> if those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing
Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.
I would posit that public pressure on politicians to support an ally in trouble does indeed constitute a form of 'friendship', if that pressure is enough to provoke action.
> "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger
Nobody has permanent friends or alliances. The point is we, a maritime power, tend to be mutually supportive in our alliances in a way land powers are not. (We prefer them to have strong economies and militaries, for instance, and are generally okay, if not thrilled, when they compete with us.)
And the weaponization of the dollar really spooked a whole lotta other countries and just added fuel to the fire of them looking into alternative non-dependent systems (trading in non-usd, swift alternatives, etc).
At this rate, we’re going to isolate ourselves (Europe is already feeling significant pain). The West is only around a billion people out of what, 8 billion?
I would say that Britain (maritime power) has been playing off European continental countries against each other, certainly up to WWI.
The U.S. still does this. Now the Eastern European countries are used as a wedge against the Western ones. Pipelines are blown up, which is not supportive.
> Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.
Bullshit.
The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies.
There's a difference between alliances and proxies. The USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals. Like in Ukraine the USA likes to have its proxies do its dirty work. And like in its growing bombast towards China, the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China.
> The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies.
I’ll concede that our strategy with Iran makes zero sense to me. But I never said we don’t make, or even seek out, enemies. Just that we build alliances. That’s true in our approach with Iran, which leans heavily on our Saudi, Emirati and Israeli allies.
> USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals
We like both. Our alliances with Canada, the U.K. and Australia are ones of supreme, to the point of vulnerability, mutual respect. Our alliances with France and Germany approach co-equal status–we regularly disagree without abandoning each other. We obviously don’t give a shit about the people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or, frankly, Ukraine, the way we do about Western Europe or Korea.
> the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China
Just got back from Taipei. Don’t think anyone there sees our committing to defending their homeland as sacrificing them.
> "We'll back your military coup if you ally with us" seems fairly domineering and imperial from my perspective. Not naturally aligning us to others.
We have allies of colour and allies of convenience. They’re easy to differentiate because we care deeply, almost genuinely, about the internal politics of the former (e.g. the U.K., Germany, Japan, et cetera). They’re discussed as a prize to be contested for. And we tend to welcome their immigrants. With the latter, we don’t, they’re closer to assets, and as a result we tend to prefer the efficiency of autocracy with them. The Gulf and Pakistan fall into this bucket. I understand why we do it, strategically. But I agree it tarnishes our reputation.
The difference is, most countries don’t have any relationships in the first category. (Think: the Scandinavia, the Baltic sisters.) Certainly not superpowers.
"We're nicer to some of our allies," is an interesting take, but I also find it amusing that two of those we care deeply about needed a military occupation to naturally align to our interests.
… a military occupation in the wake of the most destructive war of the last century, started by both of those occupied countries.
I bring that up not to crow about the USA’s bygone righteousness, but to highlight that the people of Japan and Germany were ready to embrace a new paradigm, because the old one had resulted in so much suffering and death.
Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.