6 ms·

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 someo

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
  "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." I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command. This US approach where we talk about human rights and freedom but stuff people into Guantanamo bay (itself illegally occupied) without trial and attack rivals without a pretence of due process really rubs europeans the wrong way.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command. Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe. They still get all the benefits of trade and such without any of the commitment that they feel wasn't being reciprocated. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement of the US or EU or something here, just trying to interpret what moves are being made.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe" This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing. The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them. US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit. Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing. It doesn't matter what is true, it matters how the parties feel about these things. > The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them. The US isn't going to be in the Middle East anymore. > US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit. Eh not really. Aircraft carriers, aerial refueling capabilities, etc. It definitely makes things easier though. For the Pacific the US has Australia, Guam, the Mariana Islands, etc. > Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left. The US just walked out of Afghanistan without giving a shit about NATO and started giving nuclear technology to Australia within the span of about 3 months... The US is moving missiles out of Saudi Arabia [1]. I mean it's not like it's going to be some big announcement or something. [1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missile-defence-systems-saudi-air-base-report https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missi...

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
"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." I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command. This US approach where we talk about human rights and freedom but stuff people into Guantanamo bay (itself illegally occupied) without trial and attack rivals without a pretence of due process really rubs europeans the wrong way.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > I guess Europeans aren't happy to impose political sanctions on command. Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe. They still get all the benefits of trade and such without any of the commitment that they feel wasn't being reciprocated. I'm not trying to make a moral judgement of the US or EU or something here, just trying to interpret what moves are being made.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "Right. And so now the United States is moving on from Europe" This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing. The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them. US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit. Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > This "US was helping ungratefull Europe, and now is tired of doing so" story seems to have a few pages missing. It doesn't matter what is true, it matters how the parties feel about these things. > The US bases here are largest outside US itself, and are vital for US logistics - they have everything from stategic airlift to nukes. Every deployment to Middle East involved them. So lets not pretend US has no need of them. The US isn't going to be in the Middle East anymore. > US ability to project power around the world depends on countries being willing to host their kit. Eh not really. Aircraft carriers, aerial refueling capabilities, etc. It definitely makes things easier though. For the Pacific the US has Australia, Guam, the Mariana Islands, etc. > Where can I see the evidence of this "moving on" happening in the real world, rather than it just being a diplomatic spat? None of the equipment has left. The US just walked out of Afghanistan without giving a shit about NATO and started giving nuclear technology to Australia within the span of about 3 months... The US is moving missiles out of Saudi Arabia [1]. I mean it's not like it's going to be some big announcement or something. [1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missile-defence-systems-saudi-air-base-report https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-removes-advanced-missi...