|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Interesting that, per that article, they didn't even shore up how they're going to cancel the deal legally. Seems like the kind of thing that could spend months in litigation because of a lack of coordination. It's as if this entire thing was done in a hurry to muscle out France with the plan as to how & what comes next to be figured out in the months and years to come.
|
Of note, the newer classes, including Virginia which you mention below, do not go into refueling overhaul since they have life-of-the-ship cores.
Which means that the boat will only last 30 years anyway, because that's how long the S9G reactor lasts. Making my argument stronger, actually.
The newest classes (in production) have all the features you are talking about, and more.
Pray tell. What "newest classes" other than the Virginia are they building? Virginia is the newest class, and will be succeeded (if nothing changes, which it obviously could) in 2044 by what's currently known as the SSN(X) or "Improved Virginia". That's it.
All Virginia class boats, including the Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Iowa (the ones currently in production) use turbines. The only two significant things that changed between blocks (which is what i assume you meant by "newest classes") was a new sonar array with Block III, and new payload tubes - also with Block III. The current boats are Block IV (the ones being currently built) - the only change here being maintenance related. Block V will feature VPM, but no Block V has been started yet. None of this has anything to do with propulsion.
The only thing in regards to propulsion that changed was the propulsor. That's the propeller. For the SSN(X) a biomimetic propulsion is considered (basically, flippers). As mentioned, the Virginia runs on pump-jet propulsors. The Virginia has the same sound level as the Seawolf. Which was designed to beat Typhoon and Akula boats.
Feel free to correct me here, in case somehow an entire new class of boats slipped my attention. I love submarines, eager to learn.
|
Garbage beto planning to run for Texas governor, lol. Texas, don’t be stupid. Get someone else.
|
On September 20 2021 08:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason. Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah. We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal. France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence. Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all.
France's ability to fuck with Australia is considerable, given that there are ongoing negotiations about a free trade deal between the EU and Australia, and France can veto that (or at a lower political cost, convince the rest of the EU that deals with Australia are not worth the paper they're written on).
They have an even greater ability to fuck with the UK.
Sure, their capacity to fuck with the US is limited, but this is the second big signal in about as many weeks (the first being the precipitous retreat from Afghanistan that left allies in the lurch) that the US has no consideration for its allies or their interests. And that is what France is signalling to its friends here, and is a message that is being received loud and clear.
The press I read about this is very sympathetic to the French situation. What that means in politics, I don't know, but it just seems like a particularly stupid, and avoidable blunder of diplomacy.
|
United States24579 Posts
On September 20 2021 14:56 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Of note, the newer classes, including Virginia which you mention below, do not go into refueling overhaul since they have life-of-the-ship cores.
Which means that the boat will only last 30 years anyway, because that's how long the S9G reactor lasts. Making my argument stronger, actually. Show nested quote +The newest classes (in production) have all the features you are talking about, and more. Pray tell. What "newest classes" other than the Virginia are they building? Virginia is the newest class, and will be succeeded (if nothing changes, which it obviously could) in 2044 by what's currently known as the SSN(X) or "Improved Virginia". That's it. All Virginia class boats, including the Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Iowa (the ones currently in production) use turbines. The only two significant things that changed between blocks (which is what i assume you meant by "newest classes") was a new sonar array with Block III, and new payload tubes - also with Block III. The current boats are Block IV (the ones being currently built) - the only change here being maintenance related. Block V will feature VPM, but no Block V has been started yet. None of this has anything to do with propulsion. The only thing in regards to propulsion that changed was the propulsor. That's the propeller. For the SSN(X) a biomimetic propulsion is considered (basically, flippers). As mentioned, the Virginia runs on pump-jet propulsors. The Virginia has the same sound level as the Seawolf. Which was designed to beat Typhoon and Akula boats. Feel free to correct me here, in case somehow an entire new class of boats slipped my attention. I love submarines, eager to learn.
By newest classes I meant Columbia Class (S1B) as well as SSN(X). Granted, the former is a different type of submarine than Virginia but it's coming much sooner than Virginia replacement.
|
On September 20 2021 16:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 08:33 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason. Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah. We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal. France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence. Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all. France's ability to fuck with Australia is considerable, given that there are ongoing negotiations about a free trade deal between the EU and Australia, and France can veto that (or at a lower political cost, convince the rest of the EU that deals with Australia are not worth the paper they're written on). They have an even greater ability to fuck with the UK. Sure, their capacity to fuck with the US is limited, but this is the second big signal in about as many weeks (the first being the precipitous retreat from Afghanistan that left allies in the lurch) that the US has no consideration for its allies or their interests. And that is what France is signalling to its friends here, and is a message that is being received loud and clear. The press I read about this is very sympathetic to the French situation. What that means in politics, I don't know, but it just seems like a particularly stupid, and avoidable blunder of diplomacy.
What exactly are these sympathetic articles saying should have happened instead? More respectful communication regarding their choice, or just sticking with France? To me it’s totally nuts to expect Australia to take a worse deal just out of principle. We’re not talking mangoes, we’re talking a major navy decision.
|
On September 20 2021 19:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 16:10 Acrofales wrote:On September 20 2021 08:33 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason. Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah. We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal. France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence. Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all. France's ability to fuck with Australia is considerable, given that there are ongoing negotiations about a free trade deal between the EU and Australia, and France can veto that (or at a lower political cost, convince the rest of the EU that deals with Australia are not worth the paper they're written on). They have an even greater ability to fuck with the UK. Sure, their capacity to fuck with the US is limited, but this is the second big signal in about as many weeks (the first being the precipitous retreat from Afghanistan that left allies in the lurch) that the US has no consideration for its allies or their interests. And that is what France is signalling to its friends here, and is a message that is being received loud and clear. The press I read about this is very sympathetic to the French situation. What that means in politics, I don't know, but it just seems like a particularly stupid, and avoidable blunder of diplomacy. What exactly are these sympathetic articles saying should have happened instead? More respectful communication regarding their choice, or just sticking with France? To me it’s totally nuts to expect Australia to take a worse deal just out of principle. We’re not talking mangoes, we’re talking a major navy decision.
It's mostly about shutting France out of the loop entirely while negotiating behind their backs.
Finding a better deal? Sure, good for them. Actively telling France that the deal is on and they should keep trying to meet the September deadlines while simultaneously negotiating a new deal behind their backs? Not cool at all.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
On September 20 2021 16:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 08:33 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason. Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah. We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal. France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence. Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all. France's ability to fuck with Australia is considerable, given that there are ongoing negotiations about a free trade deal between the EU and Australia, and France can veto that (or at a lower political cost, convince the rest of the EU that deals with Australia are not worth the paper they're written on). They have an even greater ability to fuck with the UK. Sure, their capacity to fuck with the US is limited, but this is the second big signal in about as many weeks (the first being the precipitous retreat from Afghanistan that left allies in the lurch) that the US has no consideration for its allies or their interests. And that is what France is signalling to its friends here, and is a message that is being received loud and clear. The press I read about this is very sympathetic to the French situation. What that means in politics, I don't know, but it just seems like a particularly stupid, and avoidable blunder of diplomacy.
We’ll have to see.
Part of what I was expecting to see was well, essentially some bridge-building after Trump’s unilateralism and sabre-rattling against multilateral cooperation and rhetoric against the EU and NATO.
Basically ramming home the message that Trump was an aberration and the US is still a reliable ally. Doesn’t mean I’d necessarily agree with how the alliances actually worked, but that the US wouldn’t dick around in this domain.
As per your Afghanistan alliance, to a degree this as well, that doesn’t quite seem to be the case.
There must be something going on in back channels somewhere, otherwise I’m not too sure of the wisdom here. Why not a similar arrangement only bringing the US in while France still keeps their contract in some form, converting it into more of a defence deal, or something similar to now?
As the French seem totally blindsided it seems this wasn’t even explored, which is where my bafflement comes in. If nothing else the Biden administration is pretty on the record in its defence of the Good Friday Agreement here, so maybe this is the bone to the Johnson administration not to fuck with it?
I don’t know, doesn’t seem particularly dextrously done whatever the unseen machinations are.
If there’s some longer-term positioning to restrict Chinese influence, cutting individual deals that piss people off seems a terrible way to go about it vs pursuing wider multilateral cooperation with say, I don’t know some pan-European alliance of states? If only such a thing existed!
Given Chinese leverage is hugely economic in basis these days in real terms, and military in theoretical terms, the pathway to restriction of influence seems in alliances with large economic blocs and doing things in that domain, least to my layman’s brain.
|
On September 20 2021 19:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 19:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 16:10 Acrofales wrote:On September 20 2021 08:33 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2021 07:59 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 06:26 Spazer wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? They just publicly lost a big contract. It's in their best interest to appear angry, whether they are or not. Why would they simply lie down and take it when they can salvage something from the wreckage? The first reason is to reassure their countrymen that they are looking out for national interests. The electorate is important after all. I imagine they'd be crucified by the French media if they just waved it off. The second reason is make clear their position - we are displeased, don't try us further. Recalling the ambassador implies that they are "serious". It bolsters their position in any future negotiations with the AUUKUS, and can be leveraged accordingly. Whether this is converted into a tangible benefit depends on how much any of the three countries values French cooperation. So really, standard geopolitics. Here's how I see it: By using a temper tantrum, they are showing they have no actual cards to play. If they had leverage, they'd have used it. By throwing a fit, they showed their hand: weakness. I see it as them making a bad situation worse. It shows a complete lack of self awareness. Since when has self-awareness been relevant in geopolitics? A good chunk of it is posturing and saber rattling.
I guess if the electorate is just as insecure as their apparent leadership, it makes sense. I would feel embarrassed.
Yeah? Not like France is devoid of nationalism. What do you think the focus of US foreign policy has been in the last four years? Pandering to the electorate is not new. Ultimately, what happens publicly is for show. We have no idea what discussions are actually happening in back channels.
Do not try them further, or risk what? What is France gonna really do in response to losing contracts, declare war? On the US? LOL. I think it HURTS their position in any further negotiations because it shows they have nothing. If they take their ball and leave the playground, it represents the ultimate concession of power. Ultimately France needs to bend the knee. Its not like they have much going for them without the US and UK. The whole point of the last 50 years is that France relies on the US to be big daddy preventing them from being bullied by Russia. This fit just makes them appear whiny.
If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet
Obviously they're not going to declare war. Don't be hyperbolic. The point is you can expect less French cooperation, at least in the short term. Maybe they'll be less inclined to participate in future military operations. Maybe they'll start sharing less information with the US. Maybe new policies will be implemented that are unfavorable to the US. Maybe they begin supporting new EU directives that are less friendly to American policies. The most salient threat is that France becomes more open to China and Chinese technologies. The US is trying to consolidate its allies to stand against China - this is the whole point of AUUKUS. Has this deal affected how the French view the US vs China? How does the rest of the EU perceive this? If the US thinks there is a genuine possibility that this won't blow over, and that France or the EU will get a bit closer to China as a result, they will extend the olive branch. The potential cost of giving France a win is nothing compared to the strategic implications, even if the French are bluffing. If France would have canceled a trade agreement or something, it would have projected strength. This ain’t that. If I were Biden I’d see France as an all you can abuse buffet The US is capable of getting what they want no matter what. Everyone knows it. The problem is that it costs you political capital, and things become subtly harder. Soft power is valued for a reason. Maybe the impact is negligible, but yeah. We’ve got a deal involving the U.K., who are clearly looking some wins after untethering from the EU, and hey the US get in on the deal. France has more influence than it did before via the U.K. leaving within the EU, which is a pretty huge bloc of influence. Mohdoo’s conception of ‘yeah we did this what are you going to do about it?’ can easily by countered by ‘yeah the EU cut some deal with China what are you going to do about it?’ Yeah the U.K. is desperate for something to hang their hat on, Aus may have spheres of influence concerns re China that the US are willing to facilitate. I don’t think it’s some great bloodless foreign policy victory though, France have some considerable clout within Europe.after all. France's ability to fuck with Australia is considerable, given that there are ongoing negotiations about a free trade deal between the EU and Australia, and France can veto that (or at a lower political cost, convince the rest of the EU that deals with Australia are not worth the paper they're written on). They have an even greater ability to fuck with the UK. Sure, their capacity to fuck with the US is limited, but this is the second big signal in about as many weeks (the first being the precipitous retreat from Afghanistan that left allies in the lurch) that the US has no consideration for its allies or their interests. And that is what France is signalling to its friends here, and is a message that is being received loud and clear. The press I read about this is very sympathetic to the French situation. What that means in politics, I don't know, but it just seems like a particularly stupid, and avoidable blunder of diplomacy. What exactly are these sympathetic articles saying should have happened instead? More respectful communication regarding their choice, or just sticking with France? To me it’s totally nuts to expect Australia to take a worse deal just out of principle. We’re not talking mangoes, we’re talking a major navy decision. It's mostly about shutting France out of the loop entirely while negotiating behind their backs. Finding a better deal? Sure, good for them. Actively telling France that the deal is on and they should keep trying to meet the September deadlines while simultaneously negotiating a new deal behind their backs? Not cool at all.
I agree with that, absolutely.
Again, though, we ourselves gain nothing by shutting France out. The party that gains from keeping them in the dark is the one trying to swoop in. I doubt we'll ever know what really happened, but it seems likely that the cloak-and-dagger occurred because the US required it to sit down at the table.
Also for the sake of argument, let's say that in addition to telling France in April that there were major issues, we also indicated that we had another offer. I think they would still have pushed to meet the deadline, because otherwise they crash the deal themselves even if our plan B falls through. That's why I find this so frustrating. The stoush is completely a matter of optics rather than a disagreement about substance, and I can't believe we are this bad at communicating with our allies unless there is a reason.
|
|
|
On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA?
I don't know, but making the pact without negotiating with France whatsoever seems like a Trump-like move. Since Biden was assuring allies that the Trump days are over and that America cares about their allies... In recent years the US spied on France and Germany with a Dutch spy network. Through wars in the middle east US was the main instigator of middle east immigration towards EU. US also sanctioned a lot of deals between EU and Russia like France's Mistral Ship deal and North Stream 2, relations with Russia weren't very good, because of pressure by US to put sanctions on Russia (which was justified to some degree, but went overboard at some point). EU doesn't benefit in having Russia as an adversary, but US can sell weapons to smaller countries by overblowing a Russian threat. Then there was 4 years of Trump and America First, Trump also supported Brexit, and destroyed the Paris's Climate accord and the Nuclear deal with Iran, which again didn't benefit the EU... Now the US is trying to severe relations between EU and China, again EU does not benefit from worsened relations with China, since China is a big market for the EU and vice versa. Afghanistan pull-out was sudden and wasn't negotiated with EU >>> new risk of immigration waves towards EU.
I don't know if anyone put their attention on this, but Macron was trying to make France a bigger player in the international events, but France and US (especially under Trump) had different views towards problems like Russia, Iran and China. While France, Germany and the EU want a balanced neutral approach towards regional and global powers... the US approach most of the time is: "It's my way or the highway." I think this approach will backfire sooner or later and the EU will label the US a systemic rival like they did China and will not support US adventurism's agenda. If the US continues to be ignorant of EU's strategic interests I expect that in the near future the EU will make their own defense pact superseding NATO, also I can't see how the US will rally the EU to help contain China with moves like the ones with France? Even if China's reputation has worsened due to the Coronavirus, the US wasn't exactly a moral leader in the pandemic either.
|
On September 21 2021 06:27 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? I don't know, but making the pact without negotiating with France whatsoever seems like a Trump-like move. Since Biden was assuring allies that the Trump days are over and that America cares about their allies... In recent years the US spied on France and Germany with a Dutch spy network. Through wars in the middle east US was the main instigator of middle east immigration towards EU. US also sanctioned a lot of deals between EU and Russia like France's Mistral Ship deal and North Stream 2, relations with Russia weren't very good, because of pressure by US to put sanctions on Russia (which was justified to some degree, but went overboard at some point). EU doesn't benefit in having Russia as an adversary, but US can sell weapons to smaller countries by overblowing a Russian threat. Then there was 4 years of Trump and America First, Trump also supported Brexit, and destroyed the Paris's Climate accord and the Nuclear deal with Iran, which again didn't benefit the EU... Now the US is trying to severe relations between EU and China, again EU does not benefit from worsened relations with China, since China is a big market for the EU and vice versa. Afghanistan pull-out was sudden and wasn't negotiated with EU >>> new risk of immigration waves towards EU. I don't know if anyone put their attention on this, but Macron was trying to make France a bigger player in the international events, but France and US (especially under Trump) had different views towards problems like Russia, Iran and China. While France, Germany and the EU want a balanced neutral approach towards regional and global powers... the US approach most of the time is: "It's my way or the highway." I think this approach will backfire sooner or later and the EU will label the US a systemic rival like they did China and will not support US adventurism's agenda. If the US continues to be ignorant of EU's strategic interests I expect that in the near future the EU will make their own defense pact superseding NATO, also I can't see how the US will rally the EU to help contain China with moves like the ones with France? Even if China's reputation has worsened due to the Coronavirus, the US wasn't exactly a moral leader in the pandemic either.
EU citizens don't want to suck Russia/China dick. They understand the situation regarding disinformation and various other methods they are using to get EU politicians on their side. The US is in a good position to actually do something about China/Russia whereas the EU is too weak to resist their corruption. There's tons of articles about China/Russia doing everything they can to inject money or influence into EU politics. Many EU politicians are just cowards who don't want to miss out on the free money and don't want to rock the boat. There are politicians who were willing to go to bat for Huawei
I don't mind the US telling the EU to grow a pair and to keep the pressure on. They are failing. Having Australia on board is great. Macron is whiny because this hurts France, that's it. No one with a brain thinks honor or some horse shit like that should determine enormous military deals.
Just look at the Huawei situation. Total embarrassment from a political influence auditing perspective. EVERY single politician who was comfortable with Huawei should be arrested. They failed their audit. The EU can't be relied on to push back China. We're all aware of the Russian natural gas situation. Big disaster. Left to their own devices, they'd struggle.
|
Not to mention the European reliance on Russian Gas would be solved if there were some sort of investment in liquid natural gas in ports allowing North and south America to supply them. Heck southern Europe would be able to buy from cyprus and other north African sources.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
On September 21 2021 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2021 06:27 raga4ka wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? I don't know, but making the pact without negotiating with France whatsoever seems like a Trump-like move. Since Biden was assuring allies that the Trump days are over and that America cares about their allies... In recent years the US spied on France and Germany with a Dutch spy network. Through wars in the middle east US was the main instigator of middle east immigration towards EU. US also sanctioned a lot of deals between EU and Russia like France's Mistral Ship deal and North Stream 2, relations with Russia weren't very good, because of pressure by US to put sanctions on Russia (which was justified to some degree, but went overboard at some point). EU doesn't benefit in having Russia as an adversary, but US can sell weapons to smaller countries by overblowing a Russian threat. Then there was 4 years of Trump and America First, Trump also supported Brexit, and destroyed the Paris's Climate accord and the Nuclear deal with Iran, which again didn't benefit the EU... Now the US is trying to severe relations between EU and China, again EU does not benefit from worsened relations with China, since China is a big market for the EU and vice versa. Afghanistan pull-out was sudden and wasn't negotiated with EU >>> new risk of immigration waves towards EU. I don't know if anyone put their attention on this, but Macron was trying to make France a bigger player in the international events, but France and US (especially under Trump) had different views towards problems like Russia, Iran and China. While France, Germany and the EU want a balanced neutral approach towards regional and global powers... the US approach most of the time is: "It's my way or the highway." I think this approach will backfire sooner or later and the EU will label the US a systemic rival like they did China and will not support US adventurism's agenda. If the US continues to be ignorant of EU's strategic interests I expect that in the near future the EU will make their own defense pact superseding NATO, also I can't see how the US will rally the EU to help contain China with moves like the ones with France? Even if China's reputation has worsened due to the Coronavirus, the US wasn't exactly a moral leader in the pandemic either. EU citizens don't want to suck Russia/China dick. They understand the situation regarding disinformation and various other methods they are using to get EU politicians on their side. The US is in a good position to actually do something about China/Russia whereas the EU is too weak to resist their corruption. There's tons of articles about China/Russia doing everything they can to inject money or influence into EU politics. Many EU politicians are just cowards who don't want to miss out on the free money and don't want to rock the boat. There are politicians who were willing to go to bat for Huawei I don't mind the US telling the EU to grow a pair and to keep the pressure on. They are failing. Having Australia on board is great. Macron is whiny because this hurts France, that's it. No one with a brain thinks honor or some horse shit like that should determine enormous military deals. Just look at the Huawei situation. Total embarrassment from a political influence auditing perspective. EVERY single politician who was comfortable with Huawei should be arrested. They failed their audit. The EU can't be relied on to push back China. We're all aware of the Russian natural gas situation. Big disaster. Left to their own devices, they'd struggle. . Functionally, for the EU what makes the US more attractive than China?
Power? Well they’re both pretty powerful. Reliability as an ally? Well the US is stretching that.
The US doesn’t have some god given right to fuck around and have Europe bend with it, I don’t understand why this isn’t taken into account.
To us (and by us I mean not me, Brexit and all that ), what’s the difference? An America that doesn’t respect us or a China that doesn’t?
|
On September 21 2021 07:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2021 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 21 2021 06:27 raga4ka wrote:On September 20 2021 04:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2021 15:57 LegalLord wrote:
So on another note: given that we have yet another foreign policy rift with France, is it about time to bring back freedom fries? They did recall their ambassador, after all. They recalled their ambassador? Can someone explain in what world it makes sense for France to behave this way? Am I missing something or are they basically just mad they can't compete with big dog USA? I don't know, but making the pact without negotiating with France whatsoever seems like a Trump-like move. Since Biden was assuring allies that the Trump days are over and that America cares about their allies... In recent years the US spied on France and Germany with a Dutch spy network. Through wars in the middle east US was the main instigator of middle east immigration towards EU. US also sanctioned a lot of deals between EU and Russia like France's Mistral Ship deal and North Stream 2, relations with Russia weren't very good, because of pressure by US to put sanctions on Russia (which was justified to some degree, but went overboard at some point). EU doesn't benefit in having Russia as an adversary, but US can sell weapons to smaller countries by overblowing a Russian threat. Then there was 4 years of Trump and America First, Trump also supported Brexit, and destroyed the Paris's Climate accord and the Nuclear deal with Iran, which again didn't benefit the EU... Now the US is trying to severe relations between EU and China, again EU does not benefit from worsened relations with China, since China is a big market for the EU and vice versa. Afghanistan pull-out was sudden and wasn't negotiated with EU >>> new risk of immigration waves towards EU. I don't know if anyone put their attention on this, but Macron was trying to make France a bigger player in the international events, but France and US (especially under Trump) had different views towards problems like Russia, Iran and China. While France, Germany and the EU want a balanced neutral approach towards regional and global powers... the US approach most of the time is: "It's my way or the highway." I think this approach will backfire sooner or later and the EU will label the US a systemic rival like they did China and will not support US adventurism's agenda. If the US continues to be ignorant of EU's strategic interests I expect that in the near future the EU will make their own defense pact superseding NATO, also I can't see how the US will rally the EU to help contain China with moves like the ones with France? Even if China's reputation has worsened due to the Coronavirus, the US wasn't exactly a moral leader in the pandemic either. EU citizens don't want to suck Russia/China dick. They understand the situation regarding disinformation and various other methods they are using to get EU politicians on their side. The US is in a good position to actually do something about China/Russia whereas the EU is too weak to resist their corruption. There's tons of articles about China/Russia doing everything they can to inject money or influence into EU politics. Many EU politicians are just cowards who don't want to miss out on the free money and don't want to rock the boat. There are politicians who were willing to go to bat for Huawei I don't mind the US telling the EU to grow a pair and to keep the pressure on. They are failing. Having Australia on board is great. Macron is whiny because this hurts France, that's it. No one with a brain thinks honor or some horse shit like that should determine enormous military deals. Just look at the Huawei situation. Total embarrassment from a political influence auditing perspective. EVERY single politician who was comfortable with Huawei should be arrested. They failed their audit. The EU can't be relied on to push back China. We're all aware of the Russian natural gas situation. Big disaster. Left to their own devices, they'd struggle. . Functionally, for the EU what makes the US more attractive than China? Power? Well they’re both pretty powerful. Reliability as an ally? Well the US is stretching that. The US doesn’t have some god given right to fuck around and have Europe bend with it, I don’t understand why this isn’t taken into account. To us (and by us I mean not me, Brexit and all that ), what’s the difference? An America that doesn’t respect us or a China that doesn’t?
I think China's fundamental perspectives on personal liberties is much worse than the US. The edge lords like to show both of them do bad things, but the scale and extent of China's oppression of their own citizens is significantly worse. China's expansion into international/shared waters is also pretty openly aggressive.
US defends HK, China wants to subjugate it. China's perspective on Japan and Taiwan are also blatantly way worse. The US is not licking its lips hoping to invade Taiwan.
|
On September 20 2021 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 08:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 19 2021 09:24 micronesia wrote:
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking. If you are asking if there will be any transfers of money, that is undetermined as yet, but certainly there will be a monetary outflow from Australian government to US/UK companies or US/UK govenment entities if only due to Australia's lack of technical knowledge regarding these matters. I sincerely doubt USA will just transfer vast amounts of secret military technology to Australia for free. If The US and UK can cut off China's expansion, that is worth an incalculable amount of money. If they determined Australia being strong cuts off China's expansion in some way, they don't need a single dollar.
USA didn't even give away war materiel for free in the middle of the biggest war the world has ever seen. You know, the one against Nazis and ended with a couple of nuclear bombs being dropped. What are the stakes here in comparison? Nuclear propulsive secrets are just another whole level of importance. It's odd that you assume it will be free. I can just imagine the Republicans kicking a fuss over Biden giving away military secrets that costs trillions of USD to develop for free.
About 10 years ago USA transferred something like a thousand individualised technology to South Korea and Japan just so they can build better warships against China. That wasn't for free either and they have a far better reason for USA to give those technology away for free if you compare their economies with Australia, compare military spending and look at a map. I can't remember the act or legislation it was authorized under, but the total cost of the technology transfer (no real technical help in building anything as both South korea and Japan are very competent ship builders) were tens of billions of dollars if I recall correctly.
Anyhow from my perspective UK's involvement is a bit of a puzzle. UK is, or was until 4 days ago anyways, actively courting China and now they have essentially joined/created a high profile military alliance and military technology sharing deal that is very obviously made to counter China.
Btw US does not defend HK. Last time I looked China has HK. Besides, you have a very skewed American outook what with your juvenile talk about sucking dick and patriotic chest beating. If you can't see why European countries don't particularily care about containing China militarily, and at the same time you appear to see no value to persuading France to USA point of view and retaining France as an ally, you should get off your high horse and realise that USA cannot do many things alone.
|
On September 21 2021 08:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2021 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2021 08:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 19 2021 09:24 micronesia wrote:
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking. If you are asking if there will be any transfers of money, that is undetermined as yet, but certainly there will be a monetary outflow from Australian government to US/UK companies or US/UK govenment entities if only due to Australia's lack of technical knowledge regarding these matters. I sincerely doubt USA will just transfer vast amounts of secret military technology to Australia for free. If The US and UK can cut off China's expansion, that is worth an incalculable amount of money. If they determined Australia being strong cuts off China's expansion in some way, they don't need a single dollar. USA didn't even give away war materiel for free in the middle of the biggest war the world has ever seen. You know, the one against Nazis and ended with a couple of nuclear bombs being dropped. What are the stakes here in comparison? Nuclear propulsive secrets are just another whole level of importance. It's odd that you assume it will be free. I can just imagine the Republicans kicking a fuss over Biden giving away military secrets that costs trillions of USD to develop for free. About 10 years ago USA transferred something like a thousand individualised technology to South Korea and Japan just so they can build better warships against China. That wasn't for free either and they have a far better reason for USA to give those technology away for free if you compare their economies with Australia, compare military spending and look at a map. I can't remember the act or legislation it was authorized under, but the total cost of the technology transfer (no real technical help in building anything as both South korea and Japan are very competent ship builders) were tens of billions of dollars if I recall correctly. Anyhow from my perspective UK's involvement is a bit of a puzzle. UK is, or was until 4 days ago anyways, actively courting China and now they have essentially joined/created a high profile military alliance and military technology sharing deal that is very obviously made to counter China. Btw US does not defend HK. Last time I looked China has HK. Besides, you have a very skewed American outook what with your juvenile talk about sucking dick and patriotic chest beating. If you can't see why European countries don't particularily care about containing China militarily, and at the same time you appear to see no value to persuading France to USA point of view and retaining France as an ally, you should get off your high horse and realise that USA cannot do many things alone.
Of course the US needs to keep France as an ally. But France will always need the US more than the US needs France, so it’s not a hard thing to manage. France getting humiliated on the world stage won’t cause France to ally with Russia. That’s really all it comes down to. So long as they are still the better option, the relationship can take some beatings and still survive. It’s the same reason Republicans have a lot of wiggle room with their moderate voters. Until their moderate voters actually vote for a democrat, it doesn’t matter how crazy they are. Until you are worse than the other guy, it’s irrelevant. Political capital isn’t useful if you never spend it. This isn’t the end of France-US relations. France has always had more pride than is justified. This is just their culture doing what it does. It’s no biggie.
The UK flirting with China is a damning example of their failure to protect their democracy. Brexit already showed that but this was a more glaring example. The US swooping in to bring the UK back in line and then using them to get Australia on board is nothing less than an outstanding result on Biden’s part.
Even if Australia ends up paying, my point is that Australia would not shoot themselves in the foot. No matter how you slice it, Australia was looking out for themselves when they walked away from France. Either the US applied leverage or made a better offer or what, Australia did what was best for themselves. It’s kind of irrelevant past that point. France was never in a position to force Australia to do something worse. And since the US comes with Japan and South Korea informally, choosing USUK over France was a no brainer.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Really, the US is Europe's only chance for freedom and democracy, and if the Europeans don't accept everything the USA throws at them then the only alternative is that they themselves descend into unthinkable dictatorship. So they should lie down and take it every time. Honestly, France should be grateful that the US yoinked their deal with Australia because China, and because the US is better at ensuring that truth, justice, and the American way prevail.
Or something.
|
The US needs Europe way more than Europe needs the US, especially if the US continues to drum up its conflict with China. The way things are going, it's not unthinkable to see US turning pretty much the entire world against them in the coming years, meanwhile EU would be perfectly fine with increasing their economic cooperation with Russia and China to make up whatever deficits they have from the US, especially as belt & road picks up steam.
China's 'perspective on personal liberties' are absolutely irrelevant for Europe's future, since unlike the US, China does not insist on exporting their own 'values' all over the world.
|
On September 21 2021 11:09 Salazarz wrote:
The US needs Europe way more than Europe needs the US, especially if the US continues to drum up its conflict with China. The way things are going, it's not unthinkable to see US turning pretty much the entire world against them in the coming years, meanwhile EU would be perfectly fine with increasing their economic cooperation with Russia and China to make up whatever deficits they have from the US, especially as belt & road picks up steam.
China's 'perspective on personal liberties' are absolutely irrelevant for Europe's future, since unlike the US, China does not insist on exporting their own 'values' all over the world.
I think you're totally misjudging China's ambitions. They will not be satisfied until they have all of Asia minimum. Are you familiar with Chinese nationalism? Chinese racial superiority complex regarding Koreans and Japanese? China isn't in a position to take over those countries but everyone involved knows it is 1000% their goal. China will never be satisfied with just China.
One thing to keep in mind is the culture of the US compared to the culture of China. The average American has zero desire to ultimately take over Canada or Mexico. The average Chinese citizen is totally insanely nationalist. Even among educated folks. Oregon State University had a big problem with Chinese international students being openly aggressive towards TW/HK students. The level of conquering ambition in China is incomparable to the US.
I have no idea how this dynamic is with Russia. It isn't clear to me if the average Russian wants to retake the USSR or whatever. I have zero perspective on that. But as it is extremely relevant to point out the 100 year ambitions of the US vs China are totally different. China's ambitions are chilling and they are definitely the greatest threat to the world.
As for your other point, I think its fair to just say both EU and US benefit a great deal from each other. Neither would ever in a million years let that relationship sour. Married couples fight. So do allies. France has a craaaazy level of pride. Of course they will cry about this. It will pass. None of this is an actual big deal IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
