Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-13/why-europe-is-warning-of-pax-americana-s-end
372 comments
After the round of elections in France and Netherlands this spring, and Germany this summer, Europe may or may not start disintegrating, depending on the outcome.
Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day. A correctly timed scandal or major terrorist attack in the second round may sink her opponent. Moscow, London and Washington are hard at work with her, to make this happen. When she, or someone like her, wins in either France or Germany, the EU comes to an end.
It is very difficult for me to understand what strategic goal the new White House administration intends to achieve by disintegrating the EU and thereby pushing parts of it from the American to the Russian sphere of influence, but I'm sure they have thought this through very carefully.
Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day. A correctly timed scandal or major terrorist attack in the second round may sink her opponent. Moscow, London and Washington are hard at work with her, to make this happen. When she, or someone like her, wins in either France or Germany, the EU comes to an end.
It is very difficult for me to understand what strategic goal the new White House administration intends to achieve by disintegrating the EU and thereby pushing parts of it from the American to the Russian sphere of influence, but I'm sure they have thought this through very carefully.
While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined.
As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world.
As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world.
The US is just pouting, and it's shameful.
We need adults in the room, being thoughtful, pointing out, for instance, that withdrawing is not a form of strength, and only permits other countries (China) to fill the vacuum. The vote for DT was a nihilistic, anti-establishment moment from a demo that wants change but isn't willing to think about what kind of change.
We need adults in the room, being thoughtful, pointing out, for instance, that withdrawing is not a form of strength, and only permits other countries (China) to fill the vacuum. The vote for DT was a nihilistic, anti-establishment moment from a demo that wants change but isn't willing to think about what kind of change.
I keep thinking China could take the opportunity here to open up its own political system and really start competing against the US as a desired landing spot for US/EU tech/science grads, and other capable/interested young talent. In a play for "world dominance", this could be a prudent non-military move. It would force The West to reconsider the direction it's heading too.
Am I alone in feeling that the present drama with Trump is doing wonders at educating people broadly about geo-politics, the inter-dependence of global powers and national agendas? I feel it's been an education.
The full report can be downloaded here as pdf here:
http://report2017.securityconference.de/
Alternative hypothesis: political populism is rising to popularity levels which endanger the plutocratic and military rulers. Don't think they won't set the stage for future wars just so they can stay in power.
I guess now Putin's got a buddy in the whitehouse the Europeans are going to have to do more stop the red army rolling westwards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trum...
Good, we don't need a "Pax Americana". The US has been trying to dominate the entire world (or at least large chunks of it) for far too long. At least since Harry Truman decided he wanted to get into a pissing contest with the Russians at the end of WWII. It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation, not conflict.
"NATO is an illusion" - http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says-nato-is-...
Unfortunately, with all of the major problems in the world today, the US is too much to blame to be able to solve them. We were seen as a neutral force around much of the world in the post-colonial era (we were a colony who threw off our empire, as much of the world was doing in the 1950s through 1970s -- not coincidentally the apex of American power). But as we've operated the world, we made mistakes, and we're having to deal with those now.
Look at all the big problems: global warming (we're the major cause and we're so addicted to oil that it ain't gonna change), Islamist terror (so we inherited the modern conflict through Sykes-Picot, but we escalated it enough that it's our problem now), North Korea (we caused it but China has to live with it), and so on.
China is in a MUCH better position to address all of these. Their economy is just now industrializing heavily, and they're doing it with the focus of leading a new global clean energy revolution because they have determined that it is the only way China can obtain widespread prosperity. Sea level rise will hurt China as much as anyone, and their pollution levels are unacceptably high. Their peak industrial scale is 3-5x that of the United States, and their manufacturing capacity will never be challenged given the population difference.
They also don't have the baggage that we do in the middle east -- America and the Christian west are collectively referred to as "Crusaders", even by liberal Jews in Israel. In many minds, we're just the latest in an ugly, 1200 year long procession of white people who come in and wage wars of conquest to distract from the problems at home (the early crusades were a way for the European nobility to keep their 3rd and 4th sons occupied / killed lest they cause a succession crisis). Sure, they're mixed up with the Uighirs, but honestly they don't oppress the Uighirs any more than they oppress similar opposition groups. And the key here is that China only does it within their borders.
And Korea... yeah, China really doesn't want a small-scale nuclear war happening on its border. Any radioactive fallout would likely destroy China's economy for a decade or more -- considering the engines of China's economic might are mostly on the eastern coast of the country. So China is willing to tolerate almost any level of bad behavior by the Kim family. Best case scenario for North Korea is a power vacuum caused by the death of a Kim where the Chinese military comes in and runs peacekeeping and propaganda with an iron fist. Very few countries know how to urbanize farmland filled with illiterate farmers. China is one of them.
Look at all the big problems: global warming (we're the major cause and we're so addicted to oil that it ain't gonna change), Islamist terror (so we inherited the modern conflict through Sykes-Picot, but we escalated it enough that it's our problem now), North Korea (we caused it but China has to live with it), and so on.
China is in a MUCH better position to address all of these. Their economy is just now industrializing heavily, and they're doing it with the focus of leading a new global clean energy revolution because they have determined that it is the only way China can obtain widespread prosperity. Sea level rise will hurt China as much as anyone, and their pollution levels are unacceptably high. Their peak industrial scale is 3-5x that of the United States, and their manufacturing capacity will never be challenged given the population difference.
They also don't have the baggage that we do in the middle east -- America and the Christian west are collectively referred to as "Crusaders", even by liberal Jews in Israel. In many minds, we're just the latest in an ugly, 1200 year long procession of white people who come in and wage wars of conquest to distract from the problems at home (the early crusades were a way for the European nobility to keep their 3rd and 4th sons occupied / killed lest they cause a succession crisis). Sure, they're mixed up with the Uighirs, but honestly they don't oppress the Uighirs any more than they oppress similar opposition groups. And the key here is that China only does it within their borders.
And Korea... yeah, China really doesn't want a small-scale nuclear war happening on its border. Any radioactive fallout would likely destroy China's economy for a decade or more -- considering the engines of China's economic might are mostly on the eastern coast of the country. So China is willing to tolerate almost any level of bad behavior by the Kim family. Best case scenario for North Korea is a power vacuum caused by the death of a Kim where the Chinese military comes in and runs peacekeeping and propaganda with an iron fist. Very few countries know how to urbanize farmland filled with illiterate farmers. China is one of them.
I've been hearing about this supposed "disengagement" since Obama was elected. I will believe it when I see it.
From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three."
While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The diversity can be a strength.
And the article talks about european NATO spending doesn't cut it... well go look at the stats. UK/France/Italy etc vs Russia spending. Russia is vastly outspent by the NATO forces, almost the same spend via UK and France individually. Who else is this European threat coming from? It hogwash Europe is not militarily self sufficient. Maybe not US style dominant but hardly weak.
It feels to me there is so much 'fear the bear' information being coming out it feels like soft propaganda on the other side building to something. Sure Russia is behaving badly with Ukraine and Georgia. And they deserve international punishment for this, and hopefully pushback at some point. Syria I'm not so convinced Russia are the bad guys. They are supporting a long time ally and stable government while the west is the the one pushing regime change. Do you really think Assads replacement will be an improvements? This is geo-politics, nothing about improving the nation.
Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.
End of the day its a shame the people in power create all this. Most of us want to enjoy life and live in our bubble. Don't let the governments let you believe any nation is bad. And take these articles with a pinch of salt. Some extreme minority nationalists/religious nuts aside, people want to get along.
While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The diversity can be a strength.
And the article talks about european NATO spending doesn't cut it... well go look at the stats. UK/France/Italy etc vs Russia spending. Russia is vastly outspent by the NATO forces, almost the same spend via UK and France individually. Who else is this European threat coming from? It hogwash Europe is not militarily self sufficient. Maybe not US style dominant but hardly weak.
It feels to me there is so much 'fear the bear' information being coming out it feels like soft propaganda on the other side building to something. Sure Russia is behaving badly with Ukraine and Georgia. And they deserve international punishment for this, and hopefully pushback at some point. Syria I'm not so convinced Russia are the bad guys. They are supporting a long time ally and stable government while the west is the the one pushing regime change. Do you really think Assads replacement will be an improvements? This is geo-politics, nothing about improving the nation.
Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.
End of the day its a shame the people in power create all this. Most of us want to enjoy life and live in our bubble. Don't let the governments let you believe any nation is bad. And take these articles with a pinch of salt. Some extreme minority nationalists/religious nuts aside, people want to get along.
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
Because, to put it mildly, Europe has always been able to rely on the US bailing it out when it mishandled some internal or external crisis. Now it's worried it may not be able to take that for granted any more, and may have to take responsibility for its own actions.
Frankly, that's terrifying for Europe. Trump has forcibly removed our training wheels.
That said, NATO's not going anywhere. Theresa May's first action was to get the Trump to publicly reaffirm his commitment to NATO. At worst the US is going to demand other member states start paying the 2% of GDP the treaties they're signatory to actually already require.
Frankly, that's terrifying for Europe. Trump has forcibly removed our training wheels.
That said, NATO's not going anywhere. Theresa May's first action was to get the Trump to publicly reaffirm his commitment to NATO. At worst the US is going to demand other member states start paying the 2% of GDP the treaties they're signatory to actually already require.
Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed.
The US and all of its allies are still allies.
Does anyone really think that if some "real" US interests are messed with that the United States won't fuck somebody up? I mean it's just a few years ago we went to war, why all of a sudden are we weak?
Edit: just to clarify "real" interests e.g. a NATO ally is hit, Israel is hit, Japan is hit, South Korea is hit... any US base or military vehicles, etc...