https://x.com/esrtweet/status/2040557647796334879?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Hello, Europeans. The first thing you need to understand about the rant I'm about to utter is that I'm not MAGA, not a Trumpite, but a libertarian who has in the past nevertheless been strongly supportive of US military presence overseas. Because I want the wars that defend this country to be fought in somebody else's country, as far away from me as possible with a nice big ocean in the way. Also relevant: I have a history of having lived in Europe and traveled there extensively. I was at one time bilingual in English and Spanish, and have been passably fluent in Italian and French as well. I could probably still find my way around London and Rome and central Paris reasonably well. So if you're tempted to tell yourselves that I'm some kind of parochial American hick, abandon that hope. All that was set-up. So that, when I tell you that almost the entirety of the US electorate, not just Trump supporters, is increasingly fed up with your shit, take me seriously. We've been cleaning up your messes and keeping the sea lanes open since 1917. And that was for you, not us - we, being very close to resource self-sufficient, don't need that investment so much. We've spent enormous amounts of blood and treasure on keeping you safe. We risked nuclear hellfire on our own cities for nearly 50 years to keep Soviet tanks from rolling through the Fulda Gap. Even since the Cold War ended, we've subsidized your socialist-playpen welfare states and disastrous immigration policies by taking the need to maintain militaries more effective than a sack of wet farts off the table. Now we've come looking for help keeping a bunch of rabid Islamic fanatics from getting nuclear weapons that are a clear and present danger to all of you even more than they are to us, and what do we hear? "Waah! It's another Republican president we don't like, just like the last half dozen of them! So we're going to sulk in a corner, except when we're biting at your ankles with crap like airspace restrictions." No. No, we're not going to take this anymore. It's not just conservatives who have had enough, it's moderates and people who used to be strong supporters of liberal internationalism. Our citizen's willingness to pay higher taxes to protect you was upward-bounded by your gratitude. Now that we know your gratitude has effectively gone to zero, so does our willingness. Don't expect this to change if the Democrats take power here. They are much less liberal-internationalist than Republicans now. While they might make mouth noises that soothe you, their overriding concern is the gaping, insatiable maw of their income transfer programs. They'll sacrifice subsidizing Europe's playpen socialism to feed their domestic version in a heartbeat. And there is no longer any significant Democratic constituency to argue against that. In truth, three decades after the Cold War ended there is no American constituency at all for the massive subsidies you get. It frankly surprises me they lasted this long, that we were this patient with your cowardice and your bitchy whining. This moment has been a long time coming. It's not Donald Trump sinking the transatlantic alliance, it is absolutely you."
https://x.com/tkratman/status/2040614119506575429?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" From Martin Iles, reposted: Having lived in the USA for nearly two years, I've realised something. The USA and the remainder of the Western world are no longer aligned. We all laugh and mock when the Americans say, "Freedom!" because we truly think we're as free as they are. Wrong. We're not. Not even close. The laws, the mindset, and the behaviour, is totally different in this regard. Most of all, the governments are totally different. The USA's convictions around core freedoms are on a scale we do not share. Meanwhile, Donald Trump wins the popular vote, the electoral college, the House, and the Senate... a man who, in every other Western country, is held in open derision, if not contempt. For these and other reasons, we are not the same. Yet the West, including Australia, fully expect to rely on the USA for our very survival. If the world turns bad (which will happen - only a question of time), then the whole West, without America, is toast. So, you may ask - if we're not very aligned ideologically, then it must be that we bring something to the party militarily? Well, no... actually... we don't matter that much militarily. The USA has about 470 ships in its navy, including 11 aircraft carriers, 69 submarines, 75 destroyers... plus 110 new ships in the pipeline. Australia has about 30, including 3 destroyers, 7 frigates and 7 outdated submarines. The UK does a little better, with about 60. Meanwhile, the US has over 14,000 military aircraft. A staggering number. Australia has 252 military aircraft. The UK has 556. The US army has just shy of 1,000,000 uniformed personnel in its military. Australia has about 45,000. The USA spends 3.4% ($968 billion) of its GDP on defence. Australia spends 2% ($36.4 billion). The US spends as much as the next 15 largest military-spending countries (including China) combined. The USA has a fighting culture. The men shoot things (a lot) and hunt things, the veterans get favoured in everything from parking spots to boarding planes. A uniformed young man is thanked in the street a dozen times a day. "Oh, the Americans and their guns!" we say, in our smug way. Yes, they have a warrior culture. We do not. We don't have to, because we're a leech on theirs. How many young British men are willing to fight for their country? Now ask the same regarding young American men. The difference is about as wide as it could be. Militarily, we don't offer squat. Meanwhile, look at the way Australia works against America's interests by loving on China. China made us rich and we stay close. This is a Marxist regime with expansionist aims. Again, you have to spend time in the USA to realise just how vast a gulf there is between us on China. Europe, too. They let China have their way everywhere from Germany to Greenland, all the while importing Islam and sending their own people to court for saying hurty words. Somehow, we have landed the deal of a lifetime with the USA that says, "when the baddies come, you'll save us ok?" Because we can't save ourselves. And we live in peace. But we keep gnawing away at freedoms, keep enabling China, and get flabby and disinterested about our military because Uncle Sam's got it. And, let's be honest, Americans are widely looked down on. To add insult to injury, we don't think that highly of our protectors. So, the USA is finally saying "enough." I am here, I can tell you what the vibe is, and that's it. Trump is doing what people want in this regard. They're over it. And we come across all shocked and hard done by. We behave like people with no self-insight at all. Yes, the global alliance system is all over the place now. From America's perspective, it's about time. And I must say, though I be a proud Australian, I am forced to agree. Something has to change."
https://x.com/msmelchen/status/2040418245073600621?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" May I offer a different perspective on the whole transatlantic family feud brewing over NATO. Europeans are furious at what they call American unilateralism and "wars of choice," while Americans are done subsidizing allies who won't lift a finger when Washington actually needs them. Given all the sentimentality and historical baggage, there’s been a lot of bad blood and high grade insults thrown both ways. A lot of pride here is at stake. But given that I am not American or European, what I can provide is an Asian perspective. The whole thing looks very different as there are no blood ties or cultural nostalgia to pull me either way. Because of distance, the default Asian lens on America has always been colder, clearer, and far more pragmatic than the European one. Asians have never lived under the illusion that their relationship to the US is one based on shared values. If they ever did, the illusion was shattered during the Cold War. Instead, Asian nations saw the relationship to America as a cold, interest-driven bargain in a dangerous neighborhood full of communists, insurgents, and bigger powers. Fast forward to today, and this lesson still holds. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia all partner with America because their interests (not values) align - especially when it comes to countering China. These nations have reasons to be alarmed about Beijing's ambitions in the South China Sea, around Taiwan, and across the Indo-Pacific. They don't need lectures about democracy or liberal international order to see the value in US forward presence, intelligence sharing, tech transfers, and security guarantees. It's a straight-up transactional deal: the US keeps the sea lanes open and the PLA at bay. Meanwhile, Asian nations host your bases, buy your weapons, and join your alliances (Quad, AUKUS, etc.). When interests diverge, they adjust pragmatically, without the drama and meltdown. Probably not many in the West know this, but one of the forces that shaped this attitude was the US pullout of Vietnam and the rest of America’s Cold War shenanigans. Lee Kuan Yew was one of America’s loudest cheerleaders in Southeast Asia. In 1967 he flew to Washington, testified to Congress, and begged Lyndon Johnson (and later Nixon) not to cut and run in Vietnam. He warned that a hasty US exit would trigger the dominoes - Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and then pressure on the rest of Southeast Asia. Singapore became a logistical hub, providing a haven for US troops on R&R, oil refineries supplying the American war machine, and Lockheed servicing aircraft. At one point, US military-related spending made up 15% of Singapore’s entire GDP. Singapore didn’t support the war because it loved American democracy but because it kept the communists tied up and bought Southeast Asia time to build up its own economy and military. Then came the pullout - the Paris Accords in 1973 and then Saigon falls in 1975. Despite all the lobbying, despite the blood and resources America had spent, domestic politics in the US (the anti-war movement, Congress, Vietnam syndrome etc.) ended it. LKY watched in disbelief as the superpower that had promised to hold the line simply walked away. The lesson was that American commitments are real only as long as they serve American interests and American voters don’t get tired. It’s a brutal one to internalize. LKY was disappointed and noted American “unreliability” but Singapore didn’t collapse into panic or anti-Americanism. They just recalibrated and kept pursuing pragmatism by building its own deterrent, diversifying partners, and later offered the US naval logistics access (Sembawang port) when the Philippines kicked them out of Subic Bay in the early 1990s. Malaysia drew the same conclusion. The Tunku was pro-Western and anti-communist early on, but Malaysia never joined SEATO and pushed ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality) instead. When the British announced their East-of-Suez withdrawal in 1968 and Nixon’s Doctrine (1969) told Asians “you defend yourselves first, we’ll just help,” Kuala Lumpur accelerated its neutralist tilt. The message was clear - don’t count on Washington to bleed indefinitely for distant allies. South Korea is similarly pragmatic but it operates under far higher stakes due to baggage from the Korean War and the ongoing North Korean threat. American intervention literally saved the South from conquest, resulting in a bond that is forged in blood. While South Korea had to learn the same lessons - that the American umbrella isn’t permanent, sharing a border with a nuclear-armed adversary forces tighter coupling with Washington. The reverberations of Nixon’s 1973 opening to Beijing cannot be understated. It shocked the entire region that America, the great anti-communist crusader, suddenly would cozy up to Mao to counter the Soviets. If Washington could flip on core principles when interests demanded it, why should smaller states pretend the relationship was about anything deeper? The core Asian critique of the European approach to dealing with America is that it is entirely bound up in moral values and civilizational kinship. This means that every disagreement feels like a betrayal and breeds resentment on both sides. Because Europe is so hyped up on abstract values, it makes NATO feel like a sacred club that America is disrespecting. Asia's interest-based lens sees alliances as tools - useful until they're not. Maybe Europe thinks the Asian approach is cynical but the irony is that this is actually what keeps Indo-Pacific partners far more reliable counterweights to China than many NATO members ever were against Russia."
https://x.com/cristi_latin/status/2040378418517172507?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
“Europe isn’t suffering from a single ‘problem,’ but three: three European nations grappling with an acute case of ‘post-imperial vertigo.’ First, the United Kingdom: That nation which voted for Brexit to ‘take back control,’ only to discover later that it has completely forgotten how to lead. The British identity crisis is like watching a retired lion trying to adopt a vegan diet. They’ve traded imperial confidence for ‘behavioral sensitivity’ training sessions worthy of a human resources department. Churchill’s land is now governed by a sprawling ‘nanny state’ bureaucracy so vast that it fears offending someone on X more than it does actual decline. As for the British police, once the envy of the world, they now seem to devote more resources to investigating ‘non-criminal hate incidents’ and painting patrol cars in rainbow colors than to solving burglaries. It’s a nation desperately clinging to the aesthetics of tradition—the Royal Family, protocol, tea—while ‘progressive rot’ has gnawed away at its institutions until they seem more radical than a University of California campus. They want the ‘prestige’ of the 19th century, but they’re paralyzed by the emotional fragility of the 21st. Next comes France: The bitter, chain-smoking aunt who refuses to admit she’s been out of work for decades. France’s ‘post-imperial vertigo’ manifests as a permanent state of rebellion masked as ‘citizen participation.’ Its identity is split between a delusional elite that still believes Paris is the capital of the universe, and a populace that expresses its joie de vivre by burning bus stops every Thursday. The French suffer from a ‘Napoleon complex’ without Napoleon; they demand the living standards of a conquering empire while working 35 hours a week and retiring at an age when most Americans are hitting their prime. They boast of ‘republican’ values and militant secularism, but the state has lost control over vast swaths of its suburbs. France, in short, is a stunning open-air museum where the curators are on strike, the guards fear the visitors, and the administration is busy lecturing the rest of the world on Grandeur while the electricity bills go unpaid. Finally, we have Germany: The jittery giant that decided the only way to atone for its history was to commit a slow ‘industrial suicide.’ Germany’s ‘post-imperial vertigo’ is a moral autoimmune disease; the country is so terrified of its own shadow that it has swapped national pride for violent self-flagellation and recycling laws. Its identity is built on being a ‘moral superpower,’ which in practice means shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear plants to burn dirty coal, all while lecturing its neighbors on carbon footprints. It’s a nation of engineers that has designed a society that doesn’t work. The German spirit, once renowned for its efficiency and discipline, has mutated into a paralyzed bureaucracy where filling out the right form matters more than the end result. They’re so desperate to avoid seeming like a ‘threat’ that they’ve essentially become a giant NGO that happens to own an army using ‘broomsticks’ instead of rifles, for fear that showing any backbone might be read as a regression to the past.”
