The idea that the Ukraine–Russia war is purely a “European problem” ignores the basic reality of how the conflict evolved and the role the United States played in shaping it. U.S. soft power heavily influenced Ukraine’s political trajectory after 2014, supporting the removal of a democratically elected leader, assisting Ukraine’s military buildup over the following years, and openly framing regime change in Russia as a strategic objective—using Ukraine and sanctions as instruments. Throughout this period, Europe was effectively sidelined or fell in line with U.S. policy rather than charting its own course. None of this is a reinvention of history; it is simply an acknowledgment of how American involvement helped set the stage for the current war.

The hypothetical about Mexico or Canada also misreads how Europe actually perceives the United States. Europe does not view the U.S. as a peer who might need cultural cheerleading—it views the U.S. as the dominant global power whose actions shape the strategic environment for everyone else. Canada and Mexico hold little geopolitical weight, and the Monroe Doctrine has long ensured that neither can drift outside Washington’s orbit. The U.S. also exerts substantial influence over global narratives, as seen in its framing of conflicts involving Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. Given this power imbalance, the suggestion that Europeans would instinctively rally behind America’s “enemies” in a hypothetical border conflict misunderstands the dynamics at play; Europe follows the U.S. because the U.S. sets the terms, not because of tribal cultural loyalties.

in the long run the USA will be far worse for the war than EU. EU already had stagnation of economy, EU already had a import relationship to energy, EU already had a need to increase defense. this was a slight uptick.

in comparison to the USA who nuked it's own dollar dominance by seizing Russian property for political reasons. the one thing holding our financial situation together, albeit as paperclips and duct tape, was purchase of US treasury bonds to shore up dollar security. the rise of BRICS as the world looks at treasury debt as an increasingly risky investment upset the entire situation irrevocably. and we cant fix it, pandora's box is open. the democrats proved they will do it, and the world knows both parties copy each other on a 10 year timescale. so now no presidential party is safe. piss off the USA and lose your assets, so less US controlled assets will be purchased.

You argue that the U.S. will be far worse off than the EU because the Ukraine war supposedly undermined dollar dominance and accelerated BRICS alternatives. I disagree for two reasons.

First, on the war itself: Europe is far more exposed to the long-term fallout than the U.S. is. European industry depended heavily on cheap Russian energy, and the shift away from it has locked in structurally higher costs for the foreseeable future. This will affect competitiveness, living standards, and political stability across the continent for decades. The U.S., by contrast, is geographically insulated and energy independent; the direct consequences of the war are minimal by comparison.

Second, on BRICS and dollar dominance: You’re conflating the effects of the Ukraine war with broader geopolitical developments that predate it. BRICS de-dollarization efforts, U.S.–China tensions, and concerns about U.S. sanctions power were already in motion long before 2022. These are global trends in multipolarity, not outcomes specific to the conflict in Ukraine. I don’t disagree that these trends pose risks for the U.S., but they are not a foregone conclusion.

The key difference is this: Europe’s economic decline is largely locked in, especially for Germany and France. The U.S. still has the capacity—however unlikely—to reverse some of its more damaging trade and industrial policies. Europe does not. Because of that, Europe’s long-term position is more fragile and more predictable in its trajectory.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 26 2025 11:37am

I think we'd both make the same argument.

i'd say European decline was a foregone conclusion, it was a dying man, and it's been shot.

you'd say dollar dominance loss was a foregone conclusion, it was a dying man, and it's been shot.

the question is impasse begs is "what could change the status quo".

well for dollar dominance i dont think anything can, except MAYBE our economy exploding due to AI at a rate that China can't dream of matching, but they try anyways, so they start an economic coldwar that eventually causes them to have a USSR type collapse. but that's like 100 years of potential things.

whereas in europe the real question is "how do we make more energy without Russian coal, gas, and oil". and the answer is nuclear. a technology that already exists today. and not just large scale billion dollar pricetag reactors. multiple companies are making modular small reactors that cost in the millions, and can be plugged into the existing infrastructure to take the load off of conventional power.

this is of course a simplification of the situation, as EU energy concerns for economy are just one factor, with things like low skill labor importation and regulation playing a role among many other things. likewise the US doesnt just have a money raising issue, it has a spending issue, and illegal immigration issue, and regulation issue, and a power issue. but i think these are the two most salient points.

i love you snipa, and i am not trying to shake you but - Europe’s decline isn’t a technological problem that can be fixed with nuclear energy—it’s a political, demographic, and structural problem, and there’s no evidence Europe has the consensus or capacity to deploy nuclear at the scale required. By contrast, U.S. dollar dominance may face long-term pressures, but the U.S. still could course-correct through policy changes or fiscal reform, even if it chooses not to. That’s the core difference: America’s decline is theoretically reversible; Europe’s is not, because the obstacles are built into its political system.

There is no evidence to suggest the US would be willing to course correct, but it is still possible to course correct. There is no ability for europe to course correct, is my position. The way that the EU has been set up, it cannot move quickly enough, the US can.

Europe could theoretically course-correct, but the steps required are so politically and structurally impossible that the scenario is fantasy. To revive its economy, Europe would have to return to full globalization to save the German export model, launch a massive nuclear build-out in France to replace lost energy and geopolitical influence, abolish the EU’s unanimity rules so it can act decisively, break away from U.S. strategic dependence, and rebuild trade ties with Russia, China, and India. These aren’t minor tweaks — they would require a total transformation of Europe’s political identity and foreign policy.

And that’s precisely why Europe cannot course-correct. Germany cannot revive globalization when the U.S. and China have moved into permanent protectionism. France cannot build ten reactors when domestic politics, EU regulation, and financial constraints make it unworkable. The EU cannot abolish unanimity because unanimous consent is required to abolish it. Europe cannot gain independence from the U.S. when it lacks energy security, military capacity, and strategic cohesion. And it cannot restore trade ties with Russia, China, or India because the political environment inside the EU — and its alignment with U.S. interests — forbids it. The U.S. may or may not fix its problems, but at least it could. Europe lacks even the theoretical capacity to change direction. This is why I always portray the EU as the titanic, sailing towards the iceberg under its own inertia, unable to change course with 27 captains all giving different orders.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 26 2025 12:25pm

You haven't shaken me, i agree almost entirely with this point. i'd only add that the US is about as gridlocked in our overspending as the EU is in its politics. programs written into law that we have no real shot of taking out of law account for most of the US's spending, and payments on the debt account for another 20-25%. and to pay for the things we're legally bound to pay for we have to borrow more debt. in the time that the debt has climbed from 15, to 20, to 30+ billion dollars no credible plan to lower it let alone eliminate it has emerged. we're not only not reducing the debt, we're increasing the debt we add each year every year regardless of who is president. the only "plan" is to default on all of the debt, or start a war with a country that holds a lot of it (china) and cancel our their debt, removing us from the global economy.

i guess the only hope i hold for Europe isn't procedural or political, it's revolutionary. many millions of people need to be deported, while also opening trade and going more nuclear. but i agree EU is likely doomed long term. i just also think the USA is too at least in the context of global hegemon.

When random people with no expertise in the relevant fields somehow manage to solve and analyze every issue in a single post.

a rando with no expertise in the relevant fields somehow knows ev1 else is false.......

its a bit like football. if you study it long enough you can tell whats going on.

I'm not surprised you can't process a single sentence correctly.



Yeah, I experience the same feeling after watching a World Cup. I might not be able to manage Real Madrid though. I also see 95% of experts’ pre-game predictions fail.

I guess it's fine to have an opinion on things, but if we're honest, we mostly lack the relevant information or expertise to properly analyze them.
The energy sector of a continent with half a billion people is something you could spend a lifetime studying to become an expert.
I think we should learn to say, “I don’t know anything about this,” instead of dumping garbage on the internet after watching two YouTube videos.