zlacker

>>xqcgre+(OP)
I always feel weird reading statements from the EU regarding this relationship. There's always talk of the U.S abandoning it's position, guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation. Cut off the U.S from the research? Retaliatory tariffs? Why is the U.S leaving NATO a concern for the EU, but not a concern for the U.S? The fact that these are not the top talking points makes me think the U.S isn't entirely wrong in their approach.

>>zeroCa+q5

  > guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation. 

The narratives are harmful. What would retaliation bring? The EU doesn't fancy a winner-takes-all mindset. There is no joy if the US goes down as some sort of backwards kleptocracy. There is no joy if the US populace slide back into the gilded age. It doesn't make the EU better. On the contrary. It will be a loss for both sides. Hence, why they speak out (a little).

Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.

The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.

>>except+mf
The point isn't to crush the U.S in retaliation, it's to show why maintaining a relationship is mutually beneficial. It's troubling that the EU can't produce any concrete reasons why that's the case.