4 ms·

Looks to me like political hardball being played and it’s surprising France (and to a lesser extent the EU). Frankly, France and the EU have been trying to stra

Looks to me like political hardball being played and it’s surprising France (and to a lesser extent the EU). Frankly, France and the EU have been trying to straddle a middle ground between the US and China, and strategically Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK (yes I know France can project some power I’m not downplaying them) but they have been dragging their feet and the action is just not going to be in Europe anymore. Australia (and the UK) are far, far more important to the United States. Europe has been unwilling to throw their cards in with America 100% and America is saying well… ok then we can’t rely on you so we’ll do something else. Look at the repercussions now. France is huffing and puffing and what exactly is going to happen? The Us is still buying French wine and German cars, and the EU is still buying US products and trade is just going to continue on as normal. Who cares? On the other hand, Australia is vital. I don’t think NATO exists in a meaningful way anymore and this is just window dressing around what has already happened. Russia is Europe’s problem. And the US is losing a reason to engage when Europe is seemingly not willing to. Think about it. If you take away the saber rattling why would the US give a shit about Russia? It’s an economic backwater. Europe doesn’t want to pony up and show teeth. What is to be gained? Hell, the US and Russia will probably forge better ties going forward. And yes I’m an American, but I’m just looking at this as I see it geopolitically.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. The UK is part on the basis of historical ties, not because someone looked at a map and said "hey, that guy controls some important bits". It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency. Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other. I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. This is kind of like a nice piece of trivia. France has 0 ability to protect those territories and they're pretty much useless to any other country except in the event of a war in the Pacific, in which case the US would be using them as basis (or China or Japan or whoever but definitely not France). Sure France could sail the Charles de Gualle to the Pacific but it's not like the UK and the Falklands. It's uh... a bit of a drive. (Not to mention if there is a serious power in the region on the island(s) that is probably not enough of a force to fight with - the CdG I mean). The EU allies had a tough time with Libya without American logistics support. This was a wakeup call for the US. The UK was added because of the close alliance. Better power projection capabilities than France but it's certainly close. But the point is that the UK is on board. Team USA all the way baby. France? Eh... not sure if we want to anger China kind of stance. They (like the rest of the EU) is keeping both trying to guess, and the US doesn't value being in that position. Better to force the issue. > It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency. No no. I'm saying you saw what will happen. Nothing meaningful will happen because France and the EU can't really do anything. Tell me, what are they going to do? Get the gang together and start a trade war? Be even more wishy-washy toward the now non-existent US interests in the Middle East? > Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; The problem here is the assumption that either cares to be aligned anymore. The EU says they're not committed to the US. So the US is relegating the EU to "just another country/group of countries". The US went through a surprising amount of trouble with the whole Huawei thing. The US expectation is frankly - hey we say drop this because China is a rival. Europe just didn't play ball and now the US is saying hey I don't think we can count on you. And you can't blame this on Trump either. It doesn't matter what his approach is. > Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other. I think this reinforces my point. NATO is irrelevant now. There's nothing left in Europe to care about. What's Russia going to do? Annex Ukraine? What is the US supposed to do that Europe isn't already more than willing to do? Soviet tanks aren't going to be driving through Berlin so what's the point anymore? > I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with. Yea but now we go from "bad Putin bad!!!" to "eh? who cares?". That's an improvement. Russia really is an economic backwater and this is all about economics. At least this is my take. Appreciate your thoughts here!
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK" By what metric did you conclude that? It doesn't have a majorlead in anything measurable Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia
- ericmay 5y ago
  Militarily it's no longer relevant to US interests. And as far as economics go, well, nothing is changing here. > Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia Right... that's my entire point. The US is doing this on behalf of Europe based on the idea that there is a Russian threat (there isn't really for core EU nations) and that Europe wants to be defended. Europe doesn't want to be defended and isn't onboard with US actions to "defend" Europe. So why would the US spend any time here? What's to gain? A Europe that doesn't want the US? There's much more important things going on and you can't waste time and resources on this.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> Europe has been unwilling to throw their cards in with America 100% Why should they? America is an unreliable partner. They torpedoed a good deal with Iran, mismanaged the withdrawing from Afghanistan, have been a nuisance regarding the building of pipelines between Germany and Russia and an overall destabilizing force in the Middle-East. Trump did happen. The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better. And now you know why the US and UK didn't give the slightest shit about how mad France got about this deal. NATO is dead, the US is leaving Europe for better or worse, wanted or not. And keep in mind I'm just doing my best at an interpretation/observation. Everything you cite here from the perspective of some or many European nations can be just reasons for not wanting to throw their cards in with the US... but the US can act too and say fine, then we're moving on to what we want to do with or without you. This is clearly occurring with the pivot to Asia and strengthening of alliances. Idk how things will shape up, but I wouldn't be shocked in the next 20-40 years to see free movement of trade and people between the US, Australia, and the UK.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    I think you should take a look at the UK trade routes, import situation, geographic position and internal political situation.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Well what's the worst-case scenario? The US would just give the UK stuff if it came to that. But the UK will continue to trade with Europe and international partners. Probably won't be "as good" but this changing in geostrategy doesn't mean countries won't trade with each other or something... I mean the US and China and all that are a pretty good example. I mean the US trades with Russia even.
  - 5y ago
fspeech 5y ago
Geopolitically Europe is much more important to the US than Australia ever will be. If US wants to contain China technologically European cooperation is a must. Maybe this is a sign that they are giving up on that. Or this is just a short sighted move.
- ericmay 5y ago
  From the perspective of the US , Europe is not committed to the degree the Uk and Australia are to China (I would say this is a fact really) so there isn’t really anything to lose by shifting away to more important regions. Trade stays the same, and then the US can focus attention elsewhere and let the EU deal with Russia if there is such a need. Australia is a big country, lots of resources, extremely important as a land of last resort in the Pacific. Far more important to US global interests than the EU. No question in my mind.
  - fspeech 5y ago
    That would make a good strategy for China if it were true: keep tension high at the SCS to draw US away from Europe; solidify relationship with Europe to develop technology and hedge against Russia.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      I mean there are some interesting elements there but I don’t see the solidifying Europe one as much. I think it’s more so Europe being independent and trading with both China and the US and keeping both at arms length, which is what’s driving the US to stop caring about Europe militarily. No more Middle East wars (oil supply is secured and Iraq was won), and why bother defending Europe? What are they defending it from? They can’t stop Russia from chipping away at countries. The EU is going to have to do that. So for the US it’s like why spend money or resources or attention in Europe? Just trade with the EU like any other countries and get the same benefits without any of the cost.
      - fspeech 5y ago

SiempreViernes 5y ago

Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. The UK is part on the basis of historical ties, not because someone looked at a map and said "hey, that guy controls some important bits". It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency. Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other. I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with.

ericmay 5y ago
> Actually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. This is kind of like a nice piece of trivia. France has 0 ability to protect those territories and they're pretty much useless to any other country except in the event of a war in the Pacific, in which case the US would be using them as basis (or China or Japan or whoever but definitely not France). Sure France could sail the Charles de Gualle to the Pacific but it's not like the UK and the Falklands. It's uh... a bit of a drive. (Not to mention if there is a serious power in the region on the island(s) that is probably not enough of a force to fight with - the CdG I mean). The EU allies had a tough time with Libya without American logistics support. This was a wakeup call for the US. The UK was added because of the close alliance. Better power projection capabilities than France but it's certainly close. But the point is that the UK is on board. Team USA all the way baby. France? Eh... not sure if we want to anger China kind of stance. They (like the rest of the EU) is keeping both trying to guess, and the US doesn't value being in that position. Better to force the issue. > It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency. No no. I'm saying you saw what will happen. Nothing meaningful will happen because France and the EU can't really do anything. Tell me, what are they going to do? Get the gang together and start a trade war? Be even more wishy-washy toward the now non-existent US interests in the Middle East? > Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; The problem here is the assumption that either cares to be aligned anymore. The EU says they're not committed to the US. So the US is relegating the EU to "just another country/group of countries". The US went through a surprising amount of trouble with the whole Huawei thing. The US expectation is frankly - hey we say drop this because China is a rival. Europe just didn't play ball and now the US is saying hey I don't think we can count on you. And you can't blame this on Trump either. It doesn't matter what his approach is. > Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other. I think this reinforces my point. NATO is irrelevant now. There's nothing left in Europe to care about. What's Russia going to do? Annex Ukraine? What is the US supposed to do that Europe isn't already more than willing to do? Soviet tanks aren't going to be driving through Berlin so what's the point anymore? > I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with. Yea but now we go from "bad Putin bad!!!" to "eh? who cares?". That's an improvement. Russia really is an economic backwater and this is all about economics. At least this is my take. Appreciate your thoughts here!

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK" By what metric did you conclude that? It doesn't have a majorlead in anything measurable Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia

ericmay 5y ago
Militarily it's no longer relevant to US interests. And as far as economics go, well, nothing is changing here. > Re. USA and Russia, it was US, not EU pressing for greater sanctions against Russia Right... that's my entire point. The US is doing this on behalf of Europe based on the idea that there is a Russian threat (there isn't really for core EU nations) and that Europe wants to be defended. Europe doesn't want to be defended and isn't onboard with US actions to "defend" Europe. So why would the US spend any time here? What's to gain? A Europe that doesn't want the US? There's much more important things going on and you can't waste time and resources on this.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> Europe has been unwilling to throw their cards in with America 100% Why should they? America is an unreliable partner. They torpedoed a good deal with Iran, mismanaged the withdrawing from Afghanistan, have been a nuisance regarding the building of pipelines between Germany and Russia and an overall destabilizing force in the Middle-East. Trump did happen. The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better.

ericmay 5y ago
> The fastest Europe separates itself from the American sphere of influence, the better. And now you know why the US and UK didn't give the slightest shit about how mad France got about this deal. NATO is dead, the US is leaving Europe for better or worse, wanted or not. And keep in mind I'm just doing my best at an interpretation/observation. Everything you cite here from the perspective of some or many European nations can be just reasons for not wanting to throw their cards in with the US... but the US can act too and say fine, then we're moving on to what we want to do with or without you. This is clearly occurring with the pivot to Asia and strengthening of alliances. Idk how things will shape up, but I wouldn't be shocked in the next 20-40 years to see free movement of trade and people between the US, Australia, and the UK.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  I think you should take a look at the UK trade routes, import situation, geographic position and internal political situation.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Well what's the worst-case scenario? The US would just give the UK stuff if it came to that. But the UK will continue to trade with Europe and international partners. Probably won't be "as good" but this changing in geostrategy doesn't mean countries won't trade with each other or something... I mean the US and China and all that are a pretty good example. I mean the US trades with Russia even.
- 5y ago

fspeech 5y ago

Geopolitically Europe is much more important to the US than Australia ever will be. If US wants to contain China technologically European cooperation is a must. Maybe this is a sign that they are giving up on that. Or this is just a short sighted move.

ericmay 5y ago
From the perspective of the US , Europe is not committed to the degree the Uk and Australia are to China (I would say this is a fact really) so there isn’t really anything to lose by shifting away to more important regions. Trade stays the same, and then the US can focus attention elsewhere and let the EU deal with Russia if there is such a need. Australia is a big country, lots of resources, extremely important as a land of last resort in the Pacific. Far more important to US global interests than the EU. No question in my mind.
- fspeech 5y ago
  That would make a good strategy for China if it were true: keep tension high at the SCS to draw US away from Europe; solidify relationship with Europe to develop technology and hedge against Russia.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I mean there are some interesting elements there but I don’t see the solidifying Europe one as much. I think it’s more so Europe being independent and trading with both China and the US and keeping both at arms length, which is what’s driving the US to stop caring about Europe militarily. No more Middle East wars (oil supply is secured and Iraq was won), and why bother defending Europe? What are they defending it from? They can’t stop Russia from chipping away at countries. The EU is going to have to do that. So for the US it’s like why spend money or resources or attention in Europe? Just trade with the EU like any other countries and get the same benefits without any of the cost.
    - fspeech 5y ago