|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2016 21:34 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 17:12 RvB wrote:French presidency
French voters have twice backed the National Front to the runoff stage of elections, under two separate generations of Le Pens, only to back away from the anti-immigration party at the last moment. Brexit and Trump’s victory show nothing can be taken for granted in the presidential election second round on May 7.
With Hollande the most unpopular president in French history and his deeply disliked predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy vying to ride the Republican nomination to a comeback, Marine Le Pen may have an opening. The only head of a major French political party to have backed Trump, she congratulated him in a post on Twitter referring to “the American people, free!” Le Pen later said she trusted the French, “who cherish their liberty,” would break with the system which was “shackling them.”
“Up to now everybody in France has said, just as all kind of informed opinion so-called in America has said, ‘Oh well, Trump cannot win, Marine le Pen cannot win,”’ Howard Davies, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, told Bloomberg TV’s Tom Keene. “Well, I think there’ll be a lot of people asking themselves if that really is quite so certain, and so I think the French will be very nervous.”   Quite on the contrary, the governing pseudo-left and the right love nothing more than crying wolf and overestimating the weight of the Front National to coerce voters. Marine Le Pen has no chance of winning in 2017, you need ~18 millions votes to win the second round and the Front National never had more than 7. They should improve that in 2017 (again thanks to this disgusting pseudo-left), but you don't gain 11 millions votes like that. Marine Le Pen's only chance would be to meet Hollande in the second round, and there's no chance of that since his score would be divided by 2 or 3 compared with 2012; assuming this living disgrace dares to run for his reelection, that is. Plus you still need 289 députés to govern after that, and the Front National has literally zero major ally. Our institutions are designed to prevent extreme parties from conquering the power alone, and they're working as intended. And don't give us “but Brexit! but Trump!”, everyone who followed those events without being blinded by wishful thinking knew it would be close. The fact that the establishment seceded from reality doesn't mean everyone did.
meeting hollande or sarkozy would give marine lepen a real chance, other than these two it's a free win for whoever face her
i mean that's the purpose of the FN and that was the plan of mitterand all long, dividing the right in a way to give birth to the FN and that kind of tactic
but as you say she's not part of the system, the whole ENA administration is not in her pocket, therefore even by being president her power would be extremely limited
|
kinda surprised to still see so much harsh words on Trump from german politicians tbh.
Merkel kept it as short as possible while really emphasizing on "if he holds up democratic values [etc.] we will work with him" (I can't find the actual statement right now but was something along those lines iirc).
Vice-Chancelor Gabriel yesterday with really harsh words about Trump linking him to Erdogan and Putin (can't find english source ...)
And now I read this from von der Leyen (defense minister):
U.S. president-elect Donald Trump needs to clarify his views on Russia, and to understand that NATO must be treated as an alliance of shared values rather than a business, Germany's defense minister said.
"What his advisors will hopefully tell him and what he needs to learn is that NATO isn't just a business. It's not a company," Ursula von der Leyen told a ZDF talk show on Thursday. "I don't know how he values NATO."
During his election campaign, Trump threatened to abandon U.S. allies in Europe if they do not spend enough on defense.
"You can't say 'the past doesn't matter, the values we share don't matter' but instead try to get as much money out of it (NATO) as possible and whether I can get a good deal out of it," she said.
Von der Leyen advised Trump against getting too close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, noting that NATO had stood by the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
"Donald Trump has to say clearly on which side he is. Whether he's on the side of the law, peace and democracy or whether he doesn't care about all that and instead he's looking for a best buddy (with Putin)," she said.
Trump has expressed admiration for Putin, condemned by the West for his actions in Ukraine.
www.reuters.com
not quite as harsh as Gabriel but they really seem to have no idea what's going to happen in the next 4 years.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
They really should not try to play favorites publicly with who they want to be president. They just look stupid if they lose.
|
You mean all the people decrying the US being the worlds police and someone gets in who wants to back off on that and they throw a big conniption? Screw NATO. Such a waste of money. NATO is not about "shared values". It was a strategic alliance to prevent the expansion of the USSR. It's long past its due date. I hope Trump has the US leave NATO.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On November 11 2016 08:30 Wegandi wrote:
You mean all the people decrying the US being the worlds police and someone gets in who wants to back off on that and they throw a big conniption? Screw NATO. Such a waste of money. NATO is not about "shared values". It was a strategic alliance to prevent the expansion of the USSR. It's long past its due date. I hope Trump has the US leave NATO.
The people who used to decry US being world police (In Germany, the Left and parts of the AfD, so both the far right and far left end of the spectrum) have the highest approval of both Trump and Putin.
The people quoted above are classic conservatives for whom trans-atlantic partnership, including NATO, is fundamental policy.
|
i don't think Trump's Nato stance is realistic anyway, US foreign policy has always been about defending themselves as far as possible away from their own country, it's about global military dominance, and Nato is the most important tool for that.
It would be very bad for US economic interests to question Nato, i mean, if he's crazy he might do what he said, but i don't think he's crazy, he just played the idiot to collect the votes of stupid people for him. Although, who knows... *shrug*
|
i hope for a US - Russia rapprochement and the ditching of the German Empire all together; worst case scenario the Balkans go to the chinese.
|
Leaving NATO would be the end of US hegemony as we know it, and doing that due to the American people being told that the cost is too high would be quite the irony given the immeasurably high ROI of being the only country with global power projection.
But I don't think Trump will do it, now that he won he'll have a legion of officials explaining to him how the world works. It would also make no sense to go directly from 100 to 0 when there's a myriad of ways to reduce spending on NATO without affecting its primary purposes. The US doesn't need to subsidize missile shields in Russia's neighbours for NATO to work, that's taking an extra step.
|
On November 10 2016 20:14 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 18:46 xM(Z wrote:
that looks like the media is using Trump's win as a negative and is playing the fearmongering card to doubledown on those poor people that only want to matter, to be listened.
good fucking job men, that's how you make more of them. I appreciate the irony in asking, but are you being sarcastic? If anything these events should be a wake up call to mainstream politicians to take the concerns of people who consider their view under represented seriously.
He's Romanian, what do you think? ;-)
|
On November 11 2016 17:48 Dan HH wrote:
Leaving NATO would be the end of US hegemony as we know it, and doing that due to the American people being told that the cost is too high would be quite the irony given the immeasurably high ROI of being the only country with global power projection.
You're quantifying the unquantifiable by calling it "immeasurably high". I really doubt any true cost benefit analisys on military spending coupled with power projection can be done, but if it were possible, I'd say the ROI is immeasurably low instead  .
|
On November 11 2016 20:39 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 17:48 Dan HH wrote:
Leaving NATO would be the end of US hegemony as we know it, and doing that due to the American people being told that the cost is too high would be quite the irony given the immeasurably high ROI of being the only country with global power projection.
You're quantifying the unquantifiable by calling it "immeasurably high". I really doubt any true cost benefit analisys on military spending coupled with power projection can be done, but if it were possible, I'd say the ROI is immeasurably low instead .
And you'd very likely be wrong. The reason it's immeasurable is because the global paradigm would be a very different one, that doesn't mean everything about such a scenario is a complete mystery. In your last sentence you are basically saying that we can reasonably expect that a world not shaped by the US would be more beneficial to the US than a world shaped by the US, whereas the opposite is the much safer assumption.
It's also safer to assume that despite the occasional backfiring blunder, the US FP community for the most part knows what it's doing, and that the US did not maintain its position by accident but by actively pursuing its best interests. Which is why I'd be very surprised if they failed to dissuade Trump from insisting on this path, especially considering how little thought he gave to this topic and the initial reaction to him breaching the subject.
|
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on.
|
On November 11 2016 21:24 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 20:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 17:48 Dan HH wrote:
Leaving NATO would be the end of US hegemony as we know it, and doing that due to the American people being told that the cost is too high would be quite the irony given the immeasurably high ROI of being the only country with global power projection.
You're quantifying the unquantifiable by calling it "immeasurably high". I really doubt any true cost benefit analisys on military spending coupled with power projection can be done, but if it were possible, I'd say the ROI is immeasurably low instead . And you'd very likely be wrong. The reason it's immeasurable is because the global paradigm would be a very different one, that doesn't mean everything about such a scenario is a complete mystery. In your last sentence you are basically saying that we can reasonably expect that a world not shaped by the US would be more beneficial to the US than a world shaped by the US, whereas the opposite is the much safer assumption.
My point is that the idea of cost-benefit analisys is ludicrous because it relies on "what-if" historic scenarios, therefore so is your claim of "immeasurably high ROI". You want to claim the benefits of US foreign policy on foreign policy terms, fine, but don't use misleading terms that imply that the benefits of something like the Truman Doctrine can be systematically evaluated in economic terms.
In my last sentence I was indulging in a what-if scenario to make a point, I don't need to argue it further.
|
On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on.
Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option.
The US is the last country that would want NATO to fall apart though. More likely is that Europeans get rid of Atlanticist leadership and do it themselves. The solidarity among leadership in many of those countries is not shared among the population.
|
On November 11 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on. Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles. skipping past the fact that your scenario envisions a united EU(which is pretty far from what's happening right now), that scenario fails on logistics; France will have to supply (for ex.) hundred of Rafale jets in like what, a year?(there go the Baltics); and the typhoon is made by the dutch/italians/brits so when the brits pull out, you're done for.
the what if is pretty strong in any scenario but you dudes are floating on clouds.
Edit: see US as a giant corporation(not as a country) that is looking only for financial gain. in that case, the divide(of the EU) and conquer is a winning strategy; worst case here, they'll takeover the EU then liquidate it. + Show Spoiler +haha, yes i heard me saying it
|
On November 11 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option.
Because they're too expensive right ? Because I've heard they're ok from a technological standpoint.
|
On November 11 2016 23:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option. Because they're too expensive right ? Because I've heard they're ok from a technological standpoint.
rafale are the best multi role plane that proven themselves in actual war currently available, therefore the price is quite well adjusted since you can manage to only have a fleet of rafale
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 23:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option. Because they're too expensive right ? Because I've heard they're ok from a technological standpoint.
Kind of. It's because they aren't worth what they cost.
Say that pilots are a flat cost of $10 million a pop; I think that is a reasonable estimate, and pilot skills are certainly not inelastic. If you have $400 million, would you rather use it on one top-of-the-line US craft like the F-22 or JSF, or 3-10 slightly worse craft like current/previous model Eurofighter, MiG, or Su craft?
In realistic military operations, a lot of the time strength in numbers outdoes a slight technological advantage. More airplanes means more missions, and there is plenty of precedent for the best aircraft in the world getting owned by being outnumbered by slightly less advanced airplanes.
Of course, in modern military operations it can seem ubiquitous because the enemies are usually peasants who aren't very good with the airplanes that they actually do have. Such is asymmetric warfare.
|
On November 11 2016 23:06 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on. Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles. skipping past the fact that your scenario envisions a united EU(which is pretty far from what's happening right now), that scenario fails on logistics; France will have to supply (for ex.) hundred of Rafale jets in like what, a year?(there go the Baltics); and the typhoon is made by the dutch/italians/brits so when the brits pull out, you're done for. the what if is pretty strong in any scenario but you dudes are floating on clouds. Edit: see US as a giant corporation(not as a country) that is looking only for financial gain. in that case, the divide(of the EU) and conquer is a winning strategy; worst case here, they'll takeover the EU then liquidate it. + Show Spoiler +haha, yes i heard me saying it
Well, most of the European countries still have a pretty sizeable airforce as it is. It may not hold a candle to the US airforce, but it would definitely be enough to bomb the fuck out of Russia if they so much as thought about invading the Baltics. The fact that the US is so incredibly far ahead in military to the rest of the world doesn't mean that European nations have a smaller army than Russia. Hell, going by military spending, just Germany and France together have more forces than Russia (of course, military spending is deceptive if it comes to an actual ground war over the baltics), and I'm sure that if Russia were to be so bold, the UK would join, Brexit or no. Italy is no slouch either, and neither is Poland.
European solidarity is taking a beating, but the one thing that hasn't really changed through all this is the military integration. Even without NATO (which wouldn't necessarily disband just because the US abandoned it), there's a LOT of intergovernmental cooperation when it comes to military in the EU.
But lets be serious. Russia is not going to invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart. Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and maybe some other areas like Azerbeijan are fucked, which is bad enough, but Russia isn't stupid enough to play chicken with the EU. We were talking about who stood to profit from the US stepping out of NATO. You claimed the US military industrial complex would win bigly. All I said was that there's a good chance that the US stepping out of NATO would cause such resentment that it would kickstart the European military industrial complex back into existence (powered initially by France that still actually has one).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
