Isn't this a good thing though? Europe becomes more self-reliant and less dependent on US technology, the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area, the anti-US people in Europe become happy, and the anti-Europe people in the US become happy.

It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear. All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

▲

Barrin92 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area

this was the ostensible narrative for almost a decade but in reality the US has since then, threatened Europe with the annexation of Greenland, invaded Latin America and withdrawn resources from Asia for a war in the Middle East, with energy market consequences worst for America's allies in the Pacific. (Japan depends almost entirely on the Gulf)

This has not been good news for the China hawks in the US, literally as we're discussing this the US president is in China and Taiwan seems to have completely vanished from the agenda. Far from directing resources against China and bolstering democratic nations in Asia the US is now emulating China, withdrawing from Asia to bully its regional neighbors.

▲

shevy-java 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As long as there is NATO and US troops in the EU, I don't see that this is happening (plus, all europeans need a nuclear arsenal under EU control).

> It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear.

I do not think tourism is an issue anywhere.

> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

This is a possibility, but why would you discount other possibilities? The USA is saying a lot, but doing very little. Why are there still occupying troops in the EU? Didn't the USA announce how NATO is dead already? So why are there still troops?

I am very much not convinced that anything has really changed, aside from the rhetorics.

▲

esseph 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/tactical/royal-marine-command...

	▲	esseph 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Also: - F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) Program: The UK is the only Tier 1 partner in this program, procuring F-35B aircraft for the Royal Navy/RAF and considering F-35A variants. - Trident Nuclear Missile System: A continuation of the 1982 amendment to the Polaris Sales Agreement, the US provides Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles for the UK’s Vanguard-class and future Dreadnought-class submarines.AUKUS Submarine Combat Systems - Boeing P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft: The UK procured nine P-8A aircraft to improve maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, with deliveries starting in 2019. - AH-64D/E Apache Attack Helicopters: The UK acquired Boeing Apache gunships, later upgrading them to the AH-64E standard. - C-17 Globemaster III Transport Aircraft: The Royal Air Force acquired and has maintained a fleet of Boeing C-17s for strategic airlift. - MQ-9 Reaper & Protector Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS): The UK operates MQ-9 Reaper drones and is transitioning to the improved MQ-9B Protector (Protector RG Mk 1) to modernize its surveillance and strike capabilities. - Chinook Helicopters: Ongoing procurement and upgrading of Boeing Chinook heavy-lift helicopters for the Royal Air Force. - Hellfire and Guided Missiles These are just some of the more expensive programs of procurement the UK has done with US arms since 1991. I'm not suggesting the UK buys everything it needs from the US, but it has a habit of doing a lot of it.