Summarizer

This is in large part because the US relies on their bases in allied countries at their grace.

We can remove them and do the isolationist thing as many have been clamoring for. Then we have no need for bases in Europe or the Middle East. Gulf States can figure out how to live with a nuclear armed Iran or one that has a repository of thousands of missiles to blow up gulf state infrastructure when they misbehave. We can remove the bases in Europe too, and when Russia invades Lithuania the Spanish and Germans can take care of it. Or perhaps these bases aren’t just in allied countries “at their grace”. These alliance systems don’t just solely benefit America.

USA is good at bombing places. It just so happen that it usually looses the wars after that and usually creates a lot more probpems for itself in the long run. Taliban is back in power, having stronger grap on power then before. Meanwhile, everybody knows what happens to those who cooperate with USA - they get abandoned and betrayed.

> it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon With what? The UK has already said we're not saving you this time. You're on your own now.

> The US can fly not only F-35 but even B-52. Well, looking at the news, it turns out they can't because every time they've put something up it's ended in a horrific crash. The US is militarily weak, and is utterly reliant on its NATO allies, who don't want to get involved in the current round of war crimes.

The real problem here is Israel. The zionists do not want an economically prosperous Iran. They actually want Iran to descend into civil war and starvation. Also the reason why Europeans hate this war- we all know were the refugees will end up.

Cut the BS please. The only ally US has is itself. The rest are either vassals or adversaries.

Number 1 reason why I want to see the United States of America and its very loud citizens get a taste of humble pie in this self-inflicted crisis of idiocy with global ramifications. Even when discussing a war that's obviously gone out of hand with no easy resolution in right, there's still this air, this attitude from American commenters that somehow the might and brilliance of the US military will prevail in the end and they can restore their position as leaders of the free world. Meanwhile the rest of the world has waited 50 years for this day. Let me have a little schadenfreude with my €2.20+ litre of petrol.

> America wages a war of revenge A war of what? Do you really believe that states wage war because of "revenge"? > Perhaps America isn't as dumb as you think No, they are dumber. If this presidency was in Europe - or any other 1st world country - it would have been obliterated immediately and the party wiped out in the next elections. > because of their strategic preparation. lol to that.

Great, you can now help genocide defenseless children, and attack countries to cause massive disruptions to the rest of the world, without much worry. Sure great strategy to get HATED, as you should be.

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America I think the Ukranians are still unimpressed with the withdrawal of US support, especially from the shells which were being manufactured in the US (now moved to Rheinmetall), and the de-sanctioning of Russian oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2871wyz9ko

Ukrainians are unimpressed that US no longer supports war to exhaustion. US in unimpressed that Ukraine supported other side in elections Problem is that US wants to distance itself instead of ending the conflict

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Should have worn a suit. The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides the point). Allies come to each others aid, the US has all but abandoned Ukraine after Trump came to power and did far less than it could have done early on. Why you would expect Ukraine to be generous after the numerous put downs and actions that were clearly organized to benefit Putin is a mystery to me.

This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.

I think when you start to threaten your former allies by wanting to attack/invade them you probably should be dinged in the trust department for that. The same goes for when you try to strongarm a country into fabricating evidence to shore up your lies. The USA was an ally in 1945 and has since steadily eroded that. In 2001 they briefly regained a lot of sympathy but squandered it just as fast and now we're at low tide. And I wonder how much lower it will go before people with common sense will be back at the helm and reparation of the relationship can begin, but I don't expect the aftershocks of this to be gone quickly. And no, help was not offered '90% of the time'. Most of the time it was just business in disguise, altruism did not factor into it as far as I can see.

Would you say we're worse than China these days (if so, what % of the time did China help Ukraine in the conflict)?

I would suggest that China are currently a more reliable partner than the US because of their predictability, given that I cannot be sure whether or not this statement alone might result in a change of tariffs for my nation at the whim of America's king. I'm still looking for congress in all of this (did they ever even approve this war in Iran?!?) but idk if the republic is a thing anymore or not.

hopefully this will all start to settle down around the end of this year if congress gets its teeth back and hopefully by the end of 2028. If it doesn't.... well then I despair, as the world I once knew is over. Already within the subreddits of my nation there is an increasingly dismissive attitude to the historic alliances that kept us safe for around the last hundred years and I can't blame them. Especially if Hormuz remains blocked and the US just walks away leaving this pile of sick of its own creation on the floor. I imagine a new rather loose coalition might rise of such a status quo and its possible that China becomes a major player in that, given its likely desire as a major manufacturer to keep trade open and shipping flowing, which is the opposite of what the US has been doing since 2025.

Both China and the USA have made many moves that benefit Putin. I would say neither party is a friend of Ukraine. China plays its own long games and the USA is being run by madmen. Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I don't like the way either is behaving on the world stage, and each for different reasons.

>Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I don't like the way either is behaving on the world stage, and each for different reasons. This is the perfect encapsulation of what I mean in my original response to you. This IS the popular European sentiment. And this is what is off-putting to many Americans. The weight of China and the US is not even worth preference, despite the US having contributed positively to the Ukrainian conflict and European defense. We are not even WORTHY of being placed above China, we're either just as bad or worse is the typical response I see.

You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe get with the times and then report back. Last I checked China hasn't threatened to take over either Canada or Greenland, has not started any major wars for which they expect the EU to pay for cleaning up their mess, has reasonably sane leadership and on top of that has been a fairly trustworthy business partner that does not engage in whim driven economic warfare. They also have a bunch of very dark sides that I am going to assume we are all familiar with. I really wonder why you think that the USA should be given a free pass for what it has done in the last decade. And that's before we get into human rights issues and other 'details'. Comparing yourself to China is not the flex you think it is. Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the point that you feel you need to pre-empt that classification then maybe HN is not the place for you?

> This IS the popular European sentiment. And this is what is off-putting to many Americans. You're not saying that it's wrong though. Just that you don't like it. So what, that means nothing. It's not wrong. Rejecting reality because it's "off-putting" will not help you.

The reply chain got too long so I will respond here. >You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe get with the times and then report back. Last I checked China hasn't threatened to take over either Canada or Greenland, has not started any major wars for which they expect the EU to pay for cleaning up their mess, has reasonably sane leadership and on top of that has been a fairly trustworthy business partner that does not engage in whim driven economic warfare. They also have a bunch of very dark sides that I am going to assume we are all familiar with. I'm aware of everything you've said. What I've noticed is Europeans just like to bash on the US given any reason. My original point is (proven by the exact quote of your words) that this type of European sentiment is accelerating a two-sided voluntary parting. Nothing much more than that. I am not defending the US's actions. >Comparing yourself to China is not the flex you think it is. Once again you are proving my point. Europeans are typically not willing to place the US above China. Any attempt to get them to do so will provoke this type of response. >Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the point that you feel you need to pre-empt that classification then maybe HN is not the place for you? Calling me a troll is just an attack on me and not my argument. That's ok though, no offense taken. The bio is provocation for people who dig into people's profiles. I don't like to do that. I just take the person's posts as is.

> Europeans are typically not willing to place the US above China. This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array with tons of values that all individually can be ranked. One some of these the USA is better than China on others it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just not how the world works. > The bio is provocation for people who dig into people's profiles. I don't like to do that. I just take the person's posts as is. And that's not true either because you clearly checked my account upthread to link it to Europe.

>This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array with tons of values that all individually can be ranked. One some of these the USA is better than China on others it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just not how the world works. This is correct... and like I said the common European sentiment. I think we've exhausted this dialogue. We're restating the same things in more words. >And that's not true either because you clearly checked my account upthread to link it to Europe. Your post I originally responded to says "Should have worn a suit." and also mentions Europe and Ukraine. That's basically the entire context of our back and forth. If you have many other posts about the US and Europe's relationship... well I have no knowledge of those posts.

> This is correct... and like I said the common European sentiment It's actually the common *global* "sentiment", in that it is the natural conclusion of any rational actor regardless of location, and also in that most of the world feels this way. Europe has nothing to do with it – all the countries being slighted by the USA, including non-European ones, are coming to grips with the same conclusion: the USA can no longer be relied upon*. * – except when israel asks

Let's not extend this beyond the European opinion, especially since it's obvious that East Asia does not share the same point of view. East Asia and Europe have very different threats that shape their opinion of the US fundamentally. Europe does not have China breathing down their neck, and with Russia bogged down they have even less to worry about. Europe can freely reject the US, which is what this chain of comments is about, the popular European sentiment. In contrast, if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan, it would be in a minority and publicly disagreed with as their nation's existence hinges on positive US sentiment. To a lesser degree, the same thing in other East Asian countries.

> Europeans are typically not willing to place the US above China. You keep saying this as if it's not a totally reasonable position given the behavior of the USA towards others over the past year or so.

The other poster mentioned the opinions about the US and China being multi-faceted, I like to see it with vectors. My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector? If the average vector points left the opinion favors China, if it points right the opinion favors the US. The American point of view is, yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security. These are two separate vectors, right? Now average them. And plot China's vectors. I imagine the vectors China produces is much lower in magnitude, and as such provokes a lower emotional response in terms of opinions.

> My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector? It's an interesting question! Since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of Europeans, I'll toss it back your way to answer (with data, of course). > yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security. "Yes, we did threaten to invade a sovereign European country for territorial conquest, but we also did good things in the past" is really weak. How has the US helped Europe's security over the last year? Most of the work in that direction over several decades is being intentionally destroyed as of late by the USA's ruler as a signature policy position of his. We all understand that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, right? What happened recently outweighs what happened previously.

> suddenly we are more an enemy than China That’s a straw man. Nobody argued that before you mentioned it.

I make a distinction between the US and the Biden and Trump administrations. Biden was incompetent and timid, Trump is a greedy megalomaniac. The key problem is that the US system elected either of them. Both have savaged US interests in the name of putting America first, while actually acting for small vested interests, like cronies and the Israel lobby. Pretending America has been a strong ally is foolish. The Biden policy yo-yo has resulted in thousands of dead Ukrainians, while Trump has actively sided with Russia in negotiations and cut off meaningful aid. But Ukraine is now essential for NATO security. It is fortunate they see EU membership as their future, because a Russia or China aligned Ukraine would be a huge problem.

I might be wrong (am not a geopolitical expert) but my guess is that if the US doesn't get this resolved by itself; most countries in the world are going to rage at it harder (like an order of magnitude harder) than during the tariffs war of last year. Many countries ranging from advanced allies like Japan to random poor countries like the Philippines will see economic damages that are way worse than tariffs. Iran was a hornet nest. A hornet nest is annoying and dangerous to have around. But it makes no sense to break it open with no plan on how to properly handle the fallout.

The issue is that the administration has kicked the bee hive, and is now claiming that securing passers by from angry bees has nothing to do with them. Its a great way to diminish what lingering shreds of trust the (hopefully) former allies of the US may still have had. The US has better ways to decrease oil prices internally that commit to losing boats in the strait.

> the people will definitely demand war and a navy to escort private oil tankers if it means they get to drive for $0.01 less per gallon. This was more true in the 70s: the various fuel economy improvements mean that the impact is reportedly less than half this fine, and the millions of people who bought a hybrid or BEV don’t even notice. I think there’s less of an “war at any cost” bloc now, especially after the humiliating collapse of the last Republican president’s big Middle Eastern learning opportunity, and a lot of people would be willing to abandon Israel to fight Netanyahu’s war alone if it saved them money at the pump.

> im from eu Yeah, the ultimate place of military preparedness.

How many innocent fishermen are you willing to murder? And of course, the famine in Balochistan that would follow. Maybe not a great idea if you want an uprising of the Balochi against the Persians. Oman is a regional ally, but they would not stand idly by while their citizens are killed.

This is true for most militaries, of course, some more than others - see the Hague Invasion Act[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

While that US law only says that USA should use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court", in reality USA has always used any means necessary for protecting their military personnel from suffering consequences from breaking the local laws not only in the cases of crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of ICC, but also for any common crimes, e.g. by smuggling out of the respective foreign country military personnel guilty of killing people while driving drunk, in order to escape trial and sentence.

I'm not a Trump fan, but this isn't just the Trump admin, is it. Every administration since Carter has had to deal with Iran, whose stated raison d'être is to eradicate both Israel and the US. That's been their position for 40 years. My own view is that if you have the power to delete your enemy while he's weak, you do it. Why the fuck would you wait until he gets the nukes he promises to get, or uses them on you like he also promises to do? At least the Israelis seem to understand this. The US has already alienated their allies anyway, and as we've seen with this fiasco, it isn't like those allies are particularly useful anyway, so if the US did use nukes to very quickly solve what has been an intergenerational problem, so what? Oh no, condemnation from the international community. Nobody cares.