>I, for one, would very much like to see US be more neutral.

Cool.

>But as an outsider (in Europe, but in one of those countries that has been "policed" by largely US-led initiative), I think you are seen as discounting the net economic benefits US has enjoyed from taking on that role in the past.

Europeans keep mentioning these supposed benefits in discussions online. But suspiciously, they never get very concrete.

Prior to WW1, the US had a policy of staying out of European geopolitics. Our economy did fantastic during that period.

Switzerland does fantastic by staying relatively neutral.

Currently, the US is sanctioning Russia. This has obvious economic downsides for the US. It makes the dollar less attractive as a global reserve currency.

If European countries were "vassal states" to the US, as I'm always being told, why were they buying oil from Russia rather than the USA prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? That would be an obvious economic benefit for the US that failed to materialize.

>You are also simplifying things, which does not help: if EU had a defensive force so it needed not depend on NATO/US, what else would have been different?

I don't know. Perhaps you would've had a third world war already? After all, that was the idea with the US staying in Europe -- to prevent a third world war. By all means enlighten me regarding whatever you had in mind.

One point is it would probably be good for the US economy, since you would've bought more American weapons to better defend yourself.

- - -

Part of what I am trying to help Europeans understand is that their anti-American rhetoric is the very thing that undermined the American voter's idealism towards Europe.

Europeans consistently seem to believe that America benefits significantly from the current arrangement. I haven't seen much evidence at all that anyone in the US believes this. American citizens don't believe it. American leadership doesn't believe it either. Look at the recent JD Vance leak.
The last 3-4 presidents have all been asking Europe to step up and fund its own defense.

There is an astonishing mismatch between the cynicism with which the Europeans view the transatlantic relationship, and the idealism with which the Americans previously viewed it (until they realized how little Europeans like them, now that the transatlantic relationship has become the #1 topic on social media). I believe that America's shift away from Europe will become a bipartisan consensus now that the US has woken up. Trump lead the shift, but I think there is a very good chance that the Democrats keep it in place if they come back into power.

See this post for example, it does a great job of capturing the dynamic I'm trying to point at: https://terry264.substack.com/p/europe-youre-on-your-own

More and more Americans are thinking thoughts like: "Those Europeans are making fun of us for our lack of public healthcare. Why should our tax dollars pay to defend them, when we could be spending that money on our health at home?"

I hope you get ready for what may come when the US leaves:

>Zelensky highlighted the disparity in forces between Russia and Europe, saying that Ukraine's army consists of 110 brigades, while Russia fields 220 and plans to expand to 250 this year. In contrast, Europe, including U.S. troops stationed there, has only about 82 combat brigades, he said.

>...

>"Today, an army of 110 brigades is holding back those who have 220-230. But it's one to two," Zelensky added. The president said that while Russia's numeral advantage compared to Ukraine is two to one, in comparison to Europe, it's three to one, which is sufficient for an effective offensive.

https://kyivindependent.com/europe-could-face-russian-occupa...