> Worryingly, European populists are espousing more assertively anti-Ukrainian views. Viktor Orban focused his unsuccessful election campaign to remain Hungarian prime minister on that theme. Meanwhile ECFR’s polling shows that voters of the far-right Freedom Party in Austria (FPÖ), the AfD in Germany, two far-right parties in Poland, and the governing and populist Progressive Bulgaria all see Ukraine as chiefly a “rival” or “adversary”.
Yes, because Russia's propaganda, espionage and corruption arm has been focusing on the far-right parties for the past two decades, breaking from their previous focus on the far left.
Russia doesn't really differentiate between right and left when it comes to trying to destabilize Europe, they throw random shit against the wall and then focus on what sticks.
This is an oversimplification, I would not consider Orban far right and PB are more populist left if anything. And it's not all Russia's fault, in Bulgaria the pro-Russian government came into power after five years of self-proclaimed pro-Western politicians attacking the institutions for their own political gain. Well, it misfired.
So Orbán is not far-right, but somehow American far-right politicians and influencers like J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson loved him as a shining example of the kind of nationalist illiberal state they want to create. Hmm.
I hope the EU population understands that Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance.
If the EU wants Ukraine to shield it from drones, send more air defense systems. If the EU wants to end the war, give Ukraine more long-range missiles. If you want Ukraine to hold on, then spend money on rebuilding its infrastructure.
But as we see, the EU is not rushing to help. It still supplies goods to Russia or buys from it because it benefits the EU’s economy.
Ukraine is the EU’s only ally that will protect you. What other military threats does Europe face besides Russia?
> Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance.
This is highly delusional. Don't you think that if the US and Russia were an alliance, the US would provide intelligence and communication to Russia, and not to Ukraine?
Kind of a misleading title, but an interesting article. It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Some of these opinion polls are not particularly useful though, as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US. I’m not sure it’s all that relevant how much a western EU country feels about the prospect of being attacked, as I don’t see how Portugal or Spain or France are at much geopolitical risk compared to the eastern flank.
> It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Look at the Denmark graph (adversarial going up). I do not think in that case it is about "the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks" but about the US itself doing that.
It's also interesting that, while the "ally" curve is going down for all included countries, in some countries the "partner" (which is a weaker form of ally) curve is going up to partly compensate for that, while in others (mostly southern European, plus Switzerland and, of course, Denmark), it's also going down.
I think its interesting that they Estonia has both the biggest swing against increasing defence spending (+23 to +1, from middle of the pack to second last), and the highest rate of blaming their own government for fuel prices. I wouldn’t have expected either result.
Those are not different things, "willing to defend" is just the prerequisite of "actually be able to defend". Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves. Look at Iran, how resilient they are despite decades of sanctions and their shitty regime.
When things start moving people can move mountains, suddenly the unemployment goes to %0 like it happened with Russia, market forces get dominated by state forces, moats like network effect or IP go to the trash.
Ukraine is essentially acting as a human shield for the EU right now. My friends in the SBU/ National Guard are terrified, even though they haven’t even seen combat yet. They’re stationed in a city that’s essentially 50% Russian. Even a civilian could shoot them in the back.
Ukrainians don't act as a human shield for EU, if they wanted to be part of Russia they could have joined them.
EU doesn't fore anyone to fight for them, it enables those who want to fight Russia to eventually be independent state and member of EU.
May I ask from which country you are, you are talking of position that implies that Ukrainians don't have agency. It's a Russian talking point(Ukrainians could have not chosen to join NATO and EU since they don't have agency, EU tricked them or NATO forced them to fight Russia, therefore Russia isn't the agressor but the defender here against the EU/NATO aggression).
> Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves.
How can you type such nonsense? Look at 2014 Crimean annexation - thats "how good they defended themselves" without western training and billions in weapon aid. After four years they have million plus dead but "this is fine" for the west.
There was no fight in Crimea, Russians rented a base there and one day decided not to extend the rental agreement and that they own Crimea now. Most of the Ukrainian soldiers switched sides and joined Russia and it was over without a bullet fired.
So US may decide that they now own Germany because they have the Ramstein Air base but I don't think it will go as smoothly.
There are old videos from the time on Youtube, check it out.
[citation needed] - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain..., the only source that says that there are more than 1 million killed and wounded (!) Ukrainian soldiers is the Russian Ministry of Defense, which I wouldn't consider very trustworthy...
Psychologically, becoming a soldier will be difficult for everyone; if Russia launches an offensive against the EU, the regular army alone will not be enough.
Russia has been wringing itself out to find enough soldiers to continue the war in Ukraine, and while they haven't been driven out just yet, I think it would be somewhere between "a massive stretch" and "flat-out untrue" to say they're winning.
And by and large, the rest of Europe is farther away, has a much worse/less clear casus belli from Russia's point of view, and, crucially, is part of NATO, and thus will not be fighting alone (and yes, I know Ukraine is getting a lot of support from Europe, but support isn't the same as boots on the ground).
If Russia launches an offensive against the EU, there's a damn good chance that offensive boomerangs right back around into its face.
Yeah that Schrodinger Russia again: it is being stuck for years, unable to take some small village in Donetsk region, and simultaneously is a grave threat that looms over Europe, ready to quickly overrun their capital cities.
It’s not that Russia is strong because of its economy or its military. The point is that it is strong like a criminal, a mugger with a knife on the streets of Frankfurt. Or, if you will, a pigeon playing chess with you—it will scatter all the pieces and defecate on the board, then strut around like a winner with its chest puffed out. That’s Russia for you; it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to. Look at the EU’s military exercises—the soldiers aren’t ready for drone attacks yet.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately.
If he's being downvoted for his "selling weapons to Israel" comment, I just want to highlight that even a majority of Germans is against it, with 80% not wanting to send weapons [1]. Of course there are different polls, and others find that "only" 30% say "stop them", plus another 43% saying "limit them [2]. Either way, only a small minority is pro "send all the weapons".
Wars and military matters are literally life and death. I try not to speculate about downvotes, but here I expect there are people who are primed to get quite emotional when someone tells them they shouldn't start arming up.
I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.
The long term viability of the UK nukes does rather depend on support from the US though - they use our own fissile material, but the warhead designs are believed to largely be based on the US W76 and the actual Trident missiles come from a pool controlled by the US.
I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?
And I think even before 1950 there was a feeling, particularly in the US, that it was good to have the Germans on-side in a military conflict due to their recent experience fighting the Soviets.
With access to Internet in my late teens came the exposure to an intellectual, cultured leftist America I did not know existed.
Now 20 years later, it really does not exist anymore.
The US is a business,not a country, and it hates its own citizens.
"X is a land of contrasts" is a cliche, but: America is a land of contrasts. It manages to have elements both of shining city on the hill and squalid banana republic (resource extraction economy with poor rule of law) adjacent to each other.
But yes, the main natural predator of Americans is other Americans.
> Europeans embrace self-reliance and are clear-eyed about Donald Trump—but do not expect a permanent break from the US.
That's a wrong analysis IMO. I think NATO as it was is completely dead. Europeans need a nuclear arsenal too (french and UK nukes are for those two countries only; that does not protect several hundred millions people). Russia is threatening escalation every day, including using nukes. Europeans need their own nukes here - relying on a corrupt orange man acting like a russian asset, is a losing strategy. Even having another guy act and roleplay as president, won't really change this fundamental problem.
For what is worth, France offered to extend its nuclear umbrella to protect other European countries, offer accepted by 9 countries so far. Okay it's not permanent, doesn't necessary mean deployments in those countries, but still things are moving and the direction is obvious.
Europe also needs to be in a position where it can quickly deploy the anti-coercion instrument[0] should a foreign power interfere in elections or threaten territorial integrity. The last time it was on the table didn't give me confidence they could.
Absolutely agree. Mutual destruction needs to be assured both with Russia AND the US, because who knows who they'll elect president next - Joe Rogan? Alex Jones? xAI?
And in addition we need a "Star Wars" iron dome that works against nuclear as well. The EU needs to become the first super-power who has a shot at a winnable nuclear war.
After all we gave to the world EVERYTHING it has, including the "United States", including the Japanese and Chinese economic miracle, including non-Barbaric culture to Russia.
So we should be able to take it away from all of them without consequences.
We need less unhinged sephiroth-posting and more recognition that neither Japan nor China could be kept poor and backwards forever, since we forcibly opened their economies at gunpoint centuries ago.
Atlanticist polls are probably more interesting (if there even is such a thing) when considering which questions they didn't even ask, rather than the questions they asked confirming all the establishment positions anyway.
Is there an establishment in the room with us right now?
Let me know, because I want to make sure that I'm aligned with this mystical Western Atlantacist Anglo-Saxon (insert Russian propaganda snarl-word du jour) hive mind.
Would this make a difference though? The USA abandoned Europeans already before Trump. You only have to look at the polls. Thus, it makes sense to completely cut the ties, build up a nuclear arsenal and offset the mafia in Moscow. It makes no sense for Europeans to want to depend on the USA here; I have no idea who came up with that idea. Most likely the USA as it helped them project power. See how many bombing campaigns started from US bases in Germany, most famously from Ramstein.
Well the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power, then business as usual can continue. Beyond that broad agreement with US - EU alignment on foreign policy (NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, China) must continue even under Trump. Trump is even seen as an opportunity to convince Europeans to increase its own "NATO compatible" military spending.
What I meant was it would be more interesting to see any opinions that conflict with that above establishment consensus. For example on negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war vs. continuing the forever war. Like where do Europeans disagree with the strategic interests of the US, do they really 100% align as this poll makes it appear? How is that possible?
When Trump lefts the office, there is still the younger generation to replace him (JD Vance, Rubio). Europeans still remember the 2025 JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference, the message was clear: The centrist governments in Europe are not partners for Republican party, only the far-right parties.
> the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power
Is it? This is not entirely clear. And if it seemed the case, it's increasingly not looking realistic. It won't fully go back to normal, now that it's clear that the US is one election away from not only backing away from commitments, but itself threatening invasion of supposed allies.
A defense partner that sometimes announces that it's no longer an ally isn't really a defense partner, since The Enemy has the choice of when to attack and an understanding of game theory.
And as a reliable trading partner the US apparently has very poor guardrails for suddenly not honoring deals and established norms.
Turns out that the only checks&balances in the US political system is impeachment (which, as we know, is a political and not judicial process), and it's apparently impotent to protect against a rogue executive branch.
> Worryingly, European populists are espousing more assertively anti-Ukrainian views. Viktor Orban focused his unsuccessful election campaign to remain Hungarian prime minister on that theme. Meanwhile ECFR’s polling shows that voters of the far-right Freedom Party in Austria (FPÖ), the AfD in Germany, two far-right parties in Poland, and the governing and populist Progressive Bulgaria all see Ukraine as chiefly a “rival” or “adversary”.
Yes, because Russia's propaganda, espionage and corruption arm has been focusing on the far-right parties for the past two decades, breaking from their previous focus on the far left.
Russia doesn't really differentiate between right and left when it comes to trying to destabilize Europe, they throw random shit against the wall and then focus on what sticks.
You’re absolutely right, but I’d also add that Russia’s cultural right and left are essentially just the right wing by U.S. or European standards.
Do you have any evidence that Russian espionage backed the far left before 2006?
This is an oversimplification, I would not consider Orban far right and PB are more populist left if anything. And it's not all Russia's fault, in Bulgaria the pro-Russian government came into power after five years of self-proclaimed pro-Western politicians attacking the institutions for their own political gain. Well, it misfired.
So Orbán is not far-right, but somehow American far-right politicians and influencers like J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson loved him as a shining example of the kind of nationalist illiberal state they want to create. Hmm.
I hope the EU population understands that Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance. If the EU wants Ukraine to shield it from drones, send more air defense systems. If the EU wants to end the war, give Ukraine more long-range missiles. If you want Ukraine to hold on, then spend money on rebuilding its infrastructure. But as we see, the EU is not rushing to help. It still supplies goods to Russia or buys from it because it benefits the EU’s economy. Ukraine is the EU’s only ally that will protect you. What other military threats does Europe face besides Russia?
> Russia, the US, and China are essentially in a kind of military alliance, and that Ukraine is literally the only one openly opposing this alliance.
This is highly delusional. Don't you think that if the US and Russia were an alliance, the US would provide intelligence and communication to Russia, and not to Ukraine?
Kind of a misleading title, but an interesting article. It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Some of these opinion polls are not particularly useful though, as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US. I’m not sure it’s all that relevant how much a western EU country feels about the prospect of being attacked, as I don’t see how Portugal or Spain or France are at much geopolitical risk compared to the eastern flank.
> It’s about the perception that Europeans have of the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks their EU country.
Look at the Denmark graph (adversarial going up). I do not think in that case it is about "the likelihood that the US could be relied upon in the event that someone attacks" but about the US itself doing that.
It's also interesting that, while the "ally" curve is going down for all included countries, in some countries the "partner" (which is a weaker form of ally) curve is going up to partly compensate for that, while in others (mostly southern European, plus Switzerland and, of course, Denmark), it's also going down.
One could argue B implies A :p
You can hardly expect the guy attacking you to have your back.
> as for example Poland is frequently signing defense deals with the US
The current US administration has made it very clear over and over again that deals, contracts and agreements don't mean shit to them.
I think its interesting that they Estonia has both the biggest swing against increasing defence spending (+23 to +1, from middle of the pack to second last), and the highest rate of blaming their own government for fuel prices. I wouldn’t have expected either result.
speaking about defending ourselves: there's a huge gap between "willing to defend" and "actually be able to defend" ourselves
Those are not different things, "willing to defend" is just the prerequisite of "actually be able to defend". Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves. Look at Iran, how resilient they are despite decades of sanctions and their shitty regime.
When things start moving people can move mountains, suddenly the unemployment goes to %0 like it happened with Russia, market forces get dominated by state forces, moats like network effect or IP go to the trash.
Ukraine is essentially acting as a human shield for the EU right now. My friends in the SBU/ National Guard are terrified, even though they haven’t even seen combat yet. They’re stationed in a city that’s essentially 50% Russian. Even a civilian could shoot them in the back.
Ukrainians don't act as a human shield for EU, if they wanted to be part of Russia they could have joined them.
EU doesn't fore anyone to fight for them, it enables those who want to fight Russia to eventually be independent state and member of EU.
May I ask from which country you are, you are talking of position that implies that Ukrainians don't have agency. It's a Russian talking point(Ukrainians could have not chosen to join NATO and EU since they don't have agency, EU tricked them or NATO forced them to fight Russia, therefore Russia isn't the agressor but the defender here against the EU/NATO aggression).
> Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves.
How can you type such nonsense? Look at 2014 Crimean annexation - thats "how good they defended themselves" without western training and billions in weapon aid. After four years they have million plus dead but "this is fine" for the west.
There was no fight in Crimea, Russians rented a base there and one day decided not to extend the rental agreement and that they own Crimea now. Most of the Ukrainian soldiers switched sides and joined Russia and it was over without a bullet fired.
So US may decide that they now own Germany because they have the Ramstein Air base but I don't think it will go as smoothly.
There are old videos from the time on Youtube, check it out.
[citation needed] - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain..., the only source that says that there are more than 1 million killed and wounded (!) Ukrainian soldiers is the Russian Ministry of Defense, which I wouldn't consider very trustworthy...
Psychologically, becoming a soldier will be difficult for everyone; if Russia launches an offensive against the EU, the regular army alone will not be enough.
> if Russia launches an offensive against the EU
With what?
Russia has been wringing itself out to find enough soldiers to continue the war in Ukraine, and while they haven't been driven out just yet, I think it would be somewhere between "a massive stretch" and "flat-out untrue" to say they're winning.
And by and large, the rest of Europe is farther away, has a much worse/less clear casus belli from Russia's point of view, and, crucially, is part of NATO, and thus will not be fighting alone (and yes, I know Ukraine is getting a lot of support from Europe, but support isn't the same as boots on the ground).
If Russia launches an offensive against the EU, there's a damn good chance that offensive boomerangs right back around into its face.
Yeah that Schrodinger Russia again: it is being stuck for years, unable to take some small village in Donetsk region, and simultaneously is a grave threat that looms over Europe, ready to quickly overrun their capital cities.
It’s not that Russia is strong because of its economy or its military. The point is that it is strong like a criminal, a mugger with a knife on the streets of Frankfurt. Or, if you will, a pigeon playing chess with you—it will scatter all the pieces and defecate on the board, then strut around like a winner with its chest puffed out. That’s Russia for you; it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to. Look at the EU’s military exercises—the soldiers aren’t ready for drone attacks yet.
But we're now spending and working on this gap like crazy.
And we will end up using those weapons against eachother, again.
As if we haven't seen that film before.
Or even worse, keep selling them to Israel as Germany is doing, because one genocide was not enough and two wrongs make a right.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately.
If he's being downvoted for his "selling weapons to Israel" comment, I just want to highlight that even a majority of Germans is against it, with 80% not wanting to send weapons [1]. Of course there are different polls, and others find that "only" 30% say "stop them", plus another 43% saying "limit them [2]. Either way, only a small minority is pro "send all the weapons".
[1]: https://www.plan.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/80-proz... [2]: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1615302/umfra...
Follow the Yugoslavia model and ship soldiers from each country to live and work with each other in their first years in military service.
Then again… Yugoslavia maybe not the best example here…
> I don't understand why this is being downvoted.
Wars and military matters are literally life and death. I try not to speculate about downvotes, but here I expect there are people who are primed to get quite emotional when someone tells them they shouldn't start arming up.
I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.
France and UK have a nuclear arsenal. France specifically has said they are willing to extend their policy to cover other EU countries.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
The long term viability of the UK nukes does rather depend on support from the US though - they use our own fissile material, but the warhead designs are believed to largely be based on the US W76 and the actual Trident missiles come from a pool controlled by the US.
France has an independent nuclear deterrent.
I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?
> I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3
That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.
And I think even before 1950 there was a feeling, particularly in the US, that it was good to have the Germans on-side in a military conflict due to their recent experience fighting the Soviets.
With access to Internet in my late teens came the exposure to an intellectual, cultured leftist America I did not know existed. Now 20 years later, it really does not exist anymore. The US is a business,not a country, and it hates its own citizens.
"X is a land of contrasts" is a cliche, but: America is a land of contrasts. It manages to have elements both of shining city on the hill and squalid banana republic (resource extraction economy with poor rule of law) adjacent to each other.
But yes, the main natural predator of Americans is other Americans.
Not for this guy from Germany traveling across the US for the World Cup
https://x.com/freddyla7?s=21
In the UK this feels like the least popular world cup in years. Even after Russia and Qatar, it feels like more of a FIFA corruption circus.
My neighbors (Switzerland) sometimes joke about how we're all going to be fighting Putin (Russian army) in the streets someday.
The interesting french delusion that donald is an outlier
> Europeans embrace self-reliance and are clear-eyed about Donald Trump—but do not expect a permanent break from the US.
That's a wrong analysis IMO. I think NATO as it was is completely dead. Europeans need a nuclear arsenal too (french and UK nukes are for those two countries only; that does not protect several hundred millions people). Russia is threatening escalation every day, including using nukes. Europeans need their own nukes here - relying on a corrupt orange man acting like a russian asset, is a losing strategy. Even having another guy act and roleplay as president, won't really change this fundamental problem.
For what is worth, France offered to extend its nuclear umbrella to protect other European countries, offer accepted by 9 countries so far. Okay it's not permanent, doesn't necessary mean deployments in those countries, but still things are moving and the direction is obvious.
Europe also needs to be in a position where it can quickly deploy the anti-coercion instrument[0] should a foreign power interfere in elections or threaten territorial integrity. The last time it was on the table didn't give me confidence they could.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coercion_Instrument
Russia is already influencing your elections through propaganda.
Absolutely agree. Mutual destruction needs to be assured both with Russia AND the US, because who knows who they'll elect president next - Joe Rogan? Alex Jones? xAI? And in addition we need a "Star Wars" iron dome that works against nuclear as well. The EU needs to become the first super-power who has a shot at a winnable nuclear war. After all we gave to the world EVERYTHING it has, including the "United States", including the Japanese and Chinese economic miracle, including non-Barbaric culture to Russia. So we should be able to take it away from all of them without consequences.
We need less unhinged sephiroth-posting and more recognition that neither Japan nor China could be kept poor and backwards forever, since we forcibly opened their economies at gunpoint centuries ago.
Atlanticist polls are probably more interesting (if there even is such a thing) when considering which questions they didn't even ask, rather than the questions they asked confirming all the establishment positions anyway.
Is there an establishment in the room with us right now?
Let me know, because I want to make sure that I'm aligned with this mystical Western Atlantacist Anglo-Saxon (insert Russian propaganda snarl-word du jour) hive mind.
To understand what I'm talking about listen to the WEF speech by Canadian PM Mark Carney from a few months ago,
https://youtu.be/izDAOvHz5Wc
Would this make a difference though? The USA abandoned Europeans already before Trump. You only have to look at the polls. Thus, it makes sense to completely cut the ties, build up a nuclear arsenal and offset the mafia in Moscow. It makes no sense for Europeans to want to depend on the USA here; I have no idea who came up with that idea. Most likely the USA as it helped them project power. See how many bombing campaigns started from US bases in Germany, most famously from Ramstein.
Of course. If the US builds military bases in your country, it profits THEM, not you.
Well the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power, then business as usual can continue. Beyond that broad agreement with US - EU alignment on foreign policy (NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, China) must continue even under Trump. Trump is even seen as an opportunity to convince Europeans to increase its own "NATO compatible" military spending.
What I meant was it would be more interesting to see any opinions that conflict with that above establishment consensus. For example on negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war vs. continuing the forever war. Like where do Europeans disagree with the strategic interests of the US, do they really 100% align as this poll makes it appear? How is that possible?
When Trump lefts the office, there is still the younger generation to replace him (JD Vance, Rubio). Europeans still remember the 2025 JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference, the message was clear: The centrist governments in Europe are not partners for Republican party, only the far-right parties.
> the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power
Is it? This is not entirely clear. And if it seemed the case, it's increasingly not looking realistic. It won't fully go back to normal, now that it's clear that the US is one election away from not only backing away from commitments, but itself threatening invasion of supposed allies.
A defense partner that sometimes announces that it's no longer an ally isn't really a defense partner, since The Enemy has the choice of when to attack and an understanding of game theory.
And as a reliable trading partner the US apparently has very poor guardrails for suddenly not honoring deals and established norms.
Turns out that the only checks&balances in the US political system is impeachment (which, as we know, is a political and not judicial process), and it's apparently impotent to protect against a rogue executive branch.
"This era could see the alliance seriously weakened – or irreparably changed" from the EU Parliament report "The Near-term Future of the Transatlantic Relationship". There's also https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2026/0...