EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 11/15/2019 at 5:22 PM, Otis11 said:

But it's only 'wrong' if the US breaks contracts. Get with the program Doug...

Seriously? 

I and others offer nuances, historical perspective and even facts and the response to this is above type of punch-lines. 

Sad things is that we agree on many stretches... 

I'm out. Have promised myself to leave these discussions when emotions takes over. 

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Marcin, 

Good analysis. I don't agree 100 %, but certainly overall. I am curious to mid to longterm predictions and your view on a best course for Europe / EU ? 

First about NATO and senior and junior partners in the Pact.

United States and Europe currently have divergent interests in many aspects of security area. I will just delve into 1 of them to show the idea.

 Vulnerability of homeland: United States is a continental country bordered by 2 Oceans and 2 weak states totally under US control, in short US is in total control of its continent, no threat of war on homeland. Europe is a puzzle of 50 small countries with artificial borders but without natural borders. Historically thousand wars were regularly thought year after year after year. Last 74 years is an abnormal period of peace in Europe. To the East Europe is bordered by Russian Federation. Russian Federation: vast country, energy superpower with military much stronger than EU. In short ruthless, cruel, able power, always playing chess with lives of millions of own citizens.

Priority of US goals over interests of European NATO allies: Because Europe is vulnerable to intra-continental wars and attacks by superior hostile power (Russia) peace on the continent is of highest priority. 2014 Coup d’etat on Ukraine for United States was just another proxy war with Russia, just power play. Later United States was cheerfully engaged in support for Ukraine and Ukrainian army in a war against Russia. Business as usual.

But not for Europe. Being entangled in a war against Russian Federation is a horrific and nightmare scenario for EU, destabilizing whole continent.

I do not remember information about any European NATO countries being consulted before the coup.

Purported goal of democratization of Ukraine after the coup is in no way worth reality of  NATO-Russia proxy war on European homeland. Different perspective, isn’t it ?

 

Most important observation: Witnessing US foreign policy for decades, I noticed that for US citizens at every level it is very difficult to be able to see the world through non-American lenses. Absolutely normal legacy of being a citizen of the most powerful country for a century or so.

Ordinary Joe Sixpack does not understand other perspectives and those who do understand them like US government officials just do not care.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

7 minutes ago, Marcin said:

But not for Europe. Being entangled in a war against Russian Federation is a horrific and nightmare scenario for EU, destabilizing whole continent.

I agree. 

But I am really interested in your perspective / predictions. Because

1) I think US will (and should) pull out of Europe.

2) Confrontation with Russia is un-avoidable

For this reason I want I stronger Unified EU. EU can easily outspend the Russia - we just need to be unified. Step 1 is Brexit. Step 2 is getting thougher on countries infringing on the values EU are built on. 

What do you think EU should do? 

[Marcin + 519]

30 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agree. 

But I am really interested in your perspective / predictions. Because

1) I think US will (and should) pull out of Europe.

2) Confrontation with Russia is un-avoidable

For this reason I want I stronger Unified EU. EU can easily outspend the Russia - we just need to be unified. Step 1 is Brexit. Step 2 is getting thougher on countries infringing on the values EU are built on. 

What do you think EU should do? 

ad.2 Whose confrontation with Russia ? Europe according to my knowledge do not have any single reason of conflict with Russia. All recent conflicts Russia was engaged were US-Russia conflicts, related to US and Russian agenda and not related to European agenda.

Ukraine: US-Russia conflict about access to Crimean ports for Russian Navy and more broadly about Russian sphere of influence. Technically probability of Russians ever leaving Port Sevastopol without a war is 0%. Russian children know from school how it was, is and will be important part of Russia. I am really astonished how peacefully all the affair was done, I expected thousands of casualties on both sides in 2014.

Syria: US-Russia conflict about access to Mediterranean See for Russian Navy, and more broadly about Russian sphere of influence in Middle East.

Russia is status quo power. You do not want to grab any of its land, you are safe.

For Europe it is a safe, stable source of hydrocarbons. The game is to not be over-reliant on 1 supplier.

ad 1 United States needs to find its place in the world first. It will take the next 20 years. I hope the place could be found without nuclear war. In 10 years China GDP=US GDP nominal. After the end of hegemony conflict with US about 2040, China will be about  150% of US economy but will not stop growing and developing.

In 20 years: China is 1400 million people, with immediate sphere of influence: South Asia: Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan; SE Asia: Whole ASEAN, East Asia: Japan, both Koreas, North Asia: Russia, Central Asia: all the 6 -stans. So 1000 million people in immediate sphere of influence.

The only future solution against such a formidable power for both US and EU is to co-operate, I hope that as a more equitable partners

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 minutes ago, Marcin said:

ad.2 Whose confrontation with Russia ? Europe according to my knowledge do not have any single reason of conflict with Russia.

My prediction is that as Europe "grows" it will project far stronger values. This in turn will create a bit of natural conflict with Russia. If Europe is can move past internal differences which I believe neccessity will force us to then it will create more natural conflicts... Maybe this in turn will make us more natural equal allies to the US? 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agree. 

But I am really interested in your perspective / predictions. Because

1) I think US will (and should) pull out of Europe.

2) Confrontation with Russia is un-avoidable

For this reason I want I stronger Unified EU. EU can easily outspend the Russia - we just need to be unified. Step 1 is Brexit. Step 2 is getting thougher on countries infringing on the values EU are built on. 

What do you think EU should do? 

In principle yes but remind me how many combat ready Eurofighters Germany has?  I recall the fingers on one hand should suffice.

Germany and several other EU states have been relying on US and to some extend UK defence welfare for decades.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Germany and several other EU states have been relying on US and to some extend UK defence welfare for decades.

This was my point to Rasmus earlier that when the UK leaves the EU it will leave a gaping hole in the EU's defence capabilities. If the US then pulls out as well where does that leave a substantially weaker Europe??

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

27 minutes ago, NickW said:

In principle yes but remind me how many combat ready Eurofighters Germany has?  I recall the fingers on one hand should suffice.

Germany and several other EU states have been relying on US and to some extend UK defence welfare for decades.

 

21 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

This was my point to Rasmus earlier that when the UK leaves the EU it will leave a gaping hole in the EU's defence capabilities. If the US then pulls out as well where does that leave a substantially weaker Europe??

I agree. 

All I am saying is that necessity is the mother of many things... EU countries are NOT clueless. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 11/15/2019 at 5:38 PM, Ward Smith said:

Hmm, more than a third of the OSV fleet is laid up in the Gulf now. Not sure there's a booming business for EU  OSV tenders there

 

On 11/15/2019 at 5:38 PM, Ward Smith said:

The article linked does make very clear the association between the protectionist Jones Act and both merchant marine and shipbuilding. 

Ehh.. the article is about the Jones Act market and clearly written by someone who know very little about the global OSV market. 

Simple fact : European and asian vessels cannot compete in US GoM even by paying a tarif. 

On 11/15/2019 at 5:38 PM, Ward Smith said:

There's nothing stopping you from supplying ships to Pemex is there? They're also in the gulf. 

that is already happening.... 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

24 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

All I am saying is that necessity is the mother of many things... EU countries are NOT clueless. 

Agree it is

The EU countries arent clueless but they appear to have no plan regarding defence in the event of the UK and US pulling out of NATO

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:22 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

But by your logic, why was the US called up when Yugoslavia disintegrated? That should have been a strictly European issue.

Love this one Doug, had to cherry pick it, it was because in the heads of most Americans (whom had never left the US) "We are fighting PINKOS" 

Seriously I almost took a dump in my hard hat and thumped it, Pinkos I asked, WTF are you on about.......

So why did the US do operation Noble Anvil basically because it was part of NATO, this was apparently one of the only bombing missions not sanctioned by the UN.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

5 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Love this one Doug, had to cherry pick it, it was because in the heads of most Americans (whom had never left the US) "We are fighting PINKOS" 

Seriously I almost took a dump in my hard hat and thumped it, Pinkos I asked, WTF are you on about.......

So why did the US do operation Noble Anvil basically because it was part of NATO, this was apparently one of the only bombing missions not sanctioned by the UN.

Sorry, but super misleading. The entire campaign was basically "humanitarian aid". Not a NATO defense mission.

[Guest]

Germany Should Immediately Stop Training Chinese Soldiers: Amnesty International

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/germany-should-immediately-stop-training-chinese-soldiers-amnesty-international

So, Germany gets their gas from Russia and trains Chinese soldiers. And how much are they kicking into NATO?

Just sayin'   

*defenCe #eubad #leavemeansleave

Edited November 18, 2019 by Guest

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

My prediction is that as Europe "grows" it will project far stronger values. This in turn will create a bit of natural conflict with Russia. If Europe is can move past internal differences which I believe neccessity will force us to then it will create more natural conflicts... Maybe this in turn will make us more natural equal allies to the US? 

Russia oil reserves are 50 years of current output (without Arctic, and many areas not surveyed).

Enough oil for at least 2 generations of rulers of House of Putin. Russia is under Oil Curse, enough oil revenues to finance army and secret police and thwart any democratization. European Union will not preach its values to armed to teeth, colossal gas station, I wouldn't. Russia is Chinese Canada, although better armed. Whatever Europe will do Chinese hunger for oil ensures unlimited demand for Russian oil.

Hegemonic China, because of future economy much larger than current US, will also have EU under tight economic grip. The only solussion in economic terms is targeted offshoring to smaller countries under EU control and strategic independence from Chinese goods (also from majority of consumer goods). Market access is what feeds the beast, in this one Trump is right, although mediocre operationalization of this idea lessens the effect.

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 minute ago, Marcin said:

European Union will not preach its values to armed to teeth,

except for this I agree. my prediction is European values will spread once there is internal alignment. Maybe Europe won't preach, but word will spread. 

[Marcin + 519]

  On 11/16/2019 at 9:22 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

But by your logic, why was the US called up when Yugoslavia disintegrated? That should have been a strictly European issue.

This was totally US-Russia proxy thing, because Serbia was in Russian sphere of influence. Europe had nothing to do with this issue, apart from the fact (like with Ukraine)  that unfortunately it is played on our continent. (Leave comments regarding morals of wars in Yugoslavia and ethnic cleansing to yourself, no place here, discuss in ethics classes).

Usually when 2 dogs (US and Russia, one dog really weak at that moment) fight about the bone (Yugoslavia part of Europe), the bone has relatively passive role in the incident.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

35 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Sorry, but super misleading. The entire campaign was basically "humanitarian aid". Not a NATO defense mission.

A friend of mine flew Tornado fighter bomber jets in this war, I can assure you he would strongly disagree with your statement regarding "humanitarian aid". Yes that was part of it but don't lose sight of the fact that this was a full blown war zone, with ethnic cleansing and other such horrors.

If it was all about humanitarian aid then why was he and many others called upon to fly dozens of missions in this war?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

6 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

A friend of mine flew Tornado fighter bomber jets in this war, I can assure you he would strongly disagree with your statement regarding "humanitarian aid". Yes that was part of it but don't lose sight of the fact that this was a full blown war zone, with ethnic cleansing and other such horrors.

If it was all about humanitarian aid then why was he and many others called upon to fly dozens of missions in this war?

Sorry. Bad choice of words. what I meant was that it was not like a NATO country had been attacked. 

BTW - I have family that during that conflict. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This was my point to Rasmus earlier that when the UK leaves the EU it will leave a gaping hole in the EU's defence capabilities. If the US then pulls out as well where does that leave a substantially weaker Europe??

Another reason for the EU to sign a good deal with the UK. The UK can still be part of a common defence pact - NATO perhaps! irrespective of EU membership. 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

43 minutes ago, NickW said:

Another reason for the EU to sign a good deal with the UK. The UK can still be part of a common defence pact - NATO perhaps! irrespective of EU membership. 

Yes the UK could, but would it want to be?

I suspect the UK would instead align itself with the US.

NATO needs a total overhaul IMO maybe then and only then could we get back to a strong N.American/European defence.

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

except for this I agree. my prediction is European values will spread once there is internal alignment. Maybe Europe won't preach, but word will spread. 

I have a question maybe you have a clue how to figure it out ?

Europe can be anything more than current economic union only if it can have common European military forces. Current NATO set up is US doing heavy lifting and all the EU having free ride. I think it is cheaper for EU if it is in NATO with 2% GDP spending than if it is on its own. On your own you need more than 2%. But these are again only phantasies. In NATO US is commander.

Common military forces are level of very close federation, with countries actually loosing their sovereignty. You need common government to judge when and where to send armies. It is a most important political decision a country can take, physical existence of the country depends on such decisions. So 28 societies have to give up important part of their sovereignty (and a few things like UN membership) for me mission impossible.

Without federation the idea of common army is null and void, cause no sensible poiltical mechanism to achieve civilian control over military forces. We can joke: anonimous decisions of 28 parliaments is needed, and if there is still anything to defend left the army can be dispatched.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

18 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Europe can be anything more than current economic union only if it can have common European military forces. Current NATO set up is US doing heavy lifting and all the EU having free ride. I think it is cheaper for EU if it is in NATO with 2% GDP spending than if it is on its own. On your own you need more than 2%

And finally there it is!

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

And finally there it is!

Yep, only took like 4 thread pages

#eubad #eulazy

[Otis11 + 551]

 

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Seriously? 

I and others offer nuances, historical perspective and even facts and the response to this is above type of punch-lines. 

Sad things is that we agree on many stretches... 

I'm out. Have promised myself to leave these discussions when emotions takes over. 

I've offered nuance on a number of issues... this one is pretty clear. You can argue foreign aid all all day long, but the pact was to spend 2% on direct military spending. I could see an argument if 2% wasn't necessary to fulfill all obligations that foreign aid was a good wait to meet the metric, however that's not the case. Other than the US and possibly the UK, no one in NATO is meeting the obligation to my knowledge.

With that, if the situation was reversed, the international community would be HOWLING if the US wasn't meeting our obligations.

So, yes, I think my statement stands.

8 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agree. 

But I am really interested in your perspective / predictions. Because

1) I think US will (and should) pull out of Europe.

2) Confrontation with Russia is un-avoidable

For this reason I want I stronger Unified EU. EU can easily outspend the Russia - we just need to be unified. Step 1 is Brexit. Step 2 is getting thougher on countries infringing on the values EU are built on. 

What do you think EU should do? 

I want a lot of foreign countries to be stronger... I was actually initially excited back in '99 as it appeared we would be looking at a stronger, more cohesive EU that could work together for common good but retain sovereignty, but sadly, it was all about political control. (Or at least that's what it turned into - hence why the UK wants out)

If Japan, South Korea, the various countries of the EU, Brazil, the Philippines, Australia, KSA, etc... all had sufficient forces to protect themselves from aggressor nations instead of depending on the US - maybe they'd be better able to stand against the US when the country does something they don't like...

(I personally don't think having the US as an overwhelming dominant world power is a good thing... but I support the US keeping enough military strength to fight a multi-front war in both Europe and Asia against both China and Russia simultaneously... not because I think it's likely, but because that keeps us from ever being strong armed into accepting terms we don't like. If the EU was strong enough to take the majority of the European front of that, the US could relax. Ideally, the top 5 countries militarizes would - combined - yield less than 50% of the world's fighting force. That's a recipe for peace. Strong enough to stand alone against any 1:1 or even 2:1 aggression, but not overwhelming might. That said, if the US doesn't do it, China and Russia would already surpass the EU.)

(As another side thought - Go look at how the Chinese treat their ethnic minorities. Are you wiling to risk being put in this category?)

[Marcin + 519]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

And finally there it is!

I never changed opinion, US covers most of the bill, but EU can   still have free ride as US is engaged with China and cannot decouple from Europe at the same      time. It is cheating but safe cheating.