Never forget the system works because people believe in it. America has just given up the privileges they have enjoyed for many years now. Also, do not count on the USA credit rating to be set in stone. For me personally, I have moved my pension fund to a fund, which does not invest in US treasury and I have a feeling a lot of other people will be doing this too. Its going to be a slow painful heat death for the USA frogs.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to argue that the alternative has been tried for decades and didn't work. Moreover, since the stakes have gotten so much higher with China's ascendency, it is worth the risk.
When you keep on giving money to a friend to help them, they never learn to stand on their own feet. It creates a dependency not of true friendship, but of subservience.
Risk worth taking. The EU and China have vastly different political, economic, and social orientation, so while they might align more closely on some things, I think America and the EU will always be much closer to each other.
It seems very clear that the EU and EU leaders had that plan for a long time but that was always a hard sell to the public (even played a part in the Brexit referendum). Ukraine and the current US administration are used tactically to sell the plan to the public.
It is being very naive and gullible not to see that.
Re. JD Vance, I think he actually hit the nail on the head and that's why the reactions from the EU and EU leaders were so strong to attack and discredit him.
I wish we had done this 30 years ago, but EU leaders were weak cowards that had no such plans until they finally had to face reality.
We either get torn apart between the major powers or we become a major power ourself. To deny this simple fact is suicidal and I do not wish to be pulled to ruin with you.
Claiming that a course of action is the only way and that there is no alternative, and that opposing it is being an enemy, a traitor, or "suicidal", is an age old trick, too.
In this case, claiming that giving up on our countries as sovereign states must happen to compete against China or the US is an obvious oxymoron and rather insane.
I welcome you to suggest an alternative. Just saying there is one is not enough. How do you envision, idk, Lithuania surviving between Russia and the US?
(I would also invite you to look up the meaning of the term oxymoron, because I do not see how it even fits the sentence here.)
I don't see how the US are an existential threat to Lithuania. Anyway my point is that Lithuania does not survive by committing suicide, which is what disappearing in a federal Europe is... and that's where the oxymoron and fallacy lie.
To give up being an independent and sovereign country to become a province of a federal EU is indeed national suicide, literally. It's choosing death as a country.
Facing he "Russian threat" obviously does not require this, this is a transparent fallacy and scare tactic to push the EU narrative. Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty. Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
Your replies are very good illustrations of the dellusion and, really post-truth disinformation we are constantly fed in Europe, unfortunately if you do believe what you write. This is becoming very sinister.
The Baltic states used to be in the USSR so I doubt that they would be willing to surrender their sovereignty again. Perhaps that's exactly why the people are never asked if that's what they want!
> Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty.
That's because Europe could rely on the power of the US back then. If the US was just a patchwork of small independent states, Europe would very likely be a part of USSR now.
> Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
It may if your opponent is a single large country. Cooperation between many nations each looking out for their own best interests is a lot lot harder and slower than a single command structure. An alliance like that can't win against a more united enemy. The enemy can simply focus on manipulating the small weak countries individually to hamstring the alliance, as has been happening.
I would not want to be a small country caught between larger powers fighting each other, that's never a good position to be in. You'll just be a pawn on the board, getting pushed into proxy wars and civil wars by the bigger powers playing the game. I'd rather give up sovereignty willingly to be a part of a large power and a player in the game, and not on the board being played.
Sometimes, you resort to a stick (threats, disparagement, etc.) rather than a carrot, to get your friends to be more self-reliant and mature.
It makes them stronger and then you can apply your energies to other matters.
Never forget the system works because people believe in it. America has just given up the privileges they have enjoyed for many years now. Also, do not count on the USA credit rating to be set in stone. For me personally, I have moved my pension fund to a fund, which does not invest in US treasury and I have a feeling a lot of other people will be doing this too. Its going to be a slow painful heat death for the USA frogs.
But they are kind of forced to buy US defense equipement, that to have US tatical nukes (any significant invasion army will be nuked).
So Trump is a mastermind playing 4D chess?
Yeah, no.
The problem is, once you use a stick, they might become self-reliant, but they might not want to be your friends anymore.
Possibly.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to argue that the alternative has been tried for decades and didn't work. Moreover, since the stakes have gotten so much higher with China's ascendency, it is worth the risk.
When you keep on giving money to a friend to help them, they never learn to stand on their own feet. It creates a dependency not of true friendship, but of subservience.
It pushes your former friend to align closer with China, making it a geopolitical own goal...
Risk worth taking. The EU and China have vastly different political, economic, and social orientation, so while they might align more closely on some things, I think America and the EU will always be much closer to each other.
The same can be said for the EU and the US - what do they have in common in the areas you mentioned?
[dead]
[flagged]
Sure, the EU has crafted a campaign where JD Vance comes to Munich and tells us the US is abandoning us.
How perfidious of them! Enlisting the US executive in their evil plans!
The conspiratorial thinking on display here is unreal.
It seems very clear that the EU and EU leaders had that plan for a long time but that was always a hard sell to the public (even played a part in the Brexit referendum). Ukraine and the current US administration are used tactically to sell the plan to the public.
It is being very naive and gullible not to see that.
Re. JD Vance, I think he actually hit the nail on the head and that's why the reactions from the EU and EU leaders were so strong to attack and discredit him.
I wish we had done this 30 years ago, but EU leaders were weak cowards that had no such plans until they finally had to face reality.
We either get torn apart between the major powers or we become a major power ourself. To deny this simple fact is suicidal and I do not wish to be pulled to ruin with you.
Claiming that a course of action is the only way and that there is no alternative, and that opposing it is being an enemy, a traitor, or "suicidal", is an age old trick, too.
In this case, claiming that giving up on our countries as sovereign states must happen to compete against China or the US is an obvious oxymoron and rather insane.
I welcome you to suggest an alternative. Just saying there is one is not enough. How do you envision, idk, Lithuania surviving between Russia and the US?
(I would also invite you to look up the meaning of the term oxymoron, because I do not see how it even fits the sentence here.)
I don't see how the US are an existential threat to Lithuania. Anyway my point is that Lithuania does not survive by committing suicide, which is what disappearing in a federal Europe is... and that's where the oxymoron and fallacy lie.
Why would it be suicide? Do you consider California or New York "dead" because they became part of the US?
I might also point out you didn't address how you would solve for the much more urgent Russian threat.
I think you are being purposedly obtuse.
To give up being an independent and sovereign country to become a province of a federal EU is indeed national suicide, literally. It's choosing death as a country.
Facing he "Russian threat" obviously does not require this, this is a transparent fallacy and scare tactic to push the EU narrative. Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty. Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
Your replies are very good illustrations of the dellusion and, really post-truth disinformation we are constantly fed in Europe, unfortunately if you do believe what you write. This is becoming very sinister.
The Baltic states used to be in the USSR so I doubt that they would be willing to surrender their sovereignty again. Perhaps that's exactly why the people are never asked if that's what they want!
> Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty.
That's because Europe could rely on the power of the US back then. If the US was just a patchwork of small independent states, Europe would very likely be a part of USSR now.
> Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.
It may if your opponent is a single large country. Cooperation between many nations each looking out for their own best interests is a lot lot harder and slower than a single command structure. An alliance like that can't win against a more united enemy. The enemy can simply focus on manipulating the small weak countries individually to hamstring the alliance, as has been happening.
I would not want to be a small country caught between larger powers fighting each other, that's never a good position to be in. You'll just be a pawn on the board, getting pushed into proxy wars and civil wars by the bigger powers playing the game. I'd rather give up sovereignty willingly to be a part of a large power and a player in the game, and not on the board being played.
Note that you didn't answer my question about California and New York. Did they "commit suicide?"
as a country means nothing. countries are just bureaucratic units, just like states are.
https://archive.ph/W8AMd
[dead]