2 ms·

> Maybe they shouldn't be "squeezed" in the first place, so it's good that they can't? Not sure how to read this. > Western alliance has no alternative today

> Maybe they shouldn't be "squeezed" in the first place, so it's good that they can't? Not sure how to read this. > Western alliance has no alternative today Of course not, every single alternative is considered an enemy by the USA and any attempt to have a relationship with them has to be sanctioned by the USA or face punishment. If these were companies the move would be monopolistic, anti-competitive, exclusive dealing, all illegal. But it's not companies, it's international relations, where some are still free to consider torture legitimate and moral. Putting aside the arbitrary choice of who's a terrorist state and who's a "trusted ally" (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia?), trying to cooperate with countries like Iran, Russia, or China can be arbitrarily (depending on interest) seen as an aggressive act of "disobedience" and is punished. Even if the sanctions were unilateral and with no agreement from other allies.

ferzul 6y ago
that's the advantage of being a hegemon. the e.u can: - throw its lot in with the u.s and take it when it hurts - throw its lot in with another aspiring hegemon and take it when it hurts - do what it taker to go it alone. the e.u have ruled out the last on multiple occasions. perhaps when brexit and corona is behind us, they'll begin thinking about it again. the second does not seem particularly appealing; between putin russia, a xi prc and a trump u.s, i think the u.s is best of a bad bunch. and its fair to say they have more upside than down; i would favor good government returning to the u.s and be reluctant to favor improving government returning to china or russia. small, isolated western countries like au and n.z have effectively no choice in the matter: they get to pick china or the u.s, and china have made it clear they intend that choice to be hobson's choice. the e.u has a choice. will they take it?
- close04 6y ago
  > will they take it? It's always about the ratio between the benefit and the "taking it when it hurts". With other presidencies the ratio was OK. But with the rise of populism the moves are left to someone playing to please people with no understanding of the small or big pictures. And it's hard to forget when "friends" decide to abuse the stick because the carrot didn't sit well with their voting base.

ferzul 6y ago

that's the advantage of being a hegemon. the e.u can: - throw its lot in with the u.s and take it when it hurts - throw its lot in with another aspiring hegemon and take it when it hurts - do what it taker to go it alone. the e.u have ruled out the last on multiple occasions. perhaps when brexit and corona is behind us, they'll begin thinking about it again. the second does not seem particularly appealing; between putin russia, a xi prc and a trump u.s, i think the u.s is best of a bad bunch. and its fair to say they have more upside than down; i would favor good government returning to the u.s and be reluctant to favor improving government returning to china or russia. small, isolated western countries like au and n.z have effectively no choice in the matter: they get to pick china or the u.s, and china have made it clear they intend that choice to be hobson's choice. the e.u has a choice. will they take it?

close04 6y ago
> will they take it? It's always about the ratio between the benefit and the "taking it when it hurts". With other presidencies the ratio was OK. But with the rise of populism the moves are left to someone playing to please people with no understanding of the small or big pictures. And it's hard to forget when "friends" decide to abuse the stick because the carrot didn't sit well with their voting base.