7 ms·

They didn’t learn better. They lost their aspirations and decided to give up as a nation.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
They decided to stop being a world police, and correctly so. Now we're just waiting for US to understand the same thing, which is slowly happening, finally.
- spankalee 10mo ago
  Great, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!
  - cafard 10mo ago
    During the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
      - greedo 10mo ago
        The US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - nozzlegear 10mo ago
      It may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
      - embedding-shape 10mo ago
        You do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
        nradov 10mo ago
        How many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
        hervature 10mo ago
        I know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
  - dandellion 10mo ago
    The world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.
    - mgfist 10mo ago
      The world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - dandellion 10mo ago
        I think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
        mgfist 10mo ago
        Too early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
  - FlyingBears 10mo ago
    I would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- oblio 10mo ago
  The US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Brazil, #12 Pakistan, #14 Germany, #15 Israel, #17 Spain, #18 Australia, and if it were allowed to, #20 Ukraine. Based on economic power: I won't even bother, only China, India, Russia aren't US allies in the top 30 or so, by GDP. The US was a world police but it wasn't alone. Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. What the US is doing now is a tragedy that will unfold over many decades. [1] Based on https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-2025-ranked https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-202... (if you have a better ranking, please link it).
  - mikkupikku 10mo ago
    > Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.
    - eszed 10mo ago
      Beyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
      - greedo 10mo ago
        'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
- renewiltord 10mo ago
  This is something that people don’t realize. America is no longer world police. If Europeans want to resolve intra-European disputes like Russia-Ukraine we should stay out of it.
  - Workaccount2 10mo ago
    It's going to take more than 4 years of Trump for America to disappear. Even just a few days ago congress approved $800M in funding for Ukraine.
  - pbhjpbhj 10mo ago
    Instead, by refusing to sell weapons to Ukraine -- and lying about Europe's support -- when it didn't suit Trump, you've firmly placed your flag. Not allies in any meaningful sense.
- kenjackson 10mo ago
  The US is becoming even more the world police now. But now we support the wrong people too. It’s doubly bad.
  - pbhjpbhj 10mo ago
    Maybe 'World mafia' is a better description? They're not enforcing law and/or morality (nor ever have been?), they're just pressing countries for bribes for Trump, or to shift World markets for insider trades, or probably still for oil, AFAICT.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    Lets see what happens when the invasion of Venezuela kicks off, either the world tries to prevent yet another authoritarian government from bullying those who are already on the ground, or we'll join in on the fun I suppose, if the US feels like it wanna share the future loot.
tempest_ 10mo ago
They didnt lose aspirations. A lot of the UK seems to be struggling with their loss of Empire even 80 years later. They ran out of money, 2 world wars bankrupted them.
- bArray 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - iamacyborg 10mo ago
    If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/ https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/
    - bArray 10mo ago
      Nobody in their right mind is keen for a war. Nobody would fight in one unless they believed they really had no other choice. I don't blame the people who would runaway to relative safety if the option is available. But. It's clearly a massive security issue. > If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? There is not currently a war, and if there was, there wouldn't be a choice but to join.
      - iamflimflam1 10mo ago
        Anyone who thinks war might be fun should watch some of the interviews with veterans from the “great” wars on YouTube.
        jacobgkau 10mo ago
        That's a valid statement that nobody in this comment chain was disputing. It is exactly why the person you're responding to is assuming anyone who can leave, will leave, in that event (and why "you should join the reserves if you're that keen" is an irrelevant comeback-- nobody was saying anyone's keen, only that people aren't keen and will leave to avoid it if able).

They decided to stop being a world police, and correctly so. Now we're just waiting for US to understand the same thing, which is slowly happening, finally.

spankalee 10mo ago
Great, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!
- cafard 10mo ago
  During the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
    - greedo 10mo ago
      The US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nozzlegear 10mo ago
    It may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      You do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
      - nradov 10mo ago
        How many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
      - hervature 10mo ago
        I know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
- dandellion 10mo ago
  The world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.
  - mgfist 10mo ago
    The world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - dandellion 10mo ago
      I think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
      - mgfist 10mo ago
        Too early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
- FlyingBears 10mo ago
  I would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
oblio 10mo ago
The US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Brazil, #12 Pakistan, #14 Germany, #15 Israel, #17 Spain, #18 Australia, and if it were allowed to, #20 Ukraine. Based on economic power: I won't even bother, only China, India, Russia aren't US allies in the top 30 or so, by GDP. The US was a world police but it wasn't alone. Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. What the US is doing now is a tragedy that will unfold over many decades. [1] Based on https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-2025-ranked https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-202... (if you have a better ranking, please link it).
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  > Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.
  - eszed 10mo ago
    Beyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
    - greedo 10mo ago
      'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
renewiltord 10mo ago
This is something that people don’t realize. America is no longer world police. If Europeans want to resolve intra-European disputes like Russia-Ukraine we should stay out of it.
- Workaccount2 10mo ago
  It's going to take more than 4 years of Trump for America to disappear. Even just a few days ago congress approved $800M in funding for Ukraine.
- pbhjpbhj 10mo ago
  Instead, by refusing to sell weapons to Ukraine -- and lying about Europe's support -- when it didn't suit Trump, you've firmly placed your flag. Not allies in any meaningful sense.
kenjackson 10mo ago
The US is becoming even more the world police now. But now we support the wrong people too. It’s doubly bad.
- pbhjpbhj 10mo ago
  Maybe 'World mafia' is a better description? They're not enforcing law and/or morality (nor ever have been?), they're just pressing countries for bribes for Trump, or to shift World markets for insider trades, or probably still for oil, AFAICT.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  Lets see what happens when the invasion of Venezuela kicks off, either the world tries to prevent yet another authoritarian government from bullying those who are already on the ground, or we'll join in on the fun I suppose, if the US feels like it wanna share the future loot.

tempest_ 10mo ago

They didnt lose aspirations. A lot of the UK seems to be struggling with their loss of Empire even 80 years later. They ran out of money, 2 world wars bankrupted them.

bArray 10mo ago
[flagged]
- iamacyborg 10mo ago
  If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/ https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/
  - bArray 10mo ago
    Nobody in their right mind is keen for a war. Nobody would fight in one unless they believed they really had no other choice. I don't blame the people who would runaway to relative safety if the option is available. But. It's clearly a massive security issue. > If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? There is not currently a war, and if there was, there wouldn't be a choice but to join.
    - iamflimflam1 10mo ago
      Anyone who thinks war might be fun should watch some of the interviews with veterans from the “great” wars on YouTube.
      - jacobgkau 10mo ago
        That's a valid statement that nobody in this comment chain was disputing. It is exactly why the person you're responding to is assuming anyone who can leave, will leave, in that event (and why "you should join the reserves if you're that keen" is an irrelevant comeback-- nobody was saying anyone's keen, only that people aren't keen and will leave to avoid it if able).