EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4162
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
A lot of europeans have actually conceded that Trump had a point wrt European countries freeloading, and it is my impression that European countries have increased their funding in the recent years. But it doesn't happen overnight and saying he won't respect article 5 undermines the entire treaty. Which I suspect is Trump's goal - he doesn't actually want a NATO where all countries contribute the same, he wants no NATO and no international obligations. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45049 Posts
On March 11 2024 17:57 BlackJack wrote: Expecting your allies to contribute a fair share towards the collective defense is a funny definition of extortion Thinking that Trump legitimately believes in "fairness" is a funny way to interpret anything Trump has ever said or done. Trump has already tried to extort our allies... He was impeached for pulling that nonsense with Ukraine and Biden. Trump saying that obviously isn't the same as Bernie or anyone else suggesting that someone pays their fair share. You know that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On March 11 2024 17:57 BlackJack wrote: Americas position as defacto head of the Western world exists partly because it actually doesn't want its allies to contribute their fair share. So long as Europe relies on Americas military powerhouse America controls where they do, or do not, intervene.Expecting your allies to contribute a fair share towards the collective defense is a funny definition of extortion If Europe is able to take care of itself it might decide to expand its influence into places where America doesn't want them, or replace Americas existing influence. Unless of course your goal is to diminish Americas dominant position in the world and actively work to reduce your global economic and political power, then go right ahead and push your allies to contribute their fair share. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 11 2024 18:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Come on. Trump saying he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to countries that don't pay enough is very different from 'expecting a fair share of contributions'. A lot of europeans have actually conceded that Trump had a point wrt European countries freeloading, and it is my impression that European countries have increased their funding in the recent years. But it doesn't happen overnight and saying he won't respect article 5 undermines the entire treaty. Which I suspect is Trump's goal - he doesn't actually want a NATO where all countries contribute the same, he wants no NATO and no international obligations. I don't really believe anything Trump says. I suspect Europe's sense of urgency toward increasing their defense spending is a lot higher now. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45049 Posts
On March 11 2024 18:53 BlackJack wrote: I don't really believe anything Trump says. I suspect Europe's sense of urgency toward increasing their defense spending is a lot higher now. That's probably right, because the United States would be an unreliable and inconsistent ally under another Trump administration, and Trump could definitely win in November. The rest of the world would need to brace themselves - again - for a laughingstock of a president. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 11 2024 18:41 Gorsameth wrote: Americas position as defacto head of the Western world exists partly because it actually doesn't want its allies to contribute their fair share. So long as Europe relies on Americas military powerhouse America controls where they do, or do not, intervene. If Europe is able to take care of itself it might decide to expand its influence into places where America doesn't want them, or replace Americas existing influence. Unless of course your goal is to diminish Americas dominant position in the world and actively work to reduce your global economic and political power, then go right ahead and push your allies to contribute their fair share. Do you think any country in Europe upping their defense spending to 2% of GDP from say 1% of GDP is going to diminish the U.S.'s ability to project power among the western world? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On March 11 2024 19:10 BlackJack wrote: Not diminish the US but allow Europe to operate without US support.Do you think any country in Europe upping their defense spending to 2% of GDP from say 1% of GDP is going to diminish the U.S.'s ability to project power among the western world? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 11 2024 19:16 Gorsameth wrote: Not diminish the US but allow Europe to operate without US support. Maybe I'm confused about what an alliance is. Don't you think at a bare minimum a country should be able to operate without the support of the country it's in the alliance with? I'd say that's the critical difference between an ally and a dependent. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States535 Posts
On March 11 2024 19:24 BlackJack wrote: Maybe I'm confused about what an alliance is. Don't you think at a bare minimum a country should be able to operate without the support of the country it's in the alliance with? I'd say that's the critical difference between an ally and a dependent. You’re asking a separate question. Obviously the percentage of global military power represented by the US would decrease as military power from other sources would increase (unless US increases its power proportionally faster). Because the US has its own military interests that can be separate from other countries (including allies), its ability to project said power would decrease when other countries have more ability to act in opposition to it. That’s not rocket science. Gor's point is that keeping European countries as dependents instead of allies is beneficial for maintaining global hegemony. By encouraging said dependents to not become dependents anymore, Trump is essentially selling American global soft power for a quick buck. This is quite dumb, as American global soft power is the primary source of America’s wealth, and this is maintained through safe and trusted free trade, which is itself maintained by an implicit agreement among countries that only one, trusted agent (US) has power over it through its military. When lots of other independent actors are encouraged to develop their agency (military), they are also incentivized to use said agency to justify its cost, and lots of actors using said agency will either cause conflict with each other, or the US. Either way, trust in free trade will necessarily decrease, and US is hurt as a result. China/Russia/Iran would love nothing more. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On March 11 2024 19:24 BlackJack wrote: Ryzel explained it very well, we call NATO an alliance but the US benefits massively from Europe being dependants rather then allies.Maybe I'm confused about what an alliance is. Don't you think at a bare minimum a country should be able to operate without the support of the country it's in the alliance with? I'd say that's the critical difference between an ally and a dependent. Europe being more able to act on its own would reduce the US's soft power, their ability to steer Europe via them needing the US to be on board with any major action, and therefor directly impacts the US's position as world leader. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18117 Posts
On March 11 2024 21:39 Gorsameth wrote: Ryzel explained it very well, we call NATO an alliance but the US benefits massively from Europe being dependants rather then allies. Europe being more able to act on its own would reduce the US's soft power, their ability to steer Europe via them needing the US to be on board with any major action, and therefor directly impacts the US's position as world leader. It seems like this would be very obvious right the fuck now, but clearly the point hasn't come across yet. If the French and English had a sufficiently powerful navy and air force to sail into the Red Sea and blast the shit out of Houthi misisle bases there, do you think the US would be there? And do you think the French and Brits (lets include some Dutch and Spaniards for the sake of it) would maybe choose different targets than the US would, and might choose a different solution, because (1) they have less strong a bond with Israel than the US does, and (2) their priority isn't to kill Houthis, who they don't really care about, but rather their priority is to stop bombs falling on merchant vessels. Maybe they try more negotiation and appeasement, which is less along the lines of what Saudi Arabia wants, but once again, that's more a US ally than a French one. The result is an effective blockade of Eilat in exchange for free shipping up and down the Suez canal between Europe and Asia. Houthis/Iran are happy, Europe is happy, US and Israel are thoroughly unhappy. But hey, they were the engineers of leaving this part of the world to be policed by European powers... | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
 What would worry me is that instead of the EU picking up slack from the US, instead we'll have a vacuum/more leeway for dictators. The status quo can be vastly improved in a myriad of different manners, but chaos/power vacuum is unlikely to yield the results we actually want. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On March 11 2024 11:27 KwarK wrote: Trump today clarified that his plan for peace in Ukraine is for Russia to win. No support from the US at all. None. Then Russia wins. Then peace? That is, of course, assuming Russia stops. After all they stopped after Chechnya, and Georgia, and Crimea. They’ll probably stop after Ukraine. Romania at most. Maybe Poland. Are you referring to that Orban interview or did Trump publicly say that? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 11 2024 22:20 Acrofales wrote: It seems like this would be very obvious right the fuck now, but clearly the point hasn't come across yet. If the French and English had a sufficiently powerful navy and air force to sail into the Red Sea and blast the shit out of Houthi misisle bases there, do you think the US would be there? And do you think the French and Brits (lets include some Dutch and Spaniards for the sake of it) would maybe choose different targets than the US would, and might choose a different solution, because (1) they have less strong a bond with Israel than the US does, and (2) their priority isn't to kill Houthis, who they don't really care about, but rather their priority is to stop bombs falling on merchant vessels. Maybe they try more negotiation and appeasement, which is less along the lines of what Saudi Arabia wants, but once again, that's more a US ally than a French one. The result is an effective blockade of Eilat in exchange for free shipping up and down the Suez canal between Europe and Asia. Houthis/Iran are happy, Europe is happy, US and Israel are thoroughly unhappy. But hey, they were the engineers of leaving this part of the world to be policed by European powers... The UK has already been participating in joint strikes with the US against the Houthis. Even if they could go it alone or with France, Yes, I think the US would still be there, don't you? The U.S. Navy is ridiculously massive, do you think they would pack up and leave if US interests in the region are threatened? France could double or triple their military power and not be a threat to US hegemony. You're pretending there's not an ocean of middle ground between western Europe's current defense spending and Europe wresting control of being the shot caller from the US. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On March 11 2024 20:44 Ryzel wrote: You’re asking a separate question. Obviously the percentage of global military power represented by the US would decrease as military power from other sources would increase (unless US increases its power proportionally faster). Because the US has its own military interests that can be separate from other countries (including allies), its ability to project said power would decrease when other countries have more ability to act in opposition to it. That’s not rocket science. Gor's point is that keeping European countries as dependents instead of allies is beneficial for maintaining global hegemony. By encouraging said dependents to not become dependents anymore, Trump is essentially selling American global soft power for a quick buck. This is quite dumb, as American global soft power is the primary source of America’s wealth, and this is maintained through safe and trusted free trade, which is itself maintained by an implicit agreement among countries that only one, trusted agent (US) has power over it through its military. When lots of other independent actors are encouraged to develop their agency (military), they are also incentivized to use said agency to justify its cost, and lots of actors using said agency will either cause conflict with each other, or the US. Either way, trust in free trade will necessarily decrease, and US is hurt as a result. China/Russia/Iran would love nothing more. The problem with that argument is that Acrofales, Gorsameth and others (many Europeans) would also have been the ones to argue that the U.S. already spends more than it should on the military and its interests would be best served redirecting some of that money to other things that western Europe enjoys (universal healthcare etc.). Which, as you point out, would also decrease the U.S.'s military power proportionately to the rest of the world. Significantly reducing military spending, having dependents as allies, and still fending off the ambitions of other global superpowers (russia, china), is quite the ask, even for the United States. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45049 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On March 12 2024 05:33 BlackJack wrote: The problem with that argument is that Acrofales, Gorsameth and others (many Europeans) would also have been the ones to argue that the U.S. already spends more than it should on the military and its interests would be best served redirecting some of that money to other things that western Europe enjoys (universal healthcare etc.). Which, as you point out, would also decrease the U.S.'s military power proportionately to the rest of the world. Significantly reducing military spending, having dependents as allies, and still fending off the ambitions of other global superpowers (russia, china), is quite the ask, even for the United States. It is quite the ask, going it solo makes it even more difficult which is the main problem with Trump’s general contempt for multilateral organisations and why the central crux of ‘America first’ is hopelessly naive even if it resonates with some politically. Although yes, demanding member states stick to spending commitments, reasonable but what military problem can the European bloc not solve already even if they have been thrifty? Very little really Nukes, and basically just that. It obviously rather complicates matters. America could have folded its arms and enjoyed a satisfying cigarette and a neat scotch and the combined forces of Europe would have absolutely crushed Putin’s wee excursion. Flattened the paper tiger, I mean if anyone more knowledgeable on such things has a different perspective I’d be interested. What actual military threats exist to the EU + UK bloc really if nukes aren’t in play? It’s really just the US itself, and likely China I’d imagine. And if nukes completely override a conventional military advantage, what’s the benefit of spending more and more when one can’t overcome that advantage in lieu of some kind of sci-fi anti-nuke device? If we’re talking broader hegemony/dependents framing, in the 20th Century the US has done pretty well out of the deal in the last 30/40 years. To look at two primarily European problems that the US stepped in for, the Yugoslavian Civil War and now the Ukrainian conflict it has done so, primarily with air power or material support. Some troop deployment too for the former. For conflicts that are very US-driven, if not necessarily exclusively you’ve got the likes of Afghanistan, Iraq etc and while the US has done the most lifting certainly you’ve quite a few nations from Europe, or the Anglosphere putting troops on the ground in not insignificant numbers. That’s hardly a bad trade and that’s not even touching the kind of hard to quantify soft power that the US’ status plus various alliances enable it in terms of economic power, or more preventative security measures. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45049 Posts
Also, Robert F. Kennedy is apparently expected to choose either Jesse Ventura, Aaron Rodgers, or Nicole Shanahan as his runningmate. Given that RFK can't win the presidential election, I hope that he chooses whichever runningmate is most likely to take Republican votes away from Trump, as opposed to Democratic votes away from Biden. | ||
| ||
