The arrangement after WWII wasn’t about Europe doing America a favor. The U.S. took on a huge financial burden with programs like the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe, a debt that wasn’t fully repaid. Given Europe’s weakened currencies and economies, the dollar naturally took the lead as the global reserve currency.
The petrodollar system, meanwhile, was a separate deal made with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s—not at Europe’s urging. Saudi Arabia agreed to sell oil in dollars, largely because the U.S. had a strong economy and a stable currency, making it attractive for oil trade.
As for Pax Americana, the U.S. assumed a global policing role partly because WWII left much of the world in ruins. Our military and financial support for alliances like NATO strengthened Europe’s security during rebuilding, with the U.S. shouldering the largest share of costs.
So, it’s not fair to frame this as Europe generously allowing the U.S. to ‘play ball.’ For nearly a century, the U.S. has provided extensive support to Europe and other allies, and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs and responsibilities.
and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs
It was an empire in all but name and was a bit more than just a strategic benefit, but every empire gets too expensive to maintain and must shrink again.
Last start American politicians started to talk about the cost and responsibilities being too much, EU countries started cozying up to China and it freaked the same politicians that were talking “I invite you to get going without us”. Let’s see what happens this time.
You’re absolutely right that many powerful nations have faced this pattern. America’s post-WWII global influence resembles an ‘empire’ in the sense that it shaped world economics and politics, even if it wasn’t a traditional empire. And sure, the U.S. did get more than just ‘strategic benefits’ — having the dollar as the dominant currency, for instance, came with clear economic advantages.
But the other side of this is that America’s involvement hasn’t been purely self-serving; it’s also helped maintain relative global stability. With the U.S. starting to weigh the costs and shift focus inward, it’s natural for EU countries to explore other partnerships, like with China. That’s a smart move to balance their interests.
But whether the U.S. scales back its role or redefines it, it will be interesting to see what that means for global stability. Historically, the power shifts you mentioned don’t always lead to smooth transitions. The big question is how Europe and others will manage in a world where the U.S. might not be playing the same role as it has for the past 70+ years.
The arrangement after WWII wasn’t about Europe doing America a favor. The U.S. took on a huge financial burden with programs like the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe, a debt that wasn’t fully repaid. Given Europe’s weakened currencies and economies, the dollar naturally took the lead as the global reserve currency.
The petrodollar system, meanwhile, was a separate deal made with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s—not at Europe’s urging. Saudi Arabia agreed to sell oil in dollars, largely because the U.S. had a strong economy and a stable currency, making it attractive for oil trade.
As for Pax Americana, the U.S. assumed a global policing role partly because WWII left much of the world in ruins. Our military and financial support for alliances like NATO strengthened Europe’s security during rebuilding, with the U.S. shouldering the largest share of costs.
So, it’s not fair to frame this as Europe generously allowing the U.S. to ‘play ball.’ For nearly a century, the U.S. has provided extensive support to Europe and other allies, and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs and responsibilities.
It was an empire in all but name and was a bit more than just a strategic benefit, but every empire gets too expensive to maintain and must shrink again.
Last start American politicians started to talk about the cost and responsibilities being too much, EU countries started cozying up to China and it freaked the same politicians that were talking “I invite you to get going without us”. Let’s see what happens this time.
You’re absolutely right that many powerful nations have faced this pattern. America’s post-WWII global influence resembles an ‘empire’ in the sense that it shaped world economics and politics, even if it wasn’t a traditional empire. And sure, the U.S. did get more than just ‘strategic benefits’ — having the dollar as the dominant currency, for instance, came with clear economic advantages.
But the other side of this is that America’s involvement hasn’t been purely self-serving; it’s also helped maintain relative global stability. With the U.S. starting to weigh the costs and shift focus inward, it’s natural for EU countries to explore other partnerships, like with China. That’s a smart move to balance their interests.
But whether the U.S. scales back its role or redefines it, it will be interesting to see what that means for global stability. Historically, the power shifts you mentioned don’t always lead to smooth transitions. The big question is how Europe and others will manage in a world where the U.S. might not be playing the same role as it has for the past 70+ years.