> If that is the cost of keeping the value within the western economies, we should pay. Plain and simple. I'd even argue it's cheap.
No, that is not the cost of keeping "the value" within western economies. It would be the cost of granting the US a leverage against the collective west. The US proved to be a very unreliable and outright hostile partner. At this point, it is not clear whether the US is more hostile to the collective west than the likes of China.
It might be, but it's also pretty stupid to use that as a selling point to convince the west to welcome that play as something remotely in their best interests. It isn't.
Right , just to remind that China is the country that supports Proxy wars with west ( Ukraine ), supports Iran , a country that placed tariffs on whole industries, like cars, software , spy and buy technology to replace anything advanced.
A country willing to cut mineral supply anytime they don’t like anything is good partner and friend of EU , lol, how delusional someone can be ?
Even current US Administration sends Patriots and military support to Ukraine, while China is sponsoring WAR, help Russia to keep up with war killing people around the world.
China can end that war in 1 week if they really want.
US spent fortune to protect collective west while countries like Germany almost dismantled their army in the past.
Very rational thinking , sure. China will wipe out entire west with technological superiority in the next decade or two without west being united.
The US has committed more than its fair share of war crimes and notably even voted against the 2025 UN resolution condemning Russia for the Ukraine invasion, while China abstained from the vote.
China may potentially be able to stop the war, but at what cost? They've been licking their wounds and rebuilding their nation at breakneck speed for the past century, and it's only recently that they've finally reached a critical stage with innovations on all fronts. Going against one of their two allies now would be pretty ill-advised.
The US has also been very erratic, while China's current goals seem to be fairly consistent: reclaim everything they lost during the century of humiliation.
perhaps lot of european people need to have a wake up call. Europe is involved in a proxy war of China vs US. where EU associate member is fighting with china proxy, Russia.
Other proxies are Iran with their satelites, without china neither Iran or Russia would not survive current wars they sponsor agaist west.
as much as I hate current US admin, they push to increase NATO spending etc.
> perhaps lot of european people need to have a wake up call.
You haven't been paying attention. Even to this thread.
Let me be very clear: The US proved to be a very unreliable and outright hostile partner. At this point, it is not clear whether the US is more hostile to the collective west than the likes of China.
Therefore, let the US keep their backyard TSMC. It changes nothing. It helps nothing. It is not to be trusted.
> It changes nothing. It helps nothing. It is not to be trusted.
Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing the best they can with it.
Tariffs or no the US wants back in on the construction/manufacturing industry. This is something that should be seen as a good thing. I just wish the EU was so visionary but we're worried about recycling plastics (when we don't use the plastic) or curtailing bad think (rather than open dialogue)...
> Not when people are being absolutist rather than taking the situation for what it is and doing the best they can with it.
The US is threatening NATO partners with invasion and annexation, not to mention the moronic tariff war, and you come here talk about "absolutist"? Pathetic.
Basically NATO partners are only suffering from less sales info the US pocket. The US pocket is weakening to allow the US to begin manufacturing. The tarrif "war" for what it is will see an excess of products not sold to the US markets.
The US will not invade. It's a pr move. Frankly if you're bothered with that let's talk about Hawaii and Alaska (or several international trade routes).
There's plenty of opportunity that doesn't involve bowing to the petrol dollar and becoming subservient and maybe that can even be done without importing half of the developing world.
Don't call people pathetic unless you're actually equipped to engage in conversation. It's demeaning to yourself and is no better than demanding things change for your feelings.
Being absolutist is just giving up your ability to take action and control your own life. The biggest victim is yourself and it only hurts others. Take action. Do something and move on with life. Stop being paralyzed by the media left/right/alt/mainstream/pink-lizard-bunny. Go touch grass and be happy.
You keep isolating the discussion to tariffs, and ignoring the US hostility to former allies, including threatening to invade two NATO members, as well as US support for Russia against the west in active wars.
Tariffs can be a reasonable policy (although not when implemented like this... rejuvenating manufacturing by imposing huge tariffs on raw materials? Really?) but when people talk about the US abandoning the western democracies they're not talking exclusively or even primarily about tariffs.
Saying the equivalent of "Oh, that's just Trump talk" is nonsense. Everybody thought Trump's support for Russia was just talk. He's deployed active military on US soil. He's ignored the judiciary and is progressively neutering them. All that was "just Trump being Trump" before he did it. The man is a mad king and half of America is happy to follow him for the lolz.
Please point to where America has put boots on the ground, spilled blood, taken ships hostage or violated blockades, critically since trump has come to office? (I get to call this condition since you're complaining about tariffs and current stance as being a detrimental change)
Russia violates the waters and airspace of its neighbours regularly. It's almost expected. Nobody goes into the south China sea without expecting warning shots. When was the last time the US was shooting at Canada and Mexico?
People scream death to America on the borders and inside the country and nobody gets rounded up and disappeared like a Hong Kong freedom fighter for that action alone.
The US isn't abandoning anyone. It's a change in position that America isn't going to pay to keep "global" peace. Which is basically as global as creating a 2+1 tier state system. Inline with US policy or a terrorist nation state + CHina.
Yes America is looking to reduce its military cost and armed persons abroad, but that's just means America is saving money and reducing it cultural influence from places where (as a non American I can STRONGLY say) we'd be better off without it (!).
Having boots on the ground to stop an invasion probably make sense in the 1950s/1960s but we've been in a world where anyone could deploy thousands of boots on the ground in just hours for over 30yr+ now and the internet means you're not going to sneak 50 tanks into the centre of Berlin unnoticed. The old cold war military stance is wasteful and can be optimized whilst still providing adequate deterrent. Unless you think the US is incapable of such deployments? (Not winning, deploying and keeping an invader bogged down)
America has not supported Russia. If that's your position I will just sit and judge because now we're either quoting bitchute or into imaginary territory.
Trump has better relations than Putin and Putin still has the ability to turn Kiev into a parking lot. Clearly neither are actually happening but that's the Ukraine conflict it's more ideology and situational (corrupt) than a 30s soundbite can deliver. Yes Russia is the aggressor. Yes Russia should pay for rebuilding. Yes Russia started the current round of shooting. But. Yes the west supported a corrupt regime. Yes the west armed a corrupt regime on Russia's border. Yes America had connections between a fanatical right wing party in said nation and US high ranking members of congress and the whitehouse. Yes certain groups within Western nations wanted Ukraine to become a defacto NATO state. Yes none of that means Russia should have shot first or invaded, but it's all true and all on record. And that's before we start asking questions about the previous administration which are a little over hyped.
Er mah ger orange man drumpf deployed us thing in us space to do a thing in the US.
I thought this was a discussion about us foreign policy. I'm not going to get dragged into how the US conducts itself inside kids borders. If we're going this direction let's look at the Iranian, Israeli and Saudi regimes and then report back. (And no the be explicit that is NOT an invitation to take the conversation into irrelevant waters)
This is like moaning if Moscow nukes itself. You can claim it's dum but they almost have a right to do it (outside of that act being closer to an act of genocide than peace keeping).
Trump has threatened to invade Canada, "maybe, we'll see". He has said he will destroy Canada's economy until we beg to be admitted as a territory of the US. You clearly don't think that's a big deal. Many Canadians do.
Yes of course because we should all be focused on what trump said 30s ago. Anyone with half of the common sense they were born with should know this guy is 90+% bluff but takes the old school American approach of shock and awe to bring people to the table. Right or wrong, it unfortunately works.
If you're so caught up about what he says how about the numerous Biden quotes, on record mind, about him being happy to receive "the negro vote"? Obviously words matter but frankly can we get past _false_ outrage and get back to doing stuff. Being called names in the school ground is different than getting your teeth knocked out. And the fact I'm using schoolyard analogies shows how adolescent the level of discourse is when we resort to false outrage.
We are about to have 35% tariffs applied to our resource-based economy, with the explicit message that the goal is to destroy our economy. Words matter when they come from your head of state, and the "30 seconds ago" excuse gets old 6 months in. If you think that Trump, having already deployed the US military on US soil against US citizens, would hesitate to send troops into Canada if he thought he could get away with it, you're utterly delusional. He's a psychopathic mad-king, and you apparently are delighted to fiddle while he burns down Rome.
You don't threaten to invade sovereign nations and then brush it off with "oh, ya know, Trump being Trump", especially when Trump being Trump already includes crossing all sorts of lines nobody thought he would cross.
It's clear you would happily murder any Canadian or Dane you were ordered to, as long as you were given the order by Trump. I'm done responding, you're the enemy of my country and my family.
And Canada is entirely without blame for deciding to enrage an idiot.
It's clear here would enforce tariffs he made it clear he would and did it to China and certain countries that decided to not engage.
Let me guess the EU is now evil because they engaged? This is as much Canada's fault as trump is (mis-)using American influence.
If you decide to double down and pretend he won't do it off course he's going to do it. If Canada had engaged rather than pretending he's all bluff they'd be in the same situation as Mexico. Besides after the damage that guy did to the UK economy you're welcome to him you voted him in. He's short cited and focused more on posturing and keeping those close to him happy than fixing anything. At least you can't accuse trump of just keeping people happy. If that were true musk wouldn't still be acting salty. (Obviously the works richest man still has influence but that's different to being invited into the oval office regularly)
Edit: happy to fiddle while the mad king burns Rome. What the?... Your Canadian but decided to hold America in that regard? It's a sess poll full of hicks, ultra lefties and morons who listen to the tube box and regard drag racing as a sport gulping down Monsanto's latest creation. It's a fluke that America's industrial and arms sector got to be the size and scale that it is that placed it in the position of being almost a global hyperpower. Sure some amount of innovation has happened, semiconductors being one, but this is a country trying to convince it's citizens the world isn't flat and there's no hidden vaccines in the toilet paper. America is not to the modern world what Rome was to the Visigoths. The comparison is worrying that you hold them to that esteem.
> The United States is about half of the "collective West", the EU being the other largest single body.
The EU represents 27 sovereign states. NATO has 32 members. The US population is around 75% of the population of the EU.
And now decided to break off political, diplomatic, economic and defense ties.
I don't think this fact dawned upon you people. I mean, recently the EU basically banned the US defense industry from supplying EU's armed forces, which was unthinkable only a few years ago and it takes place during a rearmament push to prevent Russia's imperialist agenda. You can't whine about isolationism and still expect partners to still consider you relevant.
Your country has threatened, out of nowhere, to annex my country - until now America's oldest and most steadfast ally - or failing that to destroy our economy until we capitulate.
I do not feel united. And, echoing you, how is that not unreliable?
> Right , just to remind that China is the country that supports Proxy wars with west (...)
The current US administration directly and very overtly threatens two NATO members with invasion and annexation.
I personally can't interpret Trump administration's insistence on supporting Russia on all fronts alongside its enthusiastic push to completely cut military support for Ukraine as anything other than something far more damaging to the collective west's protection than whatever support China or even North Korea is providing to Russia.
There is no way to spin this: the US is the biggest threat to the collective west, not only by reneging on their obligations towards their allies in general and NATO in particular but also by it's clear and very overt threats.
China is actively supporting the Russian army. They don't want Russia to lose.
The Russians won't stop in Ukraine.
It can't be more clear than this which country is a greater danger to the West.
> Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat that Beijing can’t accept Russia losing its war against Ukraine as this could allow the United States to turn its full attention to China, an official briefed on the talks said, contradicting Beijing’s public position of neutrality in the conflict. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/04/europe/china-ukraine-eu-w...
> China is actively supporting the Russian army. They don't want Russia to lose. It can't be more clear than this which country is a greater danger to the West.
The Trump administration is overtly cutting support from Ukraine while pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russia. At the same time it's also pushing for sanctions to be lifted and economic times with Russia to be normalized. Trump went to the extreme of pressuring the G7 to admit back Russia.
What do you call that?
China supporting glorified golf cars doesn't hold a candle to the damage that the US has done to peace in Europe and the collective west's interests in security.
The US is in fact increasing support right now. Trump lost his patience with Putin.
You also underestimate the Chinese support. The war would have been over in 2023 if it wasn't for China.
> The discovery of a Russian decoy drone made up entirely of Chinese parts is another indication of the growing wartime relationship between Moscow and Beijing.
...
Beyond components, China appears to have provided Russia with at least some complete weapons systems. In May, we reported that Russia was using a new Chinese laser system to shoot down Ukrainian drones. https://www.twz.com/news-features/new-russian-drone-made-com...
US has been a reliable partner post WWII for 95%+ of the time. Making Trump administration representing 100+ years of US history isn't exactly a fair comparison.
Sure , trump administration trying to protect associate members of eu is not as good partner as China who directly support Russia , Iran and other country trying to wipe west, very logical
Sure, trump administration threatening members of the EU of war (economic or territorial) counts as "trying to protect". No dissonance in that whatsoever.
Don't worry they're just upset that the cheap toys from foxcon suicide plants are going to get out of reach.
Once everything dies down the people complaining will find something else to moan about.
Prices will normalise regardless of where things are manufactured that's the result of supply and demand. If people aren't willing to pay a bit extra maybe they never really needed luxury good X.
Ofc there's fools who over optimized their supply chain in the name of "modern economics of growth" and they'll get a wake-up call about stability and not bowing to shareholders. It's just a shame for most that that lesson will be in the form of layoffs and bankruptcy vs a CEO digging deep and personally reinvesting back in the company they're supposed to believe in.
But the signs are not good that the US will become more trustworthy again any time soon. The only back pressure on trump seems to be MAGA conspiracy theorists who look - if it’s possible - even less reliable than trump.
If you consider all US "friends", that is NOT the case. And not a Trump thing either, or even a Republican thing. USA is quite happy in screwing with "friends", if it will benefit some random lobby.
There is a quite long history of USA doing coups, sabotage, and so on, against its own "friends".
I don't think most people would contest the 100 years you mentioned.
If we look at the military investments US did since Clinton(so, last 30 years), you'll notice a trend of looking after it's own interests before the ones of the world. An example is the lack of investment in destroyers to patrol the seas, while at the same time the focus shifted to super-carriers which are good for one thing: obliterate a single, powerful country.
This is not just Trump, but everyone after Bush Sr.
There are 78 Arleigh Burkes completed, six in the build stage, and 15 on order.
There were only 31 Spruances and 4 Kidds.
That seems like an investment in destroyers, and much more capable ones than it's predecessors at that. Argubly more capable than even the Ticonderoga.
But maybe you mean something else I'm not groking.
No, that is not the cost of keeping "the value" within western economies. It would be the cost of granting the US a leverage against the collective west. The US proved to be a very unreliable and outright hostile partner. At this point, it is not clear whether the US is more hostile to the collective west than the likes of China.