4 ms·

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 develo

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
  I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe. However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent. AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant. Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US. China and European powers are much more naturally aligned. France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe Agreed maybe with some asterisk and what-ifs but this seems likely. > However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent. I think moves to the pacific, south East Asia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, Indonesia, India, etc. That's where most of the world's people are. I don't think Russia is developed enough in the east to be of too much relevance here. Long story short, the important parts move, to the slow irrelevance of Europe. > AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant. Yikes. I can't think that's further from the truth. This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region. > Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US. Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. A Europe allied with China would be destabilizing. But I also don't think it matters. Europe has lost its military relevance for the foreseeable future because there's just nothing going on in Europe that matters. The whole purpose of NATO and the European alliances with countries like France was to ward of Russian aggression and keep Europe stable from starting another ridiculous world war, but... it doesn't look like that's needed anymore. So what is the U.S. doing focusing on Europe? > France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan. And the U.S. fought to get China into the WTO and spent decades trying to forge economic ties. I wouldn't read into that too much. And then if you wanted to, well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence? So I think it's more that Europe wants to play both sides, which is annoying the U.S. which is now no longer really getting the ROI it wants from European engagements, especially now that it is withdrawing from the Middle East.
    - fspeech 5y ago
      > Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente. > This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region. If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made. > well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence? Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.

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
I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe. However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent. AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant. Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US. China and European powers are much more naturally aligned. France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe Agreed maybe with some asterisk and what-ifs but this seems likely. > However in such a scenario, while everyone may prosper, the geopolitical center will move back to the Eurasian continent. I think moves to the pacific, south East Asia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, Indonesia, India, etc. That's where most of the world's people are. I don't think Russia is developed enough in the east to be of too much relevance here. Long story short, the important parts move, to the slow irrelevance of Europe. > AUKUS will be mostly irrelevant. Yikes. I can't think that's further from the truth. This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region. > Sure they can pat themselves on the back for deterring China, but China got the crown jewel if it can pry Europe away from the military alliance with the US. Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. A Europe allied with China would be destabilizing. But I also don't think it matters. Europe has lost its military relevance for the foreseeable future because there's just nothing going on in Europe that matters. The whole purpose of NATO and the European alliances with countries like France was to ward of Russian aggression and keep Europe stable from starting another ridiculous world war, but... it doesn't look like that's needed anymore. So what is the U.S. doing focusing on Europe? > France recognized PRC right after China helped Vietnam to kick them out. Think about that for a while! And European countries helped China into the UN to replace Taiwan. And the U.S. fought to get China into the WTO and spent decades trying to forge economic ties. I wouldn't read into that too much. And then if you wanted to, well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence? So I think it's more that Europe wants to play both sides, which is annoying the U.S. which is now no longer really getting the ROI it wants from European engagements, especially now that it is withdrawing from the Middle East.
  - fspeech 5y ago
    > Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente. > This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region. If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made. > well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence? Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.