By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent poll reveals a significant decline in European favorability towards the United States, reaching a decade-low, with large majorities in key Western European nations expressing unfavorable opinions. This shift is attributed in part to recent US actions, such as the attempted acquisition of Greenland, which have galvanized European sentiment. Despite acknowledging certain US critiques regarding European defense reliance and immigration, Europeans strongly reject claims of excessive free speech restrictions and unfair trade practices. Consequently, a prevailing view is that European autonomy should now be prioritized over the transatlantic alliance, with limited willingness to make significant concessions to the US, apart from potential immigration reductions and, in some nations, increased defense spending or aid to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
It appears that recent events, particularly a perceived threat concerning Greenland, have significantly hardened opposition to the United States across Western Europe. This shift isn’t subtle; it’s a palpable increase in negative sentiment, suggesting a profound recalibration of how European nations view their transatlantic partner. The idea that a nation might threaten to simply take territory from an ally, even if only verbally, seems to have crossed a line, creating a deep-seated resentment that may linger for decades.
This heightened opposition stems from a fundamental understanding of human nature and international relations. When one country openly displays hostility, declares an intent to undermine another’s way of life, and issues threats to its allies, it’s entirely predictable that opinions will turn negative. It’s almost as if European sentiment towards the US is now mirroring the US’s own internal self-perception, which has been, at times, quite critical.
Adding to this growing concern are broader geopolitical anxieties, with some suggesting that the release of information related to figures like Epstein could further inflame these negative sentiments. The notion of powerful, wealthy individuals engaging in geopolitical scheming certainly doesn’t inspire confidence and can exacerbate feelings of distrust. This is seen by some as a wake-up call for Europe, signaling that a more serious geopolitical reality, perhaps even the threat of conflict, is on the horizon, aligning with pre-existing plans or machinations.
Interestingly, this disillusionment with US foreign policy isn’t confined to Europe. There’s a parallel sentiment growing within the US itself, though unfortunately, it appears to be a minority viewpoint. The lack of control over news and social media in the US makes it harder for this perspective to gain widespread traction, a stark contrast to the united front forming across the Atlantic. This raises questions about the future of mutual defense, with some speculating that the US might no longer feel obligated to expend its resources defending allies who are now viewing it with such a hardened opposition.
The irony is not lost on some observers, who point out that Europe was seemingly unconcerned when the US intervened militarily in countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, or when it faced challenges in places like Cuba. However, when potential conflicts or perceived aggressions occur in their own perceived “backyards” – such as Ukraine or the situation with Greenland – the reaction becomes much more immediate and angry. This selective empathy highlights a double standard that is now being called into question.
There’s also a critical perspective that suggests this current situation could have been mitigated if Western European nations had adhered more closely to NATO’s defense spending guidelines. The argument is that a perceived underinvestment in defense, coupled with a willingness to rely on American security, has led to a situation where the US feels emboldened to act more assertively, even unilaterally. The sentiment is that previous US administrations may have been more accommodating, but the current leadership feels no such compunction, leading to a more confrontational approach.
This shift in dynamics also brings into focus the evolving nature of international influence. While North American territorial matters are not directly within Western Europe’s purview, the era of European dominance over significant portions of the North American continent is undeniably coming to an end. This geopolitical realignment is causing friction and prompting a reevaluation of alliances.
Furthermore, some commentators believe that the current negative sentiment towards the US is being deliberately amplified by external actors, specifically Russia. They suggest that Russian active measures are exploiting existing fissures and that the current US leadership may be vulnerable to foreign influence. This perspective emphasizes the importance of NATO’s resilience, arguing that it must be strong enough to withstand the weaknesses or corruptibility of individual leaders and to counter divisive propaganda and disinformation campaigns.
The argument is made that the US has been too focused on military might, leaving its government susceptible to subversion. The call is for the US to address these internal issues, uphold the rule of law, and treat its allies with the respect they deserve, recognizing its responsibility to promote global peace and stability. The concern is that a US that is not vigilant against subversion, divisive propaganda, and disinformation will find its power further concentrated in the wrong hands.
The focus on “hard power” as the sole determinant of strength is also being critiqued. While military hardware is essential, the interconnected global economy, built on international partnerships and low trade barriers, is what truly underpins hard power. The idea that the US can simply increase domestic manufacturing through tariffs to bolster its military is seen as a short-sighted approach, especially given its reliance on other nations for crucial supply chains, such as rare earths for munitions. This approach is viewed as adolescent thinking, failing to grasp the complex interplay of global economics and the long-term consequences of alienating allies.
The idea of the US being able to unilaterally “wipe out” a neighboring country like Canada in a week is also being dismissed as unrealistic and immature. The comparison to a military operation that was meant to be swift and decisive but proved otherwise serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of brute force and the unpredictable consequences of hard power. Cooperation, it is argued, is a far safer and more stable path to international relations.
The current US approach is often characterized as a transactional, short-term strategy that prioritizes individual gain over long-term alliances. This is seen as a departure from previous administrations that managed to maintain both significant hard power and a strong soft power by fostering international partnerships. The concern is that this erosion of trust and the weakening of alliances will ultimately undermine American hard power in the long run.
The notion that the US could easily defeat even a smaller nation in a short time is also being challenged with historical examples. The prolonged involvement in Afghanistan, for instance, serves as a counterpoint to such simplistic assertions. This leads to the conclusion that a direct military confrontation with Western Europe is even less conceivable, with some suggesting that internal divisions within the US would manifest long before any such external conflict.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment among many in Western Europe seems to be a deep disappointment and a hardening of their stance towards the United States. This is a complex issue rooted in perceived arrogance, a disregard for alliances, and a concerning reliance on confrontational tactics over diplomacy and cooperation. The hope is that this period of increased opposition will serve as a catalyst for a more balanced and respectful approach to international relations from the US, and perhaps even inspire a stronger sense of self-reliance and unity among European nations.