Am I alone in feeling that the present drama with Trump is doing wonders at educating people broadly about geo-politics, the inter-dependence of global powers and national agendas? I feel it's been an education.
Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
21–30 of 395 posts
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#22Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
Russia is the Soviet Union's continuation, and it still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and is currently fighting in and occupying a European country. The threat isn't gone at all.
So, what should happen so "the threat" is gone?
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#23Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?
There is a reason why Ukraine is not in NATO, which is because putting everyone under NATO does not necessarily mean everyone is safer.
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
If things go wrong, I think the establishment would reassert itself. But there would be a few weeks of chaos. That interval represents a new strategic opening. It's not enough for a land war in Europe. But a lighting grab for territory? Like Mongolia? Or Taiwan? Or the Baltics or Balkans or a contiguous stretch of the Middle East? If you can secure enough resources to hold strong against non-military retaliations, e.…
You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war? You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.
A "traditional" war? No. A destabilisation? Absolutely. Why bother to send in your own forces when you can get people to fight their neighbours? To be effective, it must be deniable, like the MH17 shootdown.
This is more or less what's happened in eastern Ukraine (not part of NATO, but supposedly recieving some safety guarantees when it gave up its nuclear weapons).
When the intelligence agencies are openly briefing that the President is compromised to the Russians, things are going to get very strange. http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/12/senior-pentagon-offic...
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#25This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected. Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed. The US and all of its allies are stil…
> The US and all of its allies are still allies. This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" - it's potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how effective our foreign relations are. The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own intelligence agencies should give everyone…
>This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is.
As compared to the actions of the previous administrations, like bombing in eastern Europe, invading several countries, and royally fucking up Middle East etc, while constantly pushing Russia in the corner in cold war like rhetoric (for doing 1/10 of what they did, and in its actual bordering countries after) all in the span of 20 years?
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
A pretext for what exactly? I have no issue with the existence of a military cooperation agreement to defend each other in the event of war breaking out, and fail to see how it would be a bad idea.
FWIW, I think that complex military alliances are a major reason why WWI was so expansive.
In case of a World War, military alliances are going to happen whether you want it or not, with the difference that weaker countries will be up for grabs, like Czechoslovakia in WWII. And even Poland actually, UK declaring war after Poland's invasion being sort of a surprise for Hitler.
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#27Because, to put it mildly, Europe has always been able to rely on the US bailing it out when it mishandled some internal or external crisis. Now it's worried it may not be able to take that for granted any more, and may have to take responsibility for its own actions. Frankly, that's terrifying for Europe. Trump has forcibly removed our training wheels. That said, NATO's not going anywhere. Theresa May's first action…
Just like the US bailed out Europe during the "external" migrant crisis, caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East?
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#28I keep thinking China could take the opportunity here to open up its own political system and really start competing against the US as a desired landing spot for US/EU tech/science grads, and other capable/interested young talent. In a play for "world dominance", this could be a prudent non-military move. It would force The West to reconsider the direction it's heading too.
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#29Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
>Now the threat is gone
Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens and many others would disagree.
Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war? You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.
> You really think a NATO ally can be hit No, but the odds don't look as daunting as they used to. It's certainly more bargainable than it ever was. In any case, only the Baltics in my last comment are NATO allies. Lots of American interests aren't covered by Article 5. > I have to respectfully disagree My point isn't that confrontation is likely. It's that disrespectful disagreement of the status quo is more likely…
> That encourages dice rolling.
I wish more people saw it this way. Many seem to equate the actions of Trump with "shaking things up" and don't realize the potential implications or increased likelihood of conflict due to the ambiguity of the Trump foreign policy.
It's unlikely to impact most Americans or Europeans that are not in the military but good luck if you live in a potential flashpoint.