International
Europe Can’t Survive Without America

Sven R Larson
But it is not America’s job to save the old continent
The most beautiful place in the world is located smack dab in the heart of northern Europe. It is a small town called Östersund. It stretches along the eastern shore of Storsjön, the “Great Lake”.
Across the strait from Östersund is the island of Frösön. From the farmlands in its center, you can see 30 churches, dense forests, crop fields, and on the far side of the Great Lake a horizon filled with snow-clad mountains. There is a church there, on the Frösön, where the world’s happiest marriages begin: when the bride walks out from the church, she is so overwhelmed by the gorgeous view that she forever loses her ability to speak.
My Swedish hometown is not the only place where Europe brims with beauty. From endless oceanic views in Ireland’s Galway to the meandering riverside cityscape in Budapest; from the midnight sun in Nordkap to the seductive darkness of Palermo; cities that let you marinate in living history, like Munich, Stockholm, Vienna, Rome, and Edinburgh.
Europe has it all. And yet, that continent is slowly, sadly, but inevitably sinking. It is a terrible conclusion to reach, but I see no other path forward for them.
Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
There are a multitude of reasons for this; the destruction of such a solid piece of civilization does not come easy. Which, in all honesty, is a tribute to the solidity of the Western project in itself: it takes decades of political and economic mismanagement to bring a continet of 500 million people from the top of world prosperity into the murky quagmire of industrial poverty.
However, that is precisely what the Europeans are now doing. Their decline only seems to be reinforced by every new measure to prevent it.
From an American viewpoint, the increasingly depressing state of Europe has not yet risen to the peak of the news cycle. Perhaps it never will, but the transformation of Europe from the world’s most advanced economy (alongside America) to an economy-class Latin America will have major economic, geo-strategic, and cultural consequences.
Before I dissect those consequences, let me point to the main character traits of Europe’s self-inflicted demise.
Lack of Leadership
If there is one thing Europe does not have, it is visionary political leadership. Not that our own crop of political heralds in Washington are much to brag about, but the new Trump administration actually does have an idea of how to make America better. By his fast-paced, confident leadership, Trump is now challenging the Democrats to step up to the plate; with a little bit of luck, we will go into the coming elections choosing between candidates running on different versions of “America’s best days are ahead of us”.
None of that exists in Europe. To the extent their leaders formulate ideas for the future, it is all about how government can spend more money, regulate more of the private sector, and dole out grants to NGOs to run the internet era of a billboard campaign themed around some empty political slogan. This is endemic in the EU, and it has tangible consequences: just last year the Europeans realized that America was running away with the path to artificial intelligence, while Europe has not yet even built its own Silicon Valley for old-school computer technology.
The realization among Europe’s political leadership that they are losing the AI race led the EU to issue a report suggesting more regulations on private-sector AI development and more government spending to investigate the potentials of the AI revolution.
Such is the European response to every issue, including the so-called green transition. When Americans elected a new president to end the mad dash into EV transporation—and instead let the free market be the arbiter on how we propel ourselves around town—the EU and national government leaders in Europe waged a virtual economic war on fossil fuels, without being even close to replacing it with “renewables”.
The German energy debacle went so far that major German manufacturers accelerated their foreign direct investments in other countries. This is one reason why there will be a lot more auto industry jobs here in America in the coming years. While European political leaders get fixated on some outlandish economic fantasy, America gets down to business, goes to work, and moves forward.
In addition to the fantasy that the green transition should be shoved down people’s throats by government, Europe’s political leaders have surpassed the Biden administration many times over when it comes to immigration—legal and illegal. Instead of asking pragmatic questions about the balance between a mostly uneducated labor supply and Europe’s perennially high unemployment rates, the elected officials and their unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and other EU capitals forge ahead like drunken cows. They have deliberately unhinged themselves from reality; it is only in a fantasy world free of opposing arguments that you can flood the streets of your cities with endless waves of immigrants, without causing major social, economic, and public safety problems.
A War on Democracy
Again, America is not immune to this kind of make-believe leadership, but unlike America, Europe has no voice of opposition. Where the Tea Party turned MAGA movement showed how true democracy works, forging a nationwide organic alliance of voters, Europe has invented institutions, conventions, policies, and a political culture of efficiently suppressing opposition.
There is no First Amendment in Europe, which politicians in both the EU and national governments have taken advantage of. In what can only be described as a war on the core of democracy, the European political elite is fighting an increasingly aggressive battle against dissenting voices. National governments are formed not to further the will of the people, but to quell the voice of dissent.
Coalitions of resentment against the people have appointed prime ministers in Sweden, Finland, Austria, France. A coalition of resentment is trying to form a functioning government in Germany. Where hatred of a common adversary is the only common denominator, there can be no room for visions. All political eyes remain in the rearview mirror, anxiously trying to keep the distance from the last election results.
People are blinded by a common hatred they cannot see the future.
From the viewpoint of policy, the only thing that these coalitions of resentment can produce is a regurgitation of the past. This explains why there is no debate in Europe over the “green transition” and why there is only token talk about immigration. Prevailing paradigms, which caused people to vote for alternative parties, reign unchallenged.
As do their consequences. In other words, the more Europe’s anti-democratic leaders double down on policies that thwart free speech, choke their economy, and fragment cohesive societies, the more they will distance themselves and their continent from the future.
A Stupid Economy
Europeans pay far more in taxes than we Americans do. Income taxes often start at 30-40 percent—for the lowest incomes—and there are value-added taxes, VATs, on everything they buy. Excise taxes, “green taxes”, fees and administrative charges run amok.
At the same time, they don’t get much more than we do. If anything, they get less of most of things. In health care (which I hope to have time to write more about in closer detail), Europe’s foremost contribution is the waiting list. You have the right to health care, but that does not mean you can get it.
The same is true for the countries in Europe that have elaborate systems of child care: you have the right to it, but that does in no way mean it can find a spot for your kid when the time comes.
Europeans brag about their paid-leave programs. It is true that, e.g., parents can take a lot of time off from work to be with their kids. They also have long vacations. However, since these benefits are mandated by law, they are in no way reflective of what businesses can afford in terms of an absent workforce. Yes, it is nice to be able to be at home with your baby for the first year or 18 months of its life, but during that time your employer needs to hire a replacement.
When I talk to Europeans about their paid-leave system, they often suggest that we Americans have no paid leave at all. I point out that just because government does not provide it, does not mean it does not exist. We prefer to let employers and employees handle the paid-leave issue as part of a workforce benefits package.
Fixated on letting government take care of as much as possible of their lives, Europeans have created a welfare state that demands taxes close to—and sometimes higher than—50 percent of GDP. This is well above the 40-percent line where GDP growth permanently slows down; once the tax burden crosses that mark and no one cares, the country inevitably sinks into economic stagnation.
There is no advancement in the standard of living. Private purchasing power is no longer adequate to keep businesses going. Capital formation stagnates and eventually moves abroad. The tax base is eroded; a consequence-impaired governing coalition of resentment responds with even higher taxes.
All in all, Europe has ended up in a vicious downward economic spiral. Her leaders are unable to understand the problem, let alone offer a solution. Among the many repercussions of this is the slow decline in standard of living that is already passed on from parents to their children: each new generation of Europeans will find life to be a little less prosperous than their parents did.
The Role of America
For all these reasons—lack of leadership, a dwindling democracy, and a stagnant economy—the European continent is unable to break out of its self-inflicted societal stranglehold. But what made it drift into this fog of endless political self-harm?
In one word: America provided the Europeans with a shield of security during the Cold War. Germans, Brits, French, Dutch, Spanyards, and others got so used to living under the protective shield of American military might that they believed they no longer had to think about existential issues. Instead, they could spend their time inventing new entitlements for their welfare states.
Again: make-believe politics. They never thought that their growing welfare states would sink their economies; in fact, economists never thought that this would happen either. I was the first one to point out this relationship, and I did it only a decade ago.
Likewise, Europe’s make-believe politicians thought that they could enjoy free-of-charge American military protection forever. The end of the Cold War did not exactly change their minds: suddenly, they thought they had somehow “won” that war, and that they as the victors could dictate the terms of their own existence—without having to work for it.
When America gradually began orienting itself away from Europe, there was at first massive denial across the old world. Due in no small part to foolish rhetoric from our neocons (both Presidents Bush, Vice President Cheney and his daughter Liz, John Podhoretz, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Irving and Bill Kristol…), the Europeans were led to believe that America would still provide that shield of safety no matter how many other parts of the world we were engaged in.
But not even neocons last forever. Reality began poking through the European bubble of political fantasies during Trump’s first term; after a “breather” during the Biden administration we are now back to the harsh reality where America is asking the Europeans to do what every other nation, or union of nations, is doing: grow up and take responsibility for their own sovereignty.
In other words, America can save Europe, but it is not America’s business to do so.
The rational reaction to this from the Europeans would have been to open a vigorous, public debate over what priorities their countries should make: the welfare state or national defense? But instead of doing just that, they have gone into an Alice in Wonderland-style mental lockdown where politicians in every cardinal direction dispense edicts about throwing Gargantuan amounts of money into military expansion projects that they have no funds for, and no industrial capacity to deliver.
At best, Europe will fragment into regional coalitions of countries, where some will make a future for themselves and others will continue to sink. The four Visegrad states, Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia, are relatively strong economically. So are the Baltic states.
The Nordic countries could form a strong regional economy, but with Sweden suffering from political deadlocks, high crime, a corrupt government, and a perennially stagnant economy, that outlook is no longer possible.
Germany is an enigmatic entity in this context. If they cannot change their own energy policy, they are going to de-industrialize at a rapid rate. That, in turn, will likely lead to growing political tensions; is therean independent, non-communist East Germany in the cards?
Southern Europe is ironically the most resilient part of that continent. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal have survived centuries of prosperity, poverty, war, and peace. They will find a way to muddle through a glacial but politically and economically visible European implosion.
The comparison to Latin America is more accurate than it might seem. Before World War II, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil were among the best, most thriving economies in the world. Then the welfare state happened…
Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Larson’s Political Economy is free today.
But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Larson’s Political Economy that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.
You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
International
Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

From LifeSiteNews
By Angeline Tan
The 2025 Global Christian Relief Red List report has found that the deadliest region for Christians is Africa, with Nigeria taking the top spot with 10,000 deaths in 2 years.
The 2025 Global Christian Relief (GCR) Red List report, which highlighted “the 25 worst countries for Christian persecution across five categories of concern” including killings, building attacks, arrests, displacements, abductions and assaults, has found that Africa, in particular Nigeria, is the most dangerous region for Christians.
Released in January, the GCR report, which relied on data from the Violent Incidents Database, a project founded by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), summarized:
Africa remains the deadliest region for Christians, with Nigeria consistently being the most dangerous country for followers of Jesus. Between November 2022 and November 2024, nearly 10,000 Christians were killed, primarily by Islamic extremist groups such as Boko Haram, Armed Fulani Herdsmen, and the Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP). Similar patterns emerge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Mozambique, and Ethiopia, where numerous armed militant groups target Christians.
The GCR report detailed how “most of the killings” in Nigeria happened in the country’s northern “sharia” states, where Christians “often live in remote villages in semi-arid landscapes, making them particularly vulnerable to attacks.” Notably, the same report highlighted the failure of the Nigerian government in stopping these anti-Christian attacks, stating that “despite government assurances that they will defeat the extremists, the violence continues to escalate.”
Ranking second to Nigeria as the next “deadliest country for Christians” was the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where “390 Christians were recorded as killed” during the reporting period of November 2022 to 2024. The GRC report singled out “Islamic militant groups like the Allied Democratic Forces” as the “main killers.”
Coming in third was Mozambique, with “262 recorded deaths.” The report declared that although Mozambique was “once a relatively peaceful Christian-majority country,” “a swarm of militants led by the Islamic State Mozambique (ISM)” has disrupted the peace of the country.
Strikingly, Ethiopia emerged as the fourth deadliest country for Christians, “with at least 181 Christians killed.” The GCR report detailed how “believers — particularly converts — faced high risks of violence in regions dominated by Islamic militants”.
Apart from killings, African Christians have to contend with the risk of displacements, assaults, and kidnappings.
“Despite the intense challenges in places like Nigeria, China, and India, we continue to see remarkable resilience in these communities,” Brian Orme, acting chief executive of Global Christian Relief, declared. “Even in the darkest circumstances, the Church not only survives but grows stronger — millions are choosing to follow Jesus despite knowing the risks they face.”
“Working closely with our partners on the ground in these high-risk areas, we provide emergency aid, safe houses, and trauma counseling to Christians facing violent persecution,” Orme said.
Regarding attacks on Christian property, India, a country noted for its controversial anti-conversion laws, ranked top on the list in the GCR report, with 4,949 incidents during the November 2022-2024 reporting period.
According to the report, “much of the violence occurred in Manipur, where unrest erupted in May 2024. Rioters, driven by Hindu extremists from the Meitei tribe, attacked predominantly Christian Kukis, systematically burning churches and setting fire to the homes of believers.”
Meanwhile, China led the world in arrests of Christians, with more than 1,500 believers detained under the communist government’s religious prohibitions. The report stated:
It is no surprise that China tops the 2025 GCR Red List for Arrests, given that the communist nation has the world’s most sophisticated surveillance mechanisms.
Business
Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

From LifeSiteNews
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.
To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.
During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.
In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.
In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.
Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.
Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.
When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was upset because they were kept out of all the details of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. In actuality, the U.S. CoC was effectively blocked from any participation.
When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.
Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.
Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.
Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.
Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.
The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.
TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!
This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.
President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.
Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.
In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.
However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.
Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.
How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?
The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.
The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”
By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.
Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.
Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.
Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”
Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.
-
Alberta1 day ago
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
Business2 days ago
China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs
-
Business2 days ago
Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact
-
International2 days ago
Javier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Trust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny
-
COVID-192 days ago
Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna
-
2025 Federal Election15 hours ago
The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power