
Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-13/why-europe-is-warning-of-pax-americana-s-end
======
fowlerpower
This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became
clear Trump was about to be elected.

Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe
it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the
vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever
the mind set is, not much has changed.

The US and all of its allies are still allies.

Does anyone really think that if some "real" US interests are messed with that
the United States won't fuck somebody up? I mean it's just a few years ago we
went to war, why all of a sudden are we weak?

Edit: just to clarify "real" interests e.g. a NATO ally is hit, Israel is hit,
Japan is hit, South Korea is hit... any US base or military vehicles, etc...

~~~
knz
> The US and all of its allies are still allies.

This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies
questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" \- it's
potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how
effective our foreign relations are.

The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own
intelligence agencies should give everyone some concern regardless of one's
political leanings.

~~~
coldtea
> _This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many
> allies questioning how reliable the US is._

As compared to the actions of the previous administrations, like bombing in
eastern Europe, invading several countries, and royally fucking up Middle East
etc, while constantly pushing Russia in the corner in cold war like rhetoric
(for doing 1/10 of what they did, and in its actual bordering countries after)
all in the span of 20 years?

~~~
knz
I'm not sure how this relates to US allies questioning the reliability of the
US? Our allies (as a country not necessarily it's population) are usually
involved in the same conflict and support the same worldview towards Russia.

It's been widely reported that allies are increasingly military spending and
reassessing defense strategies after comments/actions by Trump.

~~~
coldtea
> _Our allies (as a country not necessarily it 's population) are usually
> involved in the same conflict and support the same worldview towards
> Russia._

That's because they have been in bed with US interests (as countries, not
necessarily as populations) since the Cold War.

------
wobbleblob
After the round of elections in France and Netherlands this spring, and
Germany this summer, Europe may or may not start disintegrating, depending on
the outcome.

Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day. A correctly timed
scandal or major terrorist attack in the second round may sink her opponent.
Moscow, London and Washington are hard at work with her, to make this happen.
When she, or someone like her, wins in either France or Germany, the EU comes
to an end.

It is very difficult for me to understand what strategic goal the new White
House administration intends to achieve by disintegrating the EU and thereby
pushing parts of it from the American to the Russian sphere of influence, but
I'm sure they have thought this through very carefully.

~~~
jerf
You seem to be operating under the belief that the disintegration of the EU
started three weeks ago or something? It's been an ongoing saga for years. I
mean, Brexit predates Trump, and Brexit itself is the result of years of
pressures.

I can see why you'd be so confused by the "strategy" if you think Trump is
causing it, but he's _reacting_ to it. And my assessment of the situation is
the other way around; there's nothing Trump could do to stop it even if he
wanted to. The explosion is in progress, the very latest I could put the date
for that is the Brexit vote (which, again, is itself a result, not a cause),
and the only question is who can best surf the aftermath.

The EU is falling apart because of issues within the EU, not because somewhere
in the early 2010s the penumbric emanations of the future Trump presidency
reached back in time and started whispering in politician's ears.

~~~
bad_user
The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-
intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by
the great depression and a precursor to WWII.

It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by
allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option
of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming
immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to
stay in their own countries?

~~~
bad_user
I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably
_automation_ and not immigrants.

Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what
you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's
like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high
end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs,
or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower
the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc.

Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing
economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get
automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending
their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries.

You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country
from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the
extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired
which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
You get automation either way - immigration only buys you ten or so years
before the costs fall below even immigrant wages, after which you're left with
unemployed immigrants.

And lets not pretend the availability of cheap labour has nothing to do with
jobs being low-end.

Medical doctors sure is a funny example to give however - the USA has a lot of
immigrants - how well has that worked in keeping healthcare affordable?

~~~
Elrac
Immigration is keeping health care affordable in Germany and probably a bunch
of other European countries. Until the Brexit, cheap foreign labor helped keep
prices low in the UK.

The USA don't have a problem with immigrants - they have a problem with the
runaway corruption of their political leaders. Corporate lobbyists get to
write laws for representatives to rubber stamp. The reason the same drugs cost
5x more in the US than in Canada has nothing to do with immigrants.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
I'd love some statistics on this - what is the proportion of immigrants who
are doctors, and how does that compare to the native population (for Germany,
the U.K., etc..)? How does it depend on the immigrant's country of origin?
And, if the goal is to reduce medical costs - why not accept only doctors?

~~~
Elrac
I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the
reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected.

First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the
iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in
law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners
- a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in
health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that
completely dwarf just that for doctors.

Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates
specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified
refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be
deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane.

Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and
some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required
to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten
it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies
in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of
populations.

The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out
before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they
can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their
immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
Fleeing from countries such as Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia,
Croatia, and Slovenia? And pretending there are only two options - let them
stay forever, or gun them down at the border, is dishonest at best. We ship
food half way around the world, there's no reason wealthy countries can't fund
refugee camps and in general help and give aid to countries that accept
refugees. This would also reduce the number of tragic drownings in the
Mediterranean. But I don't see it suggested much as an option in the media...

And, are you saying the stance of governments to their people is "We need more
workers - breed faster, or we'll import someone who will"? Britons are now an
ethnic minority in London, but only racists would be bothered by the same
taking place in their countries, I guess.

~~~
Elrac
First of all, governments are for the most part able to differentiate between
refugees and economically driven immigrants - the main influx of refugees in
Germany and other European countries these days is from Syria, and it's not
easy for Croats, say, or Slovenes to pass themselves off as Syrians. So
unsurprisingly enough, we're not seeing a huge influx of Eastern Europeans -
partly thanks to sensible limits on immigration.

Turks, Greeks and (though you didn't mention them) Italians are another
matter: The industries of Germany (and other countries) practically begged
people from these countries to come to Western Europe and augment labor pools
here. The first deals were for short-term working arragements; later it was
decided that there were good humanitarian and societal reasons to let these
people emigrate and stay. The city I live in has a complement of about 10%
(ethnic) Turks plus a colorful mixture of other origins. My dentist is a Turk!

Your idea of shipping aid to where it's needed is poorly considered, as
another commenter has explained nearby. Syria, for example, continues to be a
slaughterhouse, and its broken infrastructure can't feed and house people in
bales of money.

No, it's not governments blackmailing their public to breed faster - the
compulsion to maintain population figures is a purely social thing, no
coercion needed. Former immigrants from Turkey and elsewhere will be working
to pay part of my pension. You, meanwhile, are considering immigration as a
threat. I have to tell you, your concern about "ethnic minorities" in London
really is troubling. When people from other countries emigrate to England,
they become British, and then only racists are concerned that those British
people or their parents were formerly residents of a different country. Do I
need to remind you that the USA is populated almost exclusively by emigrants
from other countries? Oh wait, most of those were white, so that makes it...
different? Conclude what you will.

~~~
germanier
There are no limits on immigration for people from Croatia or Slovenia in the
EU. They could move over here to Germany tomorrow and immediately start
working. They can't immediately apply for welfare though.

Syrians are not the only significant refugee group, there is also Afghanistan
and Iran in the top 3. Together they currently make up about a third of all
applications for asylum in Germany according to BAMF.

------
mark_l_watson
While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US
from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military
industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government.
We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined.

As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The
reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a
multi-polar world.

~~~
spinchange
>The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts
to a multi-polar world.

As a fellow taxpayer, I just want to point out that another way to look at ROI
on our military industrial complex is global stability safe for commerce which
leads to things like being the world's reserve currency, having our debt
viewed as the safest global asset class, etc. It strikes me as foolhardy to
want to give this up, even if nothing lasts forever.

Edit/addition/afterthought: There are other ways to pare back military (and
all special interest) spending and influence- which is a worthy effort-
without abdicating a global leadership role.

~~~
zoner
I almost fell off my chair. First of all, every operation the US army did so
far was the cause of destabilisation. While the military industry is a huge
business alone, it's causing harm everywhere else. The US traded stabile far
east for oil (Afghanistan), now they are creating conflict to find a cause to
grow the military economy.

~~~
spinchange
>every operation the US army did so far was the cause of destabilisation.

The 20th & 21st centuries have seen thier share of blunders but our NATO
partners and allies in Asia seem to still want an active United States
presence. The post WWII liberal order hasn't been perfect but many would argue
it was headed in the right direction, generally.

------
markhahn
The US is just pouting, and it's shameful.

We need adults in the room, being thoughtful, pointing out, for instance, that
withdrawing is not a form of strength, and only permits other countries
(China) to fill the vacuum. The vote for DT was a nihilistic, anti-
establishment moment from a demo that wants change but isn't willing to think
about what kind of change.

~~~
jerf
"withdrawing is not a form of strength"

Umm.... wasn't that almost literally Obama's position? Haven't other countries
been filling the vacuum in? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to look at
Trump's election precisely as a rejection of eight years of that idea? Aren't
we supposed to be very afraid of Trump being a maniac with the nuclear button
and using the US military to do crazy things?

Obama wasn't that long ago. I'm astonished at how quickly his policies and
platforms have been memory-holed in the service of the need for today's
claims.

Obama always had a muscular foreign policy based on the ability of the United
States to bring its unique moral rightness and light into the world. We have
always been at war with Eurasia.

~~~
wuschel
> (...) always been at WA with Eurasia.

That is an interesting formulation that reminds me former presidential advisor
Zbigniew Brzeziński's book "The Grand Chessboard".

~~~
jdpedrie
The quoted text is a reference to Orwell's 1984.

------
daxfohl
I keep thinking China could take the opportunity here to open up its own
political system and really start competing against the US as a desired
landing spot for US/EU tech/science grads, and other capable/interested young
talent. In a play for "world dominance", this could be a prudent non-military
move. It would force The West to reconsider the direction it's heading too.

~~~
del82
I agree, but it would take more than political reform to make China an
attractive landing spot. Pollution and food safety are also big problems, for
example, to the extent that my spouse (who is Chinese) and I have discussed
and rejected the idea of raising our children in China, independent of qualms
about the political system.

~~~
gbog
Food issues is the very reason for me to raise my kids in China. They learn to
use chopsticks before forks and knives. They eat rice daily and have no
desert. I sometime had to literally tell my daughter: "if you do not eat this
chocolate cake, I'll not give you more bone soup".

There is a very big food problem... in the US.

Also, there is a very annoying problem with people of other colors in the
West. I do not want to have to tell my kids to be afraid of "some people" when
I take the subway, but I also do not want them to be unsafe. This is another
reason to avoid the West for raising kids. (Just one last: in Japan, parents
are NOT allowed to take their kids to school, kids have to go by themselves.
In the West this would be considered irresponsible. I want my kids to be
happy, free and safe.)

~~~
del82
You're absolutely right that from a dietary perspective, and painting with a
very broad brush, Chinese people in general eat healthier than Americans. My
spouse certainly eats healthier than I do, though I've been a bit of a bad
influence.

My point was about food safety, not nutrition. To some extent I can control
how healthily my children eat by choosing what to feed them. But while in the
US we can be fairly confident that the food and drugs they get are safe, that
is less true in China, due in part to some recent food safety scandals like
[0]. When we travel to China, there are certain things (like infant formula)
that we bring with us rather than buy there. We also bring things like
vitamins to my in-laws because they ask us to.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal)

~~~
gbog
One scandal doesn't make a general rule. Also as your wife is Chinese you
certainly noticed that Chinese people are obsessed with food. In some place
like Sichuan it is the only conversation topic that's ever talked about. With
such an obsession, a restaurant won't last a week if it's serving bad food. I
have seen it with my colleagues, one had a "laduzi" and told others, the next
the restaurant had no more patrons from our company, it's a kind of blacklist.

------
usgroup
Am I alone in feeling that the present drama with Trump is doing wonders at
educating people broadly about geo-politics, the inter-dependence of global
powers and national agendas? I feel it's been an education.

~~~
alphonsegaston
For those already keen on understanding these kinds of relationships, sure. I
spend more time concerned with the large swathes of people who think that the
machinations of a trans-national fascist alliance are a return to "populism"
and "individual sovereignty."

------
resiros
The full report can be downloaded here as pdf here:
[http://report2017.securityconference.de/](http://report2017.securityconference.de/)

------
wallace_f
Alternative hypothesis: political populism is rising to popularity levels
which endanger the plutocratic and military rulers. Don't think they won't set
the stage for future wars just so they can stay in power.

~~~
emodendroket
Why would they bother when all of Trump's cabinet is plutocrats and they're
pursuing a radical pro-business agenda?

~~~
rukittenme
What do you consider a "radical pro-business" agenda to be?

~~~
emodendroket
Deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-union legislation on a massive scale.

e: Also probably cuts to social spending.

~~~
emodendroket
I guess I should have also mentioned privatization.

------
tim333
I guess now Putin's got a buddy in the whitehouse the Europeans are going to
have to do more stop the red army rolling westwards.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/trum...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-
ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html)

~~~
wsc981
I find it highly unlikely that Putin would want to invade Europe (this is what
you seem to suggest). I do understand the importance of the Krim for Russia,
as it has their only southern military harbour. It's not something Russia can
afford to lose.

Dutch people should listen to this very interesting interview with Laszlo
Maracz:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83G10vWamAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83G10vWamAc)

In the interview Maracz explains that the heartland of Eurasia will be very
important in future trade. A very good infrastructure is being setup by China
and Russia to support this trading network. China and Russia have grown
tighter and China in particular won't allow the USA to try the same as it did
with Ukraine (i.e.: trying to limit the influence sphere of Russia). I think
it's unlikely the USA will want to confront both Russia and China. I think
Trump will be wiser in this regard compared to Clinton, who seemed out on a
confrontation with Russia (by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Syria).

Regardless of all being said the USA might be fine for the nearby future. Like
Laszlo, I don't see a bright future for Europe. I do think Asia will become
much more economically prosperous as a result of the trading network that is
being setup by Russia and China. As such, I will be emigrating from Europe to
Asia in the nearby future (either this year or the next).

~~~
gbog
Yep. And also, about Krimea, there is this game of musical chairs: once the
music stop everyone gets its chair but one. Some seem to consider that after
WWII and Yalta, no border should ever change anymore. That's not fair, not
natural, and too rigid. If no borders are ever modifed, will the Kurds never
have their own country as maybe they ought to?

To me border moves are always painful, dangerous, need to be done carefully,
etc. but not allowing them at all is worse: the pain and danger accumulates
and after a while, we get earthquakes sized changes.

------
mindcrime
Good, we don't need a "Pax Americana". The US has been trying to dominate the
entire world (or at least large chunks of it) for far too long. At least since
Harry Truman decided he wanted to get into a pissing contest with the Russians
at the end of WWII. It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade
and cooperation, not conflict.

~~~
seppin
> It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation,
> not conflict.

War is over laddies and gentlemen !

~~~
mindcrime
War will never be "over", but it can be minimized. One good way to do that is
through (real) free trade. Countries that depend on each other economically
are generally less likely to go to war with each other. Wasn't it Jack Ma who
said "when trade stops, war starts"?

~~~
seppin
> War will never be "over", but it can be minimized.

You are right. In the past 60 years, since NATO/UN/Pax Americana there has
been less war than any other time in recorded history.

And you, as well as countless others in MAGA hats are celebrating it's
downfall. Unless you are Putin himself, or an sadist, I don't understand your
position.

~~~
mindcrime
_since NATO /UN/Pax Americana there has been less war than any other time in
recorded history._

So is that the benchmark then? Just "lowest in history"? How much lower can we
get in absolute terms? I think we can do much better.

 _And you, as well as countless others in MAGA hats are celebrating it 's
downfall._

Not sure if you're somehow thinking that I'm one of those MAGA people or not,
but if so, believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm more of a
MEGA (Make Earth Great Again) person. My position, vis-a-vis the US
specifically, is that we need to quit with the empire building and radical
interventionism all over the world. More broadly, I posit that encouraging
free trade among all nations of the world is one of the best routes to
minimizing war.

I also think that a lot of terrorism is rooted in blowback as a result of our
(USA) activities in the rest of the world. Maybe, for example, we could have a
lot less tension with, say, Iran, if we hadn't meddled in their affairs so
much in the past. That is, of course, just one example.

~~~
seppin
> I think we can do much better.

I think things could be a lot worse. I have history and data to back me up,
where does your opinion come from?

~~~
mindcrime
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Saying "things could be
worse" is just trivially true.

As for where my position comes from: mostly logic / inference / reasoning,
however you want to describe it. And a bit of history and data. See, for
example:

[https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-
can-...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade-
prevent-war)

------
danielam
"NATO is an illusion" \- [http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says-
nato-is-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says-nato-is-an-
illusion-2016-4)

------
known
AKA
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence)

------
exelius
Unfortunately, with all of the major problems in the world today, the US is
too much to blame to be able to solve them. We were seen as a neutral force
around much of the world in the post-colonial era (we were a colony who threw
off our empire, as much of the world was doing in the 1950s through 1970s --
not coincidentally the apex of American power). But as we've operated the
world, we made mistakes, and we're having to deal with those now.

Look at all the big problems: global warming (we're the major cause and we're
so addicted to oil that it ain't gonna change), Islamist terror (so we
inherited the modern conflict through Sykes-Picot, but we escalated it enough
that it's our problem now), North Korea (we caused it but China has to live
with it), and so on.

China is in a MUCH better position to address all of these. Their economy is
just now industrializing heavily, and they're doing it with the focus of
leading a new global clean energy revolution because they have determined that
it is the only way China can obtain widespread prosperity. Sea level rise will
hurt China as much as anyone, and their pollution levels are unacceptably
high. Their peak industrial scale is 3-5x that of the United States, and their
manufacturing capacity will never be challenged given the population
difference.

They also don't have the baggage that we do in the middle east -- America and
the Christian west are collectively referred to as "Crusaders", even by
liberal Jews in Israel. In many minds, we're just the latest in an ugly, 1200
year long procession of white people who come in and wage wars of conquest to
distract from the problems at home (the early crusades were a way for the
European nobility to keep their 3rd and 4th sons occupied / killed lest they
cause a succession crisis). Sure, they're mixed up with the Uighirs, but
honestly they don't oppress the Uighirs any _more_ than they oppress similar
opposition groups. And the key here is that China only does it within their
borders.

And Korea... yeah, China _really_ doesn't want a small-scale nuclear war
happening on its border. Any radioactive fallout would likely destroy China's
economy for a decade or more -- considering the engines of China's economic
might are mostly on the eastern coast of the country. So China is willing to
tolerate almost any level of bad behavior by the Kim family. Best case
scenario for North Korea is a power vacuum caused by the death of a Kim where
the Chinese military comes in and runs peacekeeping and propaganda with an
iron fist. Very few countries know how to urbanize farmland filled with
illiterate farmers. China is one of them.

------
emodendroket
I've been hearing about this supposed "disengagement" since Obama was elected.
I will believe it when I see it.

------
Gustomaximus
From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which
means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons
systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the
U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-
to-air missiles compared with three."

While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to
recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The
diversity can be a strength.

And the article talks about european NATO spending doesn't cut it... well go
look at the stats. UK/France/Italy etc vs Russia spending. Russia is vastly
outspent by the NATO forces, almost the same spend via UK and France
individually. Who else is this European threat coming from? It hogwash Europe
is not militarily self sufficient. Maybe not US style dominant but hardly
weak.

It feels to me there is so much 'fear the bear' information being coming out
it feels like soft propaganda on the other side building to something. Sure
Russia is behaving badly with Ukraine and Georgia. And they deserve
international punishment for this, and hopefully pushback at some point. Syria
I'm not so convinced Russia are the bad guys. They are supporting a long time
ally and stable government while the west is the the one pushing regime
change. Do you really think Assads replacement will be an improvements? This
is geo-politics, nothing about improving the nation.

Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers
have been doing most of the invading lately.

End of the day its a shame the people in power create all this. Most of us
want to enjoy life and live in our bubble. Don't let the governments let you
believe any nation is bad. And take these articles with a pinch of salt. Some
extreme minority nationalists/religious nuts aside, people want to get along.

~~~
zzleeper
Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of
them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

~~~
monkmartinez
Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so
on, and so on...

I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be
upfront about it.

~~~
bluetomcat
Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over
Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US.
Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with
respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the
expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

~~~
geoka9
Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our
neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course
_that_ had to be declined.

~~~
bluetomcat
And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring"
countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the
"neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

~~~
iuguy
1\. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the
population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to
remain so.

2\. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded
the Falkands in 1982.

~~~
owebmaster
1\. Just like Crimea?

~~~
a-saleh
Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands
are a British territory" ?

Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond?

I think that is flat out wrong.

I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was
not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two
incidents are not comparable.

~~~
crdoconnor
A) Most Crimeans are ethnically Russians, B) The vote was ~94% to join Russia
and was done in the presence of international observers (Ukraine didn't
challenge the results of the election they challenged it on the basis that it
was unconstitutional) and C) the invasion was a reaction to an elected
president who represented their interests being deposed.

Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated
more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.

~~~
geoka9
> Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated
> more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.

You mean the referendum, not election? Yeah, "kinda", just enough for some
people to be able to say something like this (and even that not with a
straight face).

To say there was any "respect for democracy" is a joke. Girkin (leader of the
Russian military squad that seized the Crimean Parliament building) later went
on record saying that his soldiers basically had to force the parliament
members into the building in the middle of the night and make them "vote" for
the referendum (you can imagine what would've happened to those who'd
refused)[1]

The referendum date itself had been changed several times (if I remember
correctly, from 2 months to 1 month to 2 weeks). You can't force an issue like
that in 2 weeks and claim "respect for democracy". In fact, both of the
questions asked at the referendum meant secession from Ukraine; i.e. it wasn't
a simple "yes" or "no", it was essentially "secede immediately" or "do it a
bit later". And, even if that hadn't been the case, for anybody to vote
against it, they'd have to risk being abducted and killed by the pro-Russian
militia[2][3][4]

[http://empr.media/news/russian-fsb-colonel-admits-crimean-
mp...](http://empr.media/news/russian-fsb-colonel-admits-crimean-mps-forced-
to-vote-for-referendum/)

[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappeari...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappearing-
crimea-anti-russia-activists-201412110405525656.html)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S2Vhkr-
bc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S2Vhkr-bc)

[http://en.sobytiya.info/crimean-tatar-activist-kidnapped-
in-...](http://en.sobytiya.info/crimean-tatar-activist-kidnapped-in-
crimea.html)

------
Synaesthesia
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the
Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that
the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.

~~~
grabcocque
Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of
another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some
Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was
under the NATO umbrella?

~~~
tdkl
You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because
the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the
planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.

~~~
ptaipale
Well, the bases aren't actual aggression, you know. They're generally built
based on agreements with host countries. Most often the host countries
enthusiastically welcome them.

Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending
"little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down
civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.

~~~
googletazer
Yeah I saw that CNN interview where the girl from Ossetia was telling what
actually happened and then got cut off for "technical difficulties" :).
Georgia got off easy.

As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a
crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day
war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist.
History is full of such examples.

~~~
seppin
wow, you know this isn't infowars or zerohedge, right?

------
grabcocque
Because, to put it mildly, Europe has always been able to rely on the US
bailing it out when it mishandled some internal or external crisis. Now it's
worried it may not be able to take that for granted any more, and may have to
take responsibility for its own actions.

Frankly, that's terrifying for Europe. Trump has forcibly removed our training
wheels.

That said, NATO's not going anywhere. Theresa May's first action was to get
the Trump to publicly reaffirm his commitment to NATO. At _worst_ the US is
going to demand other member states start paying the 2% of GDP the treaties
they're signatory to actually already require.

~~~
bluetomcat
Just like the US bailed out Europe during the "external" migrant crisis,
caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East?

~~~
leereeves
The migrant crisis is often attributed to the Syrian Civil War; how was the
Syrian Civil War "caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East"?

~~~
fauigerzigerk
The refugee crisis is not just Syrian, it's also very much Afghan and Iraqi. I
think the main mistake has been to consistently prioritize opposing Russia
over fighting Islamism and a failure of working more eloquently towards a
peaceful solution for the Palestinians.

A number of socialist leaning, authoritarian but secular regimes, all cold war
allies of Russia, were removed with the help of the US and the UK
(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), leaving behind chaos and civil war. Assad was the
last of the bunch and he was very nearly toppled with US help before the
Russians saved his ass.

I have no sympathies for these regimes and dictators, but not realizing even
after multiple failures that they were not the worst that could possibly
happen in those societies was a terrible mistake.

Continental Europe is bearing the brunt and the fascist right in the US and
the UK are pouring scorn over the EU for failing to sort this mess out, even
exploiting it to support their claim that anything other than bigoted
nationalism of the Trump and Brexit variety is bound to fail. "Told you so!"

