57
Is Europe becoming a full-scale US neocolony?
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
57 points (96.7% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1380 readers
104 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think calling it an neocolony is a bit too far IMHO. Western Europe, as we don't need to talk about Eastern Europe really, does subordinate a lot to US capital. It also kinda shows those hallmarks you listed above. But it's just not simple.
You could see for instance during the Zelensky talks in the beginning of the year, how US and EU interests started to differ and clash. The EU fought hard to keep US support for Ukraine coming and also tried to hinder peace talks between Russia and the US as much as possible. There was even an initiative to do the war without the US and increase the support, if it came that far. Also the fight for Greenland (though also kind of comical IMO), was an intensification of that clash.
This is a major contradiction for the EU and of the western world overall.
But I still see the EU as a major imperialist. What I think is happening is, that the EU capital knows its current weaknesses on the geopolitical scale. It tries to stay in the tow of US Imperialism for as much as possible to then use the overspeed to take the crown, so to speak and when the US inevitably falls, to take as much of the then 'free' markets as they can. You can easily tell by the huge rearmament taking place, that they are ready to take it by force.
I don't rate the chance of success very high for the EU, but still that's my two cents on the matter.
imo the ukraine stuff in and of itself is a hallmark of subordination to the us. it would be in the eu's best interest to forge ties with russia. it would be in russia's interest too. but instead, they've sanctioned russian fossil fuels and they've destroyed their own renewable sector, which leaves them burning woodchips in the winter for electricity. they may attempt rearmament in an effort to feed off the scraps of the empire, and they might use ukraine as a pretext to do it. but even still, the war in ukraine has left europe increasingly dependent on the empire for energy. imo the attempts to keep the us in the war are more representative of an ideological subversion that leaves them completely dedicated to a conflict that only benefits the empire.
You miss one important thing: the existance of unlimited European racism. Even IF Russia had looked like the better alternative over the US (it didn't) once normalization started in the late 90s/early 2000s, I still don't think the Europeans would cooperate to mutual benefit -- we truly are that racist. Which makes it even more frustrating given that
is true.
Subordination to the US is defo one thing, but never ever underestimate how western European racism shapes our material conditions.
Yep. Racism plays a huge role in why the EU willingly allows itself to be dominated by the US. They would rather be vassals to the US than equal partners with black and brown and asian countries. The US can no longer offer material benefits but it still offers the ideological satisfaction of feeling superior to the non-whites.
oh of course i didn't mean to downplay the effects of european orientalism. honestly, russia could easily have become another part of western europe if things weren't like they are. ik russia was willing to get a lot closer to the west at one point. i don't know what exactly kept the us from making russia another oil kingdom like saudi arabia but i know the europeans would get a little bit upset. honestly it's a miracle they can even get along with each other. but i guess i'm kinda digressing now.
As I said before, I don't deny that there aren't any signs of subordination (or rather neocolonialism), but I just don't think the matter can be answered in such a binary way. Of course the EU capital is in a very bad place currently and is losing on a lot (if not all) of the fronts, which is why they are subordinating/losing more to US capital. But that does not make them a neocolony.
I agree that cheap energy is in the best interest of the EU, because their industries depended on that for a long long time and they gutted the alternatives. I think I need to be more precise and say German industry mostly. But I disagree that it's just the result of the EU capital losing with the US capital or rather subordinating. There are notable contradictions inside the EU as well, as even before the war, europeans had very different opinions on Russia and f.e. the Nordstream pipeline (see Poland's stance on that matter).
I also disagree that they are rearming just to feed off the scraps of the burgerreich. Yes, that's also a part of the reason for rearmament as are the profits in their own military industrial complex, but I think the imperial ambitions and the need for new markets for their capital is the primary reason, to see their economies get better that way.
oh i certainly didn't mean to imply they were imperial periphery. one look at the european people and their spectacular white supremacy would make that sound pretty silly. i guess it just seems kinda like their need for energy would vastly outweigh whatever they're trying to do with russia if the us didn't have their thumbs on the scale. at the very least i'm not sure why else they wouldn't invest in nuclear or renewables or something before they started with the ukraine shit. with the us i know the oil companies have backed a lot of anti-nuclear protests. but in europe they're dependent on amerikkkan petroleum, so what else could be pushing them to stay that way?