It’s not who you are but who you know. The US still needs the EU and other countries to validate their actions in conflict. It’s the difference between waging terror war and righteous war. This image and support (even if just in the media) costs the US. They have to be bodyguards for the rest so they don’t go to China or Russia to seek alliance. And the difference between superpower and superterrorist is just a headline in newspapers.
Superpowerdom has always been defined as military capability and the ability for others to do your bidding. The US has this through military strength and the US dollar being the reserve currency.
Justifications and perceptions are secondary and only follow the real source of power.
Historically speaking. But these days having that is not enough. Russia is still technically a superpower but see their actual power on the world stage. Without public support and strong economical and political ties you’re just a madman with the biggest gun. So unless you’re willing to use it against everybody and go to war with the world your status as a superpower is fluid.
Do you think the US is dumping all those resources in Europe out of the kindness of their heart? Why would a superpower do it if it didn’t need it? These days military power can only be used sparsely if ever against the civilized western world so it has to be “monetized” in other ways. By offering it as a service in exchange for service (or servitude, depending on interpretation).
Public perception is always something that is managed and controlled. There is absolutely nothing new about this concept.
I disagree with your original thesis that the US needs EU to validate their actions. France arguably historically the most important US ally was dismissed and thrown immediately under the bus during the Iraq invasion for not agreeing.
Thinking US needs the EU for justifications of their actions at home is naive. If you think the US does not have a firm hold of propaganda inside their borders, then I suggest reading Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent.
And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive...
When bombing Syria the US actively seeked the public support from EU countries even if it didn’t involve much action. Again, there’s a fine line between fighting a righteous war and an abusive, terrorist one. Between the righteous US and the terrorist Russia and China. And that means keeping friends close. Not “public” as in you or me but as it our leaders. When Germany actively refused to cut economic relations with Russia or Iran the US proposed withdrawing troops. Then looked to cause more tensions in Iran which would make it unpalatable for EU countries to continue these relations. In this connected world being alone is bad even if you have the biggest army.
If what I say was wrong the US would go ahead with no approval from anyone. But even when nobody supports that war with actions the US still waits for the public approval. Not doing it risks turning them into “just” another abuser. Any repercussions arising from this (allies distancing themselves, or cooling of economical and political relations) will not be solved by the US being a superpower. China is a superpower but without any validation from enough legitimate allies (like the EU) the superpowerdom is not enough.
Realistically speaking an actual show of force against Europe is absolutely off the table without risking them turning their allegiances east. Hence the alternative means if keeping friends.
Don’t take this as geopolitical analysis, just as pragmatic evidence since nobody spends hundreds of billions every year for “strangers” out of charity. It’s more effective to buy influence in the civilized world than to beat it out of them.
> And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive...
Because since WW2 the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them. That power can only come from a limited number of places. It has been recognized from the start that an alliance between Russia and Europe, namely Germany is to be prevented at all costs.
Actions and alliances are a result of a cost/benefit equation. Anything else would be irrational. Having allies is obvious a benefit. But if allies are not possible to get, the US has shown plenty of willingness to go at it alone. Or to do it in secret and suppress any mentions in home media, because of the inherent immorality of the action, like supporting terrorist groups against Assad, or supporting Saudi Arabia in their genocide against Yemen.
> the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them.
...without direct use of weapons on them. Because WW2 is over, the cold war is over, and the definition of a superpower is less about weapons and more about influence. They keep you safe while applying the real power that makes you super. The police is strong because they have influence not guns.
The tone of the comment suggests you think I am wrong but the actual content supports what I said to the letter. Buying the influence works where trying to get it by force would have the exact opposite effect and push some critical parties into the arms of the enemy.
Hence the “power” part of superpower being more about this these days than actual weapons. Weapons help make sure nobody hits you directly. But in today’s world using the military anywhere but in the more remote, less... organized parts of the world is doomed to fail. Which is why it’s not happening.
Saudi Arabia and Israel openly have a far more outsized influence on US politics than their standing armies suggest. If this doesn’t tell you that the Cold War dictionary definition of a superpower is pretty irrelevant in today’s world stage then you’ll be calling people “naive” as your argument for a long time.
