European Politics
-
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
-
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in European Politics:
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
I believe that Trump's policies and America first doctrine make a European army more likely, regardless of whether that is good or bad for the world.
Regarding Vietnam, no, clearly not his fault, but it represented the USA moving away from the very successful long-term Kennan containment strategy, by refusing to leave once it was clear that the French couldn't hold Indochina and that they couldn't build a movement against communism, but would rather become seen as invaders left in a conflict that wouldn't alter the balance of power. In other words, they sought a short-term victory without a long-term view of how their position in the world would be affected vis-a-vis their primary strategic competitors. That does sound like the current US policy a bit, and for that reason I've indulged your childish reference.
Benevolence under Bush and Obama was them making a show of getting European support, whether that support was really needed, or even wanted to be given. Then, in the background they were as ruthless as ever. For our lifetimes, the view of the West has been one of an integrated group of countries led by the USA.
However, Trump appears to seen little use in that, and accordingly, I think it's rational for countries to assume that he may be reelected and such America first policies continued - even after he is gone, leading European countries to consider whether the extra money they will be demanded to spend may be better if they can exercise (group) sovereignty over the armed forces it supports.
American currently guarantees Europes safety, but equally, American gets to extend its reach all across the globe. That costs, and if countries feel that the longer-term odds are in their favor elsewhere due to a short-term policy of me-first by the global hegemon, I don't see why we would be surprised about it - regardless of whether it is a good thing or bad.
-
@gt12 said in European Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in European Politics:
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
I believe that Trump's policies and America first doctrine make a European army more likely, regardless of whether that is good or bad for the world.
Regarding Vietnam, no, clearly not his fault, but it represented the USA moving away from the very successful long-term Kennan containment strategy, by refusing to leave once it was clear that the French couldn't hold Indochina and that they couldn't build a movement against communism, but would rather become seen as invaders left in a conflict that wouldn't alter the balance of power. In other words, they sought a short-term victory without a long-term view of how their position in the world would be affected vis-a-vis their primary strategic competitors. That does sound like the current US policy a bit, and for that reason I've indulged your childish reference.
Benevolence under Bush and Obama was them making a show of getting European support, whether that support was really needed, or even wanted to be given. Then, in the background they were as ruthless as ever. For our lifetimes, the view of the West has been one of an integrated group of countries led by the USA.
However, Trump appears to seen little use in that, and accordingly, I think it's rational for countries to assume that he may be reelected and such America first policies continued - even after he is gone, leading European countries to consider whether the extra money they will be demanded to spend may be better if they can exercise (group) sovereignty over the armed forces it supports.
American currently guarantees Europes safety, but equally, American gets to extend its reach all across the globe. That costs, and if countries feel that the longer-term odds are in their favor elsewhere due to a short-term policy of me-first by the global hegemon, I don't see why we would be surprised about it - regardless of whether it is a good thing or bad.
In other words, a nation should act in its own interests. A novel concept.
-
Agreed, as I'm sure you would extend to the European countries?
I agree that Obama didn't help the situation with Europe, especially France. Nevertheless, the Trump presidency throws things in to greater focus - Europe protection and influence will be more reliant on Europe. To that end, why wouldn't the EU, as a political union, develop its own armed forces and begin to exert influence beyond its relationships with other powers (such as Russia, the UK, and the USA)?
-
-
@antipodean I'd be interested in whether any of those folks would take any person in need into their house - outside of their family and wider social circles I mean. And not including people who foster kids either. I suspect there would be a similar pattern of responses - essentially it's about strangers, but refugees are stranger strangers.. if that makes any sense.
-
@antipodean
Fuck, these Swedes are lying fluffybunnies. -
@Paekakboyz said in European Politics:
@antipodean I'd be interested in whether any of those folks would take any person in need into their house - outside of their family and wider social circles I mean. And not including people who foster kids either. I suspect there would be a similar pattern of responses - essentially it's about strangers, but refugees are stranger strangers.. if that makes any sense.
Yeah, not to defend the virtue signallers but if it was a female immigrant than there's more chance they'd say yes as well. Less chance of physical danger etc. Funny watching them squirm though.
-
@No-Quarter big difference too in how your living arrangements are set up. If you had a separate flat on your property you might be sweet as, rather than having someone in the house with you and your family. Shit, heaps of people dont want their own family living with them for all sorts of reasons. Not hard to see the bar for refugees being waaay higher.
-
@Paekakboyz Weirdly enough I'm still yet to see any big time virtue signalling celebs offer their many roomed spare luxory homes either. I guess advocating open borders, tolerance, inclusion and diversity only applies when it affects other peoples lives.
-
@Frank said in European Politics:
@antipodean
Fuck, these Swedes are lying fluffybunnies.Without context, yes.
With context, no.
-
@MajorRage said in European Politics:
@Frank said in European Politics:
@antipodean
Fuck, these Swedes are lying fluffybunnies.Without context, yes.
With context, no.
The context being they are all trouser and no leg.....
-
@Rembrandt I think the distinction is in supporting those folks to integrate into society via govt and community support networks etc. I've never seen people saying come and stay in my house, but people being open to refugees becoming part of their nation and community.
But I totally get the hipocracy of someone living in a gated community in a multimillion dollar home welcoming refugees, when never the Twain shall meet.
-
@MajorRage No doubt the latter at least while traditional media has it's final death throes.
Just finished watching it, actually surprisingly nuanced. I think she went in trying to push a narrative and got a bit of a shock. It's an extremely complex situation. -
@Rembrandt said in European Politics:
@MajorRage No doubt the latter at least while traditional media has it's final death throes.
Just finished watching it, actually surprisingly nuanced. I think she went in trying to push a narrative and got a bit of a shock. It's an extremely complex situation.And youtube have decided to hide it