this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
296 points (99.3% liked)

Europe

6931 readers
1075 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

almost every sphere in which the EU feels inferior to the US boils down to a willingness to spend – or not. The EU is jealous of the US’s big tech firms, but there is no secret sauce here beyond investment. Take space for example, where, again, the US is dominant. How could it be anything other when Nasa’s 2023 budget was $25bn and the European Space Agency’s was €7bn?

This is true.

That said I think the counterintuitive action by the EU governing bodies (contradicting what voters want) might be driven by established European capitalist interests who have sizeable business relationships with the US and whose profits would be hurt if the EU is to retaliate.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 48 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Because neoliberals get weak in the knees when fascists look at them.

In this new era, Russia, China and the US all want a return to spheres of influence and the rule of power in place of the rule of law, just with varying appetites for chaos (Russia) versus stability (China)

It's been really annoying seeing Europeans lament the death of so-called international rule of law when, like, seriously? Tell me again how America doesn't consider Latin America and the Middle East its sphere of influence that it gets to do whatever it wants with? Can y'all stop using "rule of law" to mean "good things for white people"?

Europe-based economic activity is among the least carbon-intensive in the world;

Isn't part/most of this that Europe simply exported the carbon-intensive stuff abroad? Not exactly a success story IMO.

[–] neshura@bookwyr.me 11 points 2 days ago

Isn't part/most of this that Europe simply exported the carbon-intensive stuff abroad?

Partially true however it is also worth pointing out that industry in the EU produces significantly fewer emissions than the same industries outside the EU. The costs that come with that are largely why industry is outsourcing elsewhere, there is no coordinated effort by some shadow council to export the carbon-intensive industries abroad, just not fully thought out economic policy (producing in the EU causes costs for emissions, importing doesn't/is easier to fudge, the incentive created by this imbalance is easy to see).

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Even when you account for offshore emissions the EU's carbon footprint has been going down since around 2010.

That doesn't negate the existence of neocolonialism and it's nowhere near enough to fix climate change, but the EU's population is roughly constant, both it and China are reducing their manufacturing emissions, and economic growth in the EU has been slow and services-based. Like where would a supposed increase in emissions even come from? There's nowhere to go but down.

I know good news feel unbelievable these days but this is one of them. Unfortunately this factually incorrect belief that emitting any less carbon is impossible without serious impact to QoL is why the european ecologist movements have lost a lot of steam in the past few years which is absolutely maddening because it's empirically incorrect.

Because neoliberals get weak in the knees when fascists look at them.

nah, they say "What's up, Dad?"

[–] terrific@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I think the greatest concession made was that von der Leyen allowed Trump to frame this as a great victory for him. He has a fragile ego and always needs to look good. She is a much more diplomatic politician and allowed him to appear victorious. But the actual, realistic concessions are pretty limited.

I thought this was a pretty convincing argument why it's not as bad for Europe as it looks https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sundown-on-the-potemkin-empire-trumps

[–] saimen@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago

As far as I know, it was more like Trump "stole" the framing as victory by releasing a statement before the EU and thus being in control of the narrative.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org 37 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There is a strong body of research regarding the U.S. tariffs conundrum in the meantime (including here in this comm as I just read) revealing that Trump hurts the U.S. more than any other country or region. (And the EU is indeed the least carbon-intensive economy globally due its environmental laws that - as much as we need to improve also here- are stronger than anywhere else in the world.)

Op-eds like this one are being written these days on a daily basis, but they are exaggerated. The EU could maybe retaliate more (would this hurt the European economy as U.S. tariffs do in the U.S.?), but I wouldn't say it is 'cowering'. The Florida man says something every day, and it wouldn't make sense imo to 'bully back.' Economic forecasts for the U.S. are much worse than Trump and these op-eds make it seem.

[Edit typo.]

[–] Eril@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago

Agreed, as long as we are not actually buying almost a trillion worth of stuff from the USπŸ₯΄

Putting counter tariffs up is maybe nice for the optics of a strong Europe, but I'm fine if we don't do it. Let them tax themselvesπŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

Just don't buy billions worth of fossil fuels from the US please!

[–] vane@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

EU have no hardware that can handle consumer mobile / computing. Whole world is fucked by those monopolies to be honest.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Current consumer/mobile computing is what got the world into this sorry state in the first place.

The world is RIPE for takeover by whoever can develop a better way.

[–] Schmerzbold@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago
[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Because they are playing 4D chess against a checkers player.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

... and you have to keep reminding him not to eat the checker pieces

[–] elvith@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago

If only he could stop shitting across the game board while we’re at it…

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What if having Trump as president is 5D chess?

[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Hopefully he gets stuck in the 2Ds I can't even see.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's more of a tic-tac-toe player.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gigachad@piefed.social 19 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Because they hope to keep Trump in a boat against Russia, I find that very obvious.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I think the underlying, but mostly unspoken, fear is that you have a mad man with nukes.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

France also has nukes and submarines able to deliver second strikes.

[–] SapphireSphinx@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

While I agree that we should act more forcefully, I still prefer to go without any kind of strike.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago

Of course we shouldn't strike anything. I am just trying to point out that the EU has a credible nuclear deterrent thanks to France.

load more comments (1 replies)

I don't think that's much of a factor in geopolitics outside of the implementation of hard power. The problem with nuclear weapons is that there's only so much brinkmanship you can participate in before your threats start to lose leverage.

It's basically the equivalent of someone trying to achieve a goal by threatening to kill themselves. The ends just don't logically justify the means.

European leaders are appeasing the US because it's the most advantageous thing to do for capital holders. The instability that the US is creating is more manageable than the consequences of standing up to the US in a meaningful way would entail.

Capitalism has a great aversion to risk, and will almost always back the option closest to "business as usual". The current US administration is a risk to profitability, an upending of business relations with the US is an existential threat.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Nukes are off the table for the US. It's not like Trump has a big red button. Launch orders go through a chain and if nothing else, the sub/base commander would put a stop to it.

I think the Soviet Union ordered launches on two (?) occasions and the trigger man stood down.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Because the Germans will stop at nothing to sell their fucking cars, and that's the main driving force behind European diplomacy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is overlooking an important point: German national politics and the direct connection the EU commission has to it.

Ursula von der Leyen, while not a strong party ally of Friedrich Merz, is still trying to prop up the incredibly weak current coalition, as the alternative would be significantly worse.

The US tarriffs hit the German export industry especially hard, while the rest of Europe is relatively unaffected by them. With the German car industry already struggling (slept on electric and China isn't buying anymore), a 30% tarriff would effectively force them to downsize significantly and likely merge or kill off one of the big three entirely. This would be a huge political deal in Germany and likely kill the current coalition.

[–] neshura@bookwyr.me 3 points 2 days ago

In typical fashion they're trying to put a bandaid on a rotten limb. By trying to delay the inevitable crisis they are ensuring it will hit us worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί