I don't read his remarks as indicating he views Europe as the enemy.
“3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez,” Vance cautioned. “40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary … I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.”
To me, this is completely consistent with the point he hammers home over and over again - that Europe is wealthy enough to pay for its own defense. They need to at the very least take the lead on their own security concerns.
That said, it is quite possible that he hates the oikophobic, technocratic European ruling class which has flooded their homelands with tens of millions of Muslims. I certainly do!
“That said, it is quite possible that he hates the oikophobic, technocratic European ruling class which has flooded their homelands with tens of millions of Muslims.”
I do think this is spot on and not inconsistent in any way with how this administration has presented itself both domestically and abroad. Vance is a leading voice for Europeans who’ve seen their voices silenced by the bureaucratic blob residing in Brussels. A blob that couldn’t give a rip about preserving the proud and unique cultures of any of its member states.
The problem with this analysis is that there aren’t that many Muslims. The current (post Brexit) ethnic make up of England and Wales are:
White 81%
Asian 9%
Black 4%
Mixed 3%
Other 2%
Asian is quite a broad category, and shouldn’t be read as equating to “Muslim.” If you cross reference with religious make up, the numbers look like this:
Christian 46%
No religion 33%
Muslim 6.5%
Hindu 1.7%
Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh were all under 1%
So Muslims are the largest single minority, but still very much a minority at just 6.5% of the total population of England and Wales. Freaking out about that number looks a little silly, given we were only just recently freaking out about having too many European Catholics here in the lead up to Brexit.
Plugging skills gaps with non-European immigration post Brexit was raised as a probable outcome during the referendum, but some poor bastards really thought we’d shut down whole industries OR put them on hold for 5-10 years while we trained up Britons from a standing start, or go even harder on having more babies and then spending 20 years raising them and getting through school rather than importing any skilled workers. I feel for them, but they really were sold a load of fairy dust. I think most of the anger out there is more about that, frankly.
The problem with your analysis is that Muslims only represent "6.5%" of the population but they are wildly disproportionate in their representation among those who commit serious offenses like sexual assault and terrorism. These are also 'hate crimes' in any contemporary sense of the word.
These crimes are not particularly commonplace; the UK has seen far fewer deaths from terrorism in the 25 years since the mid-90's than the same period ante, but the way successive governments and our media gaslight us about the problem is driving people crazy (which is what gaslighting is for). Their gamble is still to hope they can smear everyone who wants something done about immigration as dangerous hateful bigots and domestic terrorists. If we keep letting them off the hook they will create the very monster they fear.
They are not “wildly disproportionate,” in committing sex crimes. The population of U.K. sex criminals is still dominated by the majority ethnicity - and sorry, but a raped woman or girl derives little comfort that her rapist was white instead of brown. It’s a dumb argument to make.
Figures have been released which show the number or offences in the UK per thousand of population, based on country of origin, for both crime in general and sexual crime in particular.
In addition to that, the so called grooming gangs are almost exclusively made up of people of Pakistani origin, and a disproportionate number are, or are descended from, people in the Mirpur area of that country.
Your source is a nationalist-conservative right-wing populist person. Also, in a democratic society, handling crime is based on in individuals and not on ethnic communities or religions.
The ONS statistics I've just checked only go up to 2017 but on table 3 of "sexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables" it says 6,872 of 11,311 defendants, or 61%, were "white". This means that you are correct that the majority ethnicity commits the bulk of the sexual offences. But the "white" population was about 85% in 2017 so, whoever the remaining 15% was, provided 39% of the rapists. It is obvious to any fair observer that your argument is not only dumb, but transparently so.
But I'm not doing that at all; Correlation does not equal causation, after all. Neither does 'identity group' representation in crime statistics reflect on an individual member of that group. Governments don't make laws for individuals though, they have to act on groups and if they don't take account of all the trade-offs in their immigration or counter-terrorism strategy then they will make bad policy and society will suffer. This is where we are today, because no one in power will even admit some problems exist, and they refuse to fix the problems.
The left is largely responsible for this, as it is their cultural hegemony that has made it impossible to even ask certain questions if they even touch on race or even biological sex - no point saying gender any more; the left have made that concept so elastic that is it meaningless and therefore worthless.
What this gives us is the spectacle of a TV series about a social ill ('incel culture') that is more witchhunt then genuine crisis, and affects non-white boys and fatherless boys disproportionately, but the only way our media and political elite can bear to see it discussed in mass-media is if the perpetrator is a white boy from a family with a working father in it.
One of our current ministers, Jess Phillips, fought against a very misogynistic and racist campaign at the last election but when she was barracked at her hustings with shouts of 'free palestine' she only emphasised that it was 'men' who were trying to intimidate her, it was 'men' who had verbally abused her canvassers and damaged their cars.
The left simply cannot grasp that it is they who are the real racists and sexists in the Western cultures today. They are patronising to non-whites and they are gaslighting all of us. They are the ones standing in the way of actual progress.
That’s also a really silly argument. Capitalism runs on highly skilled workers going where the work for them is. That’s why the tech industry imports so many Indian (read: Asian) software engineers. In the U.K. we import a lot of doctors (too many, in my view) because it’s cheaper than opening up more medical school places. So when you’re looking at why highly skilled migrants are moving around the world, look no further than Musk’s continued support for h1b visas.
Are you conflating skills and ideology? Or just purposefully sidestepping the ideological implications of the Muslim immigration patterns in Western Europe and The UK?
Then you are answering in a way proving that you are bigoted, ignorant, and stupid. Because he "cares" about Europe in a destructive and dividing way. One has a right to be European and Muslim, just accept it.
The cultures of member states are not so unique anymore as due all the changes since the last 30 years. So what? More Europeans have experiences with each other and member states have been more integratred under more common economic, social, and cultural behaviors.
Also, just because the EU has 27 member states does not mean 27 100% unique cultures. Many Europeans are also members of minority groups and have more local and regional cultures in daily life, as in Catalonia. For example, Donald Tusk, who served in the EU institutions, has a Kashubian identity in Poland.
I think that people like you who use the term oikophobic have bad values and opinions. You are driven by racism and populism. Muslims are a part of Europe just as of America as well.
I'm writing from Britain where we're well aware of the hostility of the administration - and especially of Vance - toward Europe. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference was not interpreted as blunt but ultimately well-intentioned advice towards a wayward friend. Along with Musk's interventions, it was seen as a direct attempt to interfere in the German election (and therefore strike at the heart of Europe).
I also don't recognise your comments about free speech. I don't feel that my free speech is in any way curtailed in Europe. BUT I do with the US. Having expressing strong anti-Trump views, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if I didn't make it into the country. Which is why all future trips to North America will be to Canada until such time as the US is a reliable ally again!
Duncan I suspect Denyse's views will never land her in trouble because they accord substantially with the 'blob'. Denyse, what your comments suggest is a remarkable blind spot regarding 'foreign interference' If you think Vance/Musk speeches in Europe are unconscionable then what do you make of Zelensky's visit to the US in September of 2024?
Oh, and your comment about free speech simply takes my breath away.
Couldn't agree more. These free speech arguments are LAUGHABLE. The only two times I experienced that free speech laws are different in Germany than the UK were:
1. When I was reading 'In The Garden of Beasts' which had a small swastika on the cover. A German friend explained I had to cover it it up with a sticker, since it was an illegal symbol.
2. That flipping someone off is really, really bad, and just not done. This (along with other personal insults) is both legally punishable, but it's also cultural. I found/find it weird, but also see how it fits into cultural norms here. The bottom line is Germany is a sovereign nation and can make whatever rules and laws it sees fit.
Meanwhile, back home in the US:
- Ann Selzer gets sued by Trump for releasing a poll he didn't like (Iowa has no Anti-SLAPP laws
- ABC and other news outlets are hit with frivolous law suits for unflattering news coverage
- Threatening Democratic members of Congress with investigation for criticizing conservatives
- Pulling federal grants that include language the administration opposes (you may not like DEI, but it's still speech)
- Sanctioning law firms that represent Trump's political opponents
- Proposing to limit the right to protest near the White House and on the National Mall
- Threatening to change libel laws to make it easier to sue publishers and news organizations
I would think twice about protesting in the street, which I have never EVER done before (not that I'm a big street protester). I'm also now worried about every dumb thing I've ever posted online.
If I have to hear any more of these BS arguments about free speech I'm gonna lose it.
“DEI is still speech” DEI is discrimination. It is unconstitutional. That is why the Trump administration cancels contracts. The people who support DEI can still say the words “diversity, equity…” all they want
Fair, but cancelling Black History Month or Chinese Lunar New Year strike me as people being freaked out about what can or can't be said/celebrated. We were celebrating those things when I was in elementary school in the 70s and 80s.
The most egregious example of this being the demotion of General CQ Brown (who was appointed by Trump!) which was a naked cancellation because of a totally anodyne 4 minute talk he gave to his troops in the midst of George Floyd unrest: https://bit.ly/3FR3PVI
To clarify: I'm not defending DEI per se, but I do think civil rights, harmless multi-cultural events that have been part of everyday life for decades are being tossed out with the anti-DEI bathwater and it is chilling speech.
perchance your corner of the UK is not subject to Two Tier Kerr’s divisive speech censorship, maybe you haven’t been arrested and charged for holding a silent prayer outside an abortion clinic or sacked for challenging transgenderism or thrown out of your tenured professorship for quoting Christian positions on … well, just about anything, really
A lot of Europeans are finding out why they need stronger free speech protections. It's not the attitudes that need reconciling (except in elite circles), it's the laws that need changing.
Politicians; very few, and universally demonised. Among the public there are very many more and increasingly motivated to vote against our nanny authoritarians. I think it will take several elections before real change happens, though.
Javier, you’re dog-whistling on free speech so let me try to clarify. The U.S. First Amendment is an almost absolute guarantee of free speech (the limits are the famous “crying fire in a crowded theatre” example), even if hateful, insulting or prejudiced language. Significantly, the Trump administration is NOT trying to deport the Columbia University grad student for what he said; it is alleging that he lied on his Green Card application. Europe (and Australia) are more nuanced: the woman arrested and convicted after the race riots went down because she advocated violence against a recognised group (there, legal immigrants). Merely vilifying them is OK, advocating ACTION is not. That’s also why the NSW cops did nothing at the Sydney Opera House when demonstrators shouted “Death to the Jews!” - they hadn’t broken any laws. You might not like this European approach but it is hardly censorious and it is pretty clear and consistent.
I do appreciate you clarifying your ignorance on what constitutes free speech so early in your post though. The US first amendment is the current gold-standard on free speech; anything less than this is not free speech. The orwellian concept of a 'non-crime hate incident' that can affect your employment prospects just because someone pretends to have hurt feelings over something you posted online, is a very long way from free speech. It is not at all complicated, Will.
Javier, I think that individuals as you are not anti-authoritarian. Instead, you are more right-wing authoritarian because you dislike left-wing authoritarians. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are completely wrong. I enthusiastically dislike both right wing and left wing authoritarianism because I see no interesting practical differential between the far-left and the far right. They both have the same ideological framework inhabiting two different pools of personality types.
Now for those who think 'freedom' is right-wing: There is a viewpoint that seems to assume natural justice is cruel and oppressive (compared to 'social justice') and that therefore any notion of personal responsibility is also oppressive, and those that espouse personal responsibility are just 'right-wing' authoritarians, rather than just actual liberals or libertarians. As a liberal I think 'social justice' is an Owellian by-word for leftist oppression so I view the whole concept as inherently hypocritical.
European governments are now the main enemies of their own people. They import criminals, protect and support them, and prosecute their citizens for activism and dissent. Trump isn't against Europe. He's against the parasitic elite cabals which suck wealth out of European countries and use it to further their own alien agendas, against the sincere and sustained wishes of their own voters. People get raped and killed all the time, but when the government adopts and protects those rapists and murderers, it becomes complicit.
At some point soon political violence will become a real possibility in Europe (if the populations aren't too old and demoralized). When a government invites anonymous and disaffected young men from the most dangerous parts of the world, billets them next to your homes and schools by the hundreds, and then represses you when you complain it's no longer a legitimate government. It's a valid target for revolution and political violence.
Your post does not contain any facts that are recognisable to any European reading it, except perhaps to AfD supporters. It's regurgitated far-right diatribe that seeks to scaremonger and exaggerate. You probably don't live in the European Union and you appear to be politically uneducated.
I take it that you are not up to date with the situation here in the UK. James' post may come across as a bit dramatic, but it's still a fair enough representation of the reality here.
Concerns about immigration are presently at the top of the agenda for a large proportion of UK voters, perhaps even the majority. There is no other issue that even comes close to it in terms of salience.
Judging from the recent elections in Germany, I'd say it's a major topic there too.
It is, but what the international media failed to notice is that the Musk and Vance show backfired. Die Linke practically tripled their vote share while the AfD stayed steady, the picture is not as binary as some would make it.
When you say that the AfD vote share stayed steady, what is your frame of reference? AfD polled almost 21% at the recent elections in 2025, compared to just over 10% in 2021. I also heard that it did consistently well with blue collar voters across the whole country, not just in its East German heartland.
If you are talking about a movement in the vote share between JD Vance's Munich speech and the election, I'm not sure how much can be read into that. There certainly didn't seem to be a switch back to the established parties which Vance might have appeared to be criticising.
Die Linke polled at just under 9%, up from just under 5%, so a not dissimilar accomplishment to AfD in terms of improvement.
Stayed steady with the polls, while Die Linke wasn't even expected to make it into Parliament. They surged (and there were massive rallies) after Vance's speech and Elon's meddling.
The biggest irony of it all is the AfD is most popular in the East, the Bundesland with the absolute least amount of immigrants! It's mostly unemployed ethnic Germans collecting government checks in a country with a dire worker shortage.
I'll finish with this: When you live in a place, and you hear a lot of breathless dystopian hyperbole about it from people who don't live there (and perhaps have never even visited) that is the *complete opposite* of what you see in your everyday life, it lands as bizarre and deranged.
Katrina, I can only ponder that you reside in a corner of the EU that is heavily censored. I’m on the geographical edge of the EU and can see quite clearly the points James Mills illustrates - and - I see them in Dublin, London, Athens, Brussels, Amsterdam, Koln and during my frequent visits it is always the same … go for a walk thru Molenbeek for a quick lesson, or Gothenburg or Lisbon … there are none so blind as those who will not see
Katrina you'll have to take it from me that I'm not far-right or anti-immigration per se but we in Europe really do have problems. Illegal and excessive legal immigration might not be the worst of them but they demonstrate more sharply than anything else how are leaders are simply not willing to tackle those problems. You can write off one vote in one country, but when it's all across the continent? You must really believe the power of propaganda if you think it can summon all this from nothing.
What you're describing is something, but it's not Europe. Everyone I know here is scrambling to get their German citizenship, now that they allow dual citizenship. In the 20+ years I've lived here I've never encountered so many Americans that just wanted to get out or who have decided not to go back. Anecdata, I know - but it is real and notable.
I like the phrase 'anecdata'. In the US, millions of people have left Democrat states on the coasts and gone to live in Republican states like Texas and Florida, as opposed to the dozens or hundreds you may have witnessed. My chosen phrase is 'selection bias'.
Fair, but I still wouldn't describe California (my native state) in the dire terms laid out in some of these comments and I was just there over Christmas. We even spent a day in San Francisco and it was beautiful. I was expecting a total hellscape based on the screaming headlines I've seen lately.
I wouldn't describe my native Britain in dire terms either but News has a habit of being a 'non-random sample of all the worst things happening today'. The point is to get people worked up so they pay for your news.
There is a very real schism in politics in the whole of the western world, including the US. I get the impression that the dislike that each side of the divide has for the other goes way beyond anything I can recall previously (the closest I can think of is the venal hatred on the left in the UK for Margaret Thatcher - who nevertheless won 3 consecutive elections).
The point I'm making is that now defeat is unbearable, and many of the globalist left can opt to leave (it's harder for the more homebound civic nationalists on the right to do so). I'd recommend reading David Goodhart's book "The Road to Somewhere" - it's based on the UK, but still relevant I think to the US, and discusses the realignment of politics.
Goodhart is promoting balance. His argument is that the political zeitgeist had shifted too far in favour of the 'anywheres', and that the 'somewheres' were marginalised. The so-called populist (a.k.a. democratic) votes in 2016 were a symptom of that.
His follow up book "Head, Hand, Heart" develops the theme further suggesting that society overvalues "Head" roles, and undervalues "Hand" and "Heart" roles. To me, that sounds like the sort of position that left of centre parties used to espouse.
Trump is opposed to the racist, globalist, leftist self destructive cult that oozes out of the World Economic Forum to every country in the Western world. He is completely consistent.
This is the same old, same old nonsense of the right (white) wing. Immigration has been part of every country in the world (save some Asian countries) for decades. And here we go with the old tropes of “importing (or “inviting”) disaffected young men from the most dangerous parts of the world, etc etc”. There are plenty of dangerous, disaffected young men in the UK who do plenty of what you think only immigrants do, (& who in times gone by imported themselves into other countries and demonised the indigenous residents).
The people who go ballistic about immigrants are often ones who don’t have any in their neighborhoods or villages-like the AfD embracers-most of whom are from the East-who haven’t seen a black, brown or other kind of immigrant at all.
“Rise of the managerial class”?? Where have you been living for the past 80 years?? It sounds like you’d prefer to live in a nice cozy, white, autocratic (perhaps dictatorial) country. Too late, mate-it’s never going to be like that again, it hasn’t been that way since the 1950’s.
“Some Irish and Polish catholic families came and worked as farmers in the past and so now we must accept millions of angry young Pakistani men establishing a parallel society and draining our country economically.”
People with such atttidues as you are supporting politics draining the country culturally and economically because you end up supporting authoritarians who are so destructive and horrible in governing
I'm guessing you haven't even accidentally been exposed to any crime statistics even in passing, for the past decade.
Not trying to redpill you, but there is way too much data out there that doesn't sit too comfortably within your positive view on the immigrant situation.
There are two major straw-man arguments you've deployed there. The first is that because we've had steady immigration since the 50's only bigots think we cannot absorb tens or hundreds of thousands of young unskilled men with no family ties and very different cultural values when our own youth are languishing on sickness benefits, and median wages haven't gone up in over 15 years.
The second is that people in rural communities who can look around at nearby towns and villages where immigrants have been dumped on benefits can't see what's coming to their own community.
Also this 2018 crime report, 3 years after the influx of Syrian Asylum seekers (conducted by super conservative Bavarian Seehofer, minister of the interior at the time):
It's in English and based on police crime statistics. It's extremely thorough and distinguishes petty crime and violent crime and crimes committed between/against non-Germans and asylum seekers as well as crimes within immigrant populations.
It's helpful to keep in mind the category 'Non-Germans' includes people with a 'migration background'. This can include Romanians, Albanians and other Eastern Europeans, as well as people who may have been here for generations but don't have a German passport since Germany does not have unconditional birthright citizenship.
Following your second link, on paragraph 7 appears the following sentence: " As in the previous [to 2018] year , about 30% of all suspects were not German nationals"
This suggests that, unless only 70% of the German population are German nationals, that non-nationals are disproportionally criminal.
Note also paragraph 2: "Not counting violations of law concerning foreigners (the Residence Act, Asylum Act and the Freedom of Movement Act/EU)"
whether or not immigration has been an historical fact for centuries is irrelevant, its the the nature of the immigrant conduct that is important and if that is perceived, based on evidence and lived experience, indicates that there is a disproportionate problem than that has traction within a community … it’s not about right or left wing tropes but the actuality of the impact on national systems such as law-and-order, health supply, educational capacity, housing et al … so don’t play the fatuous ‘race card’
I am a European, I have lived in several countries over here, and basically agree with Yasha Mounk's recommendations.
One thing that sticks in my craw when reading many opinions is the constant talk of some percentage measurement as indicating whether Europe is shouldering its responsibility or not.
Even today I understand that Europe in total spends much more than Russia on defense - so what's the deal? Not the money. Nuclear weapons and a common strategy more likely.
As many have quoted, NATO was designed to 'keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'. It was also as a consequence helping to avoid proliferation of atomic weapons since none of the mainland countries felt the need to build them - barring France, outside NATO at the time.
As another consequence of keeping an American in charge, Europe was relieved of thinking seriously about its own defense.
This left Europeans fixated on the rather meaningless percentage goal for a country-centered defense strategy.
Yes, you can blame the European leaders for their sleeping beauty slumber.
You can also say that the Americans got what they bargained for. Hegemony.
The Americans then mishandled the dissolution of the Soviet Union and are now panicking and blaming the Europeans for not being ready to pick up the pieces as they lose interest like Trump and Biden did in Afghanistan. Or like the Buchanans in 'The Great Gadsby' who left their mess behind. An American habit based on its two wide moats.
YES. The current state of European defense is the result of deliberate American strategy over decades, and it’s incredible to see how that’s slipped from so many Americans’ consciousness. The US was carrying the biggest stick, and it wanted it that way!
I also agree that the belligerence we’re now seeing from the MAGA right is a way of covering for the fact that the US is effectively retreating from being the One Great Power. Tough talk makes pulling back from having proactive global influence look better to the folks at home, but it’s leaving lots of gaps for China to fill. The irony is breathtaking, but the voters are too busy watching the show to notice.
Republicans disproportionately serve in the military. They saw what our "freedom and democracy" policies did in the Middle East. And that's made them skeptical of internationalism more broadly. In my opinion, this skepticism is very justified.
Yes, and this is what’s contributing to the cognitive dissonance we’re seeing. On the one hand the US is the greatest, on the other hand it’s unable and unwilling to impose its military will (big contrast to Russia, who has been conscripting for the Ukraine war for years now). The US is the greatest, yet retreating and giving up influence to China and Russia. No wonder JD is so angry and so in need of a safe outlet for it.
I mean yeah, we're now doing America First rather than American Exceptionalism.
American Exceptionalism doesn't have any remaining proponents as far as I can tell. This has been true for a while; I don't think Vance is still angry about it.
Absolutely, and the problem you’ll find is that you can’t be the greatest without having a big sphere of influence. Chucking that out leaves more room for China to step up, and they’ve been very good at doing so - their influence in Africa (and all those mineral rights) has built a lot over the past few years, while the US and quibbled and fought internally.
The cognitive dissonance is going to get a lot worse over the next few years.
>The Americans then mishandled the dissolution of the Soviet Union and are now panicking and blaming the Europeans for not being ready to pick up the pieces as they lose interest like Trump and Biden did in Afghanistan. Or like the Buchanans in 'The Great Gadsby' who left their mess behind. An American habit based on its two wide moats.
Losing interest can be a good thing. It's good that the US lost interest in Vietnam, for instance. It only makes sense to maintain interest if you're making a situation better.
"“3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez,” Vance cautioned. “40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary … I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.” In other words, Vance didn’t just argue that America has no important self-interest to defend in the region; he seemed to suggest that it should count as an active reason against the operation that it would also happen to serve European interests."
Seriously, from THAT you get "Vance hates Europe?". Not "This is MUCH more important to Europe than it is to the US, so why is this necessary for US to do it instead of them?" I'm a member of the public and I certainly wonder why our defense treaty allies in Europe are apparently incapable of securing their own shipping lanes against a rag tag bunch like the Houthis. I even agree that it's inconsistent with the President's messaging to Europe for us to bail them out yet again without some consideration in return for our expenditures on their behalf. There is NOTHING in there that suggests that we don't have an interest (even if it is only 3%) or even that it serving European interests also is necessarily a mark against SOMEONE doing it, but rather that given the relative strengths of interests involved it SHOULD be Europe doing it, that us doing it for them for free undercuts our current foreign policy position, and IS difficult to justify to the domestic public why we would need to do this instead of them.
If you think those concerns are unwarranted, I'd like to hear your take on why we, instead of Europe, needed to be the ones to do this, and how bailing them out yet again without reward isn't obviously contrary to "America First" and our demands that Europe needs to start pulling its own weight in military expenditures. What answer would you suggest the government give to our taxpayers asking why Europe isn't paying their fair share of the bill for their own security?
I'm also writing from Britain where I'm not at all certain that Vance's comments represent "hostility" toward Europe, more like exasperation. The title of your piece and some of the sentiment inside it are asking those remarks to do a lot of work!
We ARE freeloaders, and we (well, many of us) complain bitterly about US hegemony, whilst at the same time not wanting to make the sacrifices necessary for us to secure our own strategic autonomy. Our hypocrisy makes me frustrated as a UK citizen, so it should come as no surprise that senior US administration figures think this way.
Russia is a shadow of the threat that the USSR was. If the major European nations stopped destroying themselves with expensive and unreliable energy that makes them vulnerable to Russian blackmail, then we could easily field capable and well rounded military forces that aren't totally reliant on the US for expeditionary warfare.
This doesn't make them our enemies, and if we wanted better friends then perhaps we should have been better allies?
“Europe” is a huge continent full of citizens, politicians of all stripes (though mostly left or hard left, eager to layer on regulation and social welfare policies instead of incentivizing innovation, community building, Christian responsibility for ones family)
I bet Vance loves Europe as a continent, would be happy to live in Holland or Poland or Norway for the rest of his life, but hates the EU leadership.
If Europe elects leaders who don’t do their best to weaken their own societal bonds and traditions and who don’t hypocritically pose for photos with Ukrainian leaders while shoveling money to Russia and Iran and free trading with China, then Vance will view Europe as a strong ally again.
He would have thought the extreme right in Norway are comminists. And maybe seen massacres where nobody else have seen any since the one by a right wing maniac several years ago
“…shovelling money to Russia and Iran and trading freely with China”? Evidence for the first two please, and as for free trade, are you against it? Really?
I am against free trade with China, yes. In the build up to a war you should not help your enemy, nor outsource production of weapon materials to an enemy. Also, I don’t want to drag America down to Chinese slave wage levels just to get slightly cheaper iPhones
Germany needs to build world-class universities? Where have you been, my friend? Germany has several world-class universities that consistently rank among the best globally. Institutions like Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), the University of Heidelberg, the University of Freiburg, and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) are particularly well-regarded. These universities excel in fields like engineering, natural sciences, medicine, and humanities.
Germany's universities are known for their strong research output, partnerships with industry, and tuition-free or low-cost education, even for international students. The country is also home to prestigious research institutions like the Max Planck Society and the Fraunhofer Institute, which further enhance its academic reputation.
You need to do your research before making unsubstantiated claims!
Maybe Germany still has some capable universities but I’m actually worried that they will decline like American universities have started to decline. Mr. Mounk actually wrote a book about the worldview/ideology that is hijacking American universities. It’s called „The Identity Trap“ and has been translated into German as „Im Zeitalter der Identität“.
When I’m thinking of the decline of German universities I’m thinking of the recent new president of the Technische Universität Berlin. Prof. Geraldine Rauch really gives the appearance of being a leftist „woke“ activist instead of a scientist.
Get an impression of what she cares about and which topics she doesn’t mention by listening to some of her speeches (in German):
One example from the last link: (5:52) Geraldine Rauch: "Wir sehen uns am Neujahrsanfang am 17. Januar 2025 mit neuen Ideen, neuem Kampfgeist und mit ganz viel Menschlichkeit." (“See you at the start of the New Year on January 17, 2025 with new ideas, a new fighting spirit and a lot of humanity.”)
There are other quotes like this that you wouldn't expect from a university president but from a leftist activist.
Geraldine Rauch reminds me of a talk that Jonathan Haidt gave in 2016 where he talked about how universities must decide their highest telos (goal). Is it searching for truth or social justice? They cannot have both at the same time.
She also caused a big scandal when she liked tweets that where obviously antisemitic in nature. Something that seems to fit very well with her political leanings.
What appears to be happening to German universities is that there are now sufficiently woke people in positions of power that can put an activist like Geraldine Rauch in power. That is new and highly unfortunate for German universities. We need to educate people on the ideology of these activists and then they need to be replaced by credible, honest and capable scientists. Or our universities will end up like American universities.
I mean, if you're a clickbait journalist selectively quoting his statements, then sure. But if you actually listen to e.g. that famous speech in Munich, he says stuff like "it’s great to be back in Germany... I’ve always loved the city of Munich, and I’ve always loved its people..."
There seems to be a bias towards considering his negative statements as sincere, and his positive statements as insincere. I don't see why that bias is justified.
I actually think there are some analogies to the 2020 BLM situation in the US/Europe relationship right now. Same way there was a moral panic about policing in the US, now Europe is having a moral panic about the US as an ally. The truth is that policing *does* suck in the US, and the US *is* getting less reliable as an ally. But social media is magnifying extremists as usual. I recommend listening to the actual speeches to get it straight from the horse's mouth:
Note that the original European reaction to the Vance speech at Munich was actually bemusement. It wasn't until social media had a few days to process it that it turned into outrage.
We've seen social media distort race and gender relations. In the past, international relations haven't been affected. It's sad to see that international relations are now what we are fighting about.
EDIT: On the other hand, if this moral panic is what it takes for Europe to get its act together on security, then I support it. Maybe anti-Americanism is the force necessary to unite the continent.
I'm an American living in the EU on and off for 15+ years now and while I enjoy Yasha's insight, his insight also shows his lack of understanding of the average American. Only your enemies don't say anything when you are making a mistake. Europe is the brother that has been virtually useless over the last 40 years and unfortunately, this is the only way JD Vance and Trump understand how to wake Europe up from its slumber.
Trump may speak like the average American but JD Vance is the average American that has made it to the top. Why should America fight for European interests when Europeans don't even know what those interests are? Being perceived as kind or compassionate is not an interest. The question remains, what is Europe doing about its higher proportion of trade that goes through the Black Sea. I wonder if JD Vance speaks about Finland or Poland in the same manner.
How do you get an overgrown child to step into adulthood?
Don’t underestimate the extent to which Vance’s recent conversion to Catholicism plays a role in his attitude toward Europe. Vance is now a conservative Catholic of the kind represented by the Federalist Society. They are opposed to liberalism (in the traditional sense), opposed to individualism, and even, to a certain extent, opposed to democracy, not least because it leads to the other two—liberalism and hyper-individualism—both of which lead to moral dissolution (in their view). Even though Catholicism has its home in Europe, the continent’s elites are all invariably secular—indifferent or even hostile to religion. This is seen as a great threat to the group’s ultimate aim—renewed power for the Catholic Church—and also a great weakness and failing of Europe generally. It is also one of the reasons why they view Putin positively—he is a backer of ecclesiastical power. Secularism, for them, is the ultimate enemy.
Yes but are 'fundamentalist Catholics' that bothered about freedom of speech? Would any religious fanatic come to Europe and give a speech on the right to (among other things) mock religion? There is a slightly disturbing (for me) strand of ultra-religious conservatism reaction in the west, but I don't think it runs as deep as you do.
Please refer to researching the "Federalist Society" and the sway it has held over not only judiciary recommendations and subsequent appointments, to include the SCOTUS, and the organizations members.
Really? You are just figuring out that Trump 2.0 is genuinely hostile towards Europe?
The Trump Admin has excluded Europe from the UKraine ceasefire negotiations. Trump has said the EU as invented to "screw the U.S." Vance has ridiculed the peace-keeping forces France and Britain have proposed. Trump has not stopped talking about annexing Greenland. And it took this?
On another note, watch the Admin now go and persecute Jeff Goldberg. He can expect an indictment, hateful and violent language from Trump and MAGA voiced and possibly threats to himself and his family.
Peter, Jeffrey Goldberg was very careful to not give them any opening to go after him; hence the “Hegseth” in inverted commas. So Hegseth then denied any secret info was included on the call (which was obviously ridiculous), probably hoping to provoke Goldberg into releasing it to prove his point, so they could go “Gotcha!”
Yascha - it feels like our moment is best described as “civilizational reset”.
On one side, progressive leaders push collectivist priorities such as open borders, unfettered immigration, minority protections, large social safety nets, and a blunting of national pride or patriotism in favor of the larger identity. These are America’s Democrats, Canada, and the EU of Brussels.
On the other side are nationalists with traditional cultural identities. They favor defense strength, national pride, patriotism, limited immigration, and racial and religious chauvinism. This is America’s GOP, the UK of Brexit, Hungary, and a growing European movement in Italy, France, Germany. And Russia.
This feels like the new fault lines where the tectonic plates of history are rubbing together. We’re used to the old world of geopolitical models - but this values based new world has now eaten that whole.
All the old rules no longer apply. The EU’s values offends those of the new global, populist, nationalist Right. We must recognize this, admit to it, and address it for the truth it is - not the old world which is now dead and gone.
The EU is the only hope Europe has to create an army big enough to resist Putin and Xi. The U.K. Brexit has been a failure - all it’s resulted in is emboldened Russian espionage in the U.K., having to import skilled workers from everywhere BUT Europe, higher food prices (and that’s before full customs kick in!), and piles more productivity-sapping red tape.
I think there is a good chance the EU will be strengthened by the US’s naked hostility - the only other option is to be vulnerable to Russia.
You under report the strength of the winds blowing in Brussel’s face. The French National Front will be in power at some point. The AfD doubled their share of the electorate. European nationalism, with their pull back toward national sovereignty and limited immigration, is expanding vs contracting. The Trumpist argument is winning, not losing in Europe. If anchor states vote to leave the EU, it will collapse. I would not be betting long on the EU at this moment. And that is because they, too, are riven by this civilizational fissure between homogenized collectivism (communism-lite) and patriotic, cultural chauvinism. The watering down of Europe through unfettered Islamic immigration is taking a huge toll on many of their people. It’s not a happy refuge from Trump.
I’m not reporting in this case, I’m making the point that all the populist movements in Europe have been severely undercut by JD Vance’s open hostility, and the fact that only a fool would think that dozens of small countries would have more military clout than one big military alliance. The EU Army was used as a bogeyman to scare Brits towards Brexit, but now Russia and the US have managed to make that look like a sensible prospect. Quite a turnaround.
Right. The big open question now seems to be “whither Europe?”. They have grown so accustomed to US security that they’ll greatly struggle to catch up to adversaries like China and Russia should the US abandon them. And I fear that cultural partisanship has grown so hot and hateful in the US that they’ll greatly struggle and the EU is simply seen as the extension of Obama Democrats, Columbia University, and the embodiment of loathsome woke tyranny like DEI, BLM, etc. Four years of Trump will embolden the same within the EU while weakening the hold from Brussels. The open question (to me) is will the EU circle the wagons around the bloc…or….will the entropy of polarization eat the EU into sovereign states who must band together in informal alliances (not Brussels led) to protect themselves from the wolves of Moscow and Beijing?
Yes, the US position is really short-termist. Amazing to think that their own internal culture war is enough for them to willingly cede ground to their geopolitical rivals. The American empire seems to be over already, and has it even been a hundred years?
I see it a bit broader. The US is a (really) big part of a much bigger phenomenon. The collective “West” is collapsing. After decades of over-indexing for Progressive priorities (they, of course, disagree and believe not enough has been done) has upset the balance in our pluralistic, open societies. Too much immigration (and too quickly). Too much de-industrialization (and too quickly). Too much shifting social favoring toward women and minorities. Too much concentration of wealth and opportunity in too few hands. Too much loss to too many people adds up to severe resentment. True all over the “west”.
This is why the West is hobbled on the global stage. Our “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?” level domestic bickering has robbed us of our moral high ground and unity required to blunt a rising China and aggressive Russia. And they know it.
It is how all great empires fall. Unity turns to narcissism, entitlement and self destruction and (finally) the emboldened barbarians always arrive at Rome’s gate.
I don't see an EU army as workable except as a purchasing club. I'll give you all the inefficiencies of duplicated bureaucracy and willingness of young men to 'die for the EU' - lets say all that can be solved. You still have the problem that every member state has a veto, and I just cannot see that not being extended to direct military action when we can see what Hungary is doing over military supplies to Ukraine. What if the EU finally accepts Turkey? Could the EU military ever take over patrolling the routes out of the Suez Canal, so far from EU borders? Or vital trade with Taiwan, where all our high-end silicon is made?
Young men fight and die for…an idea. The country. The motherland. The fatherland. It would be hard to get young men to die for a trading bloc. Today’s Progressives (as always) misread human nature. They understand that nationalism breeds war and they don’t want war. So they do all they can to erase nations. They invent synthetic things like the EU to replace the component nations. They homogenize the new invention through open borders and unfettered immigration - imagining a polyglot of people will forever erase notions of distinct national pride.
But they miss two things in this giant social engineering project:
1) half their citizens prefer the national identities over the fake identity. They rebel internally and want it back. Those people get slurred as Nazis and racists for this.
2) conquering enemies ARE nationalist and thirsty for conquest. China, Russia. They now see these effete “inclusive” lands as sitting ducks and ripe for takeover. The men won’t fight and die for a fake EU identity and they know it.
Europe only survives, as is, if America protects it. Otherwise, they are very vulnerable
I read Vance's remarks differently. This was clearly intended to be a private chat, however ineptly managed. (And Jeffrey Goldberg deserves far more praise for his cautious and extremely responsible way of handling the situation) Vance was doing what those of us whose jobs included advising elected officials should do: voice his own opinion, with reasons, even if it differed from the majority in the room.
His concern was a pragmatic and political one: Not that the US had "no" interest here, but that the action could and probably would be misconstrued by the public as inconsistent with the President's well-known views -- and, to be fair, Vance's as well. This is separable from the substance of the action, and he was right to make this point explicitly, reasonably, and fairly. He lost the argument, and courteously accepted the result, as any advisor would. The President was going to take that risk, and that was his call to make.
Where I disagree the most is that the "silver lining" in the concluding paragraphs, may in fact be the point. During his last term, Trump's bluster about NATO requirements for defense spending were taken quite seriously by Europe, and still are. And this time Trump is backing up his bluster with the actual military -- not in some bird-brained invasion, but in a well-targeted and strategically significant way to both deter the Houthis and let Iran know that we do mean business. I don't know whether that will be successful -- and it could end in war -- but it is the bet Trump is making.
More important here, it is also the bet that Vance is taking. Diplomats know that harsh statements in public (and sometimes in private) do not need to reflect hostility; good politicians know the same. Maybe Vance does hate Europe and Europeans. But maybe he sees that harsh language from America does cause them to make changes. Trump clearly has no diplomatic skills whatsoever, but it's possible Vance does, and believes that these changes in European attitudes toward defense are more than just a silver lining, and we will all be better allies if they step up to the plate more often.
We are not afraid of the American Medvedev. Actually, as Yasha in fact points out, we should be thankful for this view in the mindset of the merry little band of White House wannabe extortionists, they do help the more slow-witted among us to understand that the USA has become an enemy power. I have no doubt that we will be the world’s major power pretty quickly.
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised about the security leak. It was only.a matter of time before someone in thIS Cabinet collection of incompetents and lickspittles made some kind of surprisingly stupid mistake like this one.
As to why any American administraion should imagine that there’s little or no value in world wide alliances with other democracies is beyond me. The world is much too small and much too infested with authoritarian regimes, more and more of whom are armed with weapons capable of extinction level risk for anyone to preach any kind of isolationism or ‘go it alone’ lunacy.
There is seldom a day goes by when Trump, Vance, Musk and their myrmidons, enabled and supported by the cowards or collaborators in the Republican side of both House and Senate don’t do or try to do something so stupid of foolish as to boggle the mind of anyone who values common sense, the nature of our Republic, our Constitution, or the rule of law. How long this parade of simple damn foolishness will go on is impossible to say. There are signs that even MAGA is starting to realize they bought a pig in a poke, but we cannot count on that backlash accomplishing anything anytime soon.
At just past my 80th birthday, I thought I’d seen the depths to which a national administration could descend in pursuit of sole power or self-preservation, but I never imagined this, or the fact that so many of us couldn’t see what’s at stake.
I don't read his remarks as indicating he views Europe as the enemy.
“3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez,” Vance cautioned. “40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary … I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.”
To me, this is completely consistent with the point he hammers home over and over again - that Europe is wealthy enough to pay for its own defense. They need to at the very least take the lead on their own security concerns.
That said, it is quite possible that he hates the oikophobic, technocratic European ruling class which has flooded their homelands with tens of millions of Muslims. I certainly do!
“That said, it is quite possible that he hates the oikophobic, technocratic European ruling class which has flooded their homelands with tens of millions of Muslims.”
I do think this is spot on and not inconsistent in any way with how this administration has presented itself both domestically and abroad. Vance is a leading voice for Europeans who’ve seen their voices silenced by the bureaucratic blob residing in Brussels. A blob that couldn’t give a rip about preserving the proud and unique cultures of any of its member states.
The problem with this analysis is that there aren’t that many Muslims. The current (post Brexit) ethnic make up of England and Wales are:
White 81%
Asian 9%
Black 4%
Mixed 3%
Other 2%
Asian is quite a broad category, and shouldn’t be read as equating to “Muslim.” If you cross reference with religious make up, the numbers look like this:
Christian 46%
No religion 33%
Muslim 6.5%
Hindu 1.7%
Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh were all under 1%
So Muslims are the largest single minority, but still very much a minority at just 6.5% of the total population of England and Wales. Freaking out about that number looks a little silly, given we were only just recently freaking out about having too many European Catholics here in the lead up to Brexit.
Plugging skills gaps with non-European immigration post Brexit was raised as a probable outcome during the referendum, but some poor bastards really thought we’d shut down whole industries OR put them on hold for 5-10 years while we trained up Britons from a standing start, or go even harder on having more babies and then spending 20 years raising them and getting through school rather than importing any skilled workers. I feel for them, but they really were sold a load of fairy dust. I think most of the anger out there is more about that, frankly.
The problem with your analysis is that Muslims only represent "6.5%" of the population but they are wildly disproportionate in their representation among those who commit serious offenses like sexual assault and terrorism. These are also 'hate crimes' in any contemporary sense of the word.
These crimes are not particularly commonplace; the UK has seen far fewer deaths from terrorism in the 25 years since the mid-90's than the same period ante, but the way successive governments and our media gaslight us about the problem is driving people crazy (which is what gaslighting is for). Their gamble is still to hope they can smear everyone who wants something done about immigration as dangerous hateful bigots and domestic terrorists. If we keep letting them off the hook they will create the very monster they fear.
They are not “wildly disproportionate,” in committing sex crimes. The population of U.K. sex criminals is still dominated by the majority ethnicity - and sorry, but a raped woman or girl derives little comfort that her rapist was white instead of brown. It’s a dumb argument to make.
Figures have been released which show the number or offences in the UK per thousand of population, based on country of origin, for both crime in general and sexual crime in particular.
They paint a very clear picture indeed.
Source https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/bombshell-stats-the-state-doesnt
In addition to that, the so called grooming gangs are almost exclusively made up of people of Pakistani origin, and a disproportionate number are, or are descended from, people in the Mirpur area of that country.
Matt Goodwin? Come on. You can go direct to the primary source if this is something you genuinely care about.
Your source is a nationalist-conservative right-wing populist person. Also, in a democratic society, handling crime is based on in individuals and not on ethnic communities or religions.
The ONS statistics I've just checked only go up to 2017 but on table 3 of "sexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables" it says 6,872 of 11,311 defendants, or 61%, were "white". This means that you are correct that the majority ethnicity commits the bulk of the sexual offences. But the "white" population was about 85% in 2017 so, whoever the remaining 15% was, provided 39% of the rapists. It is obvious to any fair observer that your argument is not only dumb, but transparently so.
The last census was 2021. You could start your research with that.
But what is your point? You want to use statistics to use the government against groups even if individuals are not suspected or convicted of a crime?
You are conflating terrorism with Islam and applying us vs them fake conditions. Can you stop doing that?
But I'm not doing that at all; Correlation does not equal causation, after all. Neither does 'identity group' representation in crime statistics reflect on an individual member of that group. Governments don't make laws for individuals though, they have to act on groups and if they don't take account of all the trade-offs in their immigration or counter-terrorism strategy then they will make bad policy and society will suffer. This is where we are today, because no one in power will even admit some problems exist, and they refuse to fix the problems.
The left is largely responsible for this, as it is their cultural hegemony that has made it impossible to even ask certain questions if they even touch on race or even biological sex - no point saying gender any more; the left have made that concept so elastic that is it meaningless and therefore worthless.
What this gives us is the spectacle of a TV series about a social ill ('incel culture') that is more witchhunt then genuine crisis, and affects non-white boys and fatherless boys disproportionately, but the only way our media and political elite can bear to see it discussed in mass-media is if the perpetrator is a white boy from a family with a working father in it.
One of our current ministers, Jess Phillips, fought against a very misogynistic and racist campaign at the last election but when she was barracked at her hustings with shouts of 'free palestine' she only emphasised that it was 'men' who were trying to intimidate her, it was 'men' who had verbally abused her canvassers and damaged their cars.
The left simply cannot grasp that it is they who are the real racists and sexists in the Western cultures today. They are patronising to non-whites and they are gaslighting all of us. They are the ones standing in the way of actual progress.
What percentage of India’s population was made up of the British in the 18th and 19th centuries? A fraction of the 6.5% Muslims make up today.
But history shows us that a minority who infiltrates and controls major institutions of a country will dictate the culture and laws of a country.
Colonialism never ends well. Absolutely insane that the British can’t see that. Insane.
That’s also a really silly argument. Capitalism runs on highly skilled workers going where the work for them is. That’s why the tech industry imports so many Indian (read: Asian) software engineers. In the U.K. we import a lot of doctors (too many, in my view) because it’s cheaper than opening up more medical school places. So when you’re looking at why highly skilled migrants are moving around the world, look no further than Musk’s continued support for h1b visas.
Are you conflating skills and ideology? Or just purposefully sidestepping the ideological implications of the Muslim immigration patterns in Western Europe and The UK?
But what is your point? You want to use statistics to use the government against groups even if individuals are not suspected or convicted of a crime?
Craig, are you educated or do you have general problems in understanding social reality?
Do you really think that hillbilly gives a shit about Europe, its people and its culture?
Yes.
Then you are answering in a way proving that you are bigoted, ignorant, and stupid. Because he "cares" about Europe in a destructive and dividing way. One has a right to be European and Muslim, just accept it.
The cultures of member states are not so unique anymore as due all the changes since the last 30 years. So what? More Europeans have experiences with each other and member states have been more integratred under more common economic, social, and cultural behaviors.
Also, just because the EU has 27 member states does not mean 27 100% unique cultures. Many Europeans are also members of minority groups and have more local and regional cultures in daily life, as in Catalonia. For example, Donald Tusk, who served in the EU institutions, has a Kashubian identity in Poland.
What do you mean? Who has been "silenced"? Also, your interpretation of reality and history is absurd and untrue. Vance is a populist just as Trump and he is not supporting the EU at the moment https://glibe.substack.com/p/jd-vance-and-50-shades-of-right-wing
I think that people like you who use the term oikophobic have bad values and opinions. You are driven by racism and populism. Muslims are a part of Europe just as of America as well.
I'm writing from Britain where we're well aware of the hostility of the administration - and especially of Vance - toward Europe. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference was not interpreted as blunt but ultimately well-intentioned advice towards a wayward friend. Along with Musk's interventions, it was seen as a direct attempt to interfere in the German election (and therefore strike at the heart of Europe).
I also don't recognise your comments about free speech. I don't feel that my free speech is in any way curtailed in Europe. BUT I do with the US. Having expressing strong anti-Trump views, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if I didn't make it into the country. Which is why all future trips to North America will be to Canada until such time as the US is a reliable ally again!
Duncan I suspect Denyse's views will never land her in trouble because they accord substantially with the 'blob'. Denyse, what your comments suggest is a remarkable blind spot regarding 'foreign interference' If you think Vance/Musk speeches in Europe are unconscionable then what do you make of Zelensky's visit to the US in September of 2024?
Oh, and your comment about free speech simply takes my breath away.
Couldn't agree more. These free speech arguments are LAUGHABLE. The only two times I experienced that free speech laws are different in Germany than the UK were:
1. When I was reading 'In The Garden of Beasts' which had a small swastika on the cover. A German friend explained I had to cover it it up with a sticker, since it was an illegal symbol.
2. That flipping someone off is really, really bad, and just not done. This (along with other personal insults) is both legally punishable, but it's also cultural. I found/find it weird, but also see how it fits into cultural norms here. The bottom line is Germany is a sovereign nation and can make whatever rules and laws it sees fit.
Meanwhile, back home in the US:
- Ann Selzer gets sued by Trump for releasing a poll he didn't like (Iowa has no Anti-SLAPP laws
- Green card holders are detained by ICE for speech the regime doesn't approve of: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-and-coalition-partners-file-brief-rebuking-us-government-attempting-deport-mahmoud-khalil
- ABC and other news outlets are hit with frivolous law suits for unflattering news coverage
- Threatening Democratic members of Congress with investigation for criticizing conservatives
- Pulling federal grants that include language the administration opposes (you may not like DEI, but it's still speech)
- Sanctioning law firms that represent Trump's political opponents
- Proposing to limit the right to protest near the White House and on the National Mall
- Threatening to change libel laws to make it easier to sue publishers and news organizations
I would think twice about protesting in the street, which I have never EVER done before (not that I'm a big street protester). I'm also now worried about every dumb thing I've ever posted online.
If I have to hear any more of these BS arguments about free speech I'm gonna lose it.
“DEI is still speech” DEI is discrimination. It is unconstitutional. That is why the Trump administration cancels contracts. The people who support DEI can still say the words “diversity, equity…” all they want
Fair, but cancelling Black History Month or Chinese Lunar New Year strike me as people being freaked out about what can or can't be said/celebrated. We were celebrating those things when I was in elementary school in the 70s and 80s.
The most egregious example of this being the demotion of General CQ Brown (who was appointed by Trump!) which was a naked cancellation because of a totally anodyne 4 minute talk he gave to his troops in the midst of George Floyd unrest: https://bit.ly/3FR3PVI
Here's a quick Perplexity run through of other cancellations: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/please-provide-examples-of-mul-4OYKqDtbTeqwWUW0h0JtYw
To clarify: I'm not defending DEI per se, but I do think civil rights, harmless multi-cultural events that have been part of everyday life for decades are being tossed out with the anti-DEI bathwater and it is chilling speech.
perchance your corner of the UK is not subject to Two Tier Kerr’s divisive speech censorship, maybe you haven’t been arrested and charged for holding a silent prayer outside an abortion clinic or sacked for challenging transgenderism or thrown out of your tenured professorship for quoting Christian positions on … well, just about anything, really
I don't know if European and American attitudes towards free speech can be reconciled any time soon. It might be our biggest point of difference.
A lot of Europeans are finding out why they need stronger free speech protections. It's not the attitudes that need reconciling (except in elite circles), it's the laws that need changing.
Are there European politicians who would stick their neck out to forward a law protecting online racism, or offensive speech?
What’s the nature of any potential free speech movement in your country?
Politicians; very few, and universally demonised. Among the public there are very many more and increasingly motivated to vote against our nanny authoritarians. I think it will take several elections before real change happens, though.
Javier, you’re dog-whistling on free speech so let me try to clarify. The U.S. First Amendment is an almost absolute guarantee of free speech (the limits are the famous “crying fire in a crowded theatre” example), even if hateful, insulting or prejudiced language. Significantly, the Trump administration is NOT trying to deport the Columbia University grad student for what he said; it is alleging that he lied on his Green Card application. Europe (and Australia) are more nuanced: the woman arrested and convicted after the race riots went down because she advocated violence against a recognised group (there, legal immigrants). Merely vilifying them is OK, advocating ACTION is not. That’s also why the NSW cops did nothing at the Sydney Opera House when demonstrators shouted “Death to the Jews!” - they hadn’t broken any laws. You might not like this European approach but it is hardly censorious and it is pretty clear and consistent.
What an incredibly patronising tone you take.
I do appreciate you clarifying your ignorance on what constitutes free speech so early in your post though. The US first amendment is the current gold-standard on free speech; anything less than this is not free speech. The orwellian concept of a 'non-crime hate incident' that can affect your employment prospects just because someone pretends to have hurt feelings over something you posted online, is a very long way from free speech. It is not at all complicated, Will.
Javier, I think that individuals as you are not anti-authoritarian. Instead, you are more right-wing authoritarian because you dislike left-wing authoritarians. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are completely wrong. I enthusiastically dislike both right wing and left wing authoritarianism because I see no interesting practical differential between the far-left and the far right. They both have the same ideological framework inhabiting two different pools of personality types.
Now for those who think 'freedom' is right-wing: There is a viewpoint that seems to assume natural justice is cruel and oppressive (compared to 'social justice') and that therefore any notion of personal responsibility is also oppressive, and those that espouse personal responsibility are just 'right-wing' authoritarians, rather than just actual liberals or libertarians. As a liberal I think 'social justice' is an Owellian by-word for leftist oppression so I view the whole concept as inherently hypocritical.
“Free speech not in any way curtailed in Europe”!!!! Maybe you are just mouthing what the regime wants you to say?
Harry, check the research. Both USA and the EU are having free speech problems
European governments are now the main enemies of their own people. They import criminals, protect and support them, and prosecute their citizens for activism and dissent. Trump isn't against Europe. He's against the parasitic elite cabals which suck wealth out of European countries and use it to further their own alien agendas, against the sincere and sustained wishes of their own voters. People get raped and killed all the time, but when the government adopts and protects those rapists and murderers, it becomes complicit.
At some point soon political violence will become a real possibility in Europe (if the populations aren't too old and demoralized). When a government invites anonymous and disaffected young men from the most dangerous parts of the world, billets them next to your homes and schools by the hundreds, and then represses you when you complain it's no longer a legitimate government. It's a valid target for revolution and political violence.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-managerial-class
Your post does not contain any facts that are recognisable to any European reading it, except perhaps to AfD supporters. It's regurgitated far-right diatribe that seeks to scaremonger and exaggerate. You probably don't live in the European Union and you appear to be politically uneducated.
I take it that you are not up to date with the situation here in the UK. James' post may come across as a bit dramatic, but it's still a fair enough representation of the reality here.
Concerns about immigration are presently at the top of the agenda for a large proportion of UK voters, perhaps even the majority. There is no other issue that even comes close to it in terms of salience.
Judging from the recent elections in Germany, I'd say it's a major topic there too.
It is, but what the international media failed to notice is that the Musk and Vance show backfired. Die Linke practically tripled their vote share while the AfD stayed steady, the picture is not as binary as some would make it.
When you say that the AfD vote share stayed steady, what is your frame of reference? AfD polled almost 21% at the recent elections in 2025, compared to just over 10% in 2021. I also heard that it did consistently well with blue collar voters across the whole country, not just in its East German heartland.
If you are talking about a movement in the vote share between JD Vance's Munich speech and the election, I'm not sure how much can be read into that. There certainly didn't seem to be a switch back to the established parties which Vance might have appeared to be criticising.
Die Linke polled at just under 9%, up from just under 5%, so a not dissimilar accomplishment to AfD in terms of improvement.
Stayed steady with the polls, while Die Linke wasn't even expected to make it into Parliament. They surged (and there were massive rallies) after Vance's speech and Elon's meddling.
The biggest irony of it all is the AfD is most popular in the East, the Bundesland with the absolute least amount of immigrants! It's mostly unemployed ethnic Germans collecting government checks in a country with a dire worker shortage.
I'll finish with this: When you live in a place, and you hear a lot of breathless dystopian hyperbole about it from people who don't live there (and perhaps have never even visited) that is the *complete opposite* of what you see in your everyday life, it lands as bizarre and deranged.
I was just quoting the numbers.
This just shows that a people are capable of making up their own minds regardless of 'foreign propaganda', based on what they see with their own eyes.
Katrina, I can only ponder that you reside in a corner of the EU that is heavily censored. I’m on the geographical edge of the EU and can see quite clearly the points James Mills illustrates - and - I see them in Dublin, London, Athens, Brussels, Amsterdam, Koln and during my frequent visits it is always the same … go for a walk thru Molenbeek for a quick lesson, or Gothenburg or Lisbon … there are none so blind as those who will not see
I live in the heart of Germany and what I'm seeing described here has zero bearing on reality.
So what are you seeing? You don’t, or won’t say…. Oooh, lots of dark, awful people harassing and menacing white people all over the towns?
Again, same old tropes of “those awful immigrants breaking down society etc etc.”
Society changes every day, every year, every decade, every century. Nothing stays the same.
‘Wonder who’s really blind?
Katrina you'll have to take it from me that I'm not far-right or anti-immigration per se but we in Europe really do have problems. Illegal and excessive legal immigration might not be the worst of them but they demonstrate more sharply than anything else how are leaders are simply not willing to tackle those problems. You can write off one vote in one country, but when it's all across the continent? You must really believe the power of propaganda if you think it can summon all this from nothing.
What you're describing is something, but it's not Europe. Everyone I know here is scrambling to get their German citizenship, now that they allow dual citizenship. In the 20+ years I've lived here I've never encountered so many Americans that just wanted to get out or who have decided not to go back. Anecdata, I know - but it is real and notable.
I like the phrase 'anecdata'. In the US, millions of people have left Democrat states on the coasts and gone to live in Republican states like Texas and Florida, as opposed to the dozens or hundreds you may have witnessed. My chosen phrase is 'selection bias'.
Fair, but I still wouldn't describe California (my native state) in the dire terms laid out in some of these comments and I was just there over Christmas. We even spent a day in San Francisco and it was beautiful. I was expecting a total hellscape based on the screaming headlines I've seen lately.
I wouldn't describe my native Britain in dire terms either but News has a habit of being a 'non-random sample of all the worst things happening today'. The point is to get people worked up so they pay for your news.
Good point.
There is a very real schism in politics in the whole of the western world, including the US. I get the impression that the dislike that each side of the divide has for the other goes way beyond anything I can recall previously (the closest I can think of is the venal hatred on the left in the UK for Margaret Thatcher - who nevertheless won 3 consecutive elections).
The point I'm making is that now defeat is unbearable, and many of the globalist left can opt to leave (it's harder for the more homebound civic nationalists on the right to do so). I'd recommend reading David Goodhart's book "The Road to Somewhere" - it's based on the UK, but still relevant I think to the US, and discusses the realignment of politics.
Some people also just don't want to worry about their kids getting shot in school and want decent health care, it's not really about ideology.
Goodhart is promoting nativism and populism. If you think his book is good, you are not in favor of freedom.
Goodhart is promoting balance. His argument is that the political zeitgeist had shifted too far in favour of the 'anywheres', and that the 'somewheres' were marginalised. The so-called populist (a.k.a. democratic) votes in 2016 were a symptom of that.
His follow up book "Head, Hand, Heart" develops the theme further suggesting that society overvalues "Head" roles, and undervalues "Hand" and "Heart" roles. To me, that sounds like the sort of position that left of centre parties used to espouse.
Trump is opposed to the racist, globalist, leftist self destructive cult that oozes out of the World Economic Forum to every country in the Western world. He is completely consistent.
Consistently stupid
Please expound.
Dude, are you joking or?
This is the same old, same old nonsense of the right (white) wing. Immigration has been part of every country in the world (save some Asian countries) for decades. And here we go with the old tropes of “importing (or “inviting”) disaffected young men from the most dangerous parts of the world, etc etc”. There are plenty of dangerous, disaffected young men in the UK who do plenty of what you think only immigrants do, (& who in times gone by imported themselves into other countries and demonised the indigenous residents).
The people who go ballistic about immigrants are often ones who don’t have any in their neighborhoods or villages-like the AfD embracers-most of whom are from the East-who haven’t seen a black, brown or other kind of immigrant at all.
“Rise of the managerial class”?? Where have you been living for the past 80 years?? It sounds like you’d prefer to live in a nice cozy, white, autocratic (perhaps dictatorial) country. Too late, mate-it’s never going to be like that again, it hasn’t been that way since the 1950’s.
Yes, I do believe you live in “A Locked Room”!
“Some Irish and Polish catholic families came and worked as farmers in the past and so now we must accept millions of angry young Pakistani men establishing a parallel society and draining our country economically.”
People with such atttidues as you are supporting politics draining the country culturally and economically because you end up supporting authoritarians who are so destructive and horrible in governing
What are you writing about here?
I'm guessing you haven't even accidentally been exposed to any crime statistics even in passing, for the past decade.
Not trying to redpill you, but there is way too much data out there that doesn't sit too comfortably within your positive view on the immigrant situation.
There are two major straw-man arguments you've deployed there. The first is that because we've had steady immigration since the 50's only bigots think we cannot absorb tens or hundreds of thousands of young unskilled men with no family ties and very different cultural values when our own youth are languishing on sickness benefits, and median wages haven't gone up in over 15 years.
The second is that people in rural communities who can look around at nearby towns and villages where immigrants have been dumped on benefits can't see what's coming to their own community.
I'll also just leave this here, some hard facts might be helpful for the conversation:
https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2025-02-18/more-foreigners-do-not-increase-germanys-crime-rate
Also this 2018 crime report, 3 years after the influx of Syrian Asylum seekers (conducted by super conservative Bavarian Seehofer, minister of the interior at the time):
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/EN/2019/04/pks-2018-en.html
It's in English and based on police crime statistics. It's extremely thorough and distinguishes petty crime and violent crime and crimes committed between/against non-Germans and asylum seekers as well as crimes within immigrant populations.
It's helpful to keep in mind the category 'Non-Germans' includes people with a 'migration background'. This can include Romanians, Albanians and other Eastern Europeans, as well as people who may have been here for generations but don't have a German passport since Germany does not have unconditional birthright citizenship.
Following your second link, on paragraph 7 appears the following sentence: " As in the previous [to 2018] year , about 30% of all suspects were not German nationals"
This suggests that, unless only 70% of the German population are German nationals, that non-nationals are disproportionally criminal.
Note also paragraph 2: "Not counting violations of law concerning foreigners (the Residence Act, Asylum Act and the Freedom of Movement Act/EU)"
whether or not immigration has been an historical fact for centuries is irrelevant, its the the nature of the immigrant conduct that is important and if that is perceived, based on evidence and lived experience, indicates that there is a disproportionate problem than that has traction within a community … it’s not about right or left wing tropes but the actuality of the impact on national systems such as law-and-order, health supply, educational capacity, housing et al … so don’t play the fatuous ‘race card’
What do you mean? Where are the facts? "Improting"?
What you are writing here is a racist and populist rubbish
I am a European, I have lived in several countries over here, and basically agree with Yasha Mounk's recommendations.
One thing that sticks in my craw when reading many opinions is the constant talk of some percentage measurement as indicating whether Europe is shouldering its responsibility or not.
Even today I understand that Europe in total spends much more than Russia on defense - so what's the deal? Not the money. Nuclear weapons and a common strategy more likely.
As many have quoted, NATO was designed to 'keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'. It was also as a consequence helping to avoid proliferation of atomic weapons since none of the mainland countries felt the need to build them - barring France, outside NATO at the time.
As another consequence of keeping an American in charge, Europe was relieved of thinking seriously about its own defense.
This left Europeans fixated on the rather meaningless percentage goal for a country-centered defense strategy.
Yes, you can blame the European leaders for their sleeping beauty slumber.
You can also say that the Americans got what they bargained for. Hegemony.
The Americans then mishandled the dissolution of the Soviet Union and are now panicking and blaming the Europeans for not being ready to pick up the pieces as they lose interest like Trump and Biden did in Afghanistan. Or like the Buchanans in 'The Great Gadsby' who left their mess behind. An American habit based on its two wide moats.
YES. The current state of European defense is the result of deliberate American strategy over decades, and it’s incredible to see how that’s slipped from so many Americans’ consciousness. The US was carrying the biggest stick, and it wanted it that way!
I also agree that the belligerence we’re now seeing from the MAGA right is a way of covering for the fact that the US is effectively retreating from being the One Great Power. Tough talk makes pulling back from having proactive global influence look better to the folks at home, but it’s leaving lots of gaps for China to fill. The irony is breathtaking, but the voters are too busy watching the show to notice.
Recall that a key advantage of Trump during the 2016 primary was his willingness to unequivocally condemn Iraq:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whX35NKthQw
Republicans disproportionately serve in the military. They saw what our "freedom and democracy" policies did in the Middle East. And that's made them skeptical of internationalism more broadly. In my opinion, this skepticism is very justified.
Yes, and this is what’s contributing to the cognitive dissonance we’re seeing. On the one hand the US is the greatest, on the other hand it’s unable and unwilling to impose its military will (big contrast to Russia, who has been conscripting for the Ukraine war for years now). The US is the greatest, yet retreating and giving up influence to China and Russia. No wonder JD is so angry and so in need of a safe outlet for it.
I mean yeah, we're now doing America First rather than American Exceptionalism.
American Exceptionalism doesn't have any remaining proponents as far as I can tell. This has been true for a while; I don't think Vance is still angry about it.
Absolutely, and the problem you’ll find is that you can’t be the greatest without having a big sphere of influence. Chucking that out leaves more room for China to step up, and they’ve been very good at doing so - their influence in Africa (and all those mineral rights) has built a lot over the past few years, while the US and quibbled and fought internally.
The cognitive dissonance is going to get a lot worse over the next few years.
The US economy did fine prior to WW2 by staying out of European affairs.
I expect under Trump, the US will receive *more* African mineral rights, not less. https://www.wsj.com/world/africa/war-torn-congo-has-a-deal-for-trump-kick-out-rebels-get-minerals-295acfb4
I understand you in general but who is going to pay for everything Mounk is promoting?
>The Americans then mishandled the dissolution of the Soviet Union and are now panicking and blaming the Europeans for not being ready to pick up the pieces as they lose interest like Trump and Biden did in Afghanistan. Or like the Buchanans in 'The Great Gadsby' who left their mess behind. An American habit based on its two wide moats.
Losing interest can be a good thing. It's good that the US lost interest in Vietnam, for instance. It only makes sense to maintain interest if you're making a situation better.
"“3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez,” Vance cautioned. “40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary … I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.” In other words, Vance didn’t just argue that America has no important self-interest to defend in the region; he seemed to suggest that it should count as an active reason against the operation that it would also happen to serve European interests."
Seriously, from THAT you get "Vance hates Europe?". Not "This is MUCH more important to Europe than it is to the US, so why is this necessary for US to do it instead of them?" I'm a member of the public and I certainly wonder why our defense treaty allies in Europe are apparently incapable of securing their own shipping lanes against a rag tag bunch like the Houthis. I even agree that it's inconsistent with the President's messaging to Europe for us to bail them out yet again without some consideration in return for our expenditures on their behalf. There is NOTHING in there that suggests that we don't have an interest (even if it is only 3%) or even that it serving European interests also is necessarily a mark against SOMEONE doing it, but rather that given the relative strengths of interests involved it SHOULD be Europe doing it, that us doing it for them for free undercuts our current foreign policy position, and IS difficult to justify to the domestic public why we would need to do this instead of them.
If you think those concerns are unwarranted, I'd like to hear your take on why we, instead of Europe, needed to be the ones to do this, and how bailing them out yet again without reward isn't obviously contrary to "America First" and our demands that Europe needs to start pulling its own weight in military expenditures. What answer would you suggest the government give to our taxpayers asking why Europe isn't paying their fair share of the bill for their own security?
I'm also writing from Britain where I'm not at all certain that Vance's comments represent "hostility" toward Europe, more like exasperation. The title of your piece and some of the sentiment inside it are asking those remarks to do a lot of work!
We ARE freeloaders, and we (well, many of us) complain bitterly about US hegemony, whilst at the same time not wanting to make the sacrifices necessary for us to secure our own strategic autonomy. Our hypocrisy makes me frustrated as a UK citizen, so it should come as no surprise that senior US administration figures think this way.
Russia is a shadow of the threat that the USSR was. If the major European nations stopped destroying themselves with expensive and unreliable energy that makes them vulnerable to Russian blackmail, then we could easily field capable and well rounded military forces that aren't totally reliant on the US for expeditionary warfare.
This doesn't make them our enemies, and if we wanted better friends then perhaps we should have been better allies?
“Europe” is a huge continent full of citizens, politicians of all stripes (though mostly left or hard left, eager to layer on regulation and social welfare policies instead of incentivizing innovation, community building, Christian responsibility for ones family)
I bet Vance loves Europe as a continent, would be happy to live in Holland or Poland or Norway for the rest of his life, but hates the EU leadership.
If Europe elects leaders who don’t do their best to weaken their own societal bonds and traditions and who don’t hypocritically pose for photos with Ukrainian leaders while shoveling money to Russia and Iran and free trading with China, then Vance will view Europe as a strong ally again.
I think that is a fair summary of how many US citizens view our European attitudes.
He would have thought the extreme right in Norway are comminists. And maybe seen massacres where nobody else have seen any since the one by a right wing maniac several years ago
“…shovelling money to Russia and Iran and trading freely with China”? Evidence for the first two please, and as for free trade, are you against it? Really?
I am against free trade with China, yes. In the build up to a war you should not help your enemy, nor outsource production of weapon materials to an enemy. Also, I don’t want to drag America down to Chinese slave wage levels just to get slightly cheaper iPhones
Germany needs to build world-class universities? Where have you been, my friend? Germany has several world-class universities that consistently rank among the best globally. Institutions like Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), the University of Heidelberg, the University of Freiburg, and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) are particularly well-regarded. These universities excel in fields like engineering, natural sciences, medicine, and humanities.
Germany's universities are known for their strong research output, partnerships with industry, and tuition-free or low-cost education, even for international students. The country is also home to prestigious research institutions like the Max Planck Society and the Fraunhofer Institute, which further enhance its academic reputation.
You need to do your research before making unsubstantiated claims!
Maybe Germany still has some capable universities but I’m actually worried that they will decline like American universities have started to decline. Mr. Mounk actually wrote a book about the worldview/ideology that is hijacking American universities. It’s called „The Identity Trap“ and has been translated into German as „Im Zeitalter der Identität“.
When I’m thinking of the decline of German universities I’m thinking of the recent new president of the Technische Universität Berlin. Prof. Geraldine Rauch really gives the appearance of being a leftist „woke“ activist instead of a scientist.
Get an impression of what she cares about and which topics she doesn’t mention by listening to some of her speeches (in German):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y2kE5h2RnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwLeuI14rPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00NhCPPqOWM
One example from the last link: (5:52) Geraldine Rauch: "Wir sehen uns am Neujahrsanfang am 17. Januar 2025 mit neuen Ideen, neuem Kampfgeist und mit ganz viel Menschlichkeit." (“See you at the start of the New Year on January 17, 2025 with new ideas, a new fighting spirit and a lot of humanity.”)
There are other quotes like this that you wouldn't expect from a university president but from a leftist activist.
Geraldine Rauch reminds me of a talk that Jonathan Haidt gave in 2016 where he talked about how universities must decide their highest telos (goal). Is it searching for truth or social justice? They cannot have both at the same time.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice-2/
She also caused a big scandal when she liked tweets that where obviously antisemitic in nature. Something that seems to fit very well with her political leanings.
What appears to be happening to German universities is that there are now sufficiently woke people in positions of power that can put an activist like Geraldine Rauch in power. That is new and highly unfortunate for German universities. We need to educate people on the ideology of these activists and then they need to be replaced by credible, honest and capable scientists. Or our universities will end up like American universities.
It's astonishing to me that you're just now grasping Vance's contempt for and hostility towards Europe.
I mean, if you're a clickbait journalist selectively quoting his statements, then sure. But if you actually listen to e.g. that famous speech in Munich, he says stuff like "it’s great to be back in Germany... I’ve always loved the city of Munich, and I’ve always loved its people..."
There seems to be a bias towards considering his negative statements as sincere, and his positive statements as insincere. I don't see why that bias is justified.
I actually think there are some analogies to the 2020 BLM situation in the US/Europe relationship right now. Same way there was a moral panic about policing in the US, now Europe is having a moral panic about the US as an ally. The truth is that policing *does* suck in the US, and the US *is* getting less reliable as an ally. But social media is magnifying extremists as usual. I recommend listening to the actual speeches to get it straight from the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOc44fVvneI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBAAkybpHAo
Note that the original European reaction to the Vance speech at Munich was actually bemusement. It wasn't until social media had a few days to process it that it turned into outrage.
We've seen social media distort race and gender relations. In the past, international relations haven't been affected. It's sad to see that international relations are now what we are fighting about.
EDIT: On the other hand, if this moral panic is what it takes for Europe to get its act together on security, then I support it. Maybe anti-Americanism is the force necessary to unite the continent.
I'm an American living in the EU on and off for 15+ years now and while I enjoy Yasha's insight, his insight also shows his lack of understanding of the average American. Only your enemies don't say anything when you are making a mistake. Europe is the brother that has been virtually useless over the last 40 years and unfortunately, this is the only way JD Vance and Trump understand how to wake Europe up from its slumber.
Trump may speak like the average American but JD Vance is the average American that has made it to the top. Why should America fight for European interests when Europeans don't even know what those interests are? Being perceived as kind or compassionate is not an interest. The question remains, what is Europe doing about its higher proportion of trade that goes through the Black Sea. I wonder if JD Vance speaks about Finland or Poland in the same manner.
How do you get an overgrown child to step into adulthood?
Don’t underestimate the extent to which Vance’s recent conversion to Catholicism plays a role in his attitude toward Europe. Vance is now a conservative Catholic of the kind represented by the Federalist Society. They are opposed to liberalism (in the traditional sense), opposed to individualism, and even, to a certain extent, opposed to democracy, not least because it leads to the other two—liberalism and hyper-individualism—both of which lead to moral dissolution (in their view). Even though Catholicism has its home in Europe, the continent’s elites are all invariably secular—indifferent or even hostile to religion. This is seen as a great threat to the group’s ultimate aim—renewed power for the Catholic Church—and also a great weakness and failing of Europe generally. It is also one of the reasons why they view Putin positively—he is a backer of ecclesiastical power. Secularism, for them, is the ultimate enemy.
Yes but are 'fundamentalist Catholics' that bothered about freedom of speech? Would any religious fanatic come to Europe and give a speech on the right to (among other things) mock religion? There is a slightly disturbing (for me) strand of ultra-religious conservatism reaction in the west, but I don't think it runs as deep as you do.
Please refer to researching the "Federalist Society" and the sway it has held over not only judiciary recommendations and subsequent appointments, to include the SCOTUS, and the organizations members.
Really? You are just figuring out that Trump 2.0 is genuinely hostile towards Europe?
The Trump Admin has excluded Europe from the UKraine ceasefire negotiations. Trump has said the EU as invented to "screw the U.S." Vance has ridiculed the peace-keeping forces France and Britain have proposed. Trump has not stopped talking about annexing Greenland. And it took this?
On another note, watch the Admin now go and persecute Jeff Goldberg. He can expect an indictment, hateful and violent language from Trump and MAGA voiced and possibly threats to himself and his family.
He will pay for their mistakes.
Peter, Jeffrey Goldberg was very careful to not give them any opening to go after him; hence the “Hegseth” in inverted commas. So Hegseth then denied any secret info was included on the call (which was obviously ridiculous), probably hoping to provoke Goldberg into releasing it to prove his point, so they could go “Gotcha!”
Yascha - it feels like our moment is best described as “civilizational reset”.
On one side, progressive leaders push collectivist priorities such as open borders, unfettered immigration, minority protections, large social safety nets, and a blunting of national pride or patriotism in favor of the larger identity. These are America’s Democrats, Canada, and the EU of Brussels.
On the other side are nationalists with traditional cultural identities. They favor defense strength, national pride, patriotism, limited immigration, and racial and religious chauvinism. This is America’s GOP, the UK of Brexit, Hungary, and a growing European movement in Italy, France, Germany. And Russia.
This feels like the new fault lines where the tectonic plates of history are rubbing together. We’re used to the old world of geopolitical models - but this values based new world has now eaten that whole.
All the old rules no longer apply. The EU’s values offends those of the new global, populist, nationalist Right. We must recognize this, admit to it, and address it for the truth it is - not the old world which is now dead and gone.
.
The EU is the only hope Europe has to create an army big enough to resist Putin and Xi. The U.K. Brexit has been a failure - all it’s resulted in is emboldened Russian espionage in the U.K., having to import skilled workers from everywhere BUT Europe, higher food prices (and that’s before full customs kick in!), and piles more productivity-sapping red tape.
I think there is a good chance the EU will be strengthened by the US’s naked hostility - the only other option is to be vulnerable to Russia.
You under report the strength of the winds blowing in Brussel’s face. The French National Front will be in power at some point. The AfD doubled their share of the electorate. European nationalism, with their pull back toward national sovereignty and limited immigration, is expanding vs contracting. The Trumpist argument is winning, not losing in Europe. If anchor states vote to leave the EU, it will collapse. I would not be betting long on the EU at this moment. And that is because they, too, are riven by this civilizational fissure between homogenized collectivism (communism-lite) and patriotic, cultural chauvinism. The watering down of Europe through unfettered Islamic immigration is taking a huge toll on many of their people. It’s not a happy refuge from Trump.
I’m not reporting in this case, I’m making the point that all the populist movements in Europe have been severely undercut by JD Vance’s open hostility, and the fact that only a fool would think that dozens of small countries would have more military clout than one big military alliance. The EU Army was used as a bogeyman to scare Brits towards Brexit, but now Russia and the US have managed to make that look like a sensible prospect. Quite a turnaround.
Right. The big open question now seems to be “whither Europe?”. They have grown so accustomed to US security that they’ll greatly struggle to catch up to adversaries like China and Russia should the US abandon them. And I fear that cultural partisanship has grown so hot and hateful in the US that they’ll greatly struggle and the EU is simply seen as the extension of Obama Democrats, Columbia University, and the embodiment of loathsome woke tyranny like DEI, BLM, etc. Four years of Trump will embolden the same within the EU while weakening the hold from Brussels. The open question (to me) is will the EU circle the wagons around the bloc…or….will the entropy of polarization eat the EU into sovereign states who must band together in informal alliances (not Brussels led) to protect themselves from the wolves of Moscow and Beijing?
Whither Europe? 😳
Yes, the US position is really short-termist. Amazing to think that their own internal culture war is enough for them to willingly cede ground to their geopolitical rivals. The American empire seems to be over already, and has it even been a hundred years?
I see it a bit broader. The US is a (really) big part of a much bigger phenomenon. The collective “West” is collapsing. After decades of over-indexing for Progressive priorities (they, of course, disagree and believe not enough has been done) has upset the balance in our pluralistic, open societies. Too much immigration (and too quickly). Too much de-industrialization (and too quickly). Too much shifting social favoring toward women and minorities. Too much concentration of wealth and opportunity in too few hands. Too much loss to too many people adds up to severe resentment. True all over the “west”.
This is why the West is hobbled on the global stage. Our “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?” level domestic bickering has robbed us of our moral high ground and unity required to blunt a rising China and aggressive Russia. And they know it.
It is how all great empires fall. Unity turns to narcissism, entitlement and self destruction and (finally) the emboldened barbarians always arrive at Rome’s gate.
I don't see an EU army as workable except as a purchasing club. I'll give you all the inefficiencies of duplicated bureaucracy and willingness of young men to 'die for the EU' - lets say all that can be solved. You still have the problem that every member state has a veto, and I just cannot see that not being extended to direct military action when we can see what Hungary is doing over military supplies to Ukraine. What if the EU finally accepts Turkey? Could the EU military ever take over patrolling the routes out of the Suez Canal, so far from EU borders? Or vital trade with Taiwan, where all our high-end silicon is made?
Exactly right.
Young men fight and die for…an idea. The country. The motherland. The fatherland. It would be hard to get young men to die for a trading bloc. Today’s Progressives (as always) misread human nature. They understand that nationalism breeds war and they don’t want war. So they do all they can to erase nations. They invent synthetic things like the EU to replace the component nations. They homogenize the new invention through open borders and unfettered immigration - imagining a polyglot of people will forever erase notions of distinct national pride.
But they miss two things in this giant social engineering project:
1) half their citizens prefer the national identities over the fake identity. They rebel internally and want it back. Those people get slurred as Nazis and racists for this.
2) conquering enemies ARE nationalist and thirsty for conquest. China, Russia. They now see these effete “inclusive” lands as sitting ducks and ripe for takeover. The men won’t fight and die for a fake EU identity and they know it.
Europe only survives, as is, if America protects it. Otherwise, they are very vulnerable
I read Vance's remarks differently. This was clearly intended to be a private chat, however ineptly managed. (And Jeffrey Goldberg deserves far more praise for his cautious and extremely responsible way of handling the situation) Vance was doing what those of us whose jobs included advising elected officials should do: voice his own opinion, with reasons, even if it differed from the majority in the room.
His concern was a pragmatic and political one: Not that the US had "no" interest here, but that the action could and probably would be misconstrued by the public as inconsistent with the President's well-known views -- and, to be fair, Vance's as well. This is separable from the substance of the action, and he was right to make this point explicitly, reasonably, and fairly. He lost the argument, and courteously accepted the result, as any advisor would. The President was going to take that risk, and that was his call to make.
Where I disagree the most is that the "silver lining" in the concluding paragraphs, may in fact be the point. During his last term, Trump's bluster about NATO requirements for defense spending were taken quite seriously by Europe, and still are. And this time Trump is backing up his bluster with the actual military -- not in some bird-brained invasion, but in a well-targeted and strategically significant way to both deter the Houthis and let Iran know that we do mean business. I don't know whether that will be successful -- and it could end in war -- but it is the bet Trump is making.
More important here, it is also the bet that Vance is taking. Diplomats know that harsh statements in public (and sometimes in private) do not need to reflect hostility; good politicians know the same. Maybe Vance does hate Europe and Europeans. But maybe he sees that harsh language from America does cause them to make changes. Trump clearly has no diplomatic skills whatsoever, but it's possible Vance does, and believes that these changes in European attitudes toward defense are more than just a silver lining, and we will all be better allies if they step up to the plate more often.
We are not afraid of the American Medvedev. Actually, as Yasha in fact points out, we should be thankful for this view in the mindset of the merry little band of White House wannabe extortionists, they do help the more slow-witted among us to understand that the USA has become an enemy power. I have no doubt that we will be the world’s major power pretty quickly.
Who is we?
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised about the security leak. It was only.a matter of time before someone in thIS Cabinet collection of incompetents and lickspittles made some kind of surprisingly stupid mistake like this one.
As to why any American administraion should imagine that there’s little or no value in world wide alliances with other democracies is beyond me. The world is much too small and much too infested with authoritarian regimes, more and more of whom are armed with weapons capable of extinction level risk for anyone to preach any kind of isolationism or ‘go it alone’ lunacy.
There is seldom a day goes by when Trump, Vance, Musk and their myrmidons, enabled and supported by the cowards or collaborators in the Republican side of both House and Senate don’t do or try to do something so stupid of foolish as to boggle the mind of anyone who values common sense, the nature of our Republic, our Constitution, or the rule of law. How long this parade of simple damn foolishness will go on is impossible to say. There are signs that even MAGA is starting to realize they bought a pig in a poke, but we cannot count on that backlash accomplishing anything anytime soon.
At just past my 80th birthday, I thought I’d seen the depths to which a national administration could descend in pursuit of sole power or self-preservation, but I never imagined this, or the fact that so many of us couldn’t see what’s at stake.
t