Live data from Hacker News

Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

bloomberg.com

171–180 of 395 posts

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#171
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be operating under the belief that the disintegration of the EU started three weeks ago or something? It's been an ongoing saga for years. I mean, Brexit predates Trump, and Brexit itself is the result of years of pressures. I can see why you'd be so confused by the "strategy" if you think Trump is causing it, but he's reacting to it. And my assessment of the situation is the other way around; there's not…

The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by the great depression and a precursor to WWII. It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.

your being dismissive. they have legitimate complaints that have been ignored for more than a decade. their situation (and really most people) continued to get worse as pro misses of prosperity from globalization landed on a few.

maybe they are wrong, but basically they are being called dumb for being pushed into minimum wage jobs and told 'dont worry, we'll raise minimum wage to 15 an hour and give you free community college' and rejecting that offer.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#172
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A political party that dragged the US into two wars with minor countries with insignificant military resources, both of which could be totally dominated with an air war. And the US still had terrible trouble trying to keeping those wars "won". Not exactly the same sort of conflicts and anyone who thinks they are comparable is a menace.

The US had problems "keeping those wars 'won'" because the US had to attempt to minimize civilian deaths. If there ever is an event where this isnt the case, you can bet it would be wrapped up in a few weeks.

Yeesh, minimize civilian deaths?

"The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) figure of Documented civilian deaths from violence is 155,923 – 174,355 as of March 2016. This includes reported civilian deaths due to Coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence.[19] The IBC site states: "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media."[20] The IBC website currently states that, "Further analysis of the WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs may add 12,000 civilian deaths.""

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...

150,000 CIVILIAN deaths, by just one count alone!

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#173

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…

When discussing EU military capabilities one must go beyond dollar amount spent. The huge inefficiencies in the collective national militaries in terms of having an integrated force should not be discounted. Diversity of equipment at the level mentioned in the article is not a collective strength. It is a weakness.

The real weakness however is the inability for the EU to collectively act militarily. Recall Kosovo and Europe's inability to deal with it without the U.S. And that was when Russia was very weak. The EU in political terms is a military lightweight. It lacks the political will and the military capability to act on it's own.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#174

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…

I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing.

I also feel compelled to partially quote Gore Vidal's old article on this:

"When Japan surrendered, the US was faced with a choice: Either disarm, as we had done in the past, and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy to the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a full military basis, which would mean tight control not only of our allies and such conquered provinces such as West Germany, Italy, and Japan but over economic–which is to say political–lives of American people. As Charles E. Wilson, a businessman and politician of the day, said as early as 1944, “Instead of looking to disarmament and unpreparedness as a safeguard against a war, a thoroughly discredited doctrine, let us try the opposite: full preparedness according to a continuing plan.”

The accidental president, Harry Truman, bought this notion. Although Truman campaigned in 1948 as an heir to Roosevelt’s New Deal, he had a “continuing plan”. Henry Wallace was onto it, as early as: “Yesterday, March 12, 1947, marked a turning point in American history … Yesterday, President Truman proposed, in effect, America police Russia’s every border. There is no regime too reactionary for us provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path. There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of contest which may widen until it become a world war.” But how to impose this? The Republican leadership did not like the state to be the master of the country’s economic life while, of the Democrats, only a few geopoliticians, like Dean Acheson, found thrilling the prospect of a military state, to be justified in the name of a holy war against something called communism in general and Russia in particular. The fact that the Soviet Union was no military or economic threat to us was immaterial. It must be made to appear threatening so the continuing plan could be set in motion in order to create the National Security State in which we have been living for the last forty years.

What is the National Security State? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947; it was implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything the United States had ever known before. This document, known as the NSC-68 for short, and declassified only in 1975, committed–and still, fitfully, commits–us to the following program: First, never negotiate, ever, with Russia. This could not continue forever; but the obligatory bad faith of US-USSR meetings still serves the continuing plan. Second, develop the hydrogen bomb so that when the Russians finally develop an atomic bomb we will still not have to deal with the enemy without which the National Security State cannot exist. Third, rapidly build up conventional forces. Fourth, put through a large increase in taxes to pay for all this. Fifth, mobilize the entire American society to fight the terrible specter of communism. Sixth, set up a strong alliance system, directed by the United States (this became NATO). Seventh, make the people of Russia our allies, through propaganda and CIA derring-do, in this holy adventure–hence the justification for all sorts of secret services that are in no way responsible to the Congress that funds them, and so in violation of the old Constitution.

Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not only openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better “scare hell out of the American people.” Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general (December 4, 1947) published a list of dissident organizations. The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman’s successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state."

- Gore Vidal, "National Security State"

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#175
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately. Show me a recent Western intervention that threatens Russia's legitimate security interests. Syria? Perhaps. Aside from that your assertion is unsupported.

The expansion of NATO deep into former Warsaw Pact countries.

>The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.

That's what you're replying to. Several former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. The West didn't invade them.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#176
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expansion of NATO deep into former Warsaw Pact countries.

At the request of those countries, no?

No, you see, if Russia wants something that other countries don't want, then that's ok.

But if other countries, especially smaller ones, want something, then to hell with them!

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#178

After the round of elections in France and Netherlands this spring, and Germany this summer, Europe may or may not start disintegrating, depending on the outcome. Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day. A correctly timed scandal or major terrorist attack in the second round may sink her opponent. Moscow, London and Washington are hard at work with her, to make this happen. When she, or someone like he…

France, Netherlands, Germany, and the U.K. are all countries with large and growing immigrant populations. Seeing their countries 'taken over' by foreigners, people vote for parties promising to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, there are no pro-EU parties making those promises. Quite the opposite - they prefer to chastise their people for not wanting their countries to irreversibly change. So that's how you end up wi…

It's literally this simple. Integration has been a disaster to the extent that soldiers now patrol within the borders of France and Belgium.

The great opportunity-cost of integrating populations and monitoring them when it fails has clearly become too expensive and people are saying "enough".

Oddly, the EU doesn't seem to acknowledge the sentiment of the public and just keep hammering on about 'ever closer union'. Clarity from mainstream Parties on this issue alone would shrink the poll numbers of the Far-Right.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

You are defending the Russians to a slight extent by bringing up the misdeeds of the US. Two wrongs do not make a right. American here.

I don't see sanctions against US. So this is very hypocritical of wetern nations.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#180
post #101

The US is just pouting, and it's shameful. We need adults in the room, being thoughtful, pointing out, for instance, that withdrawing is not a form of strength, and only permits other countries (China) to fill the vacuum. The vote for DT was a nihilistic, anti-establishment moment from a demo that wants change but isn't willing to think about what kind of change.

Nothing has substantively changed yet. The United States has reaffirmed its support for NATO, for its Asian alliances, and it has rhetorically asserted itself with Iran and North Korea. Rumors of grand changes to US foreign policy may be greatly exaggerated. Don't confuse quips and press coverage for action.

So Trump spends a year giving Putin all the reason in the world to believe that he can destabilize the Baltics without worrying about war with the US, and we're supposed to trust that Russia will believe our current posturing instead?
Post reply on HN