4 ms·

imagine being energy dependent on a regime that bullies you from Washington, and being asked to increase security spending to 5% of GDP by purchasing US weapons

imagine being energy dependent on a regime that bullies you from Washington, and being asked to increase security spending to 5% of GDP by purchasing US weapons systems. while being told by the same regime they might take over Greenland or the Panama canal. when putting US foreign policy into perspective over the past 30 (or more depending where you are) years, then aligning with China suddenly looks a lot less awful all of a sudden.

SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
I think when you look holistically at the promises that China has made, and broken, it still doesn’t make sense to align with China. That could change in the future but the time isn’t now. An example; look at what they’ve been doing in the South China Sea, Hong Kong or Xinjiang. Some instability in the U.S. is definitely uncomfortable but the alternative is not better.
- DyslexicAtheist 2y ago
  touché
- monkeyfun 2y ago
  What are some of the broken promises? I'm not well informed on the subject and now you've got me really curious.
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    The promise that everything will be fine in Hong Kong?
    - guappa 2y ago
      I think "fine" and "you can ignore laws" aren't precisely identical in all cases.
      - illiac786 2y ago
        “fine” and “you can enact any law you want on people because you are not accountable to them” also isn’t really the same. (Not that trump’s accountability is particularly high… but there’s some hope he’ll be gone in 4 years, whereas the situation is different in china)
        SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
        Please don’t normalize the idea of elimination of nearly century-long term limits that are there for good reasons.
        illiac786 2y ago
        I 100% agree that the biggest damage Trump has done (so far) is normalizing a new (toxic/noxious) behavior for politicians. And everyone in the US should try to remember, every day, that this is NOT normal, and it should not become the new normal. I was being provocative a bit, to help remember it CAN get worse and we shouldn’t just ride it out.
  - lantry 2y ago
    The post mentions Hong Kong, which is something like this: - Hong Kong was ceded to the UK after the opium wars in 1842 - The British returned it in 1997, under an agreement that its economic and political systems wouldn't change for 50 years - starting in the 2010s (less than 20 years later), the PRC has been pressuring the Hong Kong government to drop colonial-era democratic reforms, extradite critics of China, and in general curtail civil liberties. Presumably OP is referring to the PRCs actions to integrate Hong Kong before 50 years have elapsed. I'm not an expert here, this is just my layman understanding from reading American news
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
emptysongglass 2y ago
Other NATO partners being asked to increase defense spending to 5 percent is entirely reasonable. And that's with or without Trump asking for it. I live in Europe, I am European: we've outsourced our own defense for far too long. It is absurd that a country presenting an existential threat to us has been met with more supplied resistance from a country across the earth than Europe. It's long past time for Europe to wake up.
- mdhb 2y ago
  Agreed on this. It’s the other two parts that go with it that are the problem: 1. You have to allocate that budget towards buying from the US defence industry. You are not going to be allowed to spend that internally. Which arguments aside of if that actually makes sense is at least a conflict of interest. 2. We are also threatening to annex territory and rip up the only meaningful alliance that keeps you safe in practice at the same time. This is all to say nothing about trade wars also happening in the background or that literally the only time Article 5 of the same NATO treaty was invoked it was done by the US and paid for with European lives. I’m generally pro US alliance but it’s also entirely incompatible with a fascist takeover of their government and they absolutely cannot be trusted again until there is serious reform that honestly doesn’t look particularly realistic any time soon.
  - cinquemb 2y ago
    The realpolitik of the situation: you can only really have an alliance among equals and its foolish to believe otherwise with a massive power imbalance (I doubt the cultural boundaries in Europe will aid this endeavor for some kind of unified security umbrella, when unification of the sovereign euro debt markets has remained illusive as represented by the spreads). It's clear that the post wwii era where the US willingly funds everything under the sun ex-stateside without clear equivalent concessions that can be sold politically to the stateside is over for now. I'm hopeful that it will create a more robust governance systems on the local level in the long run, but not without more short term pain (after all, there were a lot of non-stateside mouths being fed who will have to figure out realistic alternatives and face once unpalatable choices that will need to be made out of necessity).
illiac786 2y ago
I still hope for a next election in the US. I don’t in china. That alone makes china significantly less stable /reliable on the long run (while on the short term it might be the opposite actually)

SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago

I think when you look holistically at the promises that China has made, and broken, it still doesn’t make sense to align with China. That could change in the future but the time isn’t now. An example; look at what they’ve been doing in the South China Sea, Hong Kong or Xinjiang. Some instability in the U.S. is definitely uncomfortable but the alternative is not better.

DyslexicAtheist 2y ago
touché
monkeyfun 2y ago
What are some of the broken promises? I'm not well informed on the subject and now you've got me really curious.
- credit_guy 2y ago
  The promise that everything will be fine in Hong Kong?
  - guappa 2y ago
    I think "fine" and "you can ignore laws" aren't precisely identical in all cases.
    - illiac786 2y ago
      “fine” and “you can enact any law you want on people because you are not accountable to them” also isn’t really the same. (Not that trump’s accountability is particularly high… but there’s some hope he’ll be gone in 4 years, whereas the situation is different in china)
      - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
        Please don’t normalize the idea of elimination of nearly century-long term limits that are there for good reasons.
        illiac786 2y ago
        I 100% agree that the biggest damage Trump has done (so far) is normalizing a new (toxic/noxious) behavior for politicians. And everyone in the US should try to remember, every day, that this is NOT normal, and it should not become the new normal. I was being provocative a bit, to help remember it CAN get worse and we shouldn’t just ride it out.
- lantry 2y ago
  The post mentions Hong Kong, which is something like this: - Hong Kong was ceded to the UK after the opium wars in 1842 - The British returned it in 1997, under an agreement that its economic and political systems wouldn't change for 50 years - starting in the 2010s (less than 20 years later), the PRC has been pressuring the Hong Kong government to drop colonial-era democratic reforms, extradite critics of China, and in general curtail civil liberties. Presumably OP is referring to the PRCs actions to integrate Hong Kong before 50 years have elapsed. I'm not an expert here, this is just my layman understanding from reading American news
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

emptysongglass 2y ago

Other NATO partners being asked to increase defense spending to 5 percent is entirely reasonable. And that's with or without Trump asking for it. I live in Europe, I am European: we've outsourced our own defense for far too long. It is absurd that a country presenting an existential threat to us has been met with more supplied resistance from a country across the earth than Europe. It's long past time for Europe to wake up.

mdhb 2y ago
Agreed on this. It’s the other two parts that go with it that are the problem: 1. You have to allocate that budget towards buying from the US defence industry. You are not going to be allowed to spend that internally. Which arguments aside of if that actually makes sense is at least a conflict of interest. 2. We are also threatening to annex territory and rip up the only meaningful alliance that keeps you safe in practice at the same time. This is all to say nothing about trade wars also happening in the background or that literally the only time Article 5 of the same NATO treaty was invoked it was done by the US and paid for with European lives. I’m generally pro US alliance but it’s also entirely incompatible with a fascist takeover of their government and they absolutely cannot be trusted again until there is serious reform that honestly doesn’t look particularly realistic any time soon.
- cinquemb 2y ago
  The realpolitik of the situation: you can only really have an alliance among equals and its foolish to believe otherwise with a massive power imbalance (I doubt the cultural boundaries in Europe will aid this endeavor for some kind of unified security umbrella, when unification of the sovereign euro debt markets has remained illusive as represented by the spreads). It's clear that the post wwii era where the US willingly funds everything under the sun ex-stateside without clear equivalent concessions that can be sold politically to the stateside is over for now. I'm hopeful that it will create a more robust governance systems on the local level in the long run, but not without more short term pain (after all, there were a lot of non-stateside mouths being fed who will have to figure out realistic alternatives and face once unpalatable choices that will need to be made out of necessity).

illiac786 2y ago

I still hope for a next election in the US. I don’t in china. That alone makes china significantly less stable /reliable on the long run (while on the short term it might be the opposite actually)