ELI5 Why Trump Bad For Europe

[Mighty_Zuk]

Title. 

This is not an invitation to talk about Trump's internal policies. Nor US politics. Nor politics related to Israel or Taiwan (i.e. conflicts outside Europe). Or Jina.

Just Europe. Be it security, economy, etc. Ukraine's in Europe so it's valid but don't make it the primary point.

I think Trump is good for Europe, so I want to hear genuine concerns from Europeans here about him.

Edited November 6, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[Stuart Galbraith]

But what for?

These issues have been discussed time and again, both on the Trump thread, and on the Ukraine thread. If folks didnt care for them before, they assuredly are not going to care about them now.

Try as I might, I cannot and will not accept that a man whom apparently believes 'NATO is obsolete' is good for Europe. If thats his strategic grasp, ive met 15 year olds with a better understanding of the world today then he claims to enjoy.

[seahawk]

I think it is good for Europe.

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But what for?

These issues have been discussed time and again, both on the Trump thread, and on the Ukraine thread. If folks didnt care for them before, they assuredly are not going to care about them now.

There are more active threads here than I can possibly find in my available free time, let alone read. The FFZ is uncharted territory for me. So I ask here for people to briefly raise their points on this specific, isolated issue.

I see lots of Europeans on Twitter (formerly X) talking about Trump bad and consequences, but none of them are really telling me WHY trump bad for Europe. So I figured I'd get my answer here.

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Try as I might, I cannot and will not accept that a man whom apparently believes 'NATO is obsolete' is good for Europe. If thats his strategic grasp, ive met 15 year olds with a better understanding of the world today then he claims to enjoy.

Do you think Trumpy's rhetoric = Trumpy's actions?

Do you think "NATO is kil" rhetoric will somehow manifest as NATO being actually offed?

And finally, do you have other grievances with him? If so, on what topics?

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, im done. If people were not willing to listen hithertoo, then perhaps they will after the trainwreck that Ukraine is just about to turn into. But frankly I doubt it, it is an ocean and a continent away after all.

[seahawk]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But what for?

These issues have been discussed time and again, both on the Trump thread, and on the Ukraine thread. If folks didnt care for them before, they assuredly are not going to care about them now.

Try as I might, I cannot and will not accept that a man whom apparently believes 'NATO is obsolete' is good for Europe. If thats his strategic grasp, ive met 15 year olds with a better understanding of the world today then he claims to enjoy.

Reasons why it is good:

- If you look at the details of the result, you see that Hispanics voted much more often for Trump then they did vote for the Republicans in the past. This shows that they are feeling the brunt of the Inflation and the illegal Migration and that they seem to be okay with throwing illegal Hispanics out, if it means they get a job and the prices for flats do not skyrocket. This is something to learn for Europe and our own problem with migration.

- Economy and stability are still the things that win elections. In a time of crisis, people want stability and prefer to go back to things that worked in the past. Also something to learn.

- Then the general fact, that Europe must not bet on the USA to always be around and solve European problems.

But the big lessons are 1 and 2, yet I doubt our leftist mainstream parties will learn fast enough and not be swept away by right wing parties, some of whom might be a lot more crazy than Trump.

[Ivanhoe]

48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Do you think Trumpy's rhetoric = Trumpy's actions?

Not a Yurrupean, nor do I play one on TV, but its hard to take seriously the folks who bleat "Trump is a LIAR!!!1!" with one breath, then "Trump is abandoning NATO and Europe to the Russkies!!1!!1!" in the next.

More importantly, the followup question to your original question should be, "What is truly bothering you about Trump?" If European leftists are like American leftists, I would guess that they are angry that the prospect of permanent revolutionGreat Reset have become a sliver more distant.

[futon]

Trump and some Republicans order of priority based on their past statements:

1. China/Taiwan

2. Israel

3. Ukraine

On the one hand, there is interest to not let Russia win in Ukraine. But on the other hand, Ukrainian terms for peace may be too high for territory return and for economic sustainment does cost a lot.

There is a difference between specifically Ukraine, NATO at large, and other specific European countries. In Trump's first term, he was clearly pro-Poland. And on the question if Russia was a threat, he asks why buy Russian energy? While he pressured European countries to pay more for their defence, by the 3rd or so year of his term, buy more for defense started to sound like "pay more by buying US equipment". There was rhetoric, IIRC by Macron even, but by some European leaders putting forward an idea of a "European Army" or something like that, and Trump was against it. So not the right kind of "spending more on defense" was the sense. 

It's a bit knotted up. One's posture may change depending on the posture of the other towards Russia. 

[Der Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Title. 

This is not an invitation to talk about Trump's internal policies. Nor US politics. Nor politics related to Israel or Taiwan (i.e. conflicts outside Europe). Or Jina.

Just Europe. Be it security, economy, etc. Ukraine's in Europe so it's valid but don't make it the primary point.

I think Trump is good for Europe, so I want to hear genuine concerns from Europeans here about him.

If Trump manages to force the EU to finally get their act together on a serious security and defense policy, he might have a good effect.

It really depends on what his actual policy will be.

[urbanoid]

Well, Trump was publicly bullying Germans for buying Russian gas, so in a sense he was good for Europe.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, futon said:

Trump and some Republicans order of priority based on their past statements:

1. China/Taiwan

2. Israel

3. Ukraine

On the one hand, there is interest to not let Russia win in Ukraine. But on the other hand, Ukrainian terms for peace may be too high for territory return and for economic sustainment does cost a lot.

There is a difference between specifically Ukraine, NATO at large, and other specific European countries. In Trump's first term, he was clearly pro-Poland. And on the question if Russia was a threat, he asks why buy Russian energy? While he pressured European countries to pay more for their defence, by the 3rd or so year of his term, buy more for defense started to sound like "pay more by buying US equipment". There was rhetoric, IIRC by Macron even, but by some European leaders putting forward an idea of a "European Army" or something like that, and Trump was against it. So not the right kind of "spending more on defense" was the sense. 

It's a bit knotted up. One's posture may change depending on the posture of the other towards Russia. 

So you're saying Europeans expect Trump to prioritize Ukraine higher, and that he sabotaged plans for a European army?

25 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

If Trump manages to force the EU to finally get their act together on a serious security and defense policy, he might have a good effect.

It really depends on what his actual policy will be.

That's my opinion as well. Do you have any particular grievances with him though?

[urbanoid]

Hehehe

 

 

[seahawk]

Worse? The poster has no idea about German politics. For all faults Merkel had, you can be certain that she would fulfil German obligations.  Everything she said, in the few interviews she gives, makes sense. According to her the West knew that Minsk would only buy time and that a Russian attack would come. She also also - imho correctly - says that Germany leading the anti-Russian efforts would be very helpful to mobilize Russian society for the war. So she suggests, that Germany should talk less and deliver more. Kind of the opposite of what the current clowns are doing.

[Skywalkre]

I'll start with trade.  The question becomes will Trump try to follow through on some of the comments he made on tariffs.  The issue is, he was all over the fucking place with what he said.  If he follows through with his most controversial ideas (large hikes on all imports across the board) that's not going to be good for Europe or the US.  There's a reason economists were supporting Harris and pubs like The Economist were not endorsing him.

As for Ukraine, I find it amusing some posters on here that are solidly pro-Ukraine seem to think Trump will be as well.  His comments were always fairly clear and what's leaked from his campaign (the war over now, territories in Russian hands not returned to Ukraine, no NATO membership for Ukraine) are hardly something those same posters would be behind.  With seeming total control of Congress going to the Rs we're looking at no further aid packages to Ukraine.  I'm not as up to date on how much of that Europe can replace themselves, but if they can't you now have the Ukraine facing a situation where they have no choice but to take a bad deal now which is basically a Russian win.

[urbanoid]

10 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Worse? The poster has no idea about German politics. For all faults Merkel had, you can be certain that she would fulfil German obligations.  Everything she said, in the few interviews she gives, makes sense. According to her the West knew that Minsk would only buy time and that a Russian attack would come. She also also - imho correctly - says that Germany leading the anti-Russian efforts would be very helpful to mobilize Russian society for the war. So she suggests, that Germany should talk less and deliver more. Kind of the opposite of what the current clowns are doing.

Original poster made a joke and the reply was only semi-serious.

Possibly the 'worse' part was not necessarily about Russia/Ukraine, but about other policies, like immigration. 

Also from our perspective Merkel was barely better than her predecessor, still going forward with Nord Stream 2 and continuing this 'Russlandversteher' bullshit.

 

Btw. revitalisation/expansion of German MIC since 2022 to produce a shitload of things for Ukraine to kill the Russians with would have mattered positively far more than 'mobilising Russian society for war' would in a negative sense.  

Edited November 6, 2024 by urbanoid

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

If Trump manages to force the EU to finally get their act together on a serious security and defense policy, he might have a good effect.

Good effect for whom? an independent Europe is not going to profit the US, nor Israel. Note that, in contrast to other attempts (Napoleon, the Kaiser, Herr Hitler) Europe is now integrated politically before going to military hegemony. A better armed Europe centered on European problems means an agreed sphere of influence with Russia, a renewal of the agreements to buy resources from Russia and an agreement to share markets with China.

When you get to the bottom of Europe's security issues, they come from Africa, not Asia or the Middle East, which, given the increased hate of Israel from the left, is not good. Europe doesn't care that Taiwan is thrown under the bus if a good agreement is reached with the PRC, if already Ukraine is left hanging.

Needless to say, this will remove the US leverage vs Europe, so America better becomes Great Again.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

I'll start with trade.  The question becomes will Trump try to follow through on some of the comments he made on tariffs.  The issue is, he was all over the fucking place with what he said.  If he follows through with his most controversial ideas (large hikes on all imports across the board) that's not going to be good for Europe or the US.  There's a reason economists were supporting Harris and pubs like The Economist were not endorsing him.

As for Ukraine, I find it amusing some posters on here that are solidly pro-Ukraine seem to think Trump will be as well.  His comments were always fairly clear and what's leaked from his campaign (the war over now, territories in Russian hands not returned to Ukraine, no NATO membership for Ukraine) are hardly something those same posters would be behind.  With seeming total control of Congress going to the Rs we're looking at no further aid packages to Ukraine.  I'm not as up to date on how much of that Europe can replace themselves, but if they can't you now have the Ukraine facing a situation where they have no choice but to take a bad deal now which is basically a Russian win.

So threats of increased tariffs and perception that Ukraine aid will end. Got it. Thanks for the answer.

14 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Good effect for whom? an independent Europe is not going to profit the US, nor Israel.

I'd argue that it is, as the Axis members will be more fixed on their own neighborhoods and have less capacity to support each other.

[urbanoid]

A random opinion which imo has some merits:

Quote

No one asked, so I'll comment anyway. Well folks, it is what it is. He's back. The left is confused, the right is euphoric, and the Germans are hysterical. We'll read and hear a whole lot of snake oil salesmen trying to lure us into " EU autonomy", "EU army" and God only knows what other nonsense. The reality of the situations is, however - as uncomfortable as it may be - that everyone in Europe will bet on getting as close to the US as possible now.

Nevertheless, enhanced regional cooperation on the Eastern Flank of NATO alliance is becoming more important than ever. Poland, Romania, the Baltic republics, the mighty Nordic states and the UK have to increase connectivity, military interoperability, joint weaponry purchases, joint planning and training, consultations and whenever possible - joint political initiatives directed at the rest of Europe and the United States.

France and all Western European states should be pulled into cooperation as much as possible, but we have to realize there might be profound limitations on what they can actually offer, considering the state of their military, budgets, public debt, as well as social stamina and political appetite for increased spending.

Relationships with the weak links - entities penetrated too deeply by Russian influence and corrupted by Russian money and intelligence operations - namely Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Germany - have to be put on quarantine. They should be engaged, encouraged to change and attracted into helping our defense cause. But NOTHING relating to our security can be made dependent on them in ANY significant way.

New, constructive opening with the 2nd Trump administration has to be sought. He actually was enormously helpful the 1st time around, abolishing Obama's arms embargo and sending Javelins to Ukraine, as well as sabotaging Russo - German strategic partnership. The Nord Stream 2 sanctions are most likely responsible for a serious delay of Russian invasion. Yes, things have changed. The world has changed. We all feel it in our guts. Trump 2.0 is going to be different. But it's not yet clear it's gotta be all bad. Let's engage this new America. It's a brave new world, folks. Good night, and good luck

https://x.com/PawelSokala/status/1854200120826614171

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So threats of increased tariffs and perception that Ukraine aid will end. Got it. Thanks for the answer.

I'd argue that it is, as the Axis members will be more fixed on their own neighborhoods and have less capacity to support each other.

Tariffs would be the start of the slide downhill, what it means is that the West won't be the West anymore, it will be everyone for itself.

This will give the Axis members (I guess you mean China-Iran-Russia) the ability to exploit differences between different countries to access technologies, for example.

[urbanoid]

Why this dislike for ze German cars? Sure, they aren't what they used to be, but still...

Edited November 6, 2024 by urbanoid

[Mighty_Zuk]

Ok so I'm hearing mostly about tariffs, to a lesser extent a dovish Ukraine approach. Is there anything else noteworthy?

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Original poster made a joke and the reply was only semi-serious.

Possibly the 'worse' part was not necessarily about Russia/Ukraine, but about other policies, like immigration. 

Also from our perspective Merkel was barely better than her predecessor, still going forward with Nord Stream 2 and continuing this 'Russlandversteher' bullshit.

 

Btw. revitalisation/expansion of German MIC since 2022 to produce a shitload of things for Ukraine to kill the Russians with would have mattered positively far more than 'mobilising Russian society for war' would in a negative sense.  

But migration proves my point - she did what Germany was obligated to do. I have no doubt she would do the same when it comes to the Ukraine. And regarding North Stream 2, at the end of her term she had to work with the SPD, which loves North Stream and Germany is a federal state and the states must agree to most decisions, most SPD led states and all Eastern German states were deeply in favour of North Stream 2. Even the Greens would throw a hissy fit at the time, if you cut Russian gas and keep coal and atom going.

For all her faults, she imho is deeply convinced that you have to do, what you signed up to do.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

But migration proves my point - she did what Germany was obligated to do. I have no doubt she would do the same when it comes to the Ukraine. And regarding North Stream 2, at the end of her term she had to work with the SPD, which loves North Stream and Germany is a federal state and the states must agree to most decisions, most SPD led states and all Eastern German states were deeply in favour of North Stream 2. Even the Greens would throw a hissy fit at the time, if you cut Russian gas and keep coal and atom going.

For all her faults, she imho is deeply convinced that you have to do, what you signed up to do.

How was Germany OBLIGATED to do a 'herzlich wilkommen' which started a migrant wave from outside Europe? 

[seahawk]

EU law. Syrians were war refugees and had a right to stay in the EU. The people were in Europe already. It went wrong when Germany helped to create a very prospering migration industry by turning back practically nobody, but this continues up to today.

Edited November 6, 2024 by seahawk

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

EU law. Syrians were war refugees and had a right to stay in the EU. The people were in Europe already. It went wrong when Germany helped to create a very prospering migration industry by turning back practically nobody, but this continues up to today.

By this interpretation she could have invited every single war refugee from anywhere in the world. Some were in Europe, yes, but after the herzlich wilkommen a giant wave rose from the Middle East.

I'm pretty sure no one (relevant) would have blamed her for not doing it, it was her choice to do so. Why did she do it? Likely because she THOUGHT it would be a popular move.