> Besides this outrage at the US from EU perspective is mind-boggling, for the first time since I can remember US is moving away from imperialist global polices, and Europe is in a position where they can become an independent global actor after WW2. Sure Trump administration isn't making the process pleasant but Europeans should be happy about these changes.

It's not mind-boggling when the US is threatening to take over territories from EU member-states. That's the mind-boggling part: that it is acceptable and normal to the point where it's not even part of the discourse anymore, it's completely normal to have a US president stating a desire to annex Greenland.

Surely Overton's window can't have shifted that much that fast.

On the other hand I do agree on the imperial ambitions part with you, having the USA pull out from being an imperialistic power is definitely something I cheer on, just upsetting they can never seem to do anything with grace and subtlety, have to live up to the stereotypes I guess.

Well my point is more that EU is in a situation where Trump can realistically demand Greenland because without the US we cannot even protect ourselves. We should be outraged at the leaders that brought us to this situation more than Trump, while some other administration could have been less on the nose about it, they are still in a situation where they hold "have all the cards" (exaggerating).

If Trump was not so obnoxious I do not think a lot of people would be welcoming Germany building up its military for example.

> Besides this outrage at the US from EU perspective is mind-boggling, for the first time since I can remember US is moving away from imperialist global polices

What's mind boggling is saying that the US is becoming LESS imperialist, when Trump has threatened to annex both Canada and Greenland, and come out in favor of the most imperialist country in Europe.

Thats them orienting themselves to neighboring territory and not that relevant to EU, aside from Greenland. But contrast that with recent past where US was blowing up middle east for oil, drone striking in Africa, building missile shields in Ukraine, etc.

Now its actively looking to pull its bases out of Europe and calling for Europe to arm itself. A positive change for EU in the grand scheme of things.

If the US actually tried to annex Canada, there would be huge ramifications in the EU. And besides, Trump seems more serious about Greenland: in his address to Congress, he said something along the line of "I think we're going to get it, one way or another". Trump is serious about wanting to steal EU land. You seem to be trying to hand wave that away.

And what about his very clear support of Russia? Is that also a positive change for the EU?

Not handwaving anything away, just saying that EU has blame for its weak bargaining power in this issue and that this kind of escalation creates a situation where it is politically acceptable for EU to significantly invest in military. Imagine talking about building up German military 5 years ago and contrast that to a situation where US is talking about removing military bases from there.

I do not think Trump is supporting Russia, it seems like he does not view them as a threat and is very China focused (which is actually scary since antagonizing China can have far worse consequences). He is also focused on cutting spending/reducing inflation pressure from war/sanctions.

Meanwhile EU, and Germany in particular, built their economic growth on cheap Russian energy - and is now bending over backwards to revive it in a world where energy prices are rising. If Europe took Trumps stance of deescalating Ukraine ASAP, wrapping up the war and ending sanctions - our economy would recover much faster. And it would give EU the resources to build a proper military. Even if Ukraine got all of its territory back its going to be a humanitarian disaster zone for decades and a burden on the rest of the country. I really do not see a winning scenario Europe is pushing for in Ukraine.

I agree about the cheap Russian energy, but i disagree that deescalating would get you anywhere with someone like putin on the other side. I'm no politician but it's always been obvious this never stops with him. It's no longer time to roll over (though i think that was a while ago)

> It's no longer time to roll over

That should be the EU's position. I'm sure the citizens of the EU countries would pay more to equip their military with enough resources to do so.

And for some things (and most tech things), "support local" isn't an option.

How do I "support local" when purchasing a micro-format PC for running a Cloud node? There's no chip-fab in town. The parts are sourced to two or three different countries.

Hard disagree. For me, "support local" means paying a little more for goods that are 10x better instead of commoditized crap fully optimized for enshitification.

Thats not support local, that is buy higher quality - and while demagogues try to conflate these two - it is very rarely the case in my experience. In cases where it is - you do not need buy local movements at all - they should be the default.

Buying local is usually more expensive because of economies of scale and comparative advantages. And they are often less scrutinized because of smaller reach. Same thing with "organic" produce actually being more dangerous to eat than processed food in terms of poisoning/bacteria.

They aren't suboptimal where I am. US products are cheaper, but they are routinely less healthy, more addictive, and poorer quality than the alternatives.

Its fine if you can't afford it or don't want to pay the difference, but by and large they are not suboptimal, at all.

Ok, don't buy them? You always had that decision.

what's your point?