5 ms·

It’s not who you are but who you know. The US still needs the EU and other countries to validate their actions in conflict. It’s the difference between waging t

It’s not who you are but who you know. The US still needs the EU and other countries to validate their actions in conflict. It’s the difference between waging terror war and righteous war. This image and support (even if just in the media) costs the US. They have to be bodyguards for the rest so they don’t go to China or Russia to seek alliance. And the difference between superpower and superterrorist is just a headline in newspapers.

rapsey 7y ago
Superpowerdom has always been defined as military capability and the ability for others to do your bidding. The US has this through military strength and the US dollar being the reserve currency. Justifications and perceptions are secondary and only follow the real source of power.
- close04 7y ago
  Historically speaking. But these days having that is not enough. Russia is still technically a superpower but see their actual power on the world stage. Without public support and strong economical and political ties you’re just a madman with the biggest gun. So unless you’re willing to use it against everybody and go to war with the world your status as a superpower is fluid. Do you think the US is dumping all those resources in Europe out of the kindness of their heart? Why would a superpower do it if it didn’t need it? These days military power can only be used sparsely if ever against the civilized western world so it has to be “monetized” in other ways. By offering it as a service in exchange for service (or servitude, depending on interpretation).
  - rapsey 7y ago
    Public perception is always something that is managed and controlled. There is absolutely nothing new about this concept. I disagree with your original thesis that the US needs EU to validate their actions. France arguably historically the most important US ally was dismissed and thrown immediately under the bus during the Iraq invasion for not agreeing. Thinking US needs the EU for justifications of their actions at home is naive. If you think the US does not have a firm hold of propaganda inside their borders, then I suggest reading Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent.
    - close04 7y ago
      And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive... When bombing Syria the US actively seeked the public support from EU countries even if it didn’t involve much action. Again, there’s a fine line between fighting a righteous war and an abusive, terrorist one. Between the righteous US and the terrorist Russia and China. And that means keeping friends close. Not “public” as in you or me but as it our leaders. When Germany actively refused to cut economic relations with Russia or Iran the US proposed withdrawing troops. Then looked to cause more tensions in Iran which would make it unpalatable for EU countries to continue these relations. In this connected world being alone is bad even if you have the biggest army. If what I say was wrong the US would go ahead with no approval from anyone. But even when nobody supports that war with actions the US still waits for the public approval. Not doing it risks turning them into “just” another abuser. Any repercussions arising from this (allies distancing themselves, or cooling of economical and political relations) will not be solved by the US being a superpower. China is a superpower but without any validation from enough legitimate allies (like the EU) the superpowerdom is not enough. Realistically speaking an actual show of force against Europe is absolutely off the table without risking them turning their allegiances east. Hence the alternative means if keeping friends. Don’t take this as geopolitical analysis, just as pragmatic evidence since nobody spends hundreds of billions every year for “strangers” out of charity. It’s more effective to buy influence in the civilized world than to beat it out of them.
      - rapsey 7y ago
        > And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive... Because since WW2 the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them. That power can only come from a limited number of places. It has been recognized from the start that an alliance between Russia and Europe, namely Germany is to be prevented at all costs. Actions and alliances are a result of a cost/benefit equation. Anything else would be irrational. Having allies is obvious a benefit. But if allies are not possible to get, the US has shown plenty of willingness to go at it alone. Or to do it in secret and suppress any mentions in home media, because of the inherent immorality of the action, like supporting terrorist groups against Assad, or supporting Saudi Arabia in their genocide against Yemen.

rapsey 7y ago

Superpowerdom has always been defined as military capability and the ability for others to do your bidding. The US has this through military strength and the US dollar being the reserve currency. Justifications and perceptions are secondary and only follow the real source of power.

close04 7y ago
Historically speaking. But these days having that is not enough. Russia is still technically a superpower but see their actual power on the world stage. Without public support and strong economical and political ties you’re just a madman with the biggest gun. So unless you’re willing to use it against everybody and go to war with the world your status as a superpower is fluid. Do you think the US is dumping all those resources in Europe out of the kindness of their heart? Why would a superpower do it if it didn’t need it? These days military power can only be used sparsely if ever against the civilized western world so it has to be “monetized” in other ways. By offering it as a service in exchange for service (or servitude, depending on interpretation).
- rapsey 7y ago
  Public perception is always something that is managed and controlled. There is absolutely nothing new about this concept. I disagree with your original thesis that the US needs EU to validate their actions. France arguably historically the most important US ally was dismissed and thrown immediately under the bus during the Iraq invasion for not agreeing. Thinking US needs the EU for justifications of their actions at home is naive. If you think the US does not have a firm hold of propaganda inside their borders, then I suggest reading Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent.
  - close04 7y ago
    And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive... When bombing Syria the US actively seeked the public support from EU countries even if it didn’t involve much action. Again, there’s a fine line between fighting a righteous war and an abusive, terrorist one. Between the righteous US and the terrorist Russia and China. And that means keeping friends close. Not “public” as in you or me but as it our leaders. When Germany actively refused to cut economic relations with Russia or Iran the US proposed withdrawing troops. Then looked to cause more tensions in Iran which would make it unpalatable for EU countries to continue these relations. In this connected world being alone is bad even if you have the biggest army. If what I say was wrong the US would go ahead with no approval from anyone. But even when nobody supports that war with actions the US still waits for the public approval. Not doing it risks turning them into “just” another abuser. Any repercussions arising from this (allies distancing themselves, or cooling of economical and political relations) will not be solved by the US being a superpower. China is a superpower but without any validation from enough legitimate allies (like the EU) the superpowerdom is not enough. Realistically speaking an actual show of force against Europe is absolutely off the table without risking them turning their allegiances east. Hence the alternative means if keeping friends. Don’t take this as geopolitical analysis, just as pragmatic evidence since nobody spends hundreds of billions every year for “strangers” out of charity. It’s more effective to buy influence in the civilized world than to beat it out of them.
    - rapsey 7y ago
      > And yet you give no attempt at an explanation of why the US is spending more billions on EU defense than the EU is spending for themselves. I mean beyond the not so subtle insult that I must be naive... Because since WW2 the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them. That power can only come from a limited number of places. It has been recognized from the start that an alliance between Russia and Europe, namely Germany is to be prevented at all costs. Actions and alliances are a result of a cost/benefit equation. Anything else would be irrational. Having allies is obvious a benefit. But if allies are not possible to get, the US has shown plenty of willingness to go at it alone. Or to do it in secret and suppress any mentions in home media, because of the inherent immorality of the action, like supporting terrorist groups against Assad, or supporting Saudi Arabia in their genocide against Yemen.