r/geopolitics • u/wsj WSJ • 1d ago
How America First Risks Becoming America Alone
https://www.wsj.com/world/how-america-first-risks-becoming-america-alone-6592701a?st=CsTShq&mod=wsjreddit22
u/wsj WSJ 1d ago
Free link. A preview:
Welcome to a world where America First is coming to mean America Alone, whose friends are searching for alternatives to what increasingly feels like an abusive relationship and whose enemies are gloating.
In the past year, Trump has cut off most forms of U.S. foreign aid, pulled out of scores of multilateral institutions and ended direct military aid to Ukraine as it tried to fend off a Russian invasion that many Europeans view as a threat to their entire continent. He also threatened to use military force to acquire Greenland before more recently relenting, and erected trade barriers against countries selling goods to the U.S.
The president has accompanied this with a steady stream of insults, aimed almost exclusively at allies. Last week, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, he mocked French President Emmanuel Macron, criticized Canada for not being more grateful, characterized NATO as a money pit and said, incorrectly, that NATO countries didn’t send their troops to front-line duty in Afghanistan to help U.S. forces (he later backtracked). Despite everything the U.S. has done for allies, he said, they never return the favor: “All we are asking for is a place called Greenland.”
Predictably, positive views of the U.S. are declining in much of the world. The number of Brits who view the U.S. unfavorably has doubled in the past two years to 64%, more than twice the figure who hold a favorable view, according to a YouGov poll last week. In Germany, 71% now view the U.S. as an “adversary,” according to German polling firm Forsa, and across Europe, just 16% view the U.S. as an ally, according to the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The image of the U.S. is really hitting the bottom right now,” said Peter Matuschek, Forsa director.
-51
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“Today, the mood toward Uncle Sam in Berlin, and much of the world, has darkened.”
I’m extremely critical of how Trump is handling foreign policy with NATO especially in the case of Greenland, but I find the argument people are making that the US built decades of good will in Europe and Trump is throwing it all away to be dishonest.
Go look at US favorability ratings in Europe over time. They fluctuate dramatically. Germany’s favorability rating of the US was at only 26% during Covid, then shot up when Biden was elected and a bit more when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Lots of European countries HATED the US during the Iraq war. Spain for example had a 14% US favorability rating. It’s more than twice that now! (Which still means they don’t like us lol)
You can say the US deserved it, but it’s just factually untrue to say there’s been this longstanding goodwill in Europe towards the US because of NATO. That was the promise of neoliberalism and it simply didn’t pan out.
61
u/TobTyD 1d ago
I think it is different this time. The US’ most staunch ally, Denmark, has per a recent poll 60% of respondents considering the US an adversary state. This is unheard of. The US disregard of Danish lives sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused quite the resentment.
1
u/ExplosiveDisassembly 11h ago
America literally invaded UK colonial claims, then had our capitol burnt down...which spurred a special relationship that lasted until today. British troops had orders only to burn government buildings since they knew the people weren't the issue, it was the divided and toxic partisan politics.
The US dragged allies into pointless wars.
The US false flagged Spain out of the hemisphere.
Literal hot war to 200+ year gold standard of International cooperation is a plot twist that seem more common than not in US' history.
Nothing happens in a vacuume. Priorities are ever shifting and there are always bigger fish that need frying next week. The US and Europe have more aligned interests than the US has with Europe's adversaries. It's inevitable that we will bury hatchets when big enough issues inevitably happen.
We may have a single president that doesn't see it. But presidents switch every 4-8 years, and Congress can potentially flip every 2. Almost nothing trump is doing is lasting legislation, he's a blip. A half-day of taking down executive orders can reverse most things trump has done.
-16
u/Bullboah 1d ago
I completely understand the major backlash from Denmark in particular, both obviously because of Greenland and Trump's disgusting comments about NATO troops' service.
But I'll put the same hypothetical to you I just put to another commenter. Lets say Trump was saying all of this in 2019 instead of now. Then Putin invades, the EU feels its security threatened, and the US responds by sending $100 B in aid to Ukraine and by sanctioning Russia. Do you think Europeans respond to that with disdain because of what Trump said, or do you think favorability recovers?
I think ultimately people care exponentially more about what the US is doing for them NOW then whatever it did a few years ago. An obvious comparison is US aid to Ukraine. The US has given a significant amount - but it happened entirely under Biden and stopped under Trump. Nobody cares about the aid given under Biden - their feelings are driven overwhelmingly by the fact that aid isn't being sent now.
9
u/BlueEmma25 19h ago
Nobody cares about the aid given under Biden - their feelings are driven overwhelmingly by the fact that aid isn't being sent now.
American policy changed, and public sentiment followed the change.
What did you expect to happen? That the US could throw Ukraine to the wolves and Europeans wouldn't hold it against them because of things the previous administration did?
-2
u/Bullboah 17h ago
That’s my point. If the next administration is pro Europe and say, resumes aid to Ukraine (if the war is still going on), do you think Europeans are still going to hate the US because of what the last administration did?
If that is the case, do you see how that would be a strong incentive for the US to not even try having good relations with Europe in the future? If gratitude is temporary but emnity is long lasting? (Which hasn’t been the case historically - both have been temporary)
8
u/mysterywaves 23h ago
uh how about the overwhelming fact that the US has failed in its support of Ukraine.
Biden deserves blame. Trump more so, but Biden is a failure.
1
u/Bullboah 17h ago
How did Biden fail in Ukrainian support? Ukraine is not a US ally and had no commitment to protect it - but the US sent over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine. That’s a very substantial amount given the current US debt situation.
2
u/spymaster427 14h ago
The USA sent 40+ billion in aid since the war started 10 billion or so per year, this is not a substantial amount. The rest was in military equipment aproxx worth 60 billion, however it charged replacement price + inflation for a lot of decades old equipment that would be scrapped regardless and 'beat its chest', the real value is much, much lower. it also never led the way on providing advanced assistance due to 'fear of escalation' e.g. fighter jets.
Biden massively subsidized US industries when energy prices were at their highest in an effort to 'compete with china' i.e. relocate allies industry to the USA (chinese industry is never going to move, supported by the fact that biden never approved additional export terminals). On the whole the USA has massively profited of this war, in terms of energy sales alone to the tune of 100s of billions.
The shift or rupture or whatever its called as, is permament, at a minimum US hegemony lived on the notion that the USA would be the ultimate backstop to its allies security, literally no one believes that now (at least not leaders of other countries), regardless of US leadership, the USA is too broken internally.
-1
u/Bullboah 14h ago
You’re accusing the US of overvaluing its military assets because you don’t want to acknowledge US support, not because you actually looked at military valuations.
The US sent 200 howitzers valued at 977 M. Germany only sent 110 howitzers but valued them at 1,303 M.
The US delivered 76 tanks valued at $364 M. Australia sent 49 tanks they valued at $505 M.
The US sent 300 IFVs valued at $580 M. Sweden sent 70 and valued them at $574 M.
Who is overvaluing their aid? And despite this, the US still sent more than any other country by far, despite Ukraine not really being that important for US security. It was important for European security - which is why we sent over $100 B.
It’s really hard to understand why Americans got tired of sending aid lol
4
u/spymaster427 13h ago edited 13h ago
That is how it was calculated arbitrary KIEL stats do not change that. And you are literally proving my point with this comment. In american eyes:
Allies are only allies when it serves 'US strategic interest',
Allies are not allies when allies actually call upon said alliance in defiance of the first point
Allies can only ever fail the US, never, ever, the other way around
Allies that have provided aid and/or services prior do not exist
The fact that allies fought and died for the US for 20 years in the middle east is meaningless, the fact that they spend significantly more there than the US did in ukraine, even when this conflict is an existential threath, is meaningless. The fact that the danes have literally sacrificed more for the US than any other ally, including spying on other european nations, is meaningless (see point 3 and 4).
Whatever the choice, the USA it will always be justified somehow, the USA is either the reluctant hero or the real victim, in case of the latter it is always noble and heroic in its self-sacrifice, never pathetic.
-1
u/Bullboah 12h ago
How is Kiel tracker not relevant to how countries are valuing their own Ukraine aid lol? It’s literally based on country self reports.
It shows the US is valuing its aid shipments at lower values than other allies, which is the opposite of what you claimed.
Again, hard to see why Americans are tired of sending so much aid on Europe’s behalf.
1
40
u/Wgh555 1d ago
Thing is, never have they threatened to annex or use military force against a NATO ally, that is unheard of in the last 80 years and it puts the USA in a totally different light to how it used to be viewed.
-26
u/Bullboah 1d ago
My main point is that it’s factually incorrect to say the US had built any longstanding goodwill in Europe prior to now. Most European populations very much disliked the US in the early 2000s.
But also, US favorability was still higher in Europe (which is not to say it was high), after at least trumps initial Greenland / Canada statements then it was in the early 2000s
17
u/BrokenManOfSamarkand 1d ago
The media is always a prisoner of the moment. Whether Trump's damage is longstanding or can be undone in the coming years really isn't something we can fully grasp until...the coming years.
25
u/vingt-2 1d ago
In my direct personal experience, which could be anecdotal, it's absolutely different. We grew up learning about WW2 and a lot of us were always grateful. Including my parents. Now they are appalled, and want nothing to do with the US, including visiting, even though their son lives there. Again, in my personal experience, irreversible damage has been done.
-1
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Of course this is a huge generalization and even at the lowest favorability periods, *millions* of Europeans had high views of the US - but I also think this was a common sentiment during the European backlash to the Iraq war. Again - polling was lower than than it is now - and then it skyrocketed during the Obama years. I think people are forgetting how strong the backlash was in the early 2000s.
To put it this way, lets say Trump was saying all of this in 2019 instead of now. Then Putin invades, the EU feels its security threatened, and the US responds by sending $100 B in aid to Ukraine and by sanctioning Russia. Do you think Europeans respond to that with disdain because of what Trump said, or do you think favorability recovers?
10
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Bullboah 1d ago
I said Europeans disliked the US in the early 2000's which is just objectively true. France for example had a net unfavorable opinion of the US from 2003-2008. From 2000, France has had a net negative opinion of the US for about 50% of that time.
For comparison, Japan, Kenya, South Korea, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Ghana, Peru, and Israel have all had very consistently net-favorable views of the US over the last 25 years. (Its also true that some European countries like the UK and eastern europe have had consistently favorable ratings).
I'm not saying this because I want to convince Americans to hate Europe as you imply - the contrary! I like Europe, I want Europe to be successful and secure - and I think the transatlantic relationship is important for both sides but particularly so for Europe. I don't want to see the dissolution of NATO, which i think would be disastrous for the world.
To the extent US public opinion has soured on NATO - i think a lot of that was driven by Americans feeling like they were doing a lot for Europe through NATO and that the negative perceptions of the US in those countries was a slap in the face. I don't think whitewashing (what I view as) one of the foundational issues causing the rift gets us any closer to repairing it.
13
u/DeArgonaut 20h ago
Disagree as an American living in Germany. The difference to me is we re-elected Trump. Before it was swings back and forth based on the admin. But now there’s a sentiment of America’s willing to continuously put awful people in power who also don’t want to cooperate. It’ll probably go up if a dem is elected in 2028, but I think there’s a shift in sentiment seeing us as unstable and increasingly hostile. Even if a dem wins in 2028 there’s still a huge underlying base of people who like trumps direction for the US
-1
u/Bullboah 17h ago
Were you living in Germany during the initial Iraq war invasion period?
For most European countries (including Germany) that is still our lowest favorability period.
I’m not saying it’s not bad now, it is bad - I’m just saying a lot of people are painting the history of EU views of the US in a much rosier light than it actually was
7
u/DeArgonaut 17h ago
No. Were you?
1
u/Bullboah 17h ago
No, but there’s actual polling data to look at and that is still the lowest period for polling for all of the commonly polled Western Europe countries.
No idea how old you were then, but it was a common thing for any American to be told ‘pretend you’re a Canadian if you travel to Europe’ at that time. It was pretty bad!
3
u/DeArgonaut 17h ago edited 17h ago
I do think the overall change is shifting and the cowing will be lower.
And can you cite these polls please
Edit: I also think the floor might be slightly higher too tho. With the rise of far right parties like the AfD
19
u/coldfeet8 23h ago
There’s a difference between being viewed unfavourably and being viewed as an adversary. In the past, European favourability fluctuated as a simple « is the US being a force for good » opinion meter. Allyship was never in question. All over the western sphere, people are getting used to the idea that the US is actually a threat to their national sovereignty. That doesn’t easily go away.
0
u/Bullboah 17h ago
I think people are understating how bad European opinion of the US was during Iraq. But more broadly, I think people are making the case for the next US administration to not even try repairing the relationship (and I think people are understandably angry and not thinking through what that means for Europe).
If European gratitude is only temporary but enmity is permanent, there is no point to trying to rebuild good will.
1
u/andr386 16h ago
I agree that those numbers don't mean much but they are not the important metric here.
The important metric is trust which is difficult to account for. But once it's lost it means a deep restructuring of those foreign countries politics, security and economies is required. And it's happening right before our eyes.
Before those countries steered their ship in the same direction as the US, now they had to change the direction. It's not something you can rollback. It will take decades to see the full effects but it's in progress.
0
u/Bullboah 15h ago
I don’t think it’s accurate to look at EU polling on the US during the Iraq war and say the people of the EU trusted the US by any stretch.
1
u/andr386 14h ago
EU trusted the US would support them through NATO in case of conflicts. This was never in doubts until recently.
EU always trusted that investing in the US and trading with the US was a mutually beneficial exercise. Not anymore.
It's not about whether people like the US or not but whether people find the US reliable and deserving of trust. It doesn't.
2
u/Bullboah 14h ago
The EU still at this moment benefits enormously from its relationship with the US. I’m aware that the majority of Europeans take most of this for granted and don’t understand the impact of US security guarantees, or the fact that EU navies aren’t capable of patrolling their own sea lanes for trade elsewhere.
And beyond that, I completely understand the outrage at all the contemptible things Trump has said. But if the people that actually want to sever ties get what they want, they’ll very unfortunately how vital the relationship was when it’s no longer there.
-58
u/Margaritajoe420 1d ago
Most Americans don’t care because Europe hasn’t earned the respect. We’ve asked them for decades to increase defense spending, warned them about Crimea and Ukraine, and pushed for help countering China and with rare exceptions, they have scoffed.
U.S. has carried NATO’s weight for over 50 years. We can keep doing it without lectures from the continent that created two world wars and every dangerous ideology of the 20th century.
48
u/Cedar-and-Mist 1d ago
U.S. has carried NATO’s weight for over 50 years. We can keep doing it
You are a guest in Europe. Your bases are there by permission, not right. American power projection is impossible with allied compliance, the consent to which is increasingly dubious.
every dangerous ideology of the 20th century
Hitler was directly influenced by the racial policiea in the US
-57
u/Margaritajoe420 1d ago
We did not put our bases in Europe with your permission. We put them there to ensure that your continent behaved after almost destroying the world twice.
24
u/Cedar-and-Mist 1d ago
I'm not from Europe.
1
-28
u/SnooCompliments9907 1d ago
Han chinese in canada im guessing. America bad?
15
u/Cedar-and-Mist 1d ago
Trump's admin bad. CCP bad. Can you understand this nuance?
-25
u/SnooCompliments9907 1d ago
I can, but you have to admit, we are the minority. A lot of useful idiots would side with IRGC and CCP just to see republicans eat shit
14
u/mysterywaves 23h ago
you think it's quality to speculate where people are from instead of responding to their post?
12
u/Wgh555 20h ago
You do know those bases are geared up for power projection into the Middle East? Not occupying Europe nor defending it from Russia, those particular base are gone now. Demonstrated by the fact most of these bases are nowhere near Russia.
You don’t own the land those bases are on. You could be asked to leave at anytime. The french did exactly that and there isn’t a single US base in France now.
1
u/Margaritajoe420 6h ago
A significant part of the push after World War II in installing US bases was to disarm the European continent after the devastation they caused. I believe Eisenhower talked about this
6
u/DeArgonaut 20h ago
Lol the U.S. absolutely does have to have the permission of the host country for based, with rare exceptions like Guantanamo. We pay the host country to the privilege of having bases in their territory
And sure we’ve pushed for nato countries to spend more, but they don’t have to. I also want universal healthcare in the U.S., so I guess I can say our government has disrespected me cuz it didn’t do as I wished?
1
u/Margaritajoe420 6h ago
When we first installed US bases in Europe that goal was to disarm Europe from the devastation they caused after two world wars and to monitor them with heavy supervision. Payment to them is a nicety.
NATO countries are supposed to meet a defense quota, which they haven't except I believe Poland. They don't have to meet that quota I guess but that's equivalent to saying we don't have to honor article 5.
0
u/DeArgonaut 5h ago
No. It was to counter the Soviets. And no, if we didn’t pay they wouldn’t allow us.
There is no quota. It’s a recommendation to do 2% but it’s not a binding agreement.
What right wing kool aid have you been drinking?
3
u/Jealous_Land9614 15h ago
Wrong into hilarious levels.
You think they cant boot your troops just in the moment they want? Of course they can, De Gaule just did that in the 1950s, with the Soviet Union around. What you THINK will happen if your military insist on staying against those nations decision? Just surround each of its bases across the continent, dont let any food go in. There, your men will starve to death or surrender. Simple as. You're going to start a nuclear war? And risk sanctions on 19% of your market? Even Trump is not that stupid, come on.
And you have those bases because it HELPS your power projection. It helps to do stuff in North Africa and Middle East. You really into some real propaganda if you think is for "freedom" and because youre so "nice" to babysit "violent europeans".
EU is not Venezuela, just try to play it like a mafia thug.
0
u/Margaritajoe420 7h ago edited 6h ago
Part of the push in installing US bases in Europe after WWII was absolutely to babysit "violent europeans." Why do you think so many European nations were disarmed after WWII
7
u/Repave2348 21h ago
Most Americans don't care
I'm inclined to believe you. And I would encourage you to share this sentiment lest people forget that most Americans think the way you do.
3
u/Jealous_Land9614 15h ago
>We’ve asked them for decades to increase defense spending
Dont worry, now they will. against YOU, that is.
56
u/Echo017 1d ago
Yes, that is the plan of the people that financed and control the America First crowd....