I know this is a bold thesis. It is meant to provoke thought and encourage debate. Here are some of the considerations that led me to it:
-
Europe depends on US military protection, and the US uses this “alliance” as leverage -> NATO gives Washington structural influence over European security choices.
-
US tech firms dominate Europe’s cloud and software stack, creating digital dependency. Also, European data often sits under infrastructure exposed to US legal and corporate power.
-
Russian energy dependence was a problem for Europe when the Ukraine war started. The US were quite eager when it came to “help” by replacing the Russian energy dependence with American energy dependence.
-
US sanctions policy often forces Europe to absorb costs for Washington’s geopolitical priorities.
-
American platforms shape European speech, commerce, administration, and most importantly: public debate.
-
“Strategic autonomy” exists as a slogan because dependency is already the default.
Aren’t they doing a super shitty job at it?
I mean computer tech and movies and TV series are a good point. That’s entirely dominated by the USA. So are the internet platforms. And I think that is a big issue. I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have the stupid culture war and as many radicalized or passively doomscrolling people, if it wasn’t for their effective algorithms.
Other than that, idk. Most our consumer goods come from China. Our infrastructure is made here or at other places. Trains, a good chunk of airplanes. It’s a tiny amount of the population who buys American cars, because they’re just not as good as any German or South Asian one… If I look at my apartment, furniture, appliances, pans and pots, power drill… None of that has anything to do with the US, nor does it have any American brand name on it.
We have a lot of culture, books, podcasts, music… It’s more or less just the TV and cinema that come with predominantly US content. My bookshelf is >90% non-US authors. Lots of Germans, quite some Brits, something about a Witcher made by a Polish dude… And I’ve been socialised that way. I think it’s only Americans who grow up consuming only their own culture.
Energy… Well if it wasn’t for stupid politicians, we’d do the renewable ones. And seems with recent events, quite some people learned we want electric vehicles and heat pumps, and renewable electricity. So if we manage to convince our politicians to invest, we’re free from the shackles of the oil and natural gas industry a bit sooner. We need to do it anyway, because it’s cheaper and there’s a finite amount of resources. So selling the outdated energy isn’t even a good long-term strategy in colonializing anyone.
And US military “protection”… Against whom? We didn’t have any proper attempt at invading us with a military, since WW2. And now that Putin tries waging war, we can see the US isn’t even reliable anymore.
From my standpoint I think that might be changing. A lot of recent American series an movies I quit after a few minutes because they are full of cringe, ad placements and/or super stupid. I didn’t have that a few years ago. I could also just be me getting old…
Yes. And even a few years ago, we had some Star Trek shows which got some weird criticism. But also a lot of valid criticism for being overly emotional in a very American way. Like they never do anything without someone delivering a 10 minute speech, filled with an absurd amount of emotionalism. And then they all swear in on some team spirit… While I miss the good old times when the characters would just show how they’re the good guys, and not talk about it a lot.
I watched it anyway, wasn’t a bad show after all. But they really should have cut some of the monologues to make it more enjoyable for people who don’t need all that emotionalism and holding hands with ideology.
Thanks for the thoughtful response and the well-reasoned arguments. Sometimes it is difficult to get a proper reality check when your own perspective is not seriously challenged. I think you actually convinced me and shifted my view closer to yours.
Since you seem very well informed, I would also be interested in your opinion on something else: I have the impression that the US and Russia are slowly but steadily moving toward strategic alignment. Perhaps this is because the US increasingly sees Russia as a potential geopolitical partner against the PRC.
What concerns me is that this dynamic reminds me, at least superficially, of the logic behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact between the USSR and the Third Reich. Do you think it is unreasonable to fear that Moscow and Washington could eventually seek to divide Europe into spheres of influence between themselves? Both powers appear to have imperial ambitions, and both seem increasingly determined to preserve or expand their respective spheres of influence.
Sure, Europe is far from defenseless. But a large-scale two-front conflict, especially if coordinated and sudden, would likely overwhelm Europe’s current military and political capacities. What’s your opinion on that?
Interesting question. I mean it probably depends a bit on how long we think the current political course of the USA lasts. Seems to me the current wannabe king lost quite some backing with the electorate. And all of the unsteadiness, extra cost for the economy, … might not be very sustainable in the long run. So this situation might swing to the other direction sometime soonish?!
I think the USA overall might still have quite some of the original idea deep inside. It’s just the current administration and whatever crazy things some individuals come up with. But it doesn’t look to me like they’re doing a lot of successful geopolitical strategy. I mean they do have ideas. But then they just do random things. One week they’re big into conspiracy narratives against the jews, the next day they side with Israel and start a war. Which is another thing they promised to do less, a few months before that. They start some trade war against China, and they lose it. Then they do declare themselves the winner. I think only real strategy here is some Orwellian: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength… And their flood the zone strategy. But that mostly deals with the domestic population. A good amount of them is stupid and they cheer for Trump for deporting people. But at some point even they will realize the current rate at which Trump is doing it will leave you with immigrants for another 30-60 years. So he can’t even meet the expectations of the xenophobes. In reality, that is. They can lie about it, and they do. But I guess at some point there will be a reality check. Plus there’s also lots of clever and sane people in the USA.
So I don’t see any proper attempt suitable to beat China or Europe. And I think the MAGA days are already numbered. So I just don’t think we might be looking at a strategy like that in the near future.
And it takes two to tango. Putin has been following a long term strategy for decades already. And up to now, all his negotiations with the US and phone calls have turned out his way. Seems to me that kind of direction comes Putin’s way. But idk. He’s kinda weak? He misjudged the situation in Ukraine and he’s now busy with that. He can’t beat them. And he lost over a million men, wasted his weapon stockpile. His economy isn’t doing good at all. I don’t think he can afford another war, right now. Plus he already has a strategy against us and he’ll probably stick with it for a little bit longer. He’s doing this hybrid warfare to destabilize us. Fill our social media with misinformation, sow distrust, give suitcases filled with money to our most fascist and corrupt politicians. Sabotage our infrastructure… I think that’s more like Putin. I don’t expect any pact with the USA from him. At least not any pact that makes him promise anything to the USA.
Ultimately, I don’t think Russia and the USA are even aligned. There’s some overlap with the oligarchy and corruption going on. But it’s not really like they follow the same goals. And the USA as a democratic country are supposed to do what the population wants, anyway. Not let some politicians do whatever, mostly for personal gain.
You aren’t asking for my opinion, but my two cents on this: if it’s Europe alone vs Russia alone, Russia can do damage but not really win anything meaningful. But if it is Europe alone vs Russian with China (and NK), Russia could probably do whatever the fuck it wanted because China has the abilities to wipe out all our air defense systems and likely to kill all our communication channels.
Regarding this, i think they US is moving closer to Russia, but I’m not sure if it’s because of strategy. It might be simply because Trump aspires to reign like Putin. Either way, the US considers China the biggest threat to their hegemony and while Russia and China are aligned they are both much stronger (Russia has the materials, China has the means to do something with that) so splitting them up would be a win, strategically. But it’s unlikely as long as the UN Security Council continues to give 5 countries veto power, i can’t imagine the 3 vs 2 (US, UK & France vs China & Russia) ever becoming 4 vs 1.
What they’re doing now shouldn’t be conflated with what they used to do (which was arguably more mutually beneficial) and if the hypothesis OP makes was correct it would be a recent thing.
But yes, I think the Trump admin wants to make Europe a subject just like they want to do it with Venezuela, Iran etc. even if the method is thankfully different. I don’t think it’s going to work.
Yeah, thanks. Guess OP asked if they want to do it / are trying. But i answered another question, whether I think they’re successful in actually doing it…
Thh, I can’t even tell. What Trump does is a lot of caprice. Goals and rules change on a weekly basis. Probably so we all learn to submit to whatever is sent our way, as proper peasants should. That would be learned helplessness for one part of the people. And gladly accepting the role as sheeple for the people who just want someone to tell them whom to hate.
But I really question whether there’s more geopolitical strategy behind it. Doesn’t look like it to me. And Venezuela was kind of the only successful thing Trump did. Iran… not so much.