The Big Picture - Where's the world going?

[Tonitrus]

A PC game from 1984.

The Ancient Art of War, from Brøderbund. I loved that game.

First computer game I ever played. And then I was hooked.

I started with AAOW at Sea before the original. 

Thus, Thor Foote was my first love.

(I forget which one of those was grumbler    )

[Admiral Yi]

I think disruption for disruption's sake is the goal. The creative destruction etc.
All the while with tensions growing between the Broligarchy and the Christian nationalists wanting a king.

I think making money is the goal.

[Neil]

I've noticed repeatedly the idea of using state governments as a bastion against Trumpism, but can that truly be effective?  The federal government proved itself adept in securing compliance from the states during the Civil Rights era, and this is exactly the same thing. 

I do wonder if the 'war on woke' will be enough to sustain the unity in the right, as the libertarians proceed to destroy family and social bonds even more surely than the so-called 'woke mob' would have. 

[Jacob]

Another big question is "whither the EU?"

Over in the Ukraine war thread a bunch of our (European) posters are talking about the need for EU to get its shit together in response to Trump aligning with Russia on Ukraine.

Personally, I think plenty of EU leaders are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and are inclined to act. There are a handful of serious obstacles here.

The individual countries their own democratic mandates to manage, and there's the ever present threat of the Russia and Thiel/Musk inspired (and funded) reactionary populists taking over power in any given country.

At the same time there's the EU level challenge of Hungary and Slovakia acting for Russia inside EU institutions.

The wake up call has been received, but are European institutions able to respond? I have much less insight into how Europe functions than the US, but I figure there are a few potential scenarios:

1) A core of European countries and institutions comes together, firms up a European centre of power and pushes European values. In my view this means continuing the pressure on Russia, resisting the political influence of American billionaires and Putin, and supporting Ukraine. My main questions here are - how is that going to pass, and how does it handle the Putin-sympathizers?

2) Mostly words and little practical action. The countries that do resist Russia are isolated, and individually countries are pushed to align with either Russian or American direction as unequal partners or client states.

[Oexmelin]

I do wonder if the 'war on woke' will be enough to sustain the unity in the right, as the libertarians proceed to destroy family and social bonds even more surely than the so-called 'woke mob' would have. 

These bonds have been hollowed out. People don't realize how much yet.

[Jacob]

It rather feels like the US is no longer Europe's ally. Politico article on the topic here, but I don't think it's just Politico.

[Valmy]

Yes, let's ally with a crumbling husk of an Empire like Russia. Though I guess that is our peers these days.

[Sheilbh]

Another big question is "whither the EU?"

Over in the Ukraine war thread a bunch of our (European) posters are talking about the need for EU to get its shit together in response to Trump aligning with Russia on Ukraine.

Personally, I think plenty of EU leaders are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and are inclined to act. There are a handful of serious obstacles here.

The individual countries their own democratic mandates to manage, and there's the ever present threat of the Russia and Thiel/Musk inspired (and funded) reactionary populists taking over power in any given country.

At the same time there's the EU level challenge of Hungary and Slovakia acting for Russia inside EU institutions.

The wake up call has been received, but are European institutions able to respond? I have much less insight into how Europe functions than the US, but I figure there are a few potential scenarios:

1) A core of European countries and institutions comes together, firms up a European centre of power and pushes European values. In my view this means continuing the pressure on Russia, resisting the political influence of American billionaires and Putin, and supporting Ukraine. My main questions here are - how is that going to pass, and how does it handle the Putin-sympathizers?

2) Mostly words and little practical action. The countries that do resist Russia are isolated, and individually countries are pushed to align with either Russian or American direction as unequal partners or client states.

On the EU I think there are a few big challenges and I don't know the answer of how it'll play out. And I think Europe's in a nightmare state.

We are dependent on the US for defence - another example France deployed forces to Romania as part of the NATO forward presence but those deployments depended on American logistical support (as did France's intervention in the Sahel) because France, like every other European country, doesn't have the capacity.

Right now there's a Russian invasion (and the US backing annexation), with Europe's largest economy entering its second year of a shrinking economy and it basically being unclear if European states have the will or capacity to back up Article 5 in respect of, say, the Baltics (and assuming the US won't). And ultimately geo-politics matters - we're a resource poor continent. The idea that we can simultaneously push against Russia, give up on America, shun the Turks and the Middle East and continue to have high-minded attitudes to China is for the birds. With what? How? The world does not owe Europe power and respect (I've seen a couple of commentators saying they think we're in the early years of a European "century of humiliation").

The best I've seen from a European Commissioner is by more, tougher, stronger regulatory enforcement. The world that was capable of creating a regulatory superpower has gone. Frankly I think any talk that is focused on the using the Digital Services Act more robustly against Musk or Google or Facebook or whatever is Europe in its comfort zone engaging in displacement activities.

What's needed, as Donald Tusk has pointed out, is significant spending on defence - industrial, military, state capacity. As Tusk has said "if we, Europeans, fail to spend big on defence now, we will be forced to spend 10 times more if we don't prevent a wider war." Adding, "as the Polish PM I'm entitled to say it loud and clear, since Poland already spends almost 5% of its GDP on defence. And we will continue to do so." On both points he's right. So I think anything from an European leader that isn't talking about increasing defence spending by magnitudes is unreal.

The biggest way to do that would be by leveraging it at a European level - but defence and foreign policy is not a European competence and it doesn't have that type of budgeting power. The European limits are at their limits legally (though never underestimate EU lawyers for creative interpretation of the treaties). Which is a problem because are the third rails of European politics - common debt and bailouts was a huge factor in the rise of, say, the AfD or in a "debtor" country the rise of anti-politics parties in Italy, some European countries have constitutional neutrality which will be difficult. This is also where Hungary and Slovakia matter - in the institutions they don't, Slovakia's Commissioner is Maros Sefcovic who is in the same party as Fico but not really aligned and is very impressive, Hungary has the Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare. But currently under the treaties common foreign and security policy broadly speaking still operates on the basis of unanimity (because it's not a European competence) which makes common European activity very difficult.

I also think it'll probably require some fairly uncomfortable choices. If Europe can't rely on the US there is no-one else who can step in so it's on Europe - and, if Trump got what he asked for, a Europe that is spending 5% on defence does not need to rely on the US for its defence. Absent the US who will it work with? We can probably rule out Russia, I think Turkey (especially as if Russia and the US are working together the Turks will need friends too) and the Middle East are going to be key and building  far closer relationship with China. Any of these decisions is going to involve really difficult, uncomfortable compromises for Europe. The only real alternative I can see is probably doing a bargain with the Russians.

I think fundamentally at a European and national level Europe needs imaginative, flexible (including morally) and savvy leaders. But I think any proposal from any European leader that does not also have a context of significant increase in defence spending is not serious.

I'm not hopeful yet - I don't see anyone on the horizon (with the possible exception of Tusk and Poland as I keep on banging on about). But I'm also not sure there's the will - public opinion is overwhelmingly to back Ukraine and maybe even Euro-army curious. I mentioned it before but I often think about Macron's line about grand narratives and the need for political heroism - and I'm not sure we can do it.

But then I see opinion polling like this (from earlier this week) which I'd say was previously and think maybe there's hope:


(on the other hand polling also shows opposition to tax rises or spending cuts to fund more defence spending - and relatively high confidence that European defence will be fine without the US...)

[Valmy]

We are dependent on the US for defence - another example France deployed forces to Romania as part of the NATO forward presence but those deployments depended on American logistical support (as did France's intervention in the Sahel) because France, like every other European country, doesn't have the capacity.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH EUROPE? Trump served in office from 2017 - 2021 threatening constantly to cut Europe off and they just ignored it? Europe just thought after the Cold War ended that the US was just going to take the responsibly for European defense for ever and ever amen? They never thought that maybe that was not sustainable?

I swear to God all of your politicians should be shot for criminal incompetence and dereliction of national responsibility. Europe can't fucking move troops around INSIDE Europe without the United States doing it for you? Can't you put shit on a train and move it around that way?

It boggles the mind.

[Valmy]

How much stuff does a small French force in Romania need anyway? I presume it wasn't 1 million soldiers.

When the Black Watch parades in Edinburgh do they need the United States to provide transport for their fucking bagpipes? Come on.

[Sheilbh]

I totally agree - what I'd say is worse is that for most of the last 4 years (including all of the war in Ukraine) from everything I've read, the default assumption among European policymakers has been that Trump would win in 2024. And yet all strategic thinking and policy was basically based on a best-case scenario. I don't think that's just a failure of the last 4 or even 9 years - I think it's a failure of at least the last 25 if not more.

And there is an idealistic side to it.

Edit: And the other side of this to be clear is that Europe was serious about defence just 35 years ago. We are rich - 5% of GDP would be a slightly larger defence budget than the US. We have (some) industrial capacity and successful arms manufacturers (and exporters). So this isn't saying none of this is possible - but it will take trade offs, political will and imagination.

[Neil]

I think the continuing dependence of the European financial sector on the US makes any kind of concrete action to disentangle from America difficult.  The EU isn't equipped to deal with US sanctions (which would be the likely result of attempts to restrict the spread of disinformation via social media).  The EU is also hamstrung by fifth columnists like Orban. 


The EU isn't equipped to be a meaningful counterweight to a hostile United States.  It was designed to operate in an American world.  If Europe wants to try and build something, it'll have to be something new. 

[Valmy]

Defending the eastern border independently will not generate an actively hostile US.

[Neil]

Defending the eastern border independently will not generate an actively hostile US.

The US will be actively hostile no matter what.  Not necessarily militarily hostile, but the United States can never again be regarded as a friend to any other country. 

[Sheilbh]

All the British papers have a version of this from the Guardian which I think gives the realistic assessment of what Europe can do right now:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/19/britain-and-france-working-on-plans-for-reassurance-force-to-protect-ukraine

A "reassurance force", but one which won't operate in the East of Ukraine and requiring a US "backstop" and NATO's (for which read the US') air support. Good they're thinking but this is something most European countries back as essential to their security and that has huge public support - but this is broadly what we're able to offer right now.

Basically I totally get wanting to dump the Americans - but this is what Europe can currently do to defend itself. Whatever we do needs to start from that reality and not engage in any more fantasy politics as we have for the last 25 years - which is why I think it's sadly right and necessary for Starmer and Macron to be flying out to DC to lobby Trump.