3 ms·

This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming th

This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming the Americans solely; of course not—this is the West’s mistake. > And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions. This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful. > Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant. As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.

anamax 5y ago
You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
- eynsham 5y ago
  I’m not really sure what the point of your comment is then. At best you show that not properly trying soft power was only the EU’s fault. All right—my initial point is that it’s a bit silly to dismiss soft power if it wasn’t tried properly. But that point is also wrong, since it seems predicated on US policymakers getting off the hook because they read some possibly inextant EU propaganda about how it can do everything; imagine if Chinese policymakers actually took what Americans say about themselves at face value! > Instead, I put this all on the Euros. Unless you’re a complete isolationist (which is at least a consistent position), Russia is your problem too. I am perfectly happy to note that the fact that someone else failed to act doesn’t excuse one’s own inaction. But that applies symmetrically: the European failure to act hardly justifies yours. And taking any EU pronouncements claiming strategic autonomy seriously is a mug’s game. > (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) Well, I also think of the Russians as my own—they used to speak fairly good French. I don’t care to apportion ‘credit’; my original point is that we (both the US and EU) never properly tried soft power. > It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. I’m not sure that we did or do, generally. These days, we talk about working towards strategic autonomy—about e.g. starting a European army or similar. But EU politicians generally don’t claim that we have achieved it—some merely think it’s a good idea to work towards it. And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. > I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US. In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.
  - anamax 5y ago
    My point has nothing to do with what US policy makers think/say or even what the US did or didn't do. And the fact that a failed Russia is a problem for the US also misses the point. (The ex-DDR is Germany's responsibility even though a failed DDR is a problem for the US.) Euros have been claiming for decades that they know how to do certain things with "soft power", that Americans should let them run things. However, we're now seeing things happen that competent use of said soft-power was supposed to prevent. The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered. Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"? I ask because all of the other reasons are all on the Euros. (Europe has the resources to do soft-power without US help; if a larger military is required, that lack is some combination of "flawed implementation" and "no one bothered" on Europe's part.) This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior and yet we're discussing why it's not their fault that soft-power didn't work. And no, the US is not obligated to make soft-power work, let alone responsibility when the Euros fail at it. As Steve Jobs said, the janitor can have excuses why he didn't do his job but an Apple VP doesn't get to have excuses. > And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up. > In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up. That point was that only the US gets blamed.
    - eynsham 5y ago
      > > In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up. > That point was that only the US gets blamed. Well, I didn’t do that, so I have no idea why you are attacking this strawman. All I initially claimed was that soft power wasn’t tried properly. For some reason you seem to interpret this as an attack on the US which is why you’ve brought in the US-EU question, when it wasn’t relevant at all initially. I have no idea why you take any smug European remarks about our being maximally competent seriously, because nobody else would, and they hardly excuse failures in other countries’ planning. It is also only your comments which apportion blame to one party only: > I put this all on the Euros. — > The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered. I’ve repeatedly said I agree that the implementation was flawed because nobody bothered with Russia in the same way that we did with other parts of Europe. > Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"? No, and your comments seem to assume that I did. > And the fact that a failed Russia is a problem for the US also misses the point. (The ex-DDR is Germany's responsibility even though a failed DDR is a problem for the US.) Well, yes, and if American policymakers spot that that someone else isn’t doing their job and they’re capable of doing it for them, it’s silly for them not to do so (and vice versa). It’s not like Americans or Europeans meaningfully attempt to avoid encroaching on others’ domains. > This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior We’re talking about geopolitical strategy, not culture or food. Europe lost any claim to being any good at this sort of thing after WWII—we all know that. > You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up. I hope you enjoy rebutting the imaginary Eurocrat you’re talking to on HN; of course Americans are stupid (compare the British occupation of Iraq a century ago to that tried most recently), but so are Europeans (see French mismanagement of Françafrique)—I am hardly claiming that we are any good at this, or even necessarily better than you.

anamax 5y ago

You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.

eynsham 5y ago
I’m not really sure what the point of your comment is then. At best you show that not properly trying soft power was only the EU’s fault. All right—my initial point is that it’s a bit silly to dismiss soft power if it wasn’t tried properly. But that point is also wrong, since it seems predicated on US policymakers getting off the hook because they read some possibly inextant EU propaganda about how it can do everything; imagine if Chinese policymakers actually took what Americans say about themselves at face value! > Instead, I put this all on the Euros. Unless you’re a complete isolationist (which is at least a consistent position), Russia is your problem too. I am perfectly happy to note that the fact that someone else failed to act doesn’t excuse one’s own inaction. But that applies symmetrically: the European failure to act hardly justifies yours. And taking any EU pronouncements claiming strategic autonomy seriously is a mug’s game. > (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) Well, I also think of the Russians as my own—they used to speak fairly good French. I don’t care to apportion ‘credit’; my original point is that we (both the US and EU) never properly tried soft power. > It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. I’m not sure that we did or do, generally. These days, we talk about working towards strategic autonomy—about e.g. starting a European army or similar. But EU politicians generally don’t claim that we have achieved it—some merely think it’s a good idea to work towards it. And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. > I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US. In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.
- anamax 5y ago
  My point has nothing to do with what US policy makers think/say or even what the US did or didn't do. And the fact that a failed Russia is a problem for the US also misses the point. (The ex-DDR is Germany's responsibility even though a failed DDR is a problem for the US.) Euros have been claiming for decades that they know how to do certain things with "soft power", that Americans should let them run things. However, we're now seeing things happen that competent use of said soft-power was supposed to prevent. The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered. Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"? I ask because all of the other reasons are all on the Euros. (Europe has the resources to do soft-power without US help; if a larger military is required, that lack is some combination of "flawed implementation" and "no one bothered" on Europe's part.) This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior and yet we're discussing why it's not their fault that soft-power didn't work. And no, the US is not obligated to make soft-power work, let alone responsibility when the Euros fail at it. As Steve Jobs said, the janitor can have excuses why he didn't do his job but an Apple VP doesn't get to have excuses. > And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up. > In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up. That point was that only the US gets blamed.
  - eynsham 5y ago
    > > In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up. > That point was that only the US gets blamed. Well, I didn’t do that, so I have no idea why you are attacking this strawman. All I initially claimed was that soft power wasn’t tried properly. For some reason you seem to interpret this as an attack on the US which is why you’ve brought in the US-EU question, when it wasn’t relevant at all initially. I have no idea why you take any smug European remarks about our being maximally competent seriously, because nobody else would, and they hardly excuse failures in other countries’ planning. It is also only your comments which apportion blame to one party only: > I put this all on the Euros. — > The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered. I’ve repeatedly said I agree that the implementation was flawed because nobody bothered with Russia in the same way that we did with other parts of Europe. > Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"? No, and your comments seem to assume that I did. > And the fact that a failed Russia is a problem for the US also misses the point. (The ex-DDR is Germany's responsibility even though a failed DDR is a problem for the US.) Well, yes, and if American policymakers spot that that someone else isn’t doing their job and they’re capable of doing it for them, it’s silly for them not to do so (and vice versa). It’s not like Americans or Europeans meaningfully attempt to avoid encroaching on others’ domains. > This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior We’re talking about geopolitical strategy, not culture or food. Europe lost any claim to being any good at this sort of thing after WWII—we all know that. > You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up. I hope you enjoy rebutting the imaginary Eurocrat you’re talking to on HN; of course Americans are stupid (compare the British occupation of Iraq a century ago to that tried most recently), but so are Europeans (see French mismanagement of Françafrique)—I am hardly claiming that we are any good at this, or even necessarily better than you.