6 ms·

> the coalition isn’t bound together by American power but by common interests We can test this theory by looking at instances where coalition members' soverei

> the coalition isn’t bound together by American power but by common interests We can test this theory by looking at instances where coalition members' sovereign interests conflict with Washington's interests. Who ultimately gets their way? There was an analogous study done IIRC in the late 90s where policy interests of poor vs. rich Americans were compared. In virtually every case, the rich/powerful people got their way, despite the poor constituents having vastly more democratic power on paper. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone living in America. I believe it's the same story for this Western nominal "coalition". The cases where Washington compromises on its interests are rare and not conceded without a fight. Did Germany really consent to its pipelines getting blown up by another coalition member? Is it really in European interests to suffer massive economic blowback from sanctions? And then Washington's interest gets rebranded "common interest" without much investigation. The bottom line is that elite-aligned liberals (in the classical sense) like the author are blind to the machinations of power. They presume a priori that the status quo is natural, structural and broadly consented to, rather than imposed through the vast and tireless efforts of an enormous, mostly-unelected power complex (media, financial, military, intelligence) based in Washington DC. ...and that power complex is gradually collapsing, partly because of these ideological blinders which hamstring action.

anovikov 3y ago
Those sanctions have been introduced by Europe itself, not the U.S. America had nothing at all to do with it: it's not threatened by war in Ukraine in any way. Of course, sanctions always hurt both sides. If they did not hurt Europe itself, there won't be any need to introduce them-it means that if say, energy trade was unprofitable, it won't be happening. There are no sanctions that hurt only one side because when they are, they are simply not needed as actions that are to be prohibited, don't happen anyway. And we got out of it only in a few months, unharmed, things basically got back to normal in 2 quarters.
lantry 3y ago
The article talks about this - about how the US benefits from being the "Team Captain" of this coalition. The US generally gets what it wants, or at least gets preferential treatment. The article talks about the fact that most of the institutions in the coalition (e.g. IMF, NATO) were created by the US and slanted towards the priorities of the US. The article also doesn't claim that the US isn't using it's influence (media, financial, military) to enforce its hegemony. It argues that these actions are actually detrimental to continuing US hegemony, and that the real reason this "coalition" hangs together is because all the members have a common interest in maintaining the status quo. The article talks about the fact that if the US were to press too hard on it's hegemony, the other members of the coalition would turn against it and choose a new "team captain". The article completely acknowledges the fact that most of the members aren't huge fans of the US, for example they don't participate in the russia sanctions, but it points out that they also aren't trying to bust the sanctions. If all these other countries were trying to get out from under the thumb of the US, you'd see them taking this opportunity to align with russia and china to form a "containment coalition", but this hasn't happened (yet)
golergka 3y ago
> Is it really in European interests to suffer massive economic blowback from sanctions? Is it really in European interests to be literally conquered in a bloody war?
- User23 3y ago
  Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > intended to bring about regime change in Russia Nobody wants this. Russia reverting to a hermit kingdom monitored by China is the best-case exit scenario.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Regime change is inevitable. It’s just whether it happens before or after Putin dies, and how much chaos occurs then. I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan, and no o e dares try to appear like they could fill his shoes, as is the case of every other dictator. Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan Technically, he (or, at least, the Russian Federation) has, in that the Russian Federation has, on paper, a representative-democratic Constitution which handles succession to the office of the President (the Prime Minister succeeds). In reality, of course, the real lines of power in the RF have little to do with the formal constitutional order of government (heck, Putin hasn’t even been President the whole time he has been in charge), but with application of influence at the time of the decision, so what has been “laid out” (either Constitutionally or, if Putin indicated a preference outside of that in advance for his successor) makes very little difference. What will matter is the actual positions of influence at the time a successor is called for. > Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war. That’s a feature of the best case; but it may also be a feature of the worst case. Bloody internal disorder isn’t the worst thing that has happened as a result with dissatisfaction with the existing government and conditions in a major world power.
jcranmer 3y ago
Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy, despite reaching the point that it is objecting to new entries to the coalition for essentially spurious reasons. The US does maintain a hegemony, but NATO isn't a vehicle of political compulsion, especially when you compare to the Warsaw Pact, which very much was. Recall that the Warsaw Pact's sole military operation was to invade a country that wanted out, and the Warsaw Pact itself fell apart pretty much the moment the USSR indicated it wouldn't invade countries that wanted out anymore.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. They also didn't prevent it, so I'm not sure what your point is here: Washington got their way. It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). > It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. This doesn't make any sense. Europe's economy is in dire straits, and Washington continues to get exactly what it wants. > It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Simply not true. One example from this week: https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebcda9 https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebc... > Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy Huh? Erdoğan blames the US for being behind the failed Gulenist coup, and Türkiye continues to straddle the line between West and East.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). You are aware that intervention in Libya was driven by France and UK far more than the US, right? In fact, part of the goal of the intervention in Libya was to demonstrate that Europe didn't need to rely on the US to tackle security concerns in its immediate backward--even if that demonstration was a failure.

anovikov 3y ago

Those sanctions have been introduced by Europe itself, not the U.S. America had nothing at all to do with it: it's not threatened by war in Ukraine in any way. Of course, sanctions always hurt both sides. If they did not hurt Europe itself, there won't be any need to introduce them-it means that if say, energy trade was unprofitable, it won't be happening. There are no sanctions that hurt only one side because when they are, they are simply not needed as actions that are to be prohibited, don't happen anyway. And we got out of it only in a few months, unharmed, things basically got back to normal in 2 quarters.

lantry 3y ago

The article talks about this - about how the US benefits from being the "Team Captain" of this coalition. The US generally gets what it wants, or at least gets preferential treatment. The article talks about the fact that most of the institutions in the coalition (e.g. IMF, NATO) were created by the US and slanted towards the priorities of the US. The article also doesn't claim that the US isn't using it's influence (media, financial, military) to enforce its hegemony. It argues that these actions are actually detrimental to continuing US hegemony, and that the real reason this "coalition" hangs together is because all the members have a common interest in maintaining the status quo. The article talks about the fact that if the US were to press too hard on it's hegemony, the other members of the coalition would turn against it and choose a new "team captain". The article completely acknowledges the fact that most of the members aren't huge fans of the US, for example they don't participate in the russia sanctions, but it points out that they also aren't trying to bust the sanctions. If all these other countries were trying to get out from under the thumb of the US, you'd see them taking this opportunity to align with russia and china to form a "containment coalition", but this hasn't happened (yet)

golergka 3y ago

> Is it really in European interests to suffer massive economic blowback from sanctions? Is it really in European interests to be literally conquered in a bloody war?

User23 3y ago
Is it really helping Europeans not get conquered in a bloody war to expend virtually all of their materiel on a US lead proxy war intended to bring about regime change in Russia?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > intended to bring about regime change in Russia Nobody wants this. Russia reverting to a hermit kingdom monitored by China is the best-case exit scenario.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Regime change is inevitable. It’s just whether it happens before or after Putin dies, and how much chaos occurs then. I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan, and no o e dares try to appear like they could fill his shoes, as is the case of every other dictator. Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I don’t think Putin has laid out a succession plan Technically, he (or, at least, the Russian Federation) has, in that the Russian Federation has, on paper, a representative-democratic Constitution which handles succession to the office of the President (the Prime Minister succeeds). In reality, of course, the real lines of power in the RF have little to do with the formal constitutional order of government (heck, Putin hasn’t even been President the whole time he has been in charge), but with application of influence at the time of the decision, so what has been “laid out” (either Constitutionally or, if Putin indicated a preference outside of that in advance for his successor) makes very little difference. What will matter is the actual positions of influence at the time a successor is called for. > Best case is Russia doesn’t devolve into a bloody civil war. That’s a feature of the best case; but it may also be a feature of the worst case. Bloody internal disorder isn’t the worst thing that has happened as a result with dissatisfaction with the existing government and conditions in a major world power.

jcranmer 3y ago

Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy, despite reaching the point that it is objecting to new entries to the coalition for essentially spurious reasons. The US does maintain a hegemony, but NATO isn't a vehicle of political compulsion, especially when you compare to the Warsaw Pact, which very much was. Recall that the Warsaw Pact's sole military operation was to invade a country that wanted out, and the Warsaw Pact itself fell apart pretty much the moment the USSR indicated it wouldn't invade countries that wanted out anymore.

pphysch 3y ago
> Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. They also didn't prevent it, so I'm not sure what your point is here: Washington got their way. It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). > It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. This doesn't make any sense. Europe's economy is in dire straits, and Washington continues to get exactly what it wants. > It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Simply not true. One example from this week: https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebcda9 https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebc... > Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy Huh? Erdoğan blames the US for being behind the failed Gulenist coup, and Türkiye continues to straddle the line between West and East.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). You are aware that intervention in Libya was driven by France and UK far more than the US, right? In fact, part of the goal of the intervention in Libya was to demonstrate that Europe didn't need to rely on the US to tackle security concerns in its immediate backward--even if that demonstration was a failure.