Spoiler: the answer is "no". If you must fear that every four or so years, your supposed "ally" will be taken over by a traitorous, corrupt moron, you have! No! Ally!

Fool me once, fool me twice, and all that jazz.

Now geht on with it!

this regime isn’t - but the people are

The people who elected this particular regime twice?

if you have to ask the question then the answer is obviously no

I think Europe needs to act as if the US is not an ally. I like to think the US would fight in NATO, but most Americans don't care. Europe is a vacation destination at best.

A lot of Americans I know feel like Europe are snobs and weak. Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans. European universities and companies are looked down upon in the US as subpar (except UK).

The thing is that Americans all know dozens of immigrants, including Europeans, but we barely know anyone who left the US. The bias builds itself.

Right now, it is ally to no one, not even itself.

Culturally EU and US are very similar, and it makes all the sense to for them to be allies. However the current US administration is very hostile to the EU, and there is no doubt that they aren't allies, at least in the near future.

The more important question is to know if this is restricted to the current administration, or if they just let the mask fall off.

The current regime in the US is a corrupt group of traitors who don't have allies. They only understand transactional relations, even in their own homes.

The US is only on your side now due to money, power, and what you can do for the people at the top. It's no longer about shared history, democratic ideology, or shared safety on the global stage. Act accordingly.

Obviously not.

This is reaching "battered spouse" levels of delusion that the question is still being asked even.

Someone’s asking this question literally a decade late but oh well.

Latter

'Cause every now and then I kick the living shit outta me!'

Russia comes to mind...

The more important question is to know if this is restricted to the current administration, or if they just let the mask fall off.

Trump I was considered an aberration. Trump II proved it was not. I'm not sure how you can still be unsure about this. The post-truth, pro-authoritarian MAGA cancer goes deeper than Trump, and unless it is purged, it will spread and twist its host into shapes even more abhorrent than what we're already seeing.

I think more Europeans need to realise that the only countries which care about the security of European countries are European countries.

I understand you're trying to highlight the millions of Americans who did not vote for this shitshow and are as horrified at what their country has become as any onlooker is. And yet, that perspective is irrelevant as far as Europe is concerned. If these forces within American society were not strong enough to avert Trump I and II, and if they weren't strong enough to purge the MAGA cancer in the Biden interregnum, Europe should not bank on them being stronger in the future. Europe should aid and support them, sure. But make plans that do not in any way rely on the U.S. returning to normal.

Which is what realists have told us all along, post-cold-war optimism be damned... We were bloody naive.

Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans.

They aren't wrong TBH, European anti-americanism is firmly entrenched.

But is an ally a trustworthy ally if it can be this unstable between presidents

Aaliances should be persistent across regimes otherwise they are not trustworthy alliances

There goes democracy

Exactly. They're made on behalf of the nations, not the leadership of today.

Historically, that generally persisted with the USA since alliances are made by Congress, not the Executive. Since no laws bind the Executive Branch anymore (at the moment), you can't trust anything about how the treaties will be acted upon.

This sentiment is a major part of the MAGA platform - just swap “European” for “American.”

Why become isolationist? It’s a weak position. What about countries like Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, etc? Just because the US sucks right now doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t work together.

Canada enters the group chat.

Trump is a symptom, not the cause. The American people are the cause.

There is no delusion... or incompetence... or stupidity... or whatever other lie voters tell themselves to explain their politicians idiocy. It's basically always corruption.

Whatever it is, they (the govt) are not reliable.

Neither is the voting populace electing said government repeatedly.

This was a call for independence (particularly with regard to defense), not for isolationism. They may share some features, but are two are very different things indeed.

Nah.

We are not, guys. Sorry. Many of us would prefer to be, but we are not in charge at the moment.

You have to be very, very slow to keep asking at this point

“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.

But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist. Are you simply advocating for stronger European militaries? Ironically, MAGA has also been asking for that - they want Europe to spend more on their militaries.

My position is that the stronger and more prolific the alliances are among nations of the world, the less each individual country will need to spend on militarization (a complete waste of resources). That’s not suggesting that Europe shouldn’t be spending more on their militaries in light of recent events. That’s just an unfortunate consequence of a shitty disposition of US isolationism.

Independence rhetoric does closely align with the rise of right wing nationalism we see throughout the world. I’m curious how you distance yourself from that movement.

Europe should not rely on the U.S. anymore and should focus on european alternatives

No it’s not. Deal with it finally.

An untrustworthy ally is an ally all the same. At least it's unlikely to side with the enemy.

Since my childhood, everyone jokes about how French and Germans think they are better then Americans.

They aren’t wrong TBH, European anti-americanism is firmly entrenched.

And well-founded.

I think US is an ally, but a very weak one.

It's ally in the sense that it's very unlikely to side with the enemy in an actual war, but not in the sense that it could be trusted to physically help with troops and equipment under its command, should enemy soldiers start invading EU.

But, what's important is that we cannot base anything on an assumption that some sort of military help, ammunition, intelligence data, equipment or spare parts will be delivered by the US in case of a war.

So, US will be our ally again once Trump has been made powerless, but it's important not to rely on any data or technology coming from US or connected to US, because they will eventually just elect another Trump.

More spending doesn't automatically equal stronger. Especially if you're spending that money on highly complex equipment produced by an openly hostile third party, which can end its supply of spare parts at any moment and therefore render the capabilities purchased with that equipment all but useless.

but we are not in charge at the moment.

Will you ever be back in charge in the foreseeable future, though? I have my doubts and my fears for you guys. You are currently governed by an executive branch that openly disregards court orders and legislative decisions, and that already has instituted purges in many authorities and institutions that could be employed to make them obey the law. It is very hard to come back from that.

“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.

You're not wrong, there are broader and narrower definitions of security. For the purposes of my posting, I used it in a more narrow, defensive meaning.

But tell me specifically the difference between becoming more independent vs isolationist.

Happy to. "Independent", in a security/defensive context, means that you can organise your own defense if need be. This does not mean that you're unwilling to cooperate. Like you said correctly, there are great benefits to be had from military alliances: joint development means reduced R&D and maintenance costs for everyone involved. Compatible command structures and shared strategies improve security for those inside and deterrence of those outside the alliance. But: if allegiances shift and your former partners drop out of the alliance, you're not opening yourself up to any vulnerabilities - unlike large parts of Europe, which has entirely relied on the U.S. for things like air defense, intelligence and nuclear deterrence, but also conventional land operations, and now needs to build up these capabilities in a rush.

"Isolationism", on the other hand, means you're flat-out unwilling to cooperate or care. You refuse to enter alliances, be bound by treaties of any kind, and generally take no interest in getting involved with the rest of the world, including the use of soft power.

The reason you're suspicious of the word "independence" and connect it to right-wing populism is because, like so many other words, right-wing populists love to abuse it: they say "independence" because it has a nicer ring to it, but in fact, they seek isolationism. And in doing so, they actually weaken their nations by passing up the benefits of cooperation. I dare not say whether that is up to irony or design - because they were bought by foreign powers looking to weaken the nation in question.

“Security” connotes more than military defense. It’s often a concern of economy, which is secured through trade and partnership and international alliance.

At least it’s unlikely to side with the enemy.

Is it, though? Just look at recent events.

The recent events are what has convinced me that it's unlikely to side with the enemy.

Even in the situation where the president of USA has sided with the enemy, the US as a state has not. It has done comparatively small pro-Russia moves at the whims of its president, but those have been reverted within a week or so. With Trump in charge the US is much less of an ally that it would be without him.

But with even the president becoming a staunch supporter of the enemy the state apparatus still managed to only drop at worst to being a neutral country and in reality remaining an ally, albeit a very weak and useless ally. And that's actually rather reassuring.

But, at the same time, USA has shown that it can really use various tools it has that amount to being kill-switches. Therefore, it is imperative to not rely on any US technology, components or intelligence. Good to have it atop our normal systems, but everything should work well enough even if USA withdraws all support.

And: Withdrawing support does not equal siding with the enemy in a war. It does of course help the enemy, but there is zero risk of USA starting to shoot tomahawks into Bankovska in Kyiv anytime soon.

Murican here. We aren't even our own ally. Any country that considers us an ally is looking through rose-tinted goggles at what we could be, and clinging to that fantasy while ignoring what we are.

We need to get our shit together and actually keep it that way for at least a few decades before I'd expect any measure of trust from the global community.

Until then, yeah I wouldn't sign any agreements with the US that extend past a presidential administration cuz as soon as a relatively good one leaves, we're liable to put another hue-shifted Hitler in power.

It so happened a few days ago that the President of the USA declared at one of his rallies that he'd welcome it if someone took out Los Angeles or San Diego.

It sounds like it's pointless to ask if the US is an ally of Europe, when it's not even an ally of its own largest cities.

Take a look at the two world wars. European "allies" went to war. Their allies joined. USA refrained until either they were attacked or it looked like not getting involved would harm them. In other words, USA are allies when it suits them. This has always been the case.

Humanity seems to be very slow.

Doubt. America is a dead country walking. It’s a deliberate drain of resources by a group of people who plan to leave once it’s drained and they are tired of being a billionaire cowboy.

Europe is a colonial subject at least since middle east wars started. Some would even argue that its ever since end of WW2, but I'm not so sure of that.

The problem didn't start with current admin, its just more pronounced now.

One counter argument to colonialism is that many genuinely believed in liberal world order. Some stil do.