With great power comes great responsibility, it's not that complicated a concept.
Switzerland doesn't have any aspirations to be the global hegemon, so they don't get graded on the global hegemon scale.
With great power comes great responsibility, it's not that complicated a concept.
Switzerland doesn't have any aspirations to be the global hegemon, so they don't get graded on the global hegemon scale.
Another saying is: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
The US sent billions to Ukraine, and what did we get in return? Europeans telling us that "the last time the US did anything good for the world was WW2".
It's not about hegemons vs non-hegemons either. China sends war supplies to Russia and Europe barely complains.
How about this: Consider our loss of support for Ukraine as an abandonment of aspirations of hegemony in Eastern Europe. Bingo, now we no longer have "great power" in that region, nor "great responsibility". Ukraine is your problem now.
Ultimately, you're just playing language games. There's no reason a Swiss taxpayer should be less responsible than an American taxpayer. This is all just anti-Americanism.
People like to scapegoat the US whenever they're dissatisfied regarding anything, virtually anywhere around the world. There's frequently a creative way to blame the US. And because people are impossible to please, and they are always dissatisfied, the US is always blamed. I'm sick of it.
The thing is, if you don't help us in Eastern Europe, you don't just lose hegemonial status there. You lose all of Europe and with that the very foundation of your power.
It's not Anti-Americanism, but if you want to go out with the belle of the ball, you actually have to try.
You don't get to date her by default, and she is getting increasingly tired of your entitled attitude.
Ukraine already is our problem, the vast majority of support comes from Europe. It's your continued insistence that you don't even have to try while expecting us to stay by your side that is the issue. A friend that keeps asking for more while not helping in need is not a friend at all.
>The thing is, if you don't help us in Eastern Europe, you don't just lose hegemonial status there. You lose all of Europe and with that the very foundation of your power.
If that means you're going to stop blaming us for everything, it sounds fantastic.
BTW if you think Europe is "the very foundation" of American power you're delusional.
>You don't get us by default, and we are getting increasingly tired of your entitled attitude.
As I stated in another comment thread:
"For years our leaders told you to be less dependent on us. Now you're speaking as though your dependency on us was some kind of favor you were doing for us. It's mind-blowing how out-of-touch you guys can be."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49574103
> BTW if you think Europe is "the very foundation" of American power you're delusional.
You do know American power projection is mostly based on bases on European soil? That your economy is greatly benefiting from integration with ours? You think America can be significant on a world stage where Europe turns away? You think you could stomach losing access to the world's largest market of wealthy consumers? You think your sanctions would be effective if we didn't go along?
Every single power mechanism available to the US is dependent on our cooperation.
> Now you're speaking as though your dependency on us was some kind of favor you were doing for us
Of course it's a favour to you. We supported your nonsense in exchange for you dealing with the military grunt work. Out of touch is only the one that tries to kill the golden goose because it sometimes needs feeding.
>That your economy is mostly based on integration with ours?
The US is one of the world's least import/export-dependent economies.
Furthermore, you can see a list of our top 10 import/export partners here; only one is European: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa
The US became the world's largest economy around 1890, half a century prior to the start of NATO: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-maddison-project-data...
Of the 20 most valuable companies in the world, 16 are American: https://companiesmarketcap.com/
(Of course, military strength rests on a basis of economic strength. That's international relations 101.)
This is why I say that Europeans are delusional. They're uninformed about the most basic facts about the world. The claim that the US economy is "mostly" based on integration with Europe is just astonishing. Your colonial empires are long gone, but your colonial mentality is remarkably unchanged. No wonder you think of yourself as a "belle" with this level of delusional self-regard.
Europe is not one country in a list. It's one trade union, that together is bigger than any other economy on your graph. Also note that you haven't acknowledged any of the other, more important points.
It's not just your economy that depends on us. It's every single measure of power. Rammstein. Sigonella. SWIFT.
Every single dimension of American power is based on governments in Europe granting it. I would suggest you stop being so ungrateful before we stop doing so.
We are the Belle of the Ball, the only superpower that has both China and the US dependent on them. Whoever we choose to support is who wins global dominance. And right now, the US is being a bit of a shitty boyfriend.
>Europe is not one country in a list. It's one trade union, that together is bigger than any other economy on your graph.
Wikipedia states the EU is only about 20% of our total trade. Recall that trade itself is a relatively small fraction of our economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa...
So the statement "the US economy is mostly based on integration with the European economy" is astonishingly ignorant and arrogant. If you can't acknowledge that in your next reply, I don't think there is any point in me leaving more comments after this one.
>Every single dimension of American power is based on governments in Europe granting it. I would suggest you stop being so ungrateful before we stop doing so.
This is an extremely bold statement on your part, given Europe's extreme dependence on US weapon systems.
Regarding military bases, I'm evaluating relative to a counterfactual where the US recedes back into isolation. Prior to WW2 we had a policy of avoiding alliances in peacetime. From that perspective, why would we need to project power in Europe... if we weren't defending Europe? We have our own oil now. No need to be in the Middle East anymore. Again, it's Europeans telling me that they're doing me a favor by letting the US defend them for the past 8 decades. Just mind-blowing.
Maybe we should start arming Russia so we'd be competitive with China for status as your "boyfriend".
Here's a life hack. Learn to use Google. You claimed: "You do know American power projection is mostly based on bases on European soil?" Google search for: "What fraction of US military bases are in Europe?"
The answer? 4-5%. Is the claim that American power projection is "mostly" based on bases on European soil prima facie plausible if only 4-5% of our bases are on European soil? Doing a quick Google can help you understand the yawning delta between your beliefs and the facts.
And BTW, I think Trump is a terrible president and I'm quite upset about the whole Greenland thing. But Europeans are the most annoying people in the world, bar none. I'd honestly prefer an alliance with China over an alliance with Europe. Should be a good way to achieve world peace, if nothing else. I care more about peace than "winning" "global dominance".
You're confusing base survival and global dominance. Nobody's saying the US couldn't scrape by by itself, but to keep your current position, you cannot just abandon your allies.
For power projection, it's not just about fractions. Its about geography, it's about networks. Without those 5%, no convenient access to Africa or the Middle East, no global intelligence network, a crippled sanctions mechanism.
Speaking of the Middle East, most of us never wanted you to go there and create one mess after another for us to deal with. From the first time you went, it was always despite protests from Europe. The fact you're trying to frame your adventurism as some sort of favor to us is indicative of the hubris I'm talking about.
You already are conspiring with Russia, throwing fancy parties for our enemies on your soil. Don't think we haven't noticed the Alaskan schmooze-fest.
Finally, you're underestimating the economic ties by being so focused on goods (even though 20% is a huge fraction, imagine what it would mean for any companies revenue to go down by that much!) Think about the website you're on though! Services are not even included in these 20%. Think about the consequences for the tech industry if they lose Europe as customer base!
I don't think Googling some numbers makes up for a lack of systemic reasoning. You are treating your greatest asset as a burden and we do not appreciate it.
Why does Europe get to be the belle? Why can't the US be the belle? Early in the invasion of Ukraine, when Biden was sending billions of dollars in support, the internet was full of anger from Europeans that the US wasn't sending even more. Did you ever think that we might be getting "increasingly tired of your entitled attitude"?
Because there's three grand powers in the world and two of them are locked in contest. The third one is the only one that can shift the balance of powers, so it gets to be kingmaker.
Why should I care about winning this contest?
I don't know. It's your leadership that started the contest in the first place, take it up with them.
Either way though, they decided to care and now they're trying to abandon their winning hand. You don't get to both play the game and then pretend you don't care.
>You don't get to both play the game and then pretend you don't care.
Why not? You seem to think that these silly arguments based on your invented verbal classifications such as who is "playing the game" should count as constraints on US foreign policy.
The fundamental problem is that we gave you a sweetheart deal for decades. You got used to it and took it for granted. Aspects of that deal are being renegotiated. You're now saying: "Where are my entitlements?" But they were never entitlements.
In any case--good luck buddy. I think you're beyond my help.
Because now that you started it, the Chinese won't stop playing. Your own behavior is what creates constraints, the irony is that you haven't even realized my language is purely descriptive of geopolitical grand strategy while yours is enacting the late stage imperial hubris I'm describing.
And it was you that is throwing away the sweetheart deal and still being arrogant about it.
You're correct that they were never entitlements. They were the bare minimum compensation for our support.
I don't consider European "support" to have much value. It seems to mostly come in the form of whining, lectures, and things which would happen anyways, such as trade.
Obama also considered you guys to be freeloaders: https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/03/t...
I don't particularly want the US to be a empire. I like the Swiss model better. We did something like this successfully pre-WW2.
Since the US alliance has been so burdensome for you, you should be happy about this development.
One recurring issue here has been that the American public is apparently operating under the assumption that their personal preferences are directly translatable into geopolitical reality. You can want things and you can even vote for them, but you are within a larger system who's other factors or trajectory you don't control.
Personally, I think realistically with that in mind, the EU should work for rapprochement with China considering America's current loss of ambition.
Most importantly, I think this whole frame is way too stuck in the inane back-and-forth between states, when I believe Climate Change is the defining issue of our time - for all of us, independent of national allegiance.
With this humanity defining issue in mind, the American behavior becomes particularly dangerous, not honoring their international commitments and actively making the problem worse while pretending the world could be the same as a hundred years ago.
We need to move forward and deal with the problems of right now, instead of harking back to some perceived glory days. History flows forwards, not backwards. We don't have time for these petty squabbles, we can't afford to wait for you to get your house in order.
The final irony is that now apparently you're praising the Swiss model after just calling it "moral facade that allows them to dodge responsibility"? Which one is it? An example to inspire or a dodge to avoid? Once again, you want your cake and eat it.
I want the US to stop being the designated country which gets blamed whenever anything goes wrong. What am I allowed to do in order to make that happen, O European Master?
You're doing it again in this comment with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Ours have been dropping. See https://www.onepercentbrighter.com/p/who-emits-the-most-co
I'm tired of being the designated punching bag.
> I want the US to stop being the designated country which gets blamed whenever anything goes wrong.
You don't get to be simultaneously one of the biggest actors on the global stage and exempt from scrutiny on how you interact with the rest of the world.
The system you helped build is the system you're decrying. I don't know what to tell you, this is not about my desires, it is simply about geopolitical realities.
Some random blog post where some dude used Claude is not a serious source. Reuters reports that U.S. emissions accounted for 36% of the global increase in 2025, with U.S. emissions rising 3.2% year-on-year versus 0.3% in China: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-leads-global-co2-...
More importantly, you exited the Paris agreement. Again, this is about systemic consequences of your behavior, not some insular self-perception.
> I'm tired of being the designated punching bag.
Then stop giving the rest of the world the surface to do so, get your house together and stop complaining about the world being unfair to you. This is the reality we live in, this is the reality you were instrumental in building.
We all gotta live with it, your sudden lack of desire or ambition doesn't change the fact that this is how the world works. Changes in your self-conception do not change the incentives of other actors.
You can complain about scrutiny all you want, but it won't make it disappear. You're playing one of the major powers, and you get judged by those standards, whether you like it or not.
>You don't get to opt out of being one of the biggest actors globally and thus always involved and evaluated on how you interact with the rest of the world.
China is also one of the biggest actors. They didn't exactly provide support to Ukraine. They're happy to sell gear to Russia. Now you're planning your rapprochement with them.
Face it, you hold the US to a standard that you hold no other nation.
This business about "the system you set up" is just another way of you admitting that you took us for granted. We're tired of being taken for granted. We're burnt out. You haven't said a single positive thing about the US in this thread, have you?
>Then stop acting like one
Bro this is literally just bullying. I've had enough.
> China is also one of the biggest actors. They didn't exactly provide support to Ukraine.
Yes, their geopolitical alignment is different. They did provide support to Russia, which they have shared interests with. That is precisely my point - you have to nurture your alliances, you don't get to just have them.
> Face it, you hold the US to a standard that you hold no other nation.
The US is in a position that no other nation is in. Your complaint is effectively about the US' position as the most powerful nation in the world.
> This business about "the system you set up" is just another way of you admitting that you took us for granted. We're tired of being taken for granted.
You are the ones taking us for granted. You think we owe you loyalty, while at the same time wanting to reduce any support. You claim to want us to become more independent, yet at the same time get upset when we put in place measures to do so. No! Gratitude has to be earned, it isn't just given. Disengagement never comes for free, it always means a disentanglement of interests.
> You haven't said a single positive thing about the US in this thread, have you?
I could turn this question right around and start listing my own grievances, but I won't because it would a silly, petty, ego-based distraction from the systemic analysis at hand.
> Bro this is literally just bullying. I've had enough.
If you think I've made a factual or argumentative error, point it out. Calling an argument 'bullying' doesn't address the argument, especially when I've been polite throughout.
There is a strange assumption in the US establishment that their current position in the world is the natural order of things and not the result of decades of Cold War era cooperation. Despite all the complaints about allies freeloading, the establishment seems utterly shocked and confused when those allies start reducing their dependence on the US, for example, by pivoting investments into their own weapons production instead of buying American.
You want the benefits of having allies dependent on the US, while treating any attempt by allies to become more self-reliant as a problem. Talk about entitlement!
First, I have serious disagreements with current US leadership.
Second, everything I've seen from the current US defense leadership has been consistent on encouraging Europe to build up its defense-industrial base.
US defense leadership has been pretty consistent about wanting europe to expand defense funding, but spent on american defense industry, rather than European capacity and technology
it has also been very unfriendly to europe building up any sovereignty, eg. to continue trading with Iran on the euro when the US pulled out of the JCPOA
>US defense leadership has been pretty consistent about wanting europe to expand defense funding, but spent on american defense industry, rather than European capacity and technology
Try listening to the actual words that US leadership says instead of the creative interpretations that Europeans come up with.
We did. Maybe you should, too?
You're arguing with your imagination, my friend. Your leadership actually is like that, and the ignorance makes the arrogance look worse.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-officials-object-european-p...
https://www.politico.eu/article/washington-lobbies-eu-agains...
>"One of the self-evident conclusions of the war in Ukraine was … the European continent and America'[s] underinvestment … in [their] defense industrial base[s] — the ability to produce munitions [and] emerging technologies rapidly and field them, was a blind spot exposed through the aggression against Ukraine," he said.
>The U.S., Ukraine and Europe are all expanding their industrial bases, but more must be done.
https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/406681...
US leadership has been consistent in encouraging Europe to expand its defense-industrial base. Excluding the US from weapons procurement is not the same thing.
[dead]