51–60 of 395 posts
Because, 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…
I 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.
Not going to happen unless the current leaders somehow end up deposed.
Because, 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?
I 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.
AFAIK, previously only "specialists" were granted an employment license.
While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined. As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be so…
>The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world. As a fellow taxpayer, I just want to point out that another way to look at ROI on our military industrial complex is global stability safe for commerce which leads to things like being the world's reserve currency, having our debt viewed as the safest global asset class, etc. It strikes me as foolhardy to want to giv…
Why 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?
Alternative hypothesis: political populism is rising to popularity levels which endanger the plutocratic and military rulers. Don't think they won't set the stage for future wars just so they can stay in power.
Earlier 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.
Not exactly the same sort of conflicts and anyone who thinks they are comparable is a menace.
While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined. As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be so…
>The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world. As a fellow taxpayer, I just want to point out that another way to look at ROI on our military industrial complex is global stability safe for commerce which leads to things like being the world's reserve currency, having our debt viewed as the safest global asset class, etc. It strikes me as foolhardy to want to giv…
I am not sure if this is the case in the long run. However , I have never seen ROI calculations when it comes to something like the use of military apparatus. IMHO, the amount of collective hurt that has been generated by military interventions might backfire in numerous, unpredictable ways. At the end, a small number of people profit (e.g. those who finance successful military operations), while soldiers, victims of war pay the price for hegemony status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?