5 ms·

The strategy seems to have gone 0-2 with Russia and China; can you name an instance in which it succeeded?

by philwelch 3y ago

illiac786 3y ago
EU?
- philwelch 3y ago
  That's putting the cart before the horse; countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. Turkey, for instance, has been kept out of the European Union precisely because of these types of concerns; a strategy of economic integration would have entailed allowing Turkey to join the EU in hopes that the EU would be a positive influence on the country. Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes: > The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully reconciled through economic integration. There was a war, and the victors of that war installed democratic governments in both France and West Germany and inducted both countries into a broader alliance. > Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the union for the states to fight a civil war against each other. genman says: > Remember WW1? WW2? Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not instances of economic integration easing military tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world wars. And the First World War in particular was already deemed impossible because of the degree to which European economies were already economically integrated. That theory did not pan out. wolverine876: > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war. Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the Second World War and installed friendly governments across western Europe (and also in Greece); following this, those friendly governments formed the EU.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK and France. Some of those were at war in preceding centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being allies/liberators in the war than that they were on opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and Italy as well.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        In Europe there have undoubtedly been international institutions going back a long way. Is what you're talking about really a blood ancestor of the EU, or is it a predecessor - another group that happened to have some of the same members. As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?), as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed nationalism specifically.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I would say it was because there is a reasonably direct line of succession in terms of both members and responsibilities. The steel and coal union is also in that line. What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required.
phobotics 3y ago
Most of Europe?
genman 3y ago
Remember WW1? WW2?
- Anthony-G 3y ago
  And the two millennia of recorded history before those wars.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It's not inherently a bad strategy, but it tends to fail when you're dealing with huge would-be hegemons - which certainly applies to China and Russia.
- vogre 3y ago
  >No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. Ukraine and Russia were same country like almost forever. No one sane was expecting a war between them. Don't underestimate ability of polititians to screw things up.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Ukraine was under Russian dominion like almost forever, but that didn't make it a part of Russia. If it had been then Russians would not distinguish between 'Russians' and 'little Russians' and other (far worse) terms.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      not to forget that at one point muscovy was under ukraininian (Rus-ian) dominion.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Germans do distinguish between Prussian Germans and Bavarian Germans. Nevertheless it's the same country. Various types of Germans also did have a large number of wars agains one another. Russian position is indeed that Ukrainian claims on the statehood in 1991 or even 2014 borders are absolutely bogus. Personally, I also find it hard to respect the immutability of international borders that are younger than I am.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        But they don't see the other half of Germany as untermenschen. Which is roughly how the Russians view the denizens of all of the conquered land in their empire that isn't Russia proper.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pas 3y ago
China did go through a lot of effort to gain WTO MFN status. Then the US (and others too) stopped enforcing symmetric market policies. Stick and carrots. Both are required.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwawaymaths 3y ago
taiwan, south korea, singapore not to mention that china was on a reasonably good trajectory until a certain yellow bear ascended to the throne
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Gibbon1 3y ago
I don't personally think is economic liberalization that succeeded. It's the US won't stand for anymore wars like that. And for 50 years after WWII they could enforce that. You can note the general absence of large wars in North and South America as evidence of that.

The strategy seems to have gone 0-2 with Russia and China; can you name an instance in which it succeeded?

illiac786 3y ago

EU?

philwelch 3y ago
That's putting the cart before the horse; countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. Turkey, for instance, has been kept out of the European Union precisely because of these types of concerns; a strategy of economic integration would have entailed allowing Turkey to join the EU in hopes that the EU would be a positive influence on the country. Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes: > The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully reconciled through economic integration. There was a war, and the victors of that war installed democratic governments in both France and West Germany and inducted both countries into a broader alliance. > Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the union for the states to fight a civil war against each other. genman says: > Remember WW1? WW2? Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not instances of economic integration easing military tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world wars. And the First World War in particular was already deemed impossible because of the degree to which European economies were already economically integrated. That theory did not pan out. wolverine876: > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war. Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the Second World War and installed friendly governments across western Europe (and also in Greece); following this, those friendly governments formed the EU.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > countries only join the EU after they're already politically aligned with the current membership. The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK and France. Some of those were at war in preceding centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being allies/liberators in the war than that they were on opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and Italy as well.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      In Europe there have undoubtedly been international institutions going back a long way. Is what you're talking about really a blood ancestor of the EU, or is it a predecessor - another group that happened to have some of the same members. As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?), as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed nationalism specifically.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I would say it was because there is a reasonably direct line of succession in terms of both members and responsibilities. The steel and coal union is also in that line. What happened is that the unification was seen as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future proof organization was what really was required.

phobotics 3y ago

Most of Europe?

genman 3y ago

Remember WW1? WW2?

Anthony-G 3y ago
And the two millennia of recorded history before those wars.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea. It's not inherently a bad strategy, but it tends to fail when you're dealing with huge would-be hegemons - which certainly applies to China and Russia.

vogre 3y ago
>No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon. Ukraine and Russia were same country like almost forever. No one sane was expecting a war between them. Don't underestimate ability of polititians to screw things up.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Ukraine was under Russian dominion like almost forever, but that didn't make it a part of Russia. If it had been then Russians would not distinguish between 'Russians' and 'little Russians' and other (far worse) terms.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    not to forget that at one point muscovy was under ukraininian (Rus-ian) dominion.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Germans do distinguish between Prussian Germans and Bavarian Germans. Nevertheless it's the same country. Various types of Germans also did have a large number of wars agains one another. Russian position is indeed that Ukrainian claims on the statehood in 1991 or even 2014 borders are absolutely bogus. Personally, I also find it hard to respect the immutability of international borders that are younger than I am.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      But they don't see the other half of Germany as untermenschen. Which is roughly how the Russians view the denizens of all of the conquered land in their empire that isn't Russia proper.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pas 3y ago

China did go through a lot of effort to gain WTO MFN status. Then the US (and others too) stopped enforcing symmetric market policies. Stick and carrots. Both are required.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwawaymaths 3y ago

taiwan, south korea, singapore not to mention that china was on a reasonably good trajectory until a certain yellow bear ascended to the throne

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Gibbon1 3y ago

I don't personally think is economic liberalization that succeeded. It's the US won't stand for anymore wars like that. And for 50 years after WWII they could enforce that. You can note the general absence of large wars in North and South America as evidence of that.