31–40 of 54 posts
The EU's problem isn't that it's too small--its population is larger than the US already. Its problem is that it's not unified. It can't act as one country the way the US and China can. The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to. Russia is economi…
From my perspective, the US has a remarkably consistent foreign policy despite some occasional initial wobbles when a new president comes in (which usually ends up being all or mostly talk). Obama talked about closing Guantanamo Bay and pulling out of Iraq, but he didn't do that, did he? And it was obvious for a long time that Afghanistan was a quagmire. Ultimately, the US only pulled out of Afghanistan two presidents later... conveniently freeing up resources for the big war in Ukraine that had been threatening to start for years, but only somehow really got going once Afghanistan was no longer a major drain on resources.
No, it seems to me that even a president as volatile as Trump is unable to just do what he wishes. I remember how often in his first term he announced and even ordered that the US would leave Iraq, but ultimately that didn't happen, and everyone who buys Iraqi oil still has to pay the US Treasury for it, which then sends some percentage of the money to Iraq, higher or lower depending on how happy they are with the Iraqi government.
The people who run US foreign policy long term seem pretty good at persuading the temporary occupants of the US White House not to do anything "too rash". As for what the methods of persuasion are, who knows? Perhaps they're just very good at making the political case, or maybe there's more to it.
At least in the case of the recent Iran War, there might be "more to it".
The EU's problem isn't that it's too small--its population is larger than the US already. Its problem is that it's not unified. It can't act as one country the way the US and China can. The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to. Russia is economi…
Didn’t the UK not six years ago vote to leave the EU? Is he suggesting that there’s demand from Britain to reverse that? Or is he suggesting they be forced to rejoin?
This makes as much sense as having Australia on Eurovision.
This makes as much sense as having Australia on Eurovision.
This is probably a response to the collapse of the United States. A bigger EU could easily replace it's hegemony as a bulwark against China and BRICS.
This makes as much sense as having Australia on Eurovision.
The EU's problem isn't that it's too small--its population is larger than the US already. Its problem is that it's not unified. It can't act as one country the way the US and China can. The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to. Russia is economi…
Also the US rarely ratifies treaties. There have been six since the year 2000.
Economically, the Soviet Union and China were historically dictatorships, with command economies, but their modern operations are fascist, with the state exercising ownership or control over organizations operating in competitive markets.