Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213
Results 241 to 253 of 253

Thread: What do the anti-globalists want?

  1. #241

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by wyrda78 View Post
    Oh my, so first you berate me for pointing out that Libertarianism was invented in the 1950s by pointing out that it had ideological predecessors, and then when I point out how much of an influence the ideological predecessors of Libertarianism had, you try to discount it by saying "that wasn't true Libertarianism".
    Who discounted what? Smith wasn't a proto libertarian nor was he libertarian. He's not a predecessor in any sense whatsoever. He's the father of modern capitalism just as Locke is the father of Liberalism. Libertarian ideas derive from their work not vice versa. In addition to that, Libertarian arguments and theories can be applied to the past to see how logically sound they are. Your original assertion that Libertarian ideas can't be discredited because the term didn't appear until 1950s was a fallacious argument. Just as your comparison of Libertarian ideas and their influence by conflating them with the influence of Locke and Smith. That's a disjointed comparison that has no bearing on your claim, which by the way, I didn't disagree with. Libertarian ideas and school of thought have certainly had their influence especially in America. That's completely different from me claiming that there are no Libertarian countries, that is, countries that strongly reflect Libertarian ideas, values, and theoretical framework. Those countries simply do not exist.

    And then you go in circles by again failing to understand that debt needs to be paid back.

    You're a funny little man, you are.
    Tell me. When was the last time US National Debt was 0$ or even anywhere close to that? Debt needs to be paid back... government debt does not work the same way as your family's checking account. Europe can easily, easily pay for a big and powerful military without compromising their living standards. Just as American can easily afford a universal healthcare system. The issue isn't the money, it's the political will, special interests, and what we all simply describe as "politics". The idea that we are short on money is misleading. People are short on money, a government that has access to quite literally limitless capital resources doesn't. Stop trying to talk down to me from a position of authority when your knowledge on the subject is superficial at best.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    John Locke, known as the 'the father of liberalism' wasn't a classical liberal if not a modern day libertarian? And Adam Smith, the father of the modern free market? If they weren't libertarian, and they weren't classical liberals, what were they then. They certainly don't fit the modern American definition of 'Liberal'
    A classical liberal isn't a libertarian. I suggest you study the period of great intellectuals like Locke, Smith, Hume, Mills, Spencer, Mises, and many more. Mises and today's various "shades" of Libertarianism is far more individualistic and anti-state than Locke and Smith's theories on the relationship between state power and individuals. Mills is between Mises and Locke. Spencer is closer to Mises than to Mills. This is ultimately a very simplified model, but the point is that if Locke was reincarnated and brought up to date, he would have a lot to disagree on with people like, I don't want to say it, but Ron Paul. Quite frankly, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. I'm at work waiting for a Judge.

    America is a free market, the U.K. is a mixed economy, but mostly still unregulated. Even the Royal Mail had to be privatised, we're learning economic planning doesn't work the hard way, the NHS is next.

    In Soviet Russia, Venezuela etc and other socialist countries, people have very little personal freedoms, as everything belongs to the state. Cuba is the only mildly successful full socialist model I know of, and even then you literally can't rent out a spare room without government approval.

    Letting the free market decide doesn't lead to ruin. It is the difference between North American prosperity, and the post-Guavra etc mess South America is in. It is the basis of the Western world's prosperity.
    These are not free markets and you will hear people from all kinds of different spectrums agree. From the most mild libertarian to the Marxist. America is a mixed economy that allows competition and property ownership, while at the same time having a large amount of social spending. The Government is responsible for a huge amount of healthcare spending as well as education, national defense, and basic services. All of these things are emulated by the most successful countries on Earth. You are under a delusion if you think we live in a free market, we don't. It is strictly a mixed market economy. There are many sectors where the government owns things, holds a monopoly, and determines who gets access to what resources, just as there are many sectors where the government has almost no presence in.

    So no, stop propagating the lie that they are successful solely because of the free market. America is successful because of a number of factors, not the least of which is an incredible geographic and demographic advantage over all of her peers that no other country can realistically match. The calculus is evening out on that but the historical advantage holds.
    Last edited by Love Mountain; March 13, 2018 at 02:23 PM.

  2. #242

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    There is a great deal of part-sharing, technology exchange, and room for integration. Nobody claimed that European militaries operate as one unit, but the idea that American military support is necessary is absurd. As I've explained numerous times.
    You are operating on the assumption that European governments would actually cooperate effectively (if at all) with one another in the event of a military crisis. This is a continent of nations which couldn't organize an efficient (let alone unified) response to the migrant crisis, couldn't convince the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union, has a significant problem with eurosceptic political movements and where the establishment powers in the west accuse their counterparts in the east of being crypto-fascists. There isn't even any sort of national agreement on the validity of international conflicts: European states have a history of acting unilaterally when it comes to military affairs.

    The safer option is therefore to assume that under the current framework, European military cooperation would be fractious at best. In which case the support of the US's military is absolutely welcome.

    There is a de-facto coherent foreign policy in Europe. They follow American lead.
    No they don't.

    Does it mean they agree on every single issue and operate as a single block with a designated "European" ambassador? No, but Europeans follow America's lead and never go in direct opposition with America.
    European's follow America's lead when it suits them. Only the United Kingdom tends to view the US's interests as necessarily intersecting with their own on almost every issue - and even that has evaporated on account of Donald Trump. Westminster won't even allow the President to address Parliament.

    The only country with significant ties in Africa is France. America has next to no influence in Africa nor has there ever been a major strategic pivot towards the continent hence why France is allowed to operate as they like. UK has no had a significant influence in the Middle East since the 80s. Conflicts in Middle East today are driven by geopolitical rivalries between Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. America pits these rival factions against each other and maintains supremacy of her "allies" as well as arms trade, where rich oil states buy our toys for war. The same goes for Russia. Europe's role in the region is best exemplified by the Iran-Iraq war where they had little to no input and were relegated to being mere arms dealers.
    The US exploiting rivalries in the Middle East isn't an argument which justifies the claim that Europeans have no interest in Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

    Foolish liberal IR assumptions. There is nothing to suggest that they disprove of Kremlin's involvement in Ukraine, Syria, or Georgia. Who were the actual vocal parties in these conflicts? United States.
    Laughably false. Only someone who had no knowledge of the EU's involvement in Ukraine, its response to Russian activities in the Crimea and its explicit condemnations of Assad (even after the US decided to deprioritize his removal) would argue that "there is nothing to suggest" that liberal European states disapprove of Moscow's foreign policies. Go and listen to the rhetoric of mainstream European politicians for an insight into how they view Putin.

    The only European countries who genuinely feel threatened by Russia are the Baltics, Nordics, and Moldova.
    Your entire argument hinges on the premise that European governments would successfully co-operate in the event of a military crisis. Therefore, a state with access to thousands of nuclear warheads, allegedly posing a threat to EU border states necessarily implies that it poses a threat to the rest of the Europe.

    The rest of the Balkans are indifferent to Russia and prefer bilateral relations to hostility.
    The Balkan states are certainly not "indifferent" toward Russia.

    In fact, that mirrors the European experience with Russia. Who pushed for sanctions?
    European heads of state and the European Union itself.

    It certainly wasn't France who was profiting from arms sales with Russia. In addition to that, the constant accusations of Russian involvement in European elections is more of a slur against right-wing parties and statement of facts. Which is perfectly understandable when liberals are interested in political power that Russia is actively impeding to sow chaos and disunity on the European continent. However, there is little indication that any of this bravado actually matters.
    I could equally apply the same sentiment to the United States.

    As any observer will tell you, pre-Ukraine Crisis Europe was perfectly happy to do business with Russia in spite of its 2008 invasion of Georgia. There are significant interests to be satisfied from doing business with Russia, while provocative and aggressive posturing increases the risk of Russian military action.
    What has that got to do with liberal European states choosing to oppose Moscow today? As I write this, the United Kingdom is on the verge of imposing further sanctions on Russia over its alleged involvement in the attempted murder of a former operative on English soil.

    Considering how tightly integrated America is in NATO and NATO's influence on the numerous armed forces in Europe that's not surprising. Europe should become independent of U.S's foreign policy which will see them re-orient their policy towards Russia. NATO should be abolished and replaced by an EU military arm that integrated all of EU's armed forces. It will easily be the second most powerful armed force on the globe which won't have anything to fear from Russia, a military that has a number of constraints on its capabilities.
    No. National sovereignty should not be relinquished. Especially not when an entirely centralized European Union would continue to oppose Putin anyway.
    Last edited by Cope; March 13, 2018 at 07:45 PM.



  3. #243

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You are operating on the assumption that European governments would actually cooperate effectively (if at all) with one another in the event of a military crisis. This is a continent of nations which couldn't organize an efficient (let alone unified) response to the migrant crisis, couldn't convince the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union, has a significant problem with eurosceptic political movements and where the establishment powers in the west accuse their counterparts in the east of being crypto-fascists.
    And?

    No they don't.

    European's follow America's lead when it suits them. Only the United Kingdom tends to view the US's interests as necessarily intersecting with their own on almost every issue - and even that has evaporated on account of Donald Trump. Westminster won't even allow the President to address Parliament.
    They do. What were European interests in Iraq? What were European interests in Afghanistan? What were European interests in Ukraine? What were European interests in deposing Assad? There aren't any. The Ukrainian crisis damage EU's economic relations with Russia. The Syrian crisis has only been prolonged by American intervention and the flow of migrants severely destabilized and undermined European political power. There were never any European interests in American adventures and they only went along with it to support America.

    The US exploiting rivalries in the Middle East isn't an argument which justifies the claim that Europeans have no interest in Asia, Africa or the Middle East.
    They don't. Europeans have no interest in who controls the South China Sea just as they have no interest in which oil country supplies them with oil. Be it Russia, Libya, Iran, or otherwise. Again, the reason why Europe has been allowed to operate in Africa is because America has no immediate designs on the continent. Obama's focus has been on containing China.

    Laughably false. Only someone who had no knowledge of the EU's involvement in Ukraine, its response to Russian activities in the Crimea and its explicit condemnations of Assad (even after the US decided to deprioritize his removal) would argue that "there is nothing to suggest" that liberal European states disapprove of Moscow's foreign policies. Go and listen to the rhetoric of mainstream European politicians for an insight into how they view Putin.
    EU's involvement in Ukraine in the years following up to the Euromaidan has been nonexistent. There have always been talks, just as there are always talks with all post-Soviet nations of starting the process of joining the EU. They are meaningless. Who was it that immediately exploited the Euromaidan? U.S. Just as they were the first ones to call for sanctions.

    Your entire argument hinges on the premise that European governments would successfully co-operate in the event of a military crisis. Therefore, a state with access to thousands of nuclear warheads, allegedly posing a threat to EU border states necessarily implies that it poses a threat to the rest of the Europe.
    Your entire argument hinges on Russia being a threat to Europe, as opposed to Europe and NATO being a threat to Russia. Russia is outmatched, outspent, and outgunned by European nations alone who boast a superior navy, superior weapons, and superior armed force. Who's the threat to who?

    The Balkan states are certainly not "indifferent" toward Russia.
    You're right. Relationship between Russia and many of the Balkan nations is quite friendly, frictional with some of them, and indifferent if we aggregate them. Countries that have a hostile relationship with Russia are Balkans and Nordics, with a few others like Ukraine and Moldova.

    European heads of state and the European Union itself.
    United States. Or are we having selective memory when U.S. had to urge EU leaders to keep up the pressure? Of course we are, in fact EU had to shame France into canceling the Mistral deal. The EU was not an enthusiastic pursuer of sanctions on Russia whatsoever during this episode and followed America's lead, as usual.

    I could equally apply the same sentiment to the United States.
    No, you can't. The interference from Russia between the two are on entirely different scales.

    What has that got to do with liberal European states choosing to oppose Moscow today? As I write this, the United Kingdom is on the verge of imposing further sanctions on Russia over its alleged involvement in the attempted murder of a former operative on English soil.
    The Anti-Russian narrative is driven by Washington which it then forces on her allies. If Washington and Brussels were two independent actors instead of Brussels merely doing exactly as their Washington counterparts command, they would've never sanctioned Russia, France would still be selling weapons, and Ukraine would be utterly screwed. If it was up to EU to pursue their own economic and geopolitical interests, relations between the EU and Russia would be much rosier.

    And what of the UK incident? You actually think something meaningful is going to come of it? They didn't assassinate a British politician. They murdered a traitor, something all countries understand. The circus over chemical weapons and "british soil" is going be moot when we consider the big picture. Russians will kill who they want and British will respond proportionally. It's all a calculated game.

    No. National sovereignty should not be relinquished. Especially not when an entirely centralized European Union would continue to oppose Putin anyway.
    Doubt it. European Union hardly opposed Putin when he rolled his tanks into Georgia or Ukraine. Nobody is stopping the EU from supplying Ukrainians with advanced weapons and training. Nobody is stopping the EU from royally ing Putin over by supplying and selling weapons to all post-Soviet states. Why don't they do it? Because they're not actually against Putin. They simply show their token support for America, their security guarantor instead of taking their foreign policy into their own hands. Parts of national sovereignty has already been relinquished by EU countries. The simple act of using the Euro as a currency entails giving up a significant amount of control over your economy. Just check the debacle between the EU and Poland. The very fact that a conversation over what Poland does in her own country is indicative of just how much you give up when you join the EU. Considering the amount of kleptocracy and corruption in some EU member states, giving up sovereignty isn't a bad idea if you think the EU will clean up your country and protect you from aggressors.

  4. #244

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    And?
    "The safer option is therefore to assume that under the current framework, European military cooperation would be fractious at best. In which case the support of the US's military is absolutely welcome."

    They do. What were European interests in Iraq?
    Europe did not invade Iraq in 2003: only the United Kingdom and Poland did. This precisely proves my point about European military forces acting independently of one another based on the will of national governments. So when you ask "what were European interests in Iraq" what you really mean is "what were British and Polish interests in Iraq". As far as the British government were concerned, the Hussein regime was in possession of WMDs, and removing them was a matter of national security.

    If you want to make the argument that the Blair government mislead the country on that point, and only agreed to invade Iraq in order to appease the US, go ahead. I already stated that "only the United Kingdom tends to view the US's interests as necessarily intersecting with their own on almost every issue".

    What were European interests in Afghanistan?
    The same as the US's: the destruction of the Taliban.

    What were European interests in Ukraine?
    A significant number of Western European leaders wanted to bring the Ukraine further into the sphere of the EU's influence, both to strengthen the bloc and weaken Russia's influence in the east. The Euromaidan revolution was caused, at least in part, by both Russia and the European Union attempting to undermine one another by projecting their power into the Ukraine. Yanukovych's refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union (after Putin had convinced him to join the Eurasian Union instead) is what triggered the uprisings which destabilized the Ukraine in the first place.

    You seem blissfully unaware that the European Union, over the last 25 years, has pursued a policy of outward expansion where it attempts to absorb as many states as possible either into its sphere of influence or into the union directly. Many of these states (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia etc.) have historical ties to the USSR, the old Russian Empire or both. This often causes tension, not only within the targeted state, but also between the EU and Russia.

    What were European interests in deposing Assad? There aren't any.
    You can read what European Union figure heads have said about President Assad. It has nothing to do with arbitrarily following the US around.

    The Ukrainian crisis damage EU's economic relations with Russia.
    The European Union and Russia are regional rivals: they're constantly trying to undermine each other. Whether or not you personally agree with the EU's strategy is irrelevant insofar as said strategy has very little to do with the political designs of the US. The EU's enlargement program, which Russia patently views as an affront to itself and which recently extended as far as Turkey, is entirely of its own making. It is a strategy which the EU has, and will continue to, prioritize over relations with Russia, because it cares far more about extending its influence and power than it does about favourable trade arrangements with Moscow.

    The Syrian crisis has only been prolonged by American intervention and the flow of migrants severely destabilized and undermined European political power. There were never any European interests in American adventures and they only went along with it to support America.
    False. In the first case, there wasn't even a unified response from the major European leaders on the question of Assad. Secondly, the European powers faced the same problem that the US did: they couldn't ideologically justify be indifferent toward Assad, let alone openly support him. Thirdly, the European Union undermined itself with its own disjointed and incoherent response to the migrant crisis which exposed the extent to which member states will adhere to their own self-interests in the case of a crisis.

    They don't. Europeans have no interest in who controls the South China Sea just as they have no interest in which oil country supplies them with oil. Be it Russia, Libya, Iran, or otherwise. Again, the reason why Europe has been allowed to operate in Africa is because America has no immediate designs on the continent. Obama's focus has been on containing China.
    The recognition that certain European states have unilaterally involved themselves in African affairs (and continue to do so) is, in and of itself, an open admission that said states do have interests in that region. You can't possibly imagine that European states lack independent geopolitical objectives.

    EU's involvement in Ukraine in the years following up to the Euromaidan has been nonexistent. There have always been talks, just as there are always talks with all post-Soviet nations of starting the process of joining the EU. They are meaningless. Who was it that immediately exploited the Euromaidan? U.S. Just as they were the first ones to call for sanctions.
    The EU's attempt to suck the Ukraine into its own sphere of influence is a patent example of it attempting to project its own power and making a mess. The European Union was jointly responsible with the US for issuing sanctions against Russia for the Crimean affair.

    Your entire argument hinges on Russia being a threat to Europe, as opposed to Europe and NATO being a threat to Russia.
    No it doesn't. It hinges on the notion that mainstream European politicians view Russia as being a threat to Europe irrespective of the US's position. That's why so many of them rushed to condemn Trump when he suggested that he was willing to consider a rapprochement with Russia.

    Russia is outmatched, outspent, and outgunned by European nations alone who boast a superior navy, superior weapons, and superior armed force. Who's the threat to who?
    This is only relevant if you imagine that the major European powers were willing, let alone able, to co-operate with one another in a military crisis involving Russia.

    United States. Or are we having selective memory when U.S. had to urge EU leaders to keep up the pressure? Of course we are, in fact EU had to shame France into canceling the Mistral deal. The EU was not an enthusiastic pursuer of sanctions on Russia whatsoever during this episode and followed America's lead, as usual.
    The idea that the EU was reluctant to issue sanctions against the Russians is simply false. Of course they were irritated that Russia was meddling in a country that they were attempting to attract toward their own union.

    No, you can't. The interference from Russia between the two are on entirely different scales.
    Mainstream politicians in Europe attempting to vilify Russia for electoral purposes serves the same purpose as it does in the US.

    The Anti-Russian narrative is driven by Washington which it then forces on her allies. If Washington and Brussels were two independent actors instead of Brussels merely doing exactly as their Washington counterparts command, they would've never sanctioned Russia, France would still be selling weapons, and Ukraine would be utterly screwed. If it was up to EU to pursue their own economic and geopolitical interests, relations between the EU and Russia would be much rosier.
    This is such a ridiculous analysis of European politics that I don't even know where to begin. It's almost as if you imagine that the European Union isn't wealthier than the US; that it doesn't already pursue its own economic and geopolitical interests (including its own customs union); that said interests don't often naturally intersect with those of the US anyway; that it doesn't view Russia as a rival for regional influence.

    And what of the UK incident? You actually think something meaningful is going to come of it? They didn't assassinate a British politician. They murdered a traitor, something all countries understand. The circus over chemical weapons and "british soil" is going be moot when we consider the big picture. Russians will kill who they want and British will respond proportionally. It's all a calculated game.
    Whether the British response will be meaningful is irrelevant to whether or not mainstream European politicians have reasons to oppose Moscow which don't include aimlessly pandering to the USA.

    Doubt it. European Union hardly opposed Putin when he rolled his tanks into Georgia or Ukraine. Nobody is stopping the EU from supplying Ukrainians with advanced weapons and training. Nobody is stopping the EU from royally ing Putin over by supplying and selling weapons to all post-Soviet states.
    Most former Soviet states in Europe are already in the European Union. I don't know why you think the European Union arming Poland, Romania or Latvia would somehow destroy Putin.

    Why don't they do it? Because they're not actually against Putin. They simply show their token support for America, their security guarantor instead of taking their foreign policy into their own hands.
    I've answered this point on multiple occasions: the EU cannot adopt a concrete. stable, military strategy so long as national governments commandeer all of the assets - national governments which could simply refuse to deploy said assets if they chose. And the EU cannot simply force these national governments to cede military control to them, even though they'd very much like to. The mere suggestion that the EU should assume operational control over all European military assets was fiercely opposed by the union's most powerful military member, the United Kingdom.

    Parts of national sovereignty has already been relinquished by EU countries. The simple act of using the Euro as a currency entails giving up a significant amount of control over your economy. Just check the debacle between the EU and Poland.
    1. Poland isn't in the Eurozone.
    2. The EU's complaints about Hungary, Poland, the United Kingdom, Greece and everyone else, demonstrate how the member states cannot be relied upon to cooperate during times of a crisis.
    3. The decision to cede national control over local currencies has proven to be at worst disastrous and at best indifferent for virtually every state in the Eurozone with the exception of Germany.
    4. The choice to surrender certain national rights isn't an argument for surrendering them all.

    The very fact that a conversation over what Poland does in her own country is indicative of just how much you give up when you join the EU. Considering the amount of kleptocracy and corruption in some EU member states, giving up sovereignty isn't a bad idea if you think the EU will clean up your country and protect you from aggressors.
    It's a bad idea if you value your own national sovereignty. The choice between ceding absolute national control to the European Union, or accepting the US's military assistance isn't a difficult decision to make.
    Last edited by Cope; March 14, 2018 at 02:20 AM.



  5. #245

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "The safer option is therefore to assume that under the current framework, European military cooperation would be fractious at best. In which case the support of the US's military is absolutely welcome."
    Europeans being in a massive collision course with countries like Russia and China due to their affiliation with United States is not a safe course.

    Europe did not invade Iraq in 2003: only the United Kingdom and Poland did. This precisely proves my point about European military forces acting independently of one another based on the will of national governments. So when you ask "what were European interests in Iraq" what you really mean is "what were British and Polish interests in Iraq". As far as the British government were concerned, the Hussein regime was in possession of WMDs, and removing them was a matter of national security.

    If you want to make the argument that the Blair government mislead the country on that point, and only agreed to invade Iraq in order to appease the US, go ahead. I already stated that "only the United Kingdom tends to view the US's interests as necessarily intersecting with their own on almost every issue".
    This is a good point but it does not answer the question. Realistically, Iraq's possession of WMDs were not a threat to European interests, or UK's interests or Polish interests. The ultimate question is this. Would UK or Poland invade Iraq without US? The answer is no. They neither have the capability nor does Iraq constitute an existential threat to anybody in Europe.

    Europe definitely follows American lead. This is evident by many co-operative actions like the sanctions on Iran, arms control to countries like Russia and China, and co-operation or at least an agreement to not interfere with various military actions around the globe. This represents a de-facto coherent and unitary foreign policy. Simply observing the sale of Mistrals to Egypt is evident of the kind of influence and power that America exerts over EU nations. When has any nation in Europe directly supplied American enemies because of clashing interests? There are many areas of conflict between EU and America, yet none of those issues has ever been strong enough to put any single EU nation on a direct collision course with US. This is why the Russian tendency to label EU countries and US as a single entity they like to call "the West". Because it is largely true, USA and EU are de-facto a single entity on major international issues.

    The same as the US's: the destruction of the Taliban.
    They weren't and they're not. Taliban was never a threat to Europe. America was the major antagonist in the Middle East during the Cold War, not Europe.

    A significant number of Western European leaders wanted to bring the Ukraine further into the sphere of the EU's influence, both to strengthen the bloc and weaken Russia's influence in the east. The Euromaidan revolution was caused, at least in part, by both Russia and the European Union attempting to undermine one another by projecting their power into the Ukraine. Yanukovych's refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union (after Putin had convinced him to join the Eurasian Union instead) is what triggered the uprisings which destabilized the Ukraine in the first place.

    You seem blissfully unaware that the European Union, over the last 25 years, has pursued a policy of outward expansion where it attempts to absorb as many states as possible either into its sphere of influence or into the union directly. Many of these states (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia etc.) have historical ties to the USSR, the old Russian Empire or both. This often causes tension, not only within the targeted state, but also between the EU and Russia.
    I've been aware, in fact it's a frequent point of criticism as I've written numerous post criticizing Western approach to Russia and the danger of ignoring her security concerns. Europe's interests in Ukraine were mainly economic, Russia's and US's interests were geopolitical. This is evident by how quickly EU cooled off Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of Russian involvement in the country. In fact, the only thing sustaining any kind of support for Ukraine are the loans backed by international institutions and American interests, we continue to give them weapons and more promises of support. This is a sharp contrast to Europe, who should be the driving force behind such initiatives. Yet, crickets.

    You can read what European Union figure heads have said about President Assad. It has nothing to do with arbitrarily following the US around.
    Spare me. Anybody who talks about human rights and legitimacy is full of it. Europe has no more interests in Syria than China. Their commitment has all but disappeared after 2016 and strangely, a lot of the talk switched from Assad, whose legitimacy was still recognized, to ISIS, a much less controversial target.

    The European Union and Russia are regional rivals: they're constantly trying to undermine each other. Whether or not you personally agree with the EU's strategy is irrelevant insofar as said strategy has very little to do with the political designs of the US. The EU's enlargement program, which Russia patently views as an affront to itself and which recently extended as far as Turkey, is entirely of its own making. It is a strategy which the EU has, and will continue to, prioritize over relations with Russia, because it cares far more about extending its influence and power than it does about favourable trade arrangements with Moscow.
    EU and Russia are economically dependent on each other. Russia has repeatedly emphasized that NATO and by its extension, EU enlargement is an existential threat to Russia, not Europe. If EU continues to pursue short-term goals and prioritizing American interests over her own, they will find themselves in a collision course with Russia. Otherwise, the only people Russia is a threat to are her non-NATO members, a US-led alliance.

    False. In the first case, there wasn't even a unified response from the major European leaders on the question of Assad. Secondly, the European powers faced the same problem that the US did: they couldn't ideologically justify be indifferent toward Assad, let alone openly support him. Thirdly, the European Union undermined itself with its own disjointed and incoherent response to the migrant crisis which exposed the extent to which member states will adhere to their own self-interests in the case of a crisis.
    Sure they can. Just as they have tolerated Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and a large number of other regimes with questionable human rights records. European powers have no interests in Syria or in deposing Assad. Their involvement in Syria backfired when millions of refugees flooded into their continent. The response to the refugee crisis only exacerbated their issues, aided in no small part by Russian involvement in promoting their fears and funding of far-right parties.

    The recognition that certain European states have unilaterally involved themselves in African affairs (and continue to do so) is, in and of itself, an open admission that said states do have interests in that region. You can't possibly imagine that European states lack independent geopolitical objectives.
    I am no denying that European powers have their own interests, which are almost always secondary to America's. There are two EU powers on the UNSC. They have used their veto power sparingly, against the U.S.? Almost never. Europe follows American lead, almost always to a T. The only place where EU and US regularly clash is over economic matters between each other.

    The EU's attempt to suck the Ukraine into its own sphere of influence is a patent example of it attempting to project its own power and making a mess. The European Union was jointly responsible with the US for issuing sanctions against Russia for the Crimean affair.
    US called for sanctions, the EU was nowhere near as enthusiastic. Especially Germany and France, who had significant economic interests with Russia which greatly outweighed any debacle in Ukraine. Ukraine was a mess that the EU quickly noped out of and would've remained out of it if they weren't dragged back in by Americans. Americans who also decided that Georgia was not worth dying over, never saw any European efforts there either. Just as I hear crickets regarding EU-Ukraine cooperation or any NATO-Ukraine cooperation. Only America persists in supporting the Ukrainian effort.

    No it doesn't. It hinges on the notion that mainstream European politicians view Russia as being a threat to Europe irrespective of the US's position. That's why so many of them rushed to condemn Trump when he suggested that he was willing to consider a rapprochement with Russia.
    Political rhetoric which is ignorant of economic reality. Russia is such a great threat to Europe that they've continued limited arms trade and a great deal of normal trade after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Just as EU has continued to engaged in large amounts of trade with Russia after Crimea was annexed. For someone who constitutes the greatest threat to Europe, they are more than happy to do business with them and they have shown little sign of that ending any time soon.

    This is only relevant if you imagine that the major European powers were willing, let alone able, to co-operate with one another in a military crisis involving Russia.
    Probably not, but not because they lack resources. Long-term dependence on US as their security guarantor has erased the political will for a unified European army. An era of greater Europe/US rift will most likely see great european integration and a possibility of an EU army. Just as the existence of the EU represents a possibility of a supranational super state.

    The idea that the EU was reluctant to issue sanctions against the Russians is simply false. Of course they were irritated that Russia was meddling in a country that they were attempting to attract toward their own union.p
    Tell that to France. Or Germany. Or the great number of people who benefited from trade with Russia.

    Mainstream politicians in Europe attempting to vilify Russia for electoral purposes serves the same purpose as it does in the US.
    This doesn't address the point. The level of interference from Russia in Europe is on a much smaller scale than their interference in America. And as said before, it certainly wasn't France who pushed for sanctions on Russia. The sanctions on Russia are not a European consensus as there are a great deal of economic interests between the two regions.

    This is such a ridiculous analysis of European politics that I don't even know where to begin. It's almost as if you imagine that the European Union isn't wealthier than the US; that it doesn't already pursue its own economic and geopolitical interests (including its own customs union); that said interests don't often naturally intersect with those of the US anyway; that it doesn't view Russia as a rival for regional influence.
    Not at all. Europe would be selling weapons to Russia and China if not for USA. Europe would've been trading with Iran. European weapons would've possibly found their way into Arab armies that are geopolitical enemies of the Saudis or Israel. Moreover, Russian-EU economic integration would most likely be much larger than it currently is and as a result, the chance of war much smaller. Arguably the EU and NATO would've been smaller if America pulled out of Europe's affairs post Soviet collapse. The fact is that America has an enormous amount of influence over European economic and international affairs. It de-facto controls their foreign policy especially on the topic of Russia and Middle East.

    Whether the British response will be meaningful is irrelevant to whether or not mainstream European politicians have reasons to oppose Moscow which don't include aimlessly pandering to the USA.
    Don't see why they'd necessarily pander.

    Most former Soviet states in Europe are already in the European Union. I don't know why you think the European Union arming Poland, Romania or Latvia would somehow destroy Putin.
    Nothing is stopping EU from arming Ukraine, Central Asia, Chechens, or any number of Russian neighbors if they were interested in destroying Russia or making her life much more difficult.

    I've answered this point on multiple occasions: the EU cannot adopt a concrete. stable, military strategy so long as national governments commandeer all of the assets - national governments which could simply refuse to deploy said assets if they chose. And the EU cannot simply force these national governments to cede military control to them, even though they'd very much like to. The mere suggestion that the EU should assume operational control over all European military assets was fiercely opposed by the union's most powerful military member, the United Kingdom.
    This response is unrelated to the actual point made. If European nations were actually interested in destroying Putin's regime and reducing his threat to Europe, they would be arming his neighbors and stoking separatist elements inside the country. They don't. Because they don't actually believe Putin is a threat to their existence. The only ones who have reasonable cause to be worried are border nations like Balkans and Nordics.



    1. Poland isn't in the Eurozone.
    2. The EU's complaints about Hungary, Poland, the United Kingdom, Greece and everyone else, demonstrate how the member states cannot be relied upon to cooperate during times of a crisis.
    3. The decision to cede national control over local currencies has proven to be at worst disastrous and at best indifferent for virtually every state in the Eurozone with the exception of Germany.
    4. The choice to surrender certain national rights isn't an argument for surrendering them all.
    I was referencing Europe invoking Article 7.

    It's a bad idea if you value your own national sovereignty. The choice between ceding absolute national control to the European Union, or accepting the US's military assistance isn't a difficult decision to make.
    I disagree. There is a debate to be had on that topic.

  6. #246

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Europeans being in a massive collision course with countries like Russia and China due to their affiliation with United States is not a safe course.
    The established powers within Western Europe are not sufficiently aligned with one another on military matters to allow for the possibility of discarding the US alliance.

    This is a good point but it does not answer the question. Realistically, Iraq's possession of WMDs were not a threat to European interests, or UK's interests or Polish interests.
    The question was answered properly.

    1. "Europe" did not go to war with Iraq in 2003. The United Kingdom and Poland alone are not Europe.

    2. A rogue state in the Middle East with nuclear capabilities would self-evidently pose a risk to the security of Europe.

    3. Accusations that the Blair government was blindly aligned to the Bush administration does not provide a basis for accusing the whole of Europe of the same incompetence. The Anglo-American relationship is historically unique for a variety of reasons which are inapplicable to continental Europe.

    The ultimate question is this. Would UK or Poland invade Iraq without US? The answer is no. They neither have the capability nor does Iraq constitute an existential threat to anybody in Europe. Europe definitely follows American lead.
    Idle speculation. It is unknowable whether or not the United Kingdom would have unilaterally invaded Iraq had they possessed the military capabilities to do so - not that it's even relevant. The fundamental point is that the Iraq war demonstrates that of the forty or so countries in Europe, only two supported the US's invasion militarily - a fact which completely undermines your position that "Europe definitely follows American lead".

    This is evident by many co-operative actions like the sanctions on Iran, arms control to countries like Russia and China, and co-operation or at least an agreement to not interfere with various military actions around the globe. This represents a de-facto coherent and unitary foreign policy. Simply observing the sale of Mistrals to Egypt is evident of the kind of influence and power that America exerts over EU nations.
    Like-minded liberal democracies co-operate. The horror.

    When has any nation in Europe directly supplied American enemies because of clashing interests?
    Assuming that we aren't including Russia as a European nation, that's going to depend on what timeframe you're referring to.
    A more suitable question would be "when, in the past 25 years, has any militarily powerful European nation had sufficient cause to directly supply an American enemy?"

    There are many areas of conflict between EU and America, yet none of those issues has ever been strong enough to put any single EU nation on a direct collision course with US.
    And may we thank God for it. By what rationale would European states put themselves on a "direct collision course with the US" over international interests, which, according to you, they don't really care about in the first place?

    This is why the Russian tendency to label EU countries and US as a single entity they like to call "the West". Because it is largely true, USA and EU are de-facto a single entity on major international issues.
    Liberal democratic societies, united by history and ideology tend to share views on "major international issues". Shocking.


    They weren't and they're not. Taliban was never a threat to Europe. America was the major antagonist in the Middle East during the Cold War, not Europe.
    Who you believe to be the "major antagonist in the Middle East during the Cold War" is irrelevant. The removal of religious extremists who inspired and perpetrated terrorist attacks globally was and is as much of a European concern as it was an American one.

    I've been aware, in fact it's a frequent point of criticism as I've written numerous post criticizing Western approach to Russia and the danger of ignoring her security concerns. Europe's interests in Ukraine were mainly economic, Russia's and US's interests were geopolitical. This is evident by how quickly EU cooled off Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of Russian involvement in the country. In fact, the only thing sustaining any kind of support for Ukraine are the loans backed by international institutions and American interests, we continue to give them weapons and more promises of support. This is a sharp contrast to Europe, who should be the driving force behind such initiatives. Yet, crickets.
    The Ukraine borders the European Union: it shouldn't be necessary for me to explain how that, combined with the enlargement strategy, renders the region of geopolitical interest to the European Union.

    Spare me. Anybody who talks about human rights and legitimacy is full of it.
    An argument which can be applied to Americans as much as it can be applied to Europeans.

    Europe has no more interests in Syria than China.
    European states have more interests in Syria than the US does: the humanitarian crisis engulfing the Middle East directly impacts Europe. The US is separated by the entire Atlantic.

    Their commitment has all but disappeared after 2016 and strangely, a lot of the talk switched from Assad, whose legitimacy was still recognized, to ISIS, a much less controversial target.
    European political establishments were just as naively excited as the Americans were at the prospect that the Arab Spring might democratize the Near East. They jumped the gun on condemning Assad in an attempt to legitimize their support for pro-democratic forces in the region. Of course they stopped talking about Assad after it became obvious that the democratic revolution had absolutely failed.

    EU and Russia are economically dependent on each other. Russia has repeatedly emphasized that NATO and by its extension, EU enlargement is an existential threat to Russia, not Europe. If EU continues to pursue short-term goals and prioritizing American interests over her own, they will find themselves in a collision course with Russia. Otherwise, the only people Russia is a threat to are her non-NATO members, a US-led alliance.
    The EU enlargement and integration strategy has nothing to do with the United States. Nations joining the European Union do not instantaneously join NATO. Moscow being upset that the European Union is interfering in regions which is believes belong rightfully to its own sphere of influence was entirely predictable, but the European Union cares more about extending its geopolitical influence than it does about trade relations with Russia.

    This idea that that the US is responsible for the ancient divisions and rivalries that exist between the West and the East is nonsense, as is the notion that were the US to remove itself from European affairs these rivalries would simply evaporate. You seem to forget that the last time the US isolated itself from European geopolitical affairs, a certain someone attempted to execute a plan to annihilate Russia only twenty years after his country of birth had caused another catastrophic war by encroaching on Russian interests in the Balkans.

    Sure they can. Just as they have tolerated Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and a large number of other regimes with questionable human rights records. European powers have no interests in Syria or in deposing Assad.
    European states had every interest in the Arab Spring succeeding when they assumed that it would result in the democratization of the Near East. Neither the US or the EU cared about the removal of Assad prior to 2011, but both were eager to thoroughly condemn him when they sensed the possibility of a liberal revolution in Syria.

    After it became apparent that not only that the rebellion had failed, but also that a significant number of the forces opposing Assad were anything other than democratic, it was far too late for mainstream politicians in Europe to turn around and argue that Assad wasn't that bad after all. This being despite the fact that supporting his continued rule would, at this stage, be the Machiavellian thing to do.

    Their involvement in Syria backfired when millions of refugees flooded into their continent. The response to the refugee crisis only exacerbated their issues, aided in no small part by Russian involvement in promoting their fears and funding of far-right parties.
    This seems to be a concession that Russia has interests in destabilizing Western Europe. In which case, it also a concession that European leaders have a reason to oppose the Kremlin's foreign policies.

    I am no denying that European powers have their own interests, which are almost always secondary to America's. There are two EU powers on the UNSC. They have used their veto power sparingly, against the U.S.? Almost never. Europe follows American lead, almost always to a T. The only place where EU and US regularly clash is over economic matters between each other.
    I don't even know why you'd expect political establishments cut from the same cloth to wildly diverge from one another on matters relating to foreign policy. Your argument seems to be that because the United Kingdom, Germany and France don't openly oppose the US as though it were 1776, 1812 or 1941, this is somehow evidence that European leaders follow the US around like children.

    What exactly do you expect them to do? Begin the process of unpicking 70 years of fruitful cooperation by arbitrarily selling weapons to Iran or North Korea? You keep telling me how European nations have "no interests" anywhere outside of Europe, so why should they "clash" with the US at all?

    US called for sanctions, the EU was nowhere near as enthusiastic. Especially Germany and France, who had significant economic interests with Russia which greatly outweighed any debacle in Ukraine. Ukraine was a mess that the EU quickly noped out of and would've remained out of it if they weren't dragged back in by Americans. Americans who also decided that Georgia was not worth dying over, never saw any European efforts there either. Just as I hear crickets regarding EU-Ukraine cooperation or any NATO-Ukraine cooperation. Only America persists in supporting the Ukrainian effort.
    "The European Union has strongly condemned Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and does not recognise it. In the absence of de-escalatory steps by the Russian Federation, on 17 March 2014 the EU imposed the first travel bans and asset freezes against persons involved in actions against Ukraine's territorial integrity.

    In view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in eastern Ukraine, the EU imposed economic sanctions in July 2014 and reinforced them in September 2014. In March 2015, the European Council linked the duration of those economic restrictions to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements."


    Political rhetoric which is ignorant of economic reality. Russia is such a great threat to Europe that they've continued limited arms trade and a great deal of normal trade after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Just as EU has continued to engaged in large amounts of trade with Russia after Crimea was annexed. For someone who constitutes the greatest threat to Europe, they are more than happy to do business with them and they have shown little sign of that ending any time soon.
    Mainstream European politicians have the capacity to be hypocritical? Colour me surprised. It's almost as if they're just as capable of using Russia as a scapegoat as Washington is.

    Probably not, but not because they lack resources. Long-term dependence on US as their security guarantor has erased the political will for a unified European army.
    Good. Long may the assistance of the US continue.

    An era of greater Europe/US rift will most likely see great european integration and a possibility of an EU army. Just as the existence of the EU represents a possibility of a supranational super state.
    But according to you, Europe has no military interests anywhere and Russia isn't a threat. So what would be the point of an integrated European military?

    Tell that to France. Or Germany. Or the great number of people who benefited from trade with Russia.
    France and Germany agreed to the sanctions. You can write to Merkel and Macron and outline their interests to them if you like: I know you enjoy informing others of their political priorities.

    This doesn't address the point. The level of interference from Russia in Europe is on a much smaller scale than their interference in America.
    Is it? Actually don't answer that. I have no interest in starting another debate about Western liberals blaming their electoral failures on the Russians.

    And as said before, it certainly wasn't France who pushed for sanctions on Russia. The sanctions on Russia are not a European consensus as there are a great deal of economic interests between the two regions.
    The European Council literally agreed to issuing, expanding and then extending sanctions against Russia. Hollande and Merkel both explicitly supported said sanctions: if they hadn't, the Union would never have issued them. Who exactly do you think controls the EU?

    Not at all. Europe would be selling weapons to Russia and China if not for USA. Europe would've been trading with Iran. European weapons would've possibly found their way into Arab armies that are geopolitical enemies of the Saudis or Israel. Moreover, Russian-EU economic integration would most likely be much larger than it currently is and as a result, the chance of war much smaller. Arguably the EU and NATO would've been smaller if America pulled out of Europe's affairs post Soviet collapse. The fact is that America has an enormous amount of influence over European economic and international affairs. It de-facto controls their foreign policy especially on the topic of Russia and Middle East.
    This is conjecture based on counterfactual history. It's not possible to know what would've occurred if the World hadn't aligned itself the way it has done. The European Union didn't even exist when the Soviet Union collapsed. And for the record, EU states do effectively sell weapons to the Chinese by offering them as incomplete components.

    Don't see why they'd necessarily pander.
    You're the one arguing that Europeans unnecessarily pander to US foreign policy interests.

    Nothing is stopping EU from arming Ukraine, Central Asia, Chechens, or any number of Russian neighbors if they were interested in destroying Russia or making her life much more difficult.

    This response is unrelated to the actual point made. If European nations were actually interested in destroying Putin's regime and reducing his threat to Europe, they would be arming his neighbors and stoking separatist elements inside the country.
    I didn't say that European nations were interested in "destroying" Putin's regime militarily - even by proxy. Not that supplying poor regions in Central Asia with weapons they couldn't afford would somehow "destroy Putin's regime" anyway.

    They don't. Because they don't actually believe Putin is a threat to their existence.
    Non-sequitur.

    > "The European Union doesn't supply Chechen and Islamist separatists with arms therefore they must have no legitimate or genuine interest in opposing certain elements of the Russian regime."

    The only ones who have reasonable cause to be worried are border nations like Balkans and Nordics.
    The Nordic, Baltic and Balkan states are all in Europe: most of them are already inside the European Union. They would be part of your hypothetical European military coalition that would replace NATO. It is therefore a statement of the obvious to argue that Moscow threatening these European "border nations" would necessarily involve it threatening the other members of the alliance/union. Every member of the alliance would be obliged to respond to a military crisis.

    In other words, you'd be replacing NATO with a poorer version of NATO.

    I was referencing Europe invoking Article 7.
    An invocation which demonstrates "how the member states cannot be relied upon to cooperate".

    I disagree. There is a debate to be had on that topic.#
    It's easy to disagree when a) it isn't your own national sovereignty being offered up and b) your only motivation for wanting an integrated European military is that you disagree with the US's policy toward Russia.



  7. #247

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    European involvement in recent American interventionism does not reflect an independent interest in overthrowing anti-American regimes in the countries America invaded. It reflects an interest in preserving a spirit of friendship between Europe and America, just as Eastern European support for the Iraq War does not reflect genuine significant geopolitical interests, they represent the wish of Eastern European governments to demonstrate their willingness to commit to pull their weight in any NATO or American initiative, a symbolic gesture meant to erase any doubts of their governments' allegiance to Western ideals rather than Russia. Your acknowledgement that European politicians are capable of hypocrisy seems to be strange considering your argument. I'm arguing that it is precisely the dishonesty of European Gov. rhetoric that masks their true intentions, not a genuine drive to spread Western values across the world and depose dictatorial regimes, but to demonstrate their allegiance to the United States.

    In the same vein, European interests in Ukraine are not driven by any significant geopolitical interests, but instead emboldened by American security guarantees which protect them from Russian retaliation as well as their intent to continually reinforce the European-American alliance by pursuing an anti-Russian agenda. It is important to remember that Western European countries are not particularly threatened by Russians, they simply aren't. There is no direct military or otherwise threat to them from Russia.

    On how to reconcile the interest of European countries that are Russian neighbors, and to satisfy the interests of countries further into the European core, they are done within the EU arena. NATO is the security guarantor of these border nations and the EU is the economic glue that holds the entire bloc united. Significant sovereignty is already surrendered by these "periphery" nations as their independence is guaranteed not by their own capability, but by the security guarantees of NATO. They are de-facto reliant on European co-operation anyway, so giving up further sovereignty in favor of a united European armed force it not a far-fetched idea. Just as the idea of becoming an independent political actor completely separate from the United States would be an action of gaining significant sovereignty back from the United States that they have otherwise surrendered. So sure, the argument of coinciding interests, rather than American hegemony can be made, but in practice it doesn't hold up. European are bound by American rules on where they can go and where they can't, on who they can work with and who they can't. As I've stated repeatedly before, there are significant economic interests between Russia and Europe that can overcome historical adversity and come to a compromise that satisfied everyone but the Americans.

    Now none of this is an excuse that Russia is somehow not a belligerent actor, I didn't really see you suggest as such, but I feel I need to type this out considering my history on this Forum and my on-going defense of Russian actions. As I've stated before, they are an aggressive defensive power rather than an expansionist one. There is an agreement to be made between Europe and Russia on the European security situation that will leave countries like Ukraine, Belarus, etc with limited independence. That's unfortunately the price everyone pays for security.

  8. #248

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    European involvement in recent American interventionism does not reflect an independent interest in overthrowing anti-American regimes in the countries America invaded. It reflects an interest in preserving a spirit of friendship between Europe and America, just as Eastern European support for the Iraq War does not reflect genuine significant geopolitical interests, they represent the wish of Eastern European governments to demonstrate their willingness to commit to pull their weight in any NATO or American initiative, a symbolic gesture meant to erase any doubts of their governments' allegiance to Western ideals rather than Russia.
    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified by the US, UK and Poland on the basis that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly violated international and humanitarian law and that it posed a threat to the regional stability of the Middle East. Both the Bush and Blair administrations argued that Hussein had a history of participating in aggressive actions against neighbouring states, of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of contravening the Genocide Convention, of sheltering international criminals (including terrorists), of abusing and exploiting the Oil-for-Food programme, of infringing upon humanitarian regulations through the use torture and summary executions, and of repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions.

    Invoking a phrase as self-evidently ambiguous as "anti-American" to define the Iraqi regime (or any other regime which has received negative international attention) contributes very little to the conversation. More importantly, it offers no credibility to the assertion that "American interventionism does not reflect an independent interest" on the part of European states in the removal of despotic or radical authorities.

    European governments have differing geopolitical interests and priorities at any given time: it is not possible to homogenize their concerns or understandings of international affairs, as is plainly evidenced by the absence of Franco-German military involvement in the Iraq war. During the 90's and early '00's, Westminster clearly felt it was obliged to uphold the authority of international law and humanitarian principles and to secure the stability of various conflict areas worldwide. This was certainly the rationale which lead to the relatively independent involvement of the British in Sierra Leone and to NATO's intercession into the Yugoslav wars.

    I'm arguing that it is precisely the dishonesty of European Gov. rhetoric that masks their true intentions, not a genuine drive to spread Western values across the world and depose dictatorial regimes, but to demonstrate their allegiance to the United States.
    European leaders having the capacity to be hypocritical does not give you the intellectual licence to accuse them, without presenting evidence, of lying about their geopolitical interests in order to appease the US. You've clearly never studied the Blair government (or British history) if you don't believe that it was hubristic enough to view its foreign policy objectives through the lens of international peacekeeping and the democratization of the Middle East.

    In the same vein, European interests in Ukraine are not driven by any significant geopolitical interests...
    I have attempted to explain European geopolitical interests in the Ukraine on multiple occasions: simply reasserting the same proposition without answering the offered criticisms doesn't validate the claim. Notwithstanding, even were I to accept the allegation that the EU's response to the annexation of Crimea was singularly designed to strengthen its relations with the US (as you'll attempt to explain below), that in itself would still constitute a form of geopolitical manoeuvring.

    ...but instead emboldened by American security guarantees which protect them from Russian retaliation as well as their intent to continually reinforce the European-American alliance by pursuing an anti-Russian agenda. It is important to remember that Western European countries are not particularly threatened by Russians, they simply aren't. There is no direct military or otherwise threat to them from Russia. On how to reconcile the interest of European countries that are Russian neighbors, and to satisfy the interests of countries further into the European core, they are done within the EU arena.
    You are here either contradicting yourself or reiterating a previously addressed argument. The claim that "there is no direct military threat to them [Europeans] from Russia" ostensibly invalidates the preceding assertion that "American security guarantees protect them [Europeans] from Russian retaliation".

    The only way these statements could be viewed as non-contradictory is if they were taken as a reiteration of your prior position that the only European states which have cause to be militarily threatened by Russia are those which border it. This is a point which has already been refuted. The mechanisms which support international alliances oblige all parties to intercede on behalf of any single member in the event of a military crisis (see 1914 for more details on this). An alliance which has failed to lay such defensive provisions is effectively inconsequential. It is therefore a statement of the obvious to argue that any military action perpetrated by Russia against a state within the EU would almost certainly necessitate a military response from the Western powers. Such an intervention would risk placing nuclear states in open conflict with one another - an eventuality which constitutes a clear threat to the whole of Europe.

    NATO is the security guarantor of these border nations and the EU is the economic glue that holds the entire bloc united.
    Apparently you haven't been paying attention to European economics post 2010.

    Significant sovereignty is already surrendered by these "periphery" nations as their independence is guaranteed not by their own capability, but by the security guarantees of NATO. They are de-facto reliant on European co-operation anyway, so giving up further sovereignty in favor of a united European armed force it not a far-fetched idea. Just as the idea of becoming an independent political actor completely separate from the United States would be an action of gaining significant sovereignty back from the United States that they have otherwise surrendered.
    The delegation of certain responsibilities to international organizations is not necessarily synonymous with an abnegation of sovereignty. EU member states being militarily aligned with the US is not tantamount to a relinquishment of sovereignty so long as the operational management over military assets remains within the control of national governments. By contrast, such operational management being ceded to an integrated EU command would constitute a relinquishment of sovereignty.

    So sure, the argument of coinciding interests, rather than American hegemony can be made, but in practice it doesn't hold up. European are bound by American rules on where they can go and where they can't, on who they can work with and who they can't. As I've stated repeatedly before, there are significant economic interests between Russia and Europe that can overcome historical adversity and come to a compromise that satisfied everyone but the Americans.
    I cannot think of a single foreign policy interest of an EU member state which would justify the de-facto abandonment of military cooperation with the US. It's not even as if any European state is even obliged to support US foreign interventions militarily (more than half of them couldn't meaningfully do so anyway).

    The maintenance of the US alliance is far more politically and economically consequential than any financial benefit that could be acquired via improved trading relations with Russia. Why else do you imagine that European politicians and officials reacted with horror at the prospect that Trump might abandon the US's NATO commitments? Without the overwhelming military dominance offered courtesy of US taxpayers, EU member states would come under extraordinary pressure to increase their military expenditures, particularly now that the UK is out of the loop. I can't imagine that the German electorate would be too happy about that.

    Moreover, even were I to accept the premise that the US "forced" the EU into choosing between continued American military support and trade arrangements with Moscow (which I don't), there remains a significant likelihood that relations with Russia may improve, if not resolve themselves entirely within the near to mid-term. In which case, any disassociation with the US alliance would have been pointless.

    Now none of this is an excuse that Russia is somehow not a belligerent actor, I didn't really see you suggest as such, but I feel I need to type this out considering my history on this Forum and my on-going defense of Russian actions. As I've stated before, they are an aggressive defensive power rather than an expansionist one. There is an agreement to be made between Europe and Russia on the European security situation that will leave countries like Ukraine, Belarus, etc with limited independence. That's unfortunately the price everyone pays for security.
    What I find most curious is that your position does not fall within the typical parameters of "Westernized" discussions relating to Russia. Where Europhiles will attempt to exaggerate the Russian threat in order to justify further EU integration you have understated the Kremlin's military capabilities for the same reason. Where the populist right rejects hawkish attitudes toward Russia but favours nationalism, euroscepticism and the minimization of the influence of international organizations, you have agreed with the former but disregarded the latter. This inexorably leads me to believe that your motivation in opposing Washington's view of Russia is derived from some other affinity.

    Nevertheless, and whatever the case may be, it remains hypocritical of you to expect European states to undermine US foreign policy by upending their traditional security arrangements when you've spent the past 14 months berating the US electorate for rejecting the patently "Russophobic" Hillary Clinton.
    Last edited by Cope; March 24, 2018 at 01:31 PM.



  9. #249
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,351

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    European involvement in recent American interventionism does not reflect an independent interest in overthrowing anti-American regimes in the countries America invaded. It reflects an interest in preserving a spirit of friendship between Europe and America, just as Eastern European support for the Iraq War does not reflect genuine significant geopolitical interests, they represent the wish of Eastern European governments to demonstrate their willingness to commit to pull their weight in any NATO or American initiative, a symbolic gesture meant to erase any doubts of their governments' allegiance to Western ideals rather than Russia.
    Not even in the slightest. For one there was no Eastern European nations are part of Nato. Ukraine might be the first one to join. Secondly all Central European nations, who joined the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did so on the promise of massive economic opportunities in rebuilding said countries and 1 trillion dollars investments by the American government in rebuilding the defense forces. This is especially true in the case of Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  10. #250
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    Not even in the slightest. For one there was no Eastern European nations are part of Nato. Ukraine might be the first one to join. Secondly all Central European nations, who joined the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did so on the promise of massive economic opportunities in rebuilding said countries and 1 trillion dollars investments by the American government in rebuilding the defense forces. This is especially true in the case of Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
    I guess it may depend on where Eastern Europe starts by definition, but I would think there is quite a bit of the eastern idea beginning with Turkey and Greece. From wiki:

    In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organization, amid much debate within the organization and Russian opposition. Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

    In keeping with the spirit of the anti-globalist theme of this thread -- Perhaps the anti-globalist would prefer that NATO stayed with their original member states.

  11. #251

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    On the topic of the Iraq War, I think my accusation that citing violations of humanitarian and international law does not serve as an adequate motivation or it serves as a phony pretext for supporting an invasion of another sovereign country is sound. Such accusations have been cited many times in many different conflicts and are more often than not, convenient pretext that obscure the true motivations behind any aggressive action. Therefore, the onus of proving that there is an "independent interest" that's detached from American foreign policy is on you rather than on me, as your citations of humanitarian and international violations does not constitute a substantial enough motivation for committing troops to the war effort. As I've said before, such motivations generally operate under liberal IR theory. Under realist and neo-realist theory which I subscribe to, such motivations are almost always pretext and not the real reason for war. The real reason Poland and UK participated in Iraq, and the rest of Europe under ISAF in the Afghanistan occupation is primarily due to their wish to strengthen and promote their security ties with America. In my opinion anyway.

    On the aforementioned interventions in Sierra Leona and Yugoslavia. While you bring up a valuable point often neglected, including by myself, there are several ways to interpret these actions. Under a liberal perspective these are indeed motivated mainly by a humanitarian reasons. Under a realist perspective, i.e. mine, this is an attempt by NATO and US to establish legitimacy to peaceful hegemony. Moreover, the situation in Yugoslavia can be explained just as well by NATO's concern for the security of Europe as the numerous conflicts there threaten to spill over deeper into Europe, something nobody wants. So while these conflicts can indeed be used to reinforce a liberal's argument that these conflicts were motivate primarily for humanitarian reasons, I would argue that these are always secondary concerns. There have been numerous issues and global concerns that United States didn't touch, Europe's inaction on many of these issues reflect an inconsistency of liberal IR theory.

    Yes, individual European countries do indeed have their own geopolitical agenda and often agendas that clash with each other. However, the suggestion that these interests cannot be homogenized or aggregated into a cohesive framework is misleading. Especially since the expansion of supranational organizations and agencies have coordinated and established a system of rules by which most European countries operate. The absence of French and Germans in the Iraq War does not signify a separation from the political bloc colloquially called "The West", despite the extreme level of unpopularity of the Iraq War, neither country exerted their resources to prevent the war or directly oppose the nations involved. Why? Because despite their disagreements these countries want to maintain the alliance and a network of cooperation with the rest of Europe and the United States.

    European leaders having the capacity to be hypocritical does not give you the intellectual licence to accuse them, without presenting evidence, of lying about their geopolitical interests in order to appease the US. You've clearly never studied the Blair government (or British history) if you don't believe that it was hubristic enough to view its foreign policy objectives through the lens of international peacekeeping and the democratization of the Middle East.
    I'll remind you that one does need an intellectual license to do anything. In that regard, none of us have the credibility or the "permission" to criticize anything or anyone under our current aliases on this Forum. Regardless, the nature of these accusations means we focus not on the words uttered political establishment (the cleverer of which rarely say anything contradictory), but on the actions of their regimes. The actions of Europe as a whole reflect a deep interest in preserving and even expanding European-American ties and hegemony from which they all benefit. Even ignoring the extensive history of the Cold War, the last 30 years reflect that as NATO, EU, and associated political instruments expand, all of the nations under such umbrellas tend to coalesce their geopolitical interests. This makes sense, as economic and security integration means greater interdependence. Greater interdependence means the most influential players exert a significant amount of influence over the smaller players. This can be directly observed in the ongoing series of Euro crises. Where all political establishments want economic prosperity and EU membership (with a notable exception), yet are conflicted on the policy with understandable reasons.

    Similarly, European and American interests coincide on global security and closer European-American ties. Yet, that does not mean that Europe necessarily shares the same opinions on how to achieve that goal, especially when American belligerence toward Russia threatens significant economic interests in powerful EU and NATO members like Germany, France and Britain. Having an independent and united European bloc will allow Europe to cooperate with America but with greater geopolitical leverage where they can protect their own interests that may clash with America's. Or, in the case of the Iraq War, directly threaten military opposition if USA invades. A partnership rather than a hierarchy.

    I have attempted to explain European geopolitical interests in the Ukraine on multiple occasions: simply reasserting the same proposition without answering the offered criticisms doesn't validate the claim. Notwithstanding, even were I to accept the allegation that the EU's response to the annexation of Crimea was singularly designed to strengthen its relations with the US (as you'll attempt to explain below), that in itself would still constitute a form of geopolitical maneuvering.
    It would, but it lends credence that European foreign policy is driven mainly by American interests rather then her own. Strengthening American ties over its direct goals would prove that point. Moreover, the economic and political development between the two countries pre-Ukraine was significant. There was increasing economic activity and trade between the two regions and despite tit-for-tat policy as well as numerous confrontations over conflicting zones of interest, EU was careful not to encroach on Russia's turf. Russian pressure on Eastern European countries and European Eastern Partnership. Russia's reaction to the situation in Ukraine did not come as a surprise to most realist minded analysts. Europe's inaction on the matter and quiet acceptance of the situation reflects that they neither had significant interests in Ukraine, and that they were aware of the danger this event posed to their relationship with Russia. As is evident by Merkel's immediate wish to talk to Russia in regards to the situation. On the other hand, US's quick maneuvering in this matter is revealing, they wasted no time in capitalizing on the situation to advance their own interests knowing they would've had European support (and they did as events unfolded) regardless of whether individual European interests coincided with aggravating Russia or not.

    This is clearly reflective of how dominant USA is in European affairs.

    You are here either contradicting yourself or reiterating a previously addressed argument. The claim that "there is no direct military threat to them [Europeans] from Russia" ostensibly invalidates the preceding assertion that "American security guarantees protect them [Europeans] from Russian retaliation".

    The only way these statements could be viewed as non-contradictory is if they were taken as a reiteration of your prior position that the only European states which have cause to be militarily threatened by Russia are those which border it. This is a point which has already been refuted. The mechanisms which support international alliances oblige all parties to intercede on behalf of any single member in the event of a military crisis (see 1914 for more details on this). An alliance which has failed to lay such defensive provisions is effectively inconsequential. It is therefore a statement of the obvious to argue that any military action perpetrated by Russia against a state within the EU would almost certainly necessitate a military response from the Western powers. Such an intervention would risk placing nuclear states in open conflict with one another - an eventuality which constitutes a clear threat to the whole of Europe.
    Your mistake is in thinking that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. European militaries, collectively, outspend and outgun Russia by a significant margin. A united European army would be more than capable of defending herself against Russian aggression. American security guarantees regarding Europe are an icing on the cake but are not necessary. Especially not if Europe had the political will to take their security into their own hands.

    Apparently you haven't been paying attention to European economics post 2010.
    EU and associated agreements remain to be the economic glue that hold Europe's economy together. That hasn't changed.

    The delegation of certain responsibilities to international organizations is not necessarily synonymous with an abnegation of sovereignty. EU member states being militarily aligned with the US is not tantamount to a relinquishment of sovereignty so long as the operational management over military assets remains within the control of national governments. By contrast, such operational management being ceded to an integrated EU command would constitute a relinquishment of sovereignty.

    I cannot think of a single foreign policy interest of an EU member state which would justify the de-facto abandonment of military cooperation with the US. It's not even as if any European state is even obliged to support US foreign interventions militarily (more than half of them couldn't meaningfully do so anyway).

    The maintenance of the US alliance is far more politically and economically consequential than any financial benefit that could be acquired via improved trading relations with Russia. Why else do you imagine that European politicians and officials reacted with horror at the prospect that Trump might abandon the US's NATO commitments? Without the overwhelming military dominance offered courtesy of US taxpayers, EU member states would come under extraordinary pressure to increase their military expenditures, particularly now that the UK is out of the loop. I can't imagine that the German electorate would be too happy about that.

    Moreover, even were I to accept the premise that the US "forced" the EU into choosing between continued American military support and trade arrangements with Moscow (which I don't), there remains a significant likelihood that relations with Russia may improve, if not resolve themselves entirely within the near to mid-term. In which case, any disassociation with the US alliance would have been pointless.
    Giving up a significant portion of your defense responsibilities to another actor is giving up significant parts of your sovereignty as the entity now holds significant leverage over your country. Whether that leverage is actually exercised is irrelevant, USA can at any moment threaten to abandon its NATO commitments to Eastern Europe for whatever reason. Obviously this is a fantastical situation but the fact that it's perfectly capable of doing so. Just as the rest of NATO can threaten to abandon Eastern Europe as well. In effect, Eastern Europe is already reliant on NATO and EU. In fact, this can serve as a point of further leverage against Poland.

    I also do not deny that cooperation with USA has been fruitful for European nations. However, strengthening of inter-European ties and realigning of the European-American partnership does not mean giving up this economic cooperation. In addition to that, if we were to assume that such relationships are based on economic benefits alone, a hypothetical Chinese-Russian alliance would offer twice as much trade as America currently does. So if Europe had to choose on that criteria alone, it would choose to break with USA.

    I'm also not suggesting that USA forces Europe to do anything. What I am suggesting, is that USA exerts a tremendous amount of influence on European governments due to historical, security, and economic factors. It's quite possible to maintain security and economic ties while becoming more independent of US influence, who's adventures are not always a net positive for Europe.

    What I find most curious is that your position does not fall within the typical parameters of "Westernized" discussions relating to Russia. Where Europhiles will attempt to exaggerate the Russian threat in order to justify further EU integration you have understated the Kremlin's military capabilities for the same reason. Where the populist right rejects hawkish attitudes toward Russia but favours nationalism, euroscepticism and the minimization of the influence of international organizations, you have agreed with the former but disregarded the latter. This inexorably leads me to believe that your motivation in opposing Washington's view of Russia is derived from some other affinity.

    Nevertheless, and whatever the case may be, it remains hypocritical of you to expect European states to undermine US foreign policy by upending their traditional security arrangements when you've spent the past 14 months berating the US electorate for rejecting the patently "Russophobic" Hillary Clinton.
    Hawkish American stances towards Russia is understandable considering the security of our geopolitical position and relative insulation from any type of armed conflict. This is not the case for Europe who's security situation is much more precarious than USA's. I oppose Washington's embrace of anti-Russian policies simply due to one reason, the rise of China. The reality is that Russia is a significant regional power who can be largely neutralized through clever statecraft. Current belligerent tactics that seeks to directly attack Russia via economic means and challenging them across the globe, serve only to push them towards China which directly strengthens China. This relationship is due to Washington's policy and not a natural progression, as there are very significant geopolitical conflicts between China and Russia. It is possible to neutralize Russia while maintaining peace and security in Europe. This would isolate China who has benefited a great deal from an alliance with Russia. The current strategy my country has followed for the last 20 years has only served to increase the number of our enemies and decrease our standing in the world. While there have been successes in foreign policy and not all of these setbacks are entirely the fault of American policy makers, the situation is largely of our own making and has shown very few signs of reversing its course. Especially when we consider recent events.

    In terms of why Europe should follow a conciliatory strategy with Russia and seek to strengthen inter-European ties, is simply because they need to maintain peace in Europe and conflict abroad. Russia has repeatedly shown that their willingness to resort to force is far higher than Europe's and their foreign policy is far more flexible. Europe would also care little for what happens out in the Pacific, their more immediate neighborhood is in Africa and Middle East. Thus, following American interests would do little for them. Having the ability to be responsible for their own security means they can pursue foreign policy in direct opposition to America's and this does not mean that they would cut ties economically. Just look at Russia's current trade with EU which is still significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    Not even in the slightest. For one there was no Eastern European nations are part of Nato. Ukraine might be the first one to join. Secondly all Central European nations, who joined the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did so on the promise of massive economic opportunities in rebuilding said countries and 1 trillion dollars investments by the American government in rebuilding the defense forces. This is especially true in the case of Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
    I doubt these were primary motivations. It is precisely because they weren't NATO members that they were motivate to support American efforts and join them in Afghanistan. As a sign of their willingness to join NATO and support American interests. I've read about Polish investments in Iraq, and it makes sense that they would join Iraq as revenge against Hussein. Their participation had very little risk of turning out badly. And again, this is almost immediately after the Cold War and Russia's campaign in Chechnya. It makes sense.

  12. #252
    Geronimo2006's Avatar TAR Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,405

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Coming from a small country, while I am sceptical of aspects of globalism I don't really see it as an option to reject it completely as small countries that are prosperous tend to be export or financial-service intensive. Its good for expediting extraditions of fugitives e.g. European Arrest Warrant, and for setting groundlines to allow us to trade. I support the European Court of Justice as it can enforce these rules. But I am sceptical of open borders between developing and developed countries due to experience in some western countries of labour exploitation of migrants. There was a documentary recently in Ireland which explored the practice where bosses are also the landlords of migrant labour. Their wages are docked for this accommodation. The problem is these were slum conditions at their worst e.g. around 13 beds in one room. The building was also structurally unsafe. There is also a problem where non EEA migrant labour has to hand their passport to their employers.

    As someone who is historically interested in how feudalism worked, I see disturbing parallels.
    Last edited by Geronimo2006; April 05, 2018 at 02:13 PM.
    Colonialism 1600AD - 2016 Modding Awards for "Compilations and Overhauls".



    Core i7 2600 @ 3.4ghz - NVIDIA GTX950 2GB

    Colonialism 1600 AD blog

  13. #253

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Do you really think Europe cares about Asia? Or Africa? Or the Middle East? No. Their primary geopolitical enemy is Russia which is purely because of America. EU's foreign policy today is not antagonistic towards Russia, in fact its the exact opposite. Europe benefits handsomely from Russian raw materials, from exporting advanced equipment and products to Russia, from having an aggressive actor that's essentially a giant buffer zone between them and the rest of the world. They are potentially allies of great convenience and in spite of great historical animosity. The only one standing in front of such a relationship is America. The economic benefits to be reaped from Russia and other under developed regions is great. America and Europe are competitors economically as both are highly developed regions that want to export high-tech goods to under developed countries in exchange for raw resources. Moreover, while America is offensive in their foreign policy posturing, Europe wants to be defensive and isolationist to sell to everyone.

    TLR; Europe would economically benefit by becoming an independent actor rather than follow America at the hip.
    Very interesting read. I agree with almost everything, however, Moscow and Washington are utterly addicted to try to make the other trip embarassingly, and it's a set of institutional habits going strong since the 60s at least. Is it really purely US fault then?

    Yes Europe has a lot to win to trade with other less developed countries, in fact that was the strategy we re-adapted in Portugal to survive losing asset value during financial bailout period, we increased our ties to Angola and Mozambique (250.000 pt immigrants there), plus the main shareholder of our energy companies became Three Gorges and indirectly PRC, which brought a lot of Liquidity to the mainland, thus protecting us from a possible 2nd bankrupcy. Also prevented other Western countries from buying our assets at a seriously low discount price, under the threat that "Communist" China would buy even more.
    Much of our unemployed in 2012-2015 went to Mozambique and Angola en mass (inverting the previous tendency). Interesting here was the loss of trust by younth with degrees here, starting to distrust EU, trusting PT-speaking African countries more to build a future and a career.

    I agree there's a potential market with Russia that is untapped but that is because of Geopolitics tension, not because of US itself.

    The main tactic to shame Trump was to repeat to everyone that he was at least in theory interested in being less hostile to Russia (as compared to Obama), for example.
    Trump is claimed as bad because his aim is self-improvement of his country, rather than to kill the Russians.

    So I don't think blaming US for lack of trade with Russia is correct, there are several institutions, some who believe the big challenge is China, and time to cool down on Russia, others believe to revitalize the US they need to demonize Russia as being West's Greatest Enemy.
    On last election, Trump was not the one to demonize Russia, quite the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    As far as Socialism in the United States is concerned. It's not simply a matter of being a fad among civilians. The Democratic party is largely adopting elements of Socialist platforms we see in Europe. The echoes of powerful unions, universal healthcare, minimum wage, comprehensive social safety, and free college have been topics that resurged every few years. This latest cycle has seen every single issue come up again in newspapers, town halls, and political platforms. The word "Communism" and "Socialism" have lost much of their stigma and is no longer a slur it once was.
    Alright I see now that you think in system of ideas rather than quality/speech of politicians in themselves, which explains your positioning in the elections and preference for Democrat.
    You believe with universal healthcare and trade unions you can improve the quality of life of the average US worker. As for free college.. a tad ambitious, I'd say government covering some of public universities costs (as to prevent student loan bubble) should be enough, entirely tax paid college is going too far. Most meritocratic option would be increase amount of Scholarships, which would encourage more students to give their best in highschool.

    However neo-liberalism under Thatcher for example was responsable for destroying many Trade Unions. When neo-liberalism went rampant since the 70s, the power of Trade Unions steeply declined ever since. Being pro-neoliberalism and pro-trade unions at the same is not impossible without making lots of concessions to neo liberal side.

    But honestly, Hillary Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, a big shot neo-liberal player, that pays some lip service to left wing ideas. I can understand Bernie Sanders would give those ideas some serious thought, but with Hillary big firms would first, and some leftist lip service after.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    As far as the military being incredibly right-wing as we can see by their numbers of Trump supporters... well the military has no say in the way the Government is run. Not in practice of course, but their influence is a lot smaller than the influence of a successful healthcare system in Canada.
    I'd say the military are neutral on many civilian issues. They already have their state paid healthcare, which is one of the benefits of joining armed forces, there's plenty opposition to public paid programs due to fear of them being Trojan horses to implement Communism, this is a survival mechanism inherited from Cold War, and to be fair some government programs were not related to USSR, others really were infiltrated by KGB.

    Our #1 trade union party here, PCP (portuguese communist party) for example had their brightest and most active members undertake training in Moscow, and received advisors from there too (during USSR time), and tried for a commie coup in 1975 which was gave up halfways due to lack of numbers and support in armed forces.

    Now you could argue that since Russia is no longer Communist such fears have their paranoia share, but there's still plenty of opponents with adherence to Communistic ideal.. When you are a #1 country, you need a certain vigilance for weak spots that other countries can relax on.
    Last edited by fkizz; April 09, 2018 at 04:24 AM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •