World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
You're not wrong to feel that way and you're not wrong that it is a common opinion, specifically among Europeans. That said, I don't think your politicians are nearly principled enough to stick to that stance. Some of them say it now because people want to hear it but the moment it becomes less awkward to do so they'll go back to relying on America for all sorts of things that you don't want them to. Hell, many of them won't even make an attempt to distance themselves now, or worse, actively praise many of Trump's actions.
The ones that make a fuss now won't go back because of American exceptionalism but because it is economically in their interest to do so in a myriad of ways. This is why Europe has been content to rely on American military assets for so many decades. It was never a particularly good idea but it was economically expedient. The same is true of American media, tech companies, and financial institutions. It's easier to let someone else have a bit of control in order to simplify things and politicians love simple sounding solutions.
Maybe I'm wrong and this is the moment that the EU usurps the US for good. That's probably the best case outcome. I just don't think there's enough agreement between European nations on what needs to happen to get to that point in order for it to become a reality.
There is a great deal in what you say that I heartily agree with, and a few things that I don't. I'm not European, although I do visit annually, so I have no horse in that race.
I would say that you repeat a tired American trope that has been outdated for at least 35 years now. That Europe gets more out of the NATO than America does.
The US gets a great deal out of NATO, arguably all lot more than Europe gets. For a start, the US has 31 permamant military bases across Europe and free access to another 19 hosted by member countries. It doesn't really need to ask permission on how it operates on any of them. It also maintains another 275 smaller units and installations for free. This is not a one-way deal for Europe. For the US, a country that insists on projecting power to influence national policy objectives, the ability to operate like this is incredible. Does it pay rent? No. Does it seek agreement with the host country? No. It bombs first and informs later.
Secondly, wherever possible it forces US military hardware onto European countries by way of 'interoperability'. Those F35s provide jobs for US workers. Same with parts, same bombs and weapon systems. All that hard cash flows back to the US. There is a reason why US administrations bitch and moan about Europe not pulling it's weight on NATO but still won't pull out of the region. It's because the US gets a massive indirect benefit from the deal.
But what does Europe get in return? It's supposed to be security guarantees. But the only country that has triggered NATO's Article Five has been the US following 9/11. Hundreds of Europeans died in defence of what happened in far-off New York. Not that this has been appreciated by Trump.
Lastly, the biggest threat to Europe is Putin. And what has been the US response? Not great. All of Europe has been watching and wondering has all this been worth it. The one reason Europe has been tolerating America taking over much of its foreign policy is for a security trade-off. Now it seems the arrangement is worthless.
I'm not European, but I'm watching events. Nothing dramatic will happen in the short term. Spain cancelled it's F35 contract. European countries have universally increased their defence budgets, not from US pressure, but from the realisation that security is unlikely to arrive from America. Countries have failed to support the US openly. First time since WW2. The whole world turned their back on the stupid Iran war. Things have changed irrevocably. However, they will only visibly change over time. You guys are sleepwalking into isolation.
Let's revisit the subject in 10 years and see how things have turned out?
I appreciate your response both in quality and in tone. Thanks for that.
To be clear, I never meant to imply that the US gets nothing out of NATO. It is clear that we do for the reasons you mentioned and countless others. I was simply saying, in much the same way you did, that EU nations allowed that situation to exist because spending less on defense was good for them domestically in an economic sense. It was not a good decision beyond the short term from a security perspective unless the US could be guaranteed to be a righteous actor forever and that is obviously not something that can ever be guaranteed. Treaties and alliances are great. Dependence is not.
It is true that some countries have taken action to distance themselves from the US under Trump. It is also true that many of the citizens of the EU want their governments to take more action on that front. As an American, I would rather the EU lead the world in most respects as I trust most of their governmental systems to represent their people better than ours does.
Still, money rules the world and the US has a lot of it. Greed is a powerful motivator and I would bet that it is going to entice a lot of European politicians to make unpopular deals with the US and it's corporate representatives under the next administration. Despite the EU as a whole better representing it's people there are still too many instances of their governments manipulating or outright ignoring popular sentiments for me to believe that something like sidelining the US is within the realm of possibility, even if most of their citizens wanted to do so.
As a last note I would add that I believe eliminating reliance on the US is something the EU absolutely should do as much as possible. It is the only reasonable answer to the insanity taking place in our government. Nothing I've said should discourage action towards that goal. I'm just trying to be realistic about how I see that playing out.
Great reply!
this is exactly what putin wants, plus hes pretty much bankrolling most of eus far right gonvernments, to this end. needs a divisive west, so he cant take over former soviet bloc with much resistance.
As long as china, india doesnt get in his way, and they dont seem to mind that russia is a useful tool for them.