Europe

[GR66]

Let's hypothetically say that over the next decade or so Europe truly heeds the signals from the United States that they need to be responsible for their own defence and rebuild their militaries to the point that they can defend against Russia on their own (including a continental nuclear umbrella). If that were to happen then would they be as willing as they are now to have US troops stationed on European soil? To have US Generals/Admirals in overall command of NATO forces? If Europe no longer needs the US to defend itself against Russia does it even need NATO at all?

Is the US in effect risking turning what is essentially a continental client state (European NATO) into a potential geopolitical rival?

 

[Good2Golf]

Let's hypothetically say that over the next decade or so Europe truly heeds the signals from the United States that they need to be responsible for their own defence and rebuild their militaries to the point that they can defend against Russia on their own (including a continental nuclear umbrella). If that were to happen then would they be as willing as they are now to have US troops stationed on European soil? To have US Generals/Admirals in overall command of NATO forces? If Europe no longer needs the US to defend itself against Russia does it even need NATO at all?

Is the US in effect risking turning what is essentially a continental client state (European NATO) into a potential geopolitical rival?

I don’t think America strategically writ large has thought this one through in any meaningful degree. There is a slow but unquestionable realization within Europe, that America no longer represents the deterrent capability (will or actions) that it represented post-WW2. America saying it may choose not to honour NATO Article 5 declared by other members in the future, as well as its soft position against the very state that resulted in NATO’s formation originally, cannot be written off as a transient situation. As Europe fortifies its security posture, there will likely come a day where intra-Euro discussion includes ‘dis-inviting’ American from its territories. SOFAs have cancellation clauses in them. Whether NATO proper survives, I have no doubt that some form of collective Eurocentric security alliance (which may include an invited Canada, possibly AUS/NZ as well) will emerge, independent of a self-isolating America.

We shall see in the coming years.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don’t think America strategically writ large has thought this one through in any meaningful degree. There is a slow but unquestionable realization within Europe, that America no longer represents the deterrent capability (will or actions) that it represented post-WW2. America saying it may choose not to honour NATO Article 5 declared by other members in the future, as well as its soft position against the very state that resulted in NATO’s formation originally, cannot be written off as a transient situation. As Europe fortifies its security posture, there will likely come a day where intra-Euro discussion includes ‘dis-inviting’ American from its territories. SOFAs have cancellation clauses in them. Whether NATO proper survives, I have no doubt that some form of collective Eurocentric security alliance (which may include an invited Canada, possibly AUS/NZ as well) will emerge, independent of a self-isolating America.

We shall see in the coming years.

I wonder think that there is alot of hand wringing going on in Australia at the moment. Their entire Aukus gamble is decidedly looking like it might have been built on sand.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is the US in effect risking turning what is essentially a continental client state (European NATO) into a potential geopolitical rival?

The whole reason the EU was ramped up to its current levels (of bureaucracy) was to build a unified economy of 300,000+ people to act as a stiff competitor to the US - a geopolitical rival in other words.

But this has proven to be a complete failure because 'Europe'


Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade?

In recent years, the U.S. economy has grown at a faster rate than the European Union’s, which is currently made up of 27 member states.

According to the World Bank, in the period 2008-2023, EU GDP grew by 13.5% (from $16.37 trillion to $18.59 trillion) while U.S. GDP rose by 87% (from $14.77 to $27.72 trillion). The UK’s GDP increased by 15.4%. In 2023, EU GDP was 67% of U.S. GDP — down from 110% in 2008.

Accounting for population, EU GDP per capita as a percentage of U.S. GDP per capita fell from 76.5% in 2008 to 50% in 2023.

The major factor for this widening economic gap is a discrepancy in productivity, according to the Draghi report on EU competitiveness. The report notes that, out of the largest fifty technology firms in the world, only four are in Europe.

Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade? | Econofact

econofact.org

 

[Good2Golf]

The whole reason the EU was ramped up to its current levels (of bureaucracy) was to build a unified economy of 300,000+ people to act as a stiff competitor to the US - a geopolitical rival in other words.

But this has proven to be a complete failure because 'Europe'


Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade?

In recent years, the U.S. economy has grown at a faster rate than the European Union’s, which is currently made up of 27 member states.

According to the World Bank, in the period 2008-2023, EU GDP grew by 13.5% (from $16.37 trillion to $18.59 trillion) while U.S. GDP rose by 87% (from $14.77 to $27.72 trillion). The UK’s GDP increased by 15.4%. In 2023, EU GDP was 67% of U.S. GDP — down from 110% in 2008.

Accounting for population, EU GDP per capita as a percentage of U.S. GDP per capita fell from 76.5% in 2008 to 50% in 2023.

The major factor for this widening economic gap is a discrepancy in productivity, according to the Draghi report on EU competitiveness. The report notes that, out of the largest fifty technology firms in the world, only four are in Europe.

Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade? | Econofact

econofact.org

Interestingly, European total debt in 2025 was 17T USD, about the same is its total annual GDP.

U.S. debt was 37T USD for only 27T USD. So 1.37x more debt than GDP. The U.S. has been accused of ’disproportionate borrowing’ to grow its GDP. Numerically, that seem to be true.

 

[GR66]

Interestingly, European total debt in 2025 was 17T USD, about the same is its total annual GDP.

U.S. debt was 37T USD for only 27T USD. So 1.37x more debt than GDP. The U.S. has been accused of ’disproportionate borrowing’ to grow its GDP. Numerically, that seem to be true.

That's the benefit of being the Global Reserve Currency.

 

[Good2Golf]

That's the benefit of being the Global Reserve Currency.

…for now…

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t think America strategically writ large has thought this one through in any meaningful degree. There is a slow but unquestionable realization within Europe, that America no longer represents the deterrent capability (will or actions) that it represented post-WW2. America saying it may choose not to honour NATO Article 5 declared by other members in the future, as well as its soft position against the very state that resulted in NATO’s formation originally, cannot be written off as a transient situation. As Europe fortifies its security posture, there will likely come a day where intra-Euro discussion includes ‘dis-inviting’ American from its territories. SOFAs have cancellation clauses in them. Whether NATO proper survives, I have no doubt that some form of collective Eurocentric security alliance (which may include an invited Canada, possibly AUS/NZ as well) will emerge, independent of a self-isolating America.

We shall see in the coming years.

Was the US expected to defend, or provide that deterrence for Europe indefinitely ? The same question can be asked of Canada.

WW2 Ended 81 years ago...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In the Nuclear age, it is the US that pushed to ensure it, and it alone (almost) would provide the deterrence umbrella against Russia/USSR and China for as many nations as possible, not because they specifically wanted to care fro those nations out of the kindness of their heart but because it was in the US absolute interest to do so (and still is). Anything else leads to proliferation, which causes an arms race and exponentially increases the risks of Nuclear war.

Think about it this way: If the US greatly reduces its commitment to deterrence in favour of Europe or East-Asia, what happens? Europe, facing Russia will create its own deterrent force big enough to counter Russia's. In East-Asia, Japan, South-Korea and possibly India and Australia will want to do the same to counter China. Now, China and Russia are facing two deterrent of the same size, not just one, and they decide "no way am I going to be short", so they double their Nuclear forces. It makes sense for them to do so, but now both the US, Europe and East-Asia are outnumbered in nukes, and decide to build more, etc. etc.

Now in history, there hasn't been a single time where humans engaged in an arms race like that have avoided using them, so what makes anyone think that we would avoid it this time - or will leaders of the "smaller" nuclear powers decide "better use them now while I can". Keeping anyone from using them becomes much more complicated and a game of constant brinkmanship.

For anyone interested, there is an excellent discussion of the problems with Nuclear proliferation from a US perspective in Henry Kissinger's excellent book World Order. It's about ten years old but still an excellent read (BTW, after you read it, you'll probably conclude, as I do, that poor Henry is probably spinning in his grave at seeing the destruction of US diplomacy under Trump).

 

[KevinB]

I don’t think America strategically writ large has thought this one through in any meaningful degree.

I think that realization is slowly occuring in many Republican members. Even in the Administration as it has again veered to some corrective action (too little too late ?)

There is a slow but unquestionable realization within Europe, that America no longer represents the deterrent capability (will or actions) that it represented post-WW2. America saying it may choose not to honour NATO Article 5 declared by other members in the future, as well as its soft position against the very state that resulted in NATO’s formation originally, cannot be written off as a transient situation.

Trumps first term should have been a wake up call.

As Europe fortifies its security posture, there will likely come a day where intra-Euro discussion includes ‘dis-inviting’ American from its territories.

Apologies botched quote.
I suspect that most will still want US troops. As it is a deterrent in its own, as an attack against their territory will end up dragging us along for the ride. That is a pretty big stock have in the pocket, plus the dollars spent locally by the deployed force.


SOFAs have cancellation clauses in them. Whether NATO proper survives, I have no doubt that some form of collective Eurocentric security alliance (which may include an invited Canada, possibly AUS/NZ as well) will emerge, independent of a self-isolating America.

We shall see in the coming years.

Agreed, I am a little more optimistic than you at this point. If someone would run over the Steve’s (Miller and Witkoff) I think there may be a quicker rebound.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The whole reason the EU was ramped up to its current levels (of bureaucracy) was to build a unified economy of 300,000+ people to act as a stiff competitor to the US - a geopolitical rival in other words.

But this has proven to be a complete failure because 'Europe'


Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade?

In recent years, the U.S. economy has grown at a faster rate than the European Union’s, which is currently made up of 27 member states.

According to the World Bank, in the period 2008-2023, EU GDP grew by 13.5% (from $16.37 trillion to $18.59 trillion) while U.S. GDP rose by 87% (from $14.77 to $27.72 trillion). The UK’s GDP increased by 15.4%. In 2023, EU GDP was 67% of U.S. GDP — down from 110% in 2008.

Accounting for population, EU GDP per capita as a percentage of U.S. GDP per capita fell from 76.5% in 2008 to 50% in 2023.

The major factor for this widening economic gap is a discrepancy in productivity, according to the Draghi report on EU competitiveness. The report notes that, out of the largest fifty technology firms in the world, only four are in Europe.

Fact Check: Has the economic gap between Europe and the United States increased in the past decade? | Econofact

econofact.org

Looking at GDP is a not the approach to take when comparing economies between 2 countries or 10. Its a bit like saying that the car with the more horse power will always win the race.

What are the poverty levels between the US and the EU? How many people in the EU rely on food stamps? What is the infant mortality rates between the EU and the US? What are the average life spans between the EU and the US?

I completely agree that the EU (and Canada....) has major issues in terms of not consistently and adequately growing their economy and in not increasing productivity, but on the whole they have been able to continue with their higher standard of living overall when compared to the US.
Remember that productivity gains are typically occurring through an increase in automation and now through implementing AI - both of which tend to lead towards lower employment levels. Its a double edged sword and a game that needs to be carefully managed.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think that realization is slowly occuring in many Republican members. Even in the Administration as it has again veered to some corrective action (too little too late ?)

Trumps first term should have been a wake up call.

Agree, but I think many assumed he was a passing fad and things were on the way towards re-normalization. Second term is for sure a wake up call.

As Europe fortifies its security posture, there will likely come a day where intra-Euro discussion includes ‘dis-inviting’ American from its territories.

Apologies botched quote.
I suspect that most will still want US troops. As it is a deterrent in its own, as an attack against their territory will end up dragging us along for the ride. That is a pretty big stock have in the pocket, plus the dollars spent locally by the deployed force.

In think even that coming to a reckoning moment. In my recent travels, I send the the apples wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep if V Corps left the country. Germany is grappling with the ‘so what’ if fewer US forces and HQs were in-country. I think the only country that I get a sense of ongoing support for presence is the UK. For many of the NATO folks I was interacting with, the ‘soft in Russia’ position of the U.S. really questions the basis of America’s commitment to NATO as a true deterrent, or just a way of manipulating forward deployment and C2 of forces elsewhere.

« SOFAs have cancellation clauses in them. Whether NATO proper survives, I have no doubt that some form of collective Eurocentric security alliance (which may include an invited Canada, possibly AUS/NZ as well) will emerge, independent of a self-isolating America. »

Agreed, I am a little more optimistic than you at this point. If someone would run over the Steve’s (Miller and Witkoff) I think there may be a quicker rebound.

Trump could be gone tomorrow, but JD and the Steve twins remaining didn’t change much, and then Marco stays as the assuager, to set others’ minds at ease…many who aren’t, standing ovation for Rubio at MSC ‘26 notwithstanding.

 

[YZT580]

Was the US expected to defend, or provide that deterrence for Europe indefinitely ? The same question can be asked of Canada.

WW2 Ended 81 years ago...

The English Channel has often been referred to as a moat protecting England from invasion. For us it is the whole of the Atlantic ocean. In my mind, that makes Europe our Barbican and the forces we have there our advanced guard. By being part of NATO we are simply moving the battle 2000 miles east and for that we get the benefits of trading partners and in war, their forces absorbing the initial attack. Fair trade, I believe.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The English Channel has often been referred to as a moat protecting England from invasion. For us it is the whole of the Atlantic ocean. In my mind, that makes Europe our Barbican and the forces we have there our advanced guard. By being part of NATO we are simply moving the battle 2000 miles east and for that we get the benefits of trading partners and in war, their forces absorbing the initial attack. Fair trade, I believe.

Thousands of Canadians have died protecting Europe in the past, so to think we are somehow 'safer' because we're further away doesn't track.

Especially because now we're “the most European of non-European countries”

The Politics of Touting a 'European' Canada - Policy Magazine

On June 23rd, during the Canada-European Union Summit in Brussels where he signed a new Security and Defence Partnership, Prime Minister Mark Carney uttered a

www.policymagazine.ca

 

[YZT580]

Thousands of Canadians have died protecting Europe in the past, so to think we are somehow 'safer' because we're further away doesn't track.

Especially because now we're “the most European of non-European countries”

The Politics of Touting a 'European' Canada - Policy Magazine

On June 23rd, during the Canada-European Union Summit in Brussels where he signed a new Security and Defence Partnership, Prime Minister Mark Carney uttered a

www.policymagazine.ca

true but then again, how many Canadian cities have been bombed since confederation?

 

[daftandbarmy]

true but then again, how many Canadian cities have been bombed since confederation?

Well, there's this of course...

The Halifax Explosion killed nearly 2,000 people. Here is where most of them lived. | Globalnews.ca

Almost 2,000 people died in the Halifax Explosion. We mapped about 1,400 of them to their homes in Halifax.

globalnews.ca

 

[YZT580]

Well, there's this of course...

The Halifax Explosion killed nearly 2,000 people. Here is where most of them lived. | Globalnews.ca

Almost 2,000 people died in the Halifax Explosion. We mapped about 1,400 of them to their homes in Halifax.

globalnews.ca

you can't equate the wanton destruction of Ypres with a case of bad driving.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Looking at GDP is a not the approach to take when comparing economies between 2 countries or 10. Its a bit like saying that the car with the more horse power will always win the race.

What are the poverty levels between the US and the EU? How many people in the EU rely on food stamps? What is the infant mortality rates between the EU and the US? What are the average life spans between the EU and the US?

Eventually a higher growth rate wins out. The pie is bigger. For a while it's possible to gloss over the trend by pointing to specific definitions. Then one day, everyone realizes it's not.

The US is supposed to be scared that China might overtake the US, but Europe shouldn't be scared that it is falling behind the US? Sure.

 

[Brad Sallows]

For many of the NATO folks I was interacting with, the ‘soft in Russia’ position of the U.S. really questions the basis of America’s commitment to NATO as a true deterrent, or just a way of manipulating forward deployment and C2 of forces elsewhere.

NATO won the Cold War and beyond, right up to the borders of Russia.

Given that Russia hasn't launched a war to re-occupy one of the bordering NATO members that used to be part of the USSR, the deterrent is still working.

If Europe needs Americans in Europe to prevent NATO members from falling on each other, they should state their fears (and impotent incompetence in the face of that threat) clearly. Otherwise, the military math of shifting Warsaw Pact and neutral nations into NATO is obvious. Europe doesn't need American boots in Europe.

If Europeans collectively want Russia out of Ukraine, Europeans should do that without expecting US taxpayers to share the costs. If the US joins in, great.

 

[Good2Golf]

Given that Russia hasn't launched a war to re-occupy one of the bordering NATO members that used to be part of the USSR, the deterrent is still working.

Hybrid warfare against numerous NATO nations for years.

If you’re okay with the metric that there are no little green men in any current NATO nations, that’s your prerogative.


Separately, looks like a France isn’t having EC’s take on Trump’s Board of Peace.

France says surprised by European Commission presence at Board of Peace

France said on Thursday it was surprised that the European Commission had sent a commissioner to the Board of Peace in Washington saying it did not have the mandate to represent member states, its foreign ministry spokesperson said.

www.reuters.com