A lot of folks would take Europe more seriously if there was more substance behind the talk. If it wants to replace US tech it needs to be competitive with US tech. Today it’s light years off.
The US has its own challenges, but it’s ability to unite as a country of independent states is something that Europe is unlikely to match anytime soon and that has a direct impact on the ability to execute everything Europe is posturing about.
From 2024: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r...
[0] - https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/business/20250916-mario...
The US has a much more unified culture, enormous scale, and a geographically protected position, with access to vast resources. Europe has the technical talent, but much of its technology has often been bought by US firms, partly because VC funding is far weaker here. I think that is largely cultural.
At the same time, Europeans were sold the idea that the US is their friend. It is an ally, but not a friend, and that distinction matters. Now that illusion has started to break, there is finally an incentive to change.
If the EU becomes strategically protectionist in the same way the US already is, for example by preventing key IT companies from being sold overseas, it could gradually move critical infrastructure back under European control. It can do this partly by copying already proven solutions, such as AWS. Of course, this would not be easy, but Europe does not need to spend billions discovering a completely new product category from scratch. The models already exist.
Surely the first problem I mentioned will be the biggest obstacle for all of this as it is for everything. We will see what happens, but at least something has started to move. European's should unironically thanks the hollow head currently leading US, because he simply didn't understand that European dependence on US is a weapon, not a burder.
This is a fair and key point and also worth considering the view from the other side of the pond. Americans were legitimately getting fed up that the ally-ship was getting too one sided on who’s pulling their own weight in the relationship. Military spending is one hot topic coming to light again now that the neighborhood is looking unstable again.
Europeans often say “but look at our social net you silly Americans.” The American view often says “your social net has all that government money because your defense is highly subsidized by us.” That’s glossing over a few points but the math is directionally correct. Europe is running the numbers and increasingly realizes this too. Reckoning with that is one of many future hurdles facing Europe.
The headline has it right - there is no going back.
You are comparing the US to a bloc.
Each member state will likely take a different approach to independence from the US, and the bloc as a whole may offer some incentives in that direction.
One thing is for sure, any talk about independence from the US 10 years ago would be looked at with complete skepticism. People that said anything in that direction was looked at as a crank.
Now it is a much more palatable position. Change starts like that.
Will it hold? I can't tell. I think it will be very unlikely for things to go back to the previous state.
Either way, we're in an age of decline and fracture.
It wouldn't make any strategic sense for Europe to wait it out and see what happens next, and no doubt it has been a wake-up call to see how quickly the US can pivot from friend to adversary.
Once Europe has severed reliance on US, then it is hard to see them reverting.
The last 80 years have been exceptionally peaceful compared to the rest of history, so I hope it continues despite America's loss of hegemon status.
After the cold war has ended, the western nations focused on not giving a fuck about military strength, allies or facing opponents the size of Russia or China. Instead some small-time infantry campaigns like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were started and then basically abandoned without any decisive result or even with a total failure. But even back in the 2000s, there were no common goals and no real alliances, just some commitments to save face and keep up appearances.
So now, Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Persian Gulf have called the bluff that is Western military power and decisiveness. I'm guessing those were just the first instances of a long line of wars that should have been prevented by the US-lead West, that are now possible because the West is fractured and aimless.
WW2 was the direct result of that "historically consistent belligerence". Simplified history: lots of tension in Europe -> WW1 -> screw you Germany, we won -> Hitler: we are not having it! -> Germans: that's the guy we need! -> Oops -> WW2.
That why they did it differently post-WW2, focusing more on international collaboration (and a little indoctrination, you don't want to miss an opportunity do you?).
Also, Europe is not the center of the world anymore, they have better things to do than infighting.
More fault lines and pirates and no one to police them.
Both the US and China [0][1][2] are playing hardball against the EU because we both view the EU as a junior partner and tend to negotiate with individual states bilaterally.
I think a lot of Europeans also don't realize that a large swathe of Chinese decisionmakers and policymakers studied in the US since the 1980s, and they tend to think and operate in the American manner as well.
[0] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1361926.shtml
Trump's antics have accelerated that position, and maybe they weren't expecting it from USA, but it was probably inevitable given their long term trajectory.
> The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark.
Did Trump threaten to seize Greenland? The WSJ links to an article with the quotes below. The quotes reflect sheer buffoonery (as expected), but so far I haven't seen the threat to seize Greenland.
This seems to be the consensus, but its not clear to me that it happened.
From the linked article:
> During an hourlong speech at the World Economic Forum, the U.S. president said he wouldn’t deploy the military to take control of Greenland.
> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland and posted an image online of the territory with an American flag plastered across it.
> “I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
> “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said of his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
>> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland
So the problem seems to be your reading comprehension. It seems like you're focusing on the things you want to hear from this double-talking conman, while forgetting all of the things he's said that you don't want to have heard.
(and preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite)
Of course circumstances, reasons, participants and histories beyond that were different.