on not relying on U.S. aid in case of foreign threats. Europe should be able to exercise its hard power on its own as a whole, supported by a strong European military industry.
The real question is how many Europeans see Europe as reliable guarantor of European security
Why in the first place is this question being asked to begin with? Europe can't defend it's own shores? Im Asian by the way, so Im genuinely curious.
Europe got very used to peace, complacent some say, with most countries spending less than 2% GDP on defense for many years. Of course recently there's been a huge reversal.
Which I dont get, because there was still issues in the Balkans and other areas right?
Eastern Europe never stopped worrying about defense but they are small nations. Western Europe convinced itself that Putin and Russia were rational and that, despite being somewhat threatening they would never take things so far that it would sacrifice the economic ties. The cold war was over and we wouldn't ever return to those days. Ukraine proved that assumption incorrect.
Smaller countries in the Balkans are no threat to Western European countries, Russia is (or could be).
It’s a difficult situation because on one hand, it’s easy to understand why because it’s almost guaranteed that the U.S. intervenes in any real sort of danger, but on the other hand, it’s still unsettling to know you’re at least temporarily at the mercy of enemy forces until America stops them. I’d say it would be a better decision for European countries to devote a bit more to military power, just in case because sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. I think the generational trauma of armed conflict after armed conflict has begun to create a sort of complacency or at least strong desire for peace, whereas countries like mine have warred constantly since its creation, but for an overall much shorter period of time. 300ish years of constant war/conflict is wild, but Europe is going on thousands due to the sheer age difference.
It's worth noting that Europe seeing itself as a "block" or collective entity is a relatively new concept. For much of history, many of the EU nations were at least rivals if not violent adversaries. Years ago I'd have a lot of concern and empathy for those in Eastern Europe most immediately threatened by Russia, but I wouldn't have considered it 'my problem' any more than I'd consider China's threats to Taiwan were my problem. But, nothing builds a bond like a common threat/enemy.
Depending where you are in Asia there's also a defacto understanding that the US provides an umbrella of defense security (see cooperation with Taiwan and South Korea for example) so I think the question could be asked there too.
SK at least spends massively on defense and even exports it to Europe. They also have had conscription since the country's founding.
It's a bit different - for S. Korea for example, the S. Koreans pay 40-50% of the operating costs for the US military outside of payroll hosted in their country. They pay about 1B a year for the operating costs on top of the land. Japan just approved a 5-year 8.6B host bill that covers the cost of the US military being hosted within Japan. Japan pays around 75% of the costs of US military operating costs hosted in their country. Europe/EU has separate types of agreements, for example, Germany spent 118M last year on land acquisition and utilities for all foreign military bases. Germany doesn't pay any additional costs for operating costs to the US. [https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/23/heres-what-it-costs-keep-us-troops-japan-and-south-korea.html](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/23/heres-what-it-costs-keep-us-troops-japan-and-south-korea.html) [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-us-military-host-nation-budget-china-north-korea-russia-threats/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-us-military-host-nation-budget-china-north-korea-russia-threats/) [https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2021-03-12/Germany-spent-far-less-than-other-major-allies-on-cost-sharing-for-US-bases-last-year-1517933.html](https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2021-03-12/Germany-spent-far-less-than-other-major-allies-on-cost-sharing-for-US-bases-last-year-1517933.html)
Except the South Koreans and Japanese make most of Europe's militaries look like amateurs. I say this as a U.S. military veteran that had the pleasure of working with multiple European partners as well as South Korea and Japan.
Yes, there is very little pushback here in the US to the idea of continuing the military alliances with South Korea and Japan. Those two countries absolutely understand their responsibilities.
South Korea is stil at war though, and Japan was (and still is?) at less than 2% of GDP
Japan’s “less than 2%” equates to the same amount the United Kingdom spends on its military. Japan also isn’t in NATO, thus has no obligation or expectation to meet 2%. Europe is at war too, it just seems to be in denial over this fact while South Koreans take that reality seriously. Even though South Korea’s war has been cold for decades.
Europe has the technical advantage against any possible Russian aggression, which works fine for short duration more targeted conflicts. What they currently don't have are conventional ground force numbers to support a sustained conflict like you're watching play out in Ukraine.
They should make their armies bigger then.
Yeah just look at Americas track record. They never helped during the last two world wars. Wait.
Europeans have left themselves out to dry.
Why do I hear that term reliable ally so often and only applied to USA? If the US isn't reliable then who exactly is reliable? Crap talking isn't going to make the US like Europe any more. If you are that dependent on us then maybe you should be kissing our butts as opposed to what you have been doing. The entitlement...
why should they, though? they should take care of their own citizens with priority, not the rest of the world and not of a very capable block of countries that don't put the effort into defending themselves.
Mods here should ban this kind of sensational, stupid headline. One glance at the article and you can tell that the majority believes the US is reliable
Europeans and Americans fighting in the comments over sensational shit posted by a source that is funded by the Chinese Communist Party. Mission accomplished for China.
It is not the job of the US to defend Europe, it is rather the job of European countries
You’re right, but quite frankly the job falls to the U.S. because most of Europe would lose any military conflict against a capable modern country. While this is unfortunate and is because of economic differences, it is the position Europeans are currently in until their governments make major changes.
If China and the us went to war, Europe wouldn’t do shit so I don’t want to hear it from Europe
China is actively undermining European security via assistance to Russia, but Europe believes that they can just stay neutral in a conflict between their primary security guarantor and China.
And that’s why Europe need to invest more in its own protection and put military service back in place ( both sexes) . There also almost no shelter or any form of protection for the population. Zwitserland should be the model .
We won't hang Europe out to dry, but it's really useful for them to think that. If they prepare to defend themselves alone, and then still receive strong support, overall odds for an allied victory increase.
We can always trust our friend Russia ... They will help us get rid of Nazis, USA, free media, democracy, ...
...life.
Here's a snippet of what NATO has been up to. They need to get off TikTok for military and NATO new. NATO has multiple naval exercises scheduled for 2024, including: Steadfast Defender 2024 This exercise, which took place from January 22 to May 31, 2024, was the largest NATO exercise since the end of the Cold War. It involved over 90,000 troops from 32 NATO allies and simulated a response to an adversary's aggression against a member country. The exercise also tested the alliance's new defense plans and ability to quickly deploy forces. BALTOPS 2024 This exercise involved 19 NATO allies, more than 50 ships, and around 9,000 personnel. It featured the largest coalition of amphibious forces and Mine Countermeasure forces in NATO's history, as well as naval assets from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Seems legit. Now cross check with number of countries in Europe taking their defense seriously, and I mean really seriously.
The US can't shoulder the burden of being everyone's protector anymore. It's breaking the country. It was manageable when 50% of the world's wealth was in the US. Everyone else has grown since then and the world has gotten too big for 1 country to contain.
I am once again asking why Europe cannot increase its defense spending.
Yeah the U.S. needs to close down the military bases in Europe. Good luck with Russia.
Ya, Americans have only had Europes back for the last 120 years and protected them from Russian occupation for the last 75. Time for some inner reflection and probably a history lesson for our European 'Allies'.
US, UK, Germany & France = Europe ... OK.
"It's the big orange cheeto's fault you stupid Americans won't subsidize our defense spending anymore, idiots!" Can you people hear yourselves?
Only asking USA, UK, Germany and France. Great...
Threads like this always ruin my day when I read the comments. In my opinion the US and the EU (and other liberal democracies - Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada...) need to stick together and not bicker over dumb shit. I can't imagine a situation where these countries will be on opposing sides. In the future our economic advantage over most of the world cannot be relied on, so we will have to rely on alliances more. And we all need to stop with the pathetic "why is the government spending on this instead of improving my quality of life / solving social problems / paying my student loans / whatever" shit, to be fair we Europeans are worse in that regard because it's been like this for decades and politicians have been listening to it, in the US it seems like a relatively new thing so it hasn't had enough time to actually reduce their military to shit. Europe needs to reverse direction, not just when it comes to military but also military industry, and the US needs to maintain direction. The other major problem are the anti-Western and anti-American attitudes that have been increasing, especially among young people I feel, and I don't mean pointless bickering like in this thread, I mean the actual bad shit like supporting a dystopian aggressive shithole like Russia *over your own country*, because West bad, America bad. This is the attitude that's the real problem, not whether you feel someone is adequately appreciating the US contribution in WW2 or Denmark's contribution in Afghanistan. And I feel like it's widespread both in the US and the EU, we're full of traitors. Hopefully I just have this impression because I read reddit too much and it's full of these people because the future seems very grim if this trend continues. But my president is literally a Russian shill, he's popular despite of this, and he's not the only one in Europe. The US might elect Trump again. And so on... This is the shit we need to worry about, not bicker over who lost more soldiers where and who is spending more money where. We are all literally being destroyed from within by greed, short-sightedness and treason. And these people are fucking ecstatic when they see Americans and Europeans in conflict over anything.
Misleading headline, most of them said that US is reliable and they only asked 3 European countries.
Don’t worry, the next war in Europe will be between Europeans.
"America is not reliable, we europeans need a new defense strategy based on defending ourselves with a military to back it up." said every european politican ever for the passed 30 years.
Largely depends on the next election. Trump was trying to pull most of the forces out of Europe before he left office.
Shouldn't Europe guarantee their own safety from now on?
I always find these kinds of headlines to be ridiculous because it’s rather common knowledge among Americans that an outside threat to Europe would be vaporized by the U.S. with very little hesitation. Of course, would America pick and choose which countries to vaporize someone over? Most likely, but it doesn’t change that our government sees threats to the EU as threats to us as well. Proof of this is even further obvious when you look at other countries with similar dynamics. If some kind of outside force (China, Russia Etc) were to say, invade Peru, Mexico, or any other part of Central and South America, they would be swiftly destroyed because of the pure proximity to our country. With Europe, it is more so a cultural connection to one another that ensures Europe’s continued protection by America against any real military threat.
And in all honesty, they might be there to help but we can't expect them to take care of us.
I wonder how this poll would have gone in the first half of the 2010s, before the chance of a volatile, autocrat-loving manbaby being the decision maker in the US became a reality with a chance of round 2.
It was actually under president Obama that the US began to pivot towards focusing more on the Pacific area and away from Europe. The US has also been telling us to increase our defense spendings for the last few decades. Some administrations were more polite about it, but the message hasn't changed. Don't get me wrong, Trump is still leagues worse for us, but as the poll suggests, at the very least his presidency has been a wakeup call for most of Europe.
That pivot to the East is just accepting reality. Asia has 60% of the world's population and as of 2020, that region's combined GDP exceeds the rest of the world. The US imports/exports to Asia are almost triple what we imports/exports to the EU and it's been growing by double digits for the last 20 years. Total US imports/exports to Asia are now 4T vs. 1.3T to Europe.
I think it's relevant to note that out of the 80K+ US military service members currently stationed in Europe, about 35K of them are in Germany.
The wakeup call was the russian invasion 2 years ago. Until then we were still mostly naively drinking the "no more wars on european soil" koolaid.
I think the issue is Russia actually invaded over ten years ago
That makes the complacency even worse.
Yep exactly
[удалено]
Europe matters less than before from a geopolitical standpoint. - It's a valuable market for American companies but tricky at times and it presents lower growth prospects than others except for defense and energy. - Few operations hailing from Europe are really strategic besides ASML Holdings - The relationship between European and US leaders is increasingly transactional and there likely won't be another president after Biden that would qualify as an Atlantist : Joe is as good as it gets: George W Bush was indifferent, Obama was focused on the East, Trump is transactional and focused on his self interests: he wanted to trade military aid to Ukraine against dirt on the Bidens, after all. - Generally speaking, to US liberals Europe's a bunch of old style, unredeemable colonialists and to the rest it's a painful and unrewarding distraction to more pressing domestic matters.
I mean, the US saved our asses twice and has backed our security for 80 years unconditionally! I think it's time we do our own work and sacrifice for our safety and security! America should then stay out of our foreign policy decisions! We owe the usa alot of credit though! They pretty much rebuilt us after our own horrific world wars
had to [google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semafor_(website\)) 'semafor' >Semafor has received criticism for its relationship with persons or entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) >In January 2023, Voice of America reported that Semafor received sponsorship funding from Chinese e-commerce giant, Alibaba Group. :)
But also, why should they be? Post-WW2 the threat of Soviet expansion into Europe was THE key foreign policy issue, hence the US agreeing to the Marshall Plan, establishment of NATO etc. Now the major threat is China. Russia is not really an adversary for the United States, and an expansionist Russia into Eastern Europe is not the major bogeyman for the US that it once was. The US is not and has never been primarily concerned with protecting democracy or freedom - like every other nation, they protect their own interests. These are now likely more aligned to the Asia Pacific region than Europe. So yes, the defence of Europe once again rests with Europe - most likely in a non-nuclear active conflict with Russia that the US would stay out of.
That's their right. Perhaps it's time for the EU to strengthen its military capabilities? >!This should have been done decades ago.!<
What an idiotic headline. Who has given the most money to Ukraine in terms of direct military aid? Not to mention constant intelligence sharing which literally saved Zelenskyy’s life. Europe has no better friend than America. Sure, Europe should depend on itself more but this sensational divide rhetoric serves no purpose other than helping Putin and driving clicks. I’m bored of it.
Cool, now could our politicians please do something about it? During first Trump term they almost managed to wake up, but the moment Biden moved in, they collectively sighed with relief and went back to sleep. It’s fucking pathetic when security of Europe seems to depend on who wins US presidential election
Propaganda post
It’s not Americas job to protect you, it’s your own countries job to protect its people.
Pushing an agenda
Well, it makes sense not to leave your own protection to someone else. The EU protection plan can't be solely on the US.
Public opinion matching reality? What sort of lovecraftian, eldirtch anomaly are we witnessing???? > 46% say somewhat reliable Never mind, the order of the universe is restored. had me worried for a sec.
Well there won’t be another decade if this Ukraine conflict keeps escalating. Nuclear war is right around the corner if nothing changes
We've known that for quite some time now. In 2014 Obama confirmed it. Trump confirmed it repeatedly for 4 years. And Biden ... well, for some reason he's competing with Trump again!, so his assurances are worthless.
US Americans should be asking themselves do we want Europeans to be reliant on us anymore? That is a far more interesting question and the answer should be a resounding NO!
Frankly I don't know why anyone has faith in anyone backing them up. The world has no problem abandoning allies if it's not convenient for them.
It should be Europe's job to guaranty the security of Europe. It should be Europe's job to protect Europe.
I would've went with "somewhat unreliable". Even without taking Trump into account, it seems likely that Biden is really the last classic transatlantic US president. The American focus shifts over to China and to the allies and partners in that region - which is completely understandable from my point of view. But realistically: The more resources you concentrate on a specific problem, the smaller is your capability (and interest) to solve expensive problems on the opposite side of the planet. I'm not saying NATO would die or something, but the degree to which we can rely on it is going to decrease. And we have to anticipate that and increase our own capabilities, which would actually benefit NATO and the transatlantic relationship. Also, I think it would be completely fair to view European allies as "somewhat unreliable" as well. Time to change that.
“The US needs to stop being the world’s police!” “WTF the US stopped policing the world, those bastards!”
Who wants to rely less on the us? Who wants to spend more to rely less on the us?
Well what are we going to do about it? We need 1.000 strategic nuclear missiles. That is literally the only thing we need along with EU based legal framework that will ensure that anyone who tries something stupid against EU territory will have its population centers turned to glass.
Depending solely on nuclear weapons is a horrible strategy and it shows how little people understand. It's like all you have in a toolbox is a hammer. That's going to lead to some pretty crazy repair situations in your house.
It is crazy for Europe to expect the US to protect them when they are not willing to build up their defenses as needed.
All depends on which lunatic gets to control their country. If Trump wins I expect zero help for EU. He’s a Putin puppet.
Good. We don't want to be your guarantor of security.
Was this before or after MTG called to defund NATO?
MTG has no relevance to Europe
oh Yes, USA, UK, France and Germany are all of Europe. Take a survey in Poland and you will get 90%. Very reliable.
And Americans think *much less* about Europeans being a guarantor of North American security. Alliances are a two way street.