> guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation.
The narratives are harmful. What would retaliation bring? The EU doesn't fancy a winner-takes-all mindset. There is no joy if the US goes down as some sort of backwards kleptocracy. There is no joy if the US populace slide back into the gilded age. It doesn't make the EU better. On the contrary. It will be a loss for both sides. Hence, why they speak out (a little).
Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.
The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.
The point isn't to crush the U.S in retaliation, it's to show why maintaining a relationship is mutually beneficial. It's troubling that the EU can't produce any concrete reasons why that's the case.
There is a lot to say about these things, but this forum is a hard place to lay them down. I have to keep it short.
The problem is that the "US" is not seated at the table, just a bunch of kleptocrats and some zealots. The mutual benefits are real for the US, as in the populace, but the problem is that if the string-pulling group has to choose between their own interest or the US interest, they pick the first option.
I can absolutely understand you will reject the following instinctively, but let me tell you that for some fractions in the current movement, the idea of "burning" it all down is something they don't see as a bad thing. Turning the clock back in time, back to the gilded age, doing away with modernity, equal rights, secularism and non-whites--they dream about it. It is something horribly detrimental for the 99.9999%, sure, but they shouldn't have a say anyway.
And instinctively, a EU that "becomes a shining light on the hill" in absence of the USA, is a threat to the USA. The recently released foreign policy isn't shy about it. The same dynamic as Putin has with a thriving open democracy next to its border. Can't exist, dangerous, needs to be dismantled.
The trouble isn't EU <-> US. It is the US as the representation of the American People does not exist anymore. However flawed it might have been in the past, this is something else entirely. There is not even a notion of normalcy anymore. As such, the EU can't deal with the American People anymore via the regular diplomatic channels to reach a common ground for win-wins. So these very modest public comments from officials you will read now and then in the press are nothing less than an alarm to the American people itself. If you ask me, I don't think this message will successfully cross the information space in the US, but what options do they have? If you look at HN, anything that might be interpreted as a criticism quickly becomes an identitarian battle. Which, given the binary political system in the USA and the general human trait of tribalism is quite understandable, but nonetheless self-defeating and unfortunate for both sides.
The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
> 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it.
> 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship.
I have to leave in a minute, but maybe you can explain what you mean? 1 and 2 are in conflict, no?
> If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
Do you mean that when the US' public can't hear from the US partners that this is a mutual beneficial relation, the public will assume that these partners thereby admit that this relation was indeed not beneficial for the US public? (Even that the EU is a threat to be dismantled, as foreign policy now calls it)?
Assuming you did mean it somewhat like that, I would say:
a. the American information space is warped and segmented. Corporate ownership, the abolishment of fairness doctrine, information deserts, algorithmic control, conconditioning by corporate narratives (as old as the US oligarchy)--it is all highly dysfunctional. No small feat to get anything sensible past these filters.
b. In line with a, even the Democrats are locked out of this information space. Some titles read by the liberals might be marketed as such, but they are controlling the narratives as much as possible, with language, below-fold, above-fold, false balance via "op-eds" and editors stepping in to relegate possibly impactful stories to books, so no one reads them. Sure, they won't go fox because you can't do that with this readership. For reference, look back at the New York Times: Trump and Project 2025 had given enough signals of what was about to come, but the newspaper frantically tried to balance it with endless stories of Biden's age.
c. As aside, it is real bad, but subtly bad. If one can only read English, I would recommend The Guardian to get real journalism.
d. To wrap it up, Americans are not reachable anymore. When dem voters and rep voters cannot talk with each other, their information space is warped. Do not expect the EU to even get anything in this mess through the gatekeepers. Even the Americans-in-the-know can't.
Yes your interpretation is correct, and I think it answers your first question.
The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
> Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount.
Agreed. But that is only counting the Republican seats. Historically, Dems had great trouble to do reforms, even if they wanted to and got enough seats. Multiple reasons. 1) Internal opposition. Dems are a big tent party, the Bernie side isn't that big. 2) You have to battle with the oligarchy. The Dems had to fight a war to get something basic like an independent central bank. 3) Historically, the Reps excel in slick and expensive marketing campaigns. 4) You can reach some parts of the public with information, but the odds are low that this message will be allowed to gain critical mass.
> left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there
Sure, but was the reversal of anti-monopolist anti financial fraud legislature made undone in the past decades? The narratives that shaped the public's opinion do make the universe smaller, often in such a way that writers don't even notice, as it their lived universe too. Also, why can't the voices in the US that do sound the alarm get enough traction? The intelligence and military industry have done great damage since Bush. The irony is that the Reps, in the most shameless way started isolationist narratives, criticizing the various wars, as capital shifted from military industry to surveillance and big tech industry. Now that criticism was due, but the narratives have been established. Any writer has to deal with the power of those widespread narratives. Yes, illegal wars, private militaries¹ and so forth are bad. No, isolationism and might-makes-right is bad too. But that takes deconstructing the dominant narratives.
> The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
I can't say you are wrong, but I could understand if they calculate that this isn't worth the risks. You might be someone that would read a letter from some European official with willingness to consider its message, but I think most people would interpret it as some variant of "hey American, let me as some European bureaucrat try to blindside you with a factual looking message so that the europoors can continue siphoning of from you". Also, this might open the door for the Reps to go even further with propping up neo-nazi or far-right parties in Europe, because you can bet the press will present this as a "both sides do".
Secondly, the US populace will get hit harder than Europe. That begs the question why the US own voices shouldn't be the first. And if they fail, how would the EU do that better?
Long story short, you might be right that the EU should be more proactive, maybe. Their weak voice might be partly attributed to their limited geopolitical agenda. But, even if their voice could and should be louder, I have big doubts it would make a difference.
Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.
The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.