Governance and diplomacy is not a short term venture. Trump will not be president forever and you cannot undo the act of siding against the US in favor of China.

There are a lot of decision-making processes in governance that involves a lot more than 'we don't like the current president'.

The US has no problem siding with China when it believes that's what's best for the US.

What the US seems to expect is other countries to side with the US over their own interests.

Interests can be short-term. US having no problem siding with China still takes into account the long-term interests. Generally Western world members do the same, even if that goes against the short-term interests.

Do you also agree with the EU letting China slide over Hong Kong? Money more important than millions of people's freedom?

> Do you also agree with the EU letting China slide over Hong Kong?

Given how the EU allowed Russia to steamroll the Ukraine, why would the Chinese regime's attacks on Hong Kong would deserve more attention.

And Israel is about to make it a triple-play in the West Bank.

Ah, the time old argument of “two wrongs make a right!”

China is systemically stealing IP from European companies, research from European universities, and forcing labor into a race to the bottom. Europeans would be wise to stand with Trump on this.

>>Europeans would be wise to stand with Trump

There is nothing wise about "standing with Trump" on any issue. His impact on allies is a kin of a moped doing figure 8s on a pigsty.

And no country stands with Trump on anything. At most they stand with the current US administration, which happens to be presided by Trump. Trump the citizen is repellent and has no redeeming qualities.

And by the way, Europe has its best interests in mind, and the current US administration already made it quite clear that the US under the Trump administration is a highly unreliable ally, and even a potential liability that's compromised by Europe's current biggest threat.

>Dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.

Why is it dumb? Could you expand?

Because the person you've replied to has given a good argument and explained their way of thinking? What have you done?

> Because the person you've replied to has given a good argument and explained their way of thinking?

What?! His comment is 100% opinion, with no supporting evidence. I guess that’s all hackernews needs, so long as it fits the Orange Man Bad narrative.

> Dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.

Then you certainly didn't headed Trump's threats to pull the US out of NATO.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/02/nato-donald-tr...

That's your high bar on Trump's reliability with regard to EU's vital interests.

I don't need to explain the sheer idiocy of complaining about the EU's... skeptical attitude towards the Trump administration in general, and Trump specifically.

I think you’re confused - NATO isn’t an alliance if the US is the only one putting in any effort. Trumps specific complaint is (from your own article):

> complained about the defence spending of European allies who committed less than the agreed 2% to defence, particularly Germany

The US wants the alliance, it’s the Europeans who feel they don’t need it (since they aren’t fulfilling their obligations).

> Dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.

Certainly you don’t listen to Trumps speeches.

Do you agree with the EU letting US police brutality against protesters slide? Money more important than millions of black lives?

My point here is that most of these issues look easy from the outside, but it's still difficult to do the right thing once you are involved.

I don't, in fact. Principles are important.

Where does the EU say that? This is a false accusation accordign to me ( Belgium)

I believe Sweden is the only EU country asking to actually do something about Hong Kong.

https://www.politico.eu/article/josep-borrell-chinas-move-in...

Could someone explain the downvoting please?