this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
87 points (85.4% liked)

Europe

11128 readers
631 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
87
Discussion: Are the US trying to colonize Europe? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 days ago by stoicEuropean@lemmy.ml to c/europe@feddit.org
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I know this is a bold thesis. It is meant to provoke thought and encourage debate. Here are some of the considerations that led me to it:

  • Europe depends on US military protection, and the US uses this “alliance” as leverage -> NATO gives Washington structural influence over European security choices.

  • US tech firms dominate Europe’s cloud and software stack, creating digital dependency. Also, European data often sits under infrastructure exposed to US legal and corporate power.

  • Russian energy dependence was a problem for Europe when the Ukraine war started. The US were quite eager when it came to "help" by replacing the Russian energy dependence with American energy dependence.

  • US sanctions policy often forces Europe to absorb costs for Washington’s geopolitical priorities.

  • American platforms shape European speech, commerce, administration, and most importantly: public debate.

  • “Strategic autonomy” exists as a slogan because dependency is already the default.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoicEuropean@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful response and the well-reasoned arguments. Sometimes it is difficult to get a proper reality check when your own perspective is not seriously challenged. I think you actually convinced me and shifted my view closer to yours.

Since you seem very well informed, I would also be interested in your opinion on something else: I have the impression that the US and Russia are slowly but steadily moving toward strategic alignment. Perhaps this is because the US increasingly sees Russia as a potential geopolitical partner against the PRC.

What concerns me is that this dynamic reminds me, at least superficially, of the logic behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact between the USSR and the Third Reich. Do you think it is unreasonable to fear that Moscow and Washington could eventually seek to divide Europe into spheres of influence between themselves? Both powers appear to have imperial ambitions, and both seem increasingly determined to preserve or expand their respective spheres of influence.

Sure, Europe is far from defenseless. But a large-scale two-front conflict, especially if coordinated and sudden, would likely overwhelm Europe’s current military and political capacities. What's your opinion on that?

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Interesting question. I mean it probably depends a bit on how long we think the current political course of the USA lasts. Seems to me the current wannabe king lost quite some backing with the electorate. And all of the unsteadiness, extra cost for the economy, ... might not be very sustainable in the long run. So this situation might swing to the other direction sometime soonish?!

I think the USA overall might still have quite some of the original idea deep inside. It's just the current administration and whatever crazy things some individuals come up with. But it doesn't look to me like they're doing a lot of successful geopolitical strategy. I mean they do have ideas. But then they just do random things. One week they're big into conspiracy narratives against the jews, the next day they side with Israel and start a war. Which is another thing they promised to do less, a few months before that. They start some trade war against China, and they lose it. Then they do declare themselves the winner. I think only real strategy here is some Orwellian: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength... And their flood the zone strategy. But that mostly deals with the domestic population. A good amount of them is stupid and they cheer for Trump for deporting people. But at some point even they will realize the current rate at which Trump is doing it will leave you with immigrants for another 30-60 years. So he can't even meet the expectations of the xenophobes. In reality, that is. They can lie about it, and they do. But I guess at some point there will be a reality check. Plus there's also lots of clever and sane people in the USA.

So I don't see any proper attempt suitable to beat China or Europe. And I think the MAGA days are already numbered. So I just don't think we might be looking at a strategy like that in the near future.

And it takes two to tango. Putin has been following a long term strategy for decades already. And up to now, all his negotiations with the US and phone calls have turned out his way. Seems to me that kind of direction comes Putin's way. But idk. He's kinda weak? He misjudged the situation in Ukraine and he's now busy with that. He can't beat them. And he lost over a million men, wasted his weapon stockpile. His economy isn't doing good at all. I don't think he can afford another war, right now. Plus he already has a strategy against us and he'll probably stick with it for a little bit longer. He's doing this hybrid warfare to destabilize us. Fill our social media with misinformation, sow distrust, give suitcases filled with money to our most fascist and corrupt politicians. Sabotage our infrastructure... I think that's more like Putin. I don't expect any pact with the USA from him. At least not any pact that makes him promise anything to the USA.

Ultimately, I don't think Russia and the USA are even aligned. There's some overlap with the oligarchy and corruption going on. But it's not really like they follow the same goals. And the USA as a democratic country are supposed to do what the population wants, anyway. Not let some politicians do whatever, mostly for personal gain.

[–] huppakee@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

Sure, Europe is far from defenseless. But a large-scale two-front conflict, especially if coordinated and sudden, would likely overwhelm Europe’s current military and political capacities. What's your opinion on that?

You aren't asking for my opinion, but my two cents on this: if it's Europe alone vs Russia alone, Russia can do damage but not really win anything meaningful. But if it is Europe alone vs Russian with China (and NK), Russia could probably do whatever the fuck it wanted because China has the abilities to wipe out all our air defense systems and likely to kill all our communication channels.

I have the impression that the US and Russia are slowly but steadily moving toward strategic alignment. Perhaps this is because the US increasingly sees Russia as a potential geopolitical partner against the PRC.

Regarding this, i think they US is moving closer to Russia, but I'm not sure if it's because of strategy. It might be simply because Trump aspires to reign like Putin. Either way, the US considers China the biggest threat to their hegemony and while Russia and China are aligned they are both much stronger (Russia has the materials, China has the means to do something with that) so splitting them up would be a win, strategically. But it's unlikely as long as the UN Security Council continues to give 5 countries veto power, i can't imagine the 3 vs 2 (US, UK & France vs China & Russia) ever becoming 4 vs 1.