3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

close04 7y ago
> the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them. ...without direct use of weapons on them. Because WW2 is over, the cold war is over, and the definition of a superpower is less about weapons and more about influence. They keep you safe while applying the real power that makes you super. The police is strong because they have influence not guns. The tone of the comment suggests you think I am wrong but the actual content supports what I said to the letter. Buying the influence works where trying to get it by force would have the exact opposite effect and push some critical parties into the arms of the enemy. Hence the “power” part of superpower being more about this these days than actual weapons. Weapons help make sure nobody hits you directly. But in today’s world using the military anywhere but in the more remote, less... organized parts of the world is doomed to fail. Which is why it’s not happening. Saudi Arabia and Israel openly have a far more outsized influence on US politics than their standing armies suggest. If this doesn’t tell you that the Cold War dictionary definition of a superpower is pretty irrelevant in today’s world stage then you’ll be calling people “naive” as your argument for a long time.

by rapsey 7y ago

close04 7y ago

> the US geopolitical strategy is to prevent any power from rising to match them. ...without direct use of weapons on them. Because WW2 is over, the cold war is over, and the definition of a superpower is less about weapons and more about influence. They keep you safe while applying the real power that makes you super. The police is strong because they have influence not guns. The tone of the comment suggests you think I am wrong but the actual content supports what I said to the letter. Buying the influence works where trying to get it by force would have the exact opposite effect and push some critical parties into the arms of the enemy. Hence the “power” part of superpower being more about this these days than actual weapons. Weapons help make sure nobody hits you directly. But in today’s world using the military anywhere but in the more remote, less... organized parts of the world is doomed to fail. Which is why it’s not happening. Saudi Arabia and Israel openly have a far more outsized influence on US politics than their standing armies suggest. If this doesn’t tell you that the Cold War dictionary definition of a superpower is pretty irrelevant in today’s world stage then you’ll be calling people “naive” as your argument for a long time.