3 ms·

Completely confounded by the US hegemony since WW2. In that period democracy and US client state are almost synonyms. Why would client states go to war against

Completely confounded by the US hegemony since WW2. In that period democracy and US client state are almost synonyms. Why would client states go to war against instructions from the imperial capital?

zozbot234 5y ago
"Client state" is a confused notion - it misinterprets mutually beneficial cooperative attitudes as forced dependence. One of the best ways of disproving this notion is to look at what happens when the "hegemon" foolishly tries to enforce an "America First, our way or the highway" approach. To no one's surprise, the former "client states" suddenly start looking for alternative arrangements and banding together to counter the supposed "hegemon".
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  It sounds like you think there have been times the US has pushed real hard on some issue and a coalition of other countries have come together to tell it to go to hell. Given that NATO countries are so dependent on the US for expeditionary capability that when Sarkozy wanted to bomb Libya back into open air slave markets he had to get Hillary Clinton to ask Obama to do it this seems pretty weak. For an example from when there were Western powers that still aspired to an independent foreign policy one could look to the Suez Crisis. The UK and France pursue their interests and the US tells them to stop so they do.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    The NATO countries are quite happy to be dependent on the U.S. because military capability is hella expensive. NATO can't even get their own military spending target to be taken seriously, and that's an order of magnitude lower than what the U.S. spends. If by "hegemony" you mean "the U.S. pays for everyone else's defense, and gets some amount of reciprocation (most likely worth a lot less than 20% of GDP, so hardly a fair trade!) in the form of favorable foreign policy from the countries it's paying for" then the U.S. is obviously a hegemon and no one among its "clients" is seeking to change that in the slightest.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      Do you have any examples of a group of US client states coming together to tell it no on any issue the US pushed hard on?

Completely confounded by the US hegemony since WW2. In that period democracy and US client state are almost synonyms. Why would client states go to war against instructions from the imperial capital?

zozbot234 5y ago

"Client state" is a confused notion - it misinterprets mutually beneficial cooperative attitudes as forced dependence. One of the best ways of disproving this notion is to look at what happens when the "hegemon" foolishly tries to enforce an "America First, our way or the highway" approach. To no one's surprise, the former "client states" suddenly start looking for alternative arrangements and banding together to counter the supposed "hegemon".

barry-cotter 5y ago
It sounds like you think there have been times the US has pushed real hard on some issue and a coalition of other countries have come together to tell it to go to hell. Given that NATO countries are so dependent on the US for expeditionary capability that when Sarkozy wanted to bomb Libya back into open air slave markets he had to get Hillary Clinton to ask Obama to do it this seems pretty weak. For an example from when there were Western powers that still aspired to an independent foreign policy one could look to the Suez Crisis. The UK and France pursue their interests and the US tells them to stop so they do.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The NATO countries are quite happy to be dependent on the U.S. because military capability is hella expensive. NATO can't even get their own military spending target to be taken seriously, and that's an order of magnitude lower than what the U.S. spends. If by "hegemony" you mean "the U.S. pays for everyone else's defense, and gets some amount of reciprocation (most likely worth a lot less than 20% of GDP, so hardly a fair trade!) in the form of favorable foreign policy from the countries it's paying for" then the U.S. is obviously a hegemon and no one among its "clients" is seeking to change that in the slightest.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Do you have any examples of a group of US client states coming together to tell it no on any issue the US pushed hard on?