European Politics
-
Awkward, very very very awkward .
https://m.france24.com/en/20180912-dalai-lama-says-europe-belongs-europeans
-
So my good buddy Carl (well we had dinner ...) went to European Parliament in Strasburg for the Article 13 debate. He managed to interview some UKIP MEPs about the goings on in the EU and its is mindblowing.
Highly recommend watching if you are in or affiliated to a European country.
-
Well, in my view, Mr Tusk has just made a right royal cock up.
I cant see social networks at work, but he's put in instagram, a picture of him offering cake to May, saying something like "fancy some cake, but you cannot have the cherry".
People in my office, are fuming, about the British being mocked and treated like this. And the fuming, for once, is not at May. It's at Tusk. He's basically demonstrated one of the main reasons as to why lots of UK nationals don't want to be a part of it.
Now of course, I'm sure this is a small part of some larger negotiating tactic ... but I've never seen my office so vocal. It will put all our jobs at serious risk, but the consensus here is "fine, no deal - fuck off".
Interesting few weeks ahead ..
-
https://m.dw.com/en/far-right-afd-second-only-to-angela-merkels-weakening-conservatives/a-45587347
AfD now second largest party in German polls. Merkel's party at lowest ever recorded. A mainstream party opposed to her madness would farking sweep it. Not that you'd find any of that sentiment on social media....
-
@rembrandt said in European Politics:
This predates Trump but it’s interesting that Obama called freeloaders freeriders when he was president
https://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-army-four-reasons-it-will-not-happen
-
Yeah this isn't funny
Worth noting that the German army can't act outside of its borders under its own flag*(edit this may have changed trying to verify)..something to do with some significant historical event or something....BUT if they do it under a different flag then well that's totally fine.
Own flag, own anthem, own parliament, own borders, own army. New age imperialism.
-
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)?
-
Belgium PM resigns over his support of the UN migration pact.
-
-
@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.