"So is America's."

Moreso than Europe's.

The US is intentionally withdrawing itself from its position as leader of the west, and the preeminent influencer across the globe. So what does that mean? First, the US will cede it's influence in Africa and South America to the Russians and Chinese. "Thank you", says China and Russia. And iran too. As a receding power, the US will negotiate from a position of relative weakness. Columbia and Mexico are going to be less interested in pleasing the US once the US is no longer the leader of the western world. Tariffs, if they go through, are going to limit US companies ability to operate competitively in foreign markets. Now, instead of having a global marketplace, you're limited to what you can sell to customers in the US. I have an Amazon.de account. That will be gone when anything I purchase is going to be n% higher than if I bought it from a European retailer. Even defense, which has been one of the primary methods by which the US has been able to spread influence, could fade. Most of the NATO countries are buying F-35s made in the US, but that means that they are reliant on the US for parts and service support for those aircraft. What if Europe were to come into a conflict, and the US elected to withhold those parts and services? The two absolute worst cases would be the collapse of the dollar as the global trading currency. Every USan benefits from the fact that the vast majority of global financial transactions are indexed in dollars. When another currency replaces it, the US dollar will inevitably indexed to some other currency. My guess would be the EURO. The second worst case would be European countries developing nuclear weapons. Since the end of WWII, the US has provided strategic nuclear deterrence for European partners. This was done in large part to limit the development of nuclear weapons in places like Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Without having a reliable partner to provide that defense, I think Europe would being to question that position. Especially those in the east that the revanchists want to swallow up.

For Europe, this is an opportunity. Europe is at an inflection point, where the EU and partners could work to fill in those vacancies left by the departure of the US. It will almost certainly require rebalancing domestic priorities, but the success of that is dependent really on what the citizens of those European states want.

"These same people that are ok with Israel receiving subsidizes are mortified at the though of poor kids receiving a subsidy (aka Pell grants) to go to college."

This is true of almost everywhere.

I'm sure Israel would be just as willing to accept Russian aid. I saw this quite a bit when I was doing counter-drug stuff. Country-X would want to buy F-16s, but the US would block it as a function of Leahy vetting. Because at some point country-x had thrown commies out of helicopters, or may shoot down drug traffickers with the F-16s. So what happens? Russia and China step in, offer a similar product + the logistics tail to support it, and they don't care if traffickers get shot down.

Kids recieving Pell grants does absolutely nothing to contribute to great power competition. There are a million other ways to scratch that itch.

"Europe "can build up most of the critical defence enablers needed to deter or defeat Russia without US support within five years " provided the political will to invest is there", said Defense News, after a survey of security researchers and experts."

To me that comes across as very ambitious. The US has invested heavily in low observability and multi-domain integration, and it works pretty well. Even if the EU followed that route, I think it would be difficult to replicate the technology on that short of a timeline.

"Oh that is going to really piss off Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Harris, Boeing, just to name just a few!"

Unless they move to Europe. If they stay in the US, they get to join the ranks of other large US companies that failed for not being competitive.

#18

The US has been "pivoting to the pacific" since Obama was president. I'm not sure why.

China is a bigger military threat, and there isn't a Pacific version of NATO, but China is solidly integrated into the global economy. The choice for China is which is more valuable, maintaining your place on the global stage, or gaining a trophy.

Russia doesn't have a place in the global economy. Not really. Their GDP is a joke. Their PPP is a joke. When was the last time anyone outside of Russia read a Russian book, or listened to a Russian band, or watched a Russian movie, or purchased something manufactured by a Russian company? They have zero cultural exports, and their whole national strategy seems to be based on building an empire that Russians feel they are entitled to. They don't have to contend with the potential losses that China does. There is simply nothing to lose.

And if we're being honest, the only reason we're having this discussion, is because Russia has nukes. Thier equipment isn't terrible, but they're too poor, or simply don't care to provide the level of training required to gain and maintain competency. Russia would prefer to spend less and throw more meat at the problem.