So the west is winning, is it? Only if you’re a delusional Trump toady, Mr Pompeo, by Simon Tisdall

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

34 minutes ago, GunnysGhost said:

If the US kowtowing to the UN and EU is a prerequisite for success of 'the West' then I'm out. 

^  ^  ^  agreed, strongly.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

@BLA I agree with most of what you said about Europe free ride in security area.

My major concern, I am trying to understand American soul, concern is how far United States is willing to go in its confrontation with China ?

Tariffs won’t work as expect, I can assure you. Technology embargo is a short- term solution and Double- edged sword that already hit US.

I mean if China will collapse under its own weight, it is fine.

What if China will not collapse and economically and technologically develop so as to surpass US ?

Will you accept it or start war with China, before it is too strong ?

I asked this question 50 times at this forum.

Umfortunately nobody was willing to answer, apart from @0R0.

What bothers you, your too radical  opinions ?

We answered, you refuse to listen.  You cannot lead people who refuse to be led.  So, cut them loose till they figure out if they wish for freedom or slavery. If it was up to me, I would cut off NATO/UN/WTO yesterday till people decide which way they wish to go.  Once that happens I would support 100% those who wish for freedom.  Eveyrone else?  Go screw yourself

Edited February 23, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, BLA said:

Facist America ? Please spare me. 

U.S. asking their "Ally" to confront the Chinese security threat is facist ?

Europe is all for alliances as long as the U.S. foots the bill.

As long as they can block U.S. products with tariffs, then have a tantrum when U.S. suggest reciprocal tariffs.

As long as U.S. spends trillions to confront terrorist and keep a peace around the world and in the Mideast so they can keep their oil shipments flowing. 

As long as U.S. spends billions for Europe's defense ,then have no problem buying Putin's natural gas over U.S.

It wasn't just Trump's Pompeo telling Europe what the reality is, but also the Democratic delegation headed by Pelosi that was explaining the urgency.

Who's the one jeopardizing the alliance to this extent for the first time since 1940 ?  If you want the answer look on the mirror.

Can the U.S. succeed without a unified U.S./Europe ?  Don't know but it's the European countries that are signing up for China's Belt and Road and accepts their continued civil rights.

China welcomes Europe's machinery, foodstuffs and vehicles .  .  .   just until they can dominate that industry .  .  .   then China will throw Europe out like yesterday's newspaper.

U.S. has made it clear that China is the number 1 security threat to the free industrial countries of the world and asks their allies Europe to confront the threat.    

If Europe won't work with U.S.  why should  U.S. continue support NATO or invest billions into Europe missile defenses.  

Trump has put Globalism on pause because it has excluded a large portion of the U.S. population.  Trump is the only one to confront China for what it is . Biden and Bloomberg will cowtow to China (and personally make millions and billions)

The threat by Huawei is real.  Make no mistake about it.  The threat is in early stages.  With 5G, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of things (IOT) just starting to get deployed their is little time to stop the Chinese dominance. Understand 5G is about much more than just smartphones, it is about everything that has a microprocessor . 

Chinese society is dominated by a controlling SURVEILLENCE government.  Is that what Europe wants.  

Granted China can be vindictive to counties/companiest that do not fall on line. Germany sells more cars in China than any other.  It's a Hobson's Choice. 

The only way to confront China may be a United front.  The alternative is each country go it alone.  

China will be very accommodating to Europe , until they don't need them.  

Again don't try to pin it on Trump's"America First".  Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi was just as insistent as Pompeo.

That is an impressive rebuttal.  Very well said.

 

[Marcin2 + 724]

27 minutes ago, BLA said:

What war. You talk like an idiot. 

U.S. villification of China. You sound like Biden and Bloomberg.  Don't be so naive . 

Radical U.S.  ?

I hoped for such an answer, maybe I am really talking like an idiot, but I prefer term paranoid or hysterical, it is less abusive, even if idiot is maybe the most appriopriate term.

I find Americans, Europeans and also Chinese to be too rich, and having too decent lives for them to go to war, especially that any war US-China will not be an easy Middle East adventure, but WW3. I do not like the prospect and hope Chinese will never be hegemonic. But if that is going to happend I would just cordon off developed democracies in many economic aspects, and let everybody live in peace in their playgrounds.

When talking about abusive words, I am sorry @Wombat about this "toady". I actually did not know this word, I thought it is some idiom about  turtle or frog, Guardian is a major media outlet, probably even author did not know about Australian English additional meaning. (What does this mean in Australian English ?, in Merriam Webster and Oxford Dictionaries it just means a species of fish, nothing wrong for me.).

Back to narrative in US media. I had similar observations as Chris Hedges about the danger of corporations and politicians taking over US democracy. Maybe I am observing historical parallells when they are not so advanced, I do not know.

And that is why I discuss this topic.

[Marcin2 + 724]

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

^  ^  ^  agreed, strongly.

What "^" means ?

You formulate the issue in too much binary terms for me. It is not always black or white, US kowtowing or US total domination.

I agree that EU should spend more on defence, I actually changed my views lately, influenced by legitimate arguments of US commenters.

China and Russia, respect hard power very much, actually they respect it the most.

That is why we need a lot of sophisticated hardware and trained people to man it, even if most of it is never gonna be used.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Marcin2 said:

What "^" means ?

It is shorthand for "this". 

It actually means that I agree with what is quoted in the text above.

Multiple use indicates very strong agreement.

I was writing on forums before there was all this newfangled forum capability like bold, italics and underlining.  Which is why I sometimes forget and emphasize words like *this* instead of using forum options like this or this.

I would say something about kids getting off my lawn, but I think you already know that reference, usually uttered by cranky old farts.

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 hours ago, BLA said:

Chinese society is dominated by a controlling SURVEILLENCE government.  Is that what Europe wants.  

 

Not that they would say it out loud, but yes, the Eurocrats want precisely that. They have no desire for democratic control over them. Germany did not join the EU with a plebiscite to make it legitimate. Legal loopholes were used to join the EU despite a popular militant resistance to it. The EU project aims to supersede the rights of self determination, maintenance of cultural identities, free speech. Merkel explicitly reprimands Germans for failure to become "multicultural".

There is nothing at all in the goals and governing structures of the EU project that would win a popular vote   It is a distinctly socialist project of a cartel of governments to overcome their people's choices.  

That is why Europeans are happier to go along with China and reap whatever short term rewards remain from the trade relationship regardless of the long term consequences. Not different from the gas lines built from Russia during the Soviet days. Short term benefit trumps any political lip service to Western Democratic values, processes, or geopolitical alignment. 

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Should I hazard a guess that some people would prefer China's CCP authoritarianism and EU's Socialism headquartered in Brussels to conquer Capitalism?

Thanks but no thanks.

 

 

 

Democracy is the politics.  China has shown they can play the "capitalism" game -and win- even with an alternative government system.

Trump acts a lot like a dictator but obeys his true master ($).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

US is democratic last I checked... you will love your new master Bernie.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 hours ago, BLA said:

 When the going gets tough .  .  .   Europe is nowhere to be found

Haha

Except when France essentially gave you your country.

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

If you fear Huwaei over privacy and security concerns you are naive.  Apple, Google, IBM, ISPs etc. and all governments are already watching you and could disable your phone/PC at will.  

The reason the states hates Huwaei so much is because they are winning the technology war and have the best 5G stuff.  Only way to make US based 5G at all successful is to bully other nations not to use Huwaei.

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

If you fear Huwaei over privacy and security concerns you are naive.  Apple, Google, IBM, etc. and all governments are already watching you.  

The reason the states hates Huwaei so much is because they are winning the technology war and have the best 5G stuff.

 

Wrong! Huawei do not have the best 5G, just the CHEAPEST!

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

Only reason Western 5G not being rolled out as quickly is due to multiple systems which require harmonisation of standards, which will be completed soon.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Only reason Western 5G not being rolled out as quickly is due to multiple systems which require harmonisation of standards, which will be completed soon.

Ok, but they better work fast as Huawei is already signing contracts.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

I hoped for such an answer, maybe I am really talking like an idiot, but I prefer term paranoid or hysterical, it is less abusive, even if idiot is maybe the most appriopriate term.

I find Americans, Europeans and also Chinese to be too rich, and having too decent lives for them to go to war, especially that any war US-China will not be an easy Middle East adventure, but WW3. I do not like the prospect and hope Chinese will never be hegemonic. But if that is going to happend I would just cordon off developed democracies in many economic aspects, and let everybody live in peace in their playgrounds.

When talking about abusive words, I am sorry @Wombat about this "toady". I actually did not know this word, I thought it is some idiom about  turtle or frog, Guardian is a major media outlet, probably even author did not know about Australian English additional meaning. (What does this mean in Australian English ?, in Merriam Webster and Oxford Dictionaries it just means a species of fish, nothing wrong for me.).

Back to narrative in US media. I had similar observations as Chris Hedges about the danger of corporations and politicians taking over US democracy. Maybe I am observing historical parallells when they are not so advanced, I do not know.

And that is why I discuss this topic.

In Australia, Toadie is something that needs to be killed, as we have problem with "cane toads", a very poisonous introduced species that destroys our wildlife when eaten. We have had a "war on cane toads" for decades.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 minutes ago, Wombat said:

In Australia , Toadie is something that needs to be killed

Australia just goes through waves of various invasive species infestations.  Florida has similar issues.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Wombat + 1,028]

20 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

The special relationship has ended in tears for Britain and other allies have no reason to trust America (from guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/22/the-west-is-not-winning-and-donald-trump-america-first-is-to-blame)

I think this article from Guardian reflects my sentiment about recent counter-productive US foreign policy moves, more appriopriate term would be blunders. Sentiment shared by a lot of Europeans and European governments.

The US secretary of state Mike Pompeo lectures America ’s allies at the Munich security conference on 15 February. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AP

 

When was the last time a British prime minister cancelled a White House summit with a US president? Possibly never. Yet that’s what Boris Johnson did after a livid, cursing Donald Trump slammed the phone down on him in a row over the Chinese firm, Huawei.

 

Now a planned tête-à-tête in Washington next month, already twice delayed, is off. Not postponed. Not rescheduled. Off. So much for “Britain Trump”, the servile moniker the president pinned on Johnson last year. So much for the “special relationship”. Perhaps it was always doomed to end in tears.

 

Imperious, bullying American behaviour, political arm-twisting and shameless economic blackmail over a post-Brexit trade deal pose big problems for Britain in a time of deep uncertainty. But other US partners are in the same boat.

 

If a reminder were needed, it came in the form of Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state and Trump’s most influential adviser, who pompously lectured fractious European leaders at last weekend’s Munich security conference.

 

Pompeo reassured mutinous allies that, despite unilateralist, isolationist appearances, America remained committed to global leadership. “The death of the transatlantic alliance is grossly over-exaggerated. The west is winning. We are collectively winning. We’re doing it together,” he declared.

 

This is utter hogwash. And almost everyone outside a dishonest, self-deceiving circle of Republican stooges and Trump toadies knows it. Together? In many respects, the US and Europe are further apart than at any time since 1941.

 

Pompeo’s speech revealed a cold war mindset that crudely divides the world into friends and foes, separated by walls, missiles, sanctions, insults, and mutually assured dysfunction. For Pompeo, who referenced his formative experience as a soldier patrolling “freedom’s frontier” in West Berlin in the 1980s, there is no middle way. It’s a black-and-white world ruled by fear and force. It’s pure regression.

 

Pompeo laid into China over military expansionism, debt diplomacy and cyber threats. Fair enough. But if he wants things to change, he needs to talk calmly. The coronavirus epidemic, like Huawei’s controversial G5 networks and Beijing’s HS2 bid, shows how inescapably interdependent China and western countries already are. When Jaguar Land Rover runs short of parts, Apple iPhones grow scarce and Lake District B&Bs bemoan missing tourists, all because Hubei is stricken by a virus, it’s plain the global die is cast. Whether for security, trade, political, or public health reasons, it’s too late to isolate China.

 

Pompeo had it in for Russia and Iran, too – another evil empire, in his telling, that wages “campaigns of terror in the Middle East and right here in Europe”. Strange, then, that Europeans mostly believe Trump’s Iran vendetta to be dangerous and foolish. Stranger still how Trump sucks up to Vladimir Putin.

 

Pompeo’s broader theme – that the west, representing freedom and democracy, is winning – is no less daft. Only people with their heads stuck in the self-congratulatory, delusional cloud that frequently envelops Washington could seriously make such a ridiculous claim about the world in 2020.

 

What kind of foggy thinking or wilful blindness allows a senior politician to indulge such complacency when, as he speaks, not so far away, hundreds of thousands of refugees are being mercilessly bombed on Idlib’s freezing hillsides?

 

Almost 10 years ago, Syrians rose up in search of the freedom and democracy Pompeo lauds. But they got precious little help from the west. The story of the war, in part, is the story of how the west lost Syria, lost other Arab spring countries – and lost credibility everywhere. (...)

 

Putin’s Russia seizes territory in Ukraine, subverts other people’s elections, and assassinates opponents in foreign cities without effective western punishment. The more China’s brutal repression of its Muslim minority is documented, the more European governments look away. About this, at least, Pompeo is right.

 

 

 

But he is dead wrong about Palestine and the Israeli land-grab recently endorsed by Trump. Such blatant theft overturns decades of binding UN resolutions. It makes a mockery of the “international rules-based order” – and any semblance of justice. Might these and many other unaddressed crises, including Yemen, Kashmir and Myanmar’s ethnically cleansed Rohingyas, reasonably be called “wins” for western values? Of course not.

 

And away from conflict zones, new technologies, far from bolstering free societies, deliver ever more pervasive, pernicious means of monitoring, controlling and censoring citizens.

 

Across the globe, the battlements of open governance are under attack while its defenders are betrayed from within. Authoritarian regimes are on the up. Intolerant rightwing populists and ultra-nationalist mini-Trumps are on the march.

 

No, Mr Pompeo. “America First” may work for some in your country. But “the west”, meaning a multinational, democratic alliance that champions shared principles, aims and laws, is not winning. If this were a movie, it would be called How The West Was Lost – with Trump as outlaw-in-chief.

 

The US secretary of state Mike Pompeo lectures America ’s allies at the Munich security conference on 15 February. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AP

 

When was the last time a British prime minister cancelled a White House summit with a US president? Possibly never. Yet that’s what Boris Johnson did after a livid, cursing Donald Trump slammed the phone down on him in a row over the Chinese firm, Huawei.

 

Now a planned tête-à-tête in Washington next month, already twice delayed, is off. Not postponed. Not rescheduled. Off. So much for “Britain Trump”, the servile moniker the president pinned on Johnson last year. So much for the “special relationship”. Perhaps it was always doomed to end in tears.

 

Imperious, bullying American behaviour, political arm-twisting and shameless economic blackmail over a post-Brexit trade deal pose big problems for Britain in a time of deep uncertainty. But other US partners are in the same boat.

 

If a reminder were needed, it came in the form of Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state and Trump’s most influential adviser, who pompously lectured fractious European leaders at last weekend’s Munich security conference.

 

Pompeo reassured mutinous allies that, despite unilateralist, isolationist appearances, America remained committed to global leadership. “The death of the transatlantic alliance is grossly over-exaggerated. The west is winning. We are collectively winning. We’re doing it together,” he declared.

 

This is utter hogwash. And almost everyone outside a dishonest, self-deceiving circle of Republican stooges and Trump toadies knows it. Together? In many respects, the US and Europe are further apart than at any time since 1941.

 

Pompeo’s speech revealed a cold war mindset that crudely divides the world into friends and foes, separated by walls, missiles, sanctions, insults, and mutually assured dysfunction. For Pompeo, who referenced his formative experience as a soldier patrolling “freedom’s frontier” in West Berlin in the 1980s, there is no middle way. It’s a black-and-white world ruled by fear and force. It’s pure regression.

 

Pompeo laid into China over military expansionism, debt diplomacy and cyber threats. Fair enough. But if he wants things to change, he needs to talk calmly. The coronavirus epidemic, like Huawei’s controversial G5 networks and Beijing’s HS2 bid, shows how inescapably interdependent China and western countries already are. When Jaguar Land Rover runs short of parts, Apple iPhones grow scarce and Lake District B&Bs bemoan missing tourists, all because Hubei is stricken by a virus, it’s plain the global die is cast. Whether for security, trade, political, or public health reasons, it’s too late to isolate China.

 

Pompeo had it in for Russia and Iran, too – another evil empire, in his telling, that wages “campaigns of terror in the Middle East and right here in Europe”. Strange, then, that Europeans mostly believe Trump’s Iran vendetta to be dangerous and foolish. Stranger still how Trump sucks up to Vladimir Putin.

 

Pompeo’s broader theme – that the west, representing freedom and democracy, is winning – is no less daft. Only people with their heads stuck in the self-congratulatory, delusional cloud that frequently envelops Washington could seriously make such a ridiculous claim about the world in 2020.

 

What kind of foggy thinking or wilful blindness allows a senior politician to indulge such complacency when, as he speaks, not so far away, hundreds of thousands of refugees are being mercilessly bombed on Idlib’s freezing hillsides?

 

Almost 10 years ago, Syrians rose up in search of the freedom and democracy Pompeo lauds. But they got precious little help from the west. The story of the war, in part, is the story of how the west lost Syria, lost other Arab spring countries – and lost credibility everywhere. (...)

 

Putin’s Russia seizes territory in Ukraine, subverts other people’s elections, and assassinates opponents in foreign cities without effective western punishment. The more China’s brutal repression of its Muslim minority is documented, the more European governments look away. About this, at least, Pompeo is right.

 

 

 

But he is dead wrong about Palestine and the Israeli land-grab recently endorsed by Trump. Such blatant theft overturns decades of binding UN resolutions. It makes a mockery of the “international rules-based order” – and any semblance of justice. Might these and many other unaddressed crises, including Yemen, Kashmir and Myanmar’s ethnically cleansed Rohingyas, reasonably be called “wins” for western values? Of course not.

 

And away from conflict zones, new technologies, far from bolstering free societies, deliver ever more pervasive, pernicious means of monitoring, controlling and censoring citizens.

 

Across the globe, the battlements of open governance are under attack while its defenders are betrayed from within. Authoritarian regimes are on the up. Intolerant rightwing populists and ultra-nationalist mini-Trumps are on the march.

 

No, Mr Pompeo. “America First” may work for some in your country. But “the west”, meaning a multinational, democratic alliance that champions shared principles, aims and laws, is not winning. If this were a movie, it would be called How The West Was Lost – with Trump as outlaw-in-chief.

 

When was the first time an Australian security team cancelled a trip to the UK to meet their counter-parts? Try last week. China is trying to divide and conquer the West, and is succeeding. UK needs Chinese funding to build nuclear plants and does not see Chinese belligerence in South China Sea as "their problem"?!? Australia (not just US) can no longer trust UK as reliable allay, thanks to fools like you, congratulations. I bet you think Corbyn is wonderful?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

47 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Haha

Except when France essentially gave you your country.

 

 

 

That France is long gone. 

Today's France? Not so much…

[0R0 + 6,251]

@Marcin2 makes a correct argument from a European political elite point of view. They have been subsidized by US protection of trade for the better part of a century and have flourished by spending nearly nothing on the effort that makes Europe viable along with its trade with China, or anyone else other than Russia. They were "bribed" with mercantile favors for 70 years while the US fought the cold war while being undermined at every turn by the NATO "allies", and then when a foreign oil dependent US actively put forces on the ground to assure both the world and itself an oil supply.

The European thinking is that if there is a cold war or containment of China, then they want to be on the same terms as they had with the cold war with Soviet Russia. Where they cut deals with the "cold war enemy" and trade freely with them while the US pays for the defense and for their constantly flailing allegiance with mercantile benefits. 

This is where the new US transition away from the postwar order that started well before Trump is finding friction. Trump is saying that the US has no existential interest in the global order. If it were to remain committed, it must flip the mercantile balance of benefits to its own industries. The US, having no real interest in China's attempted hegemony and Europe's lame lip service in its resistance to China will not accept terms that allow Europe to continue with its integration with China while the US provides the safety of the sea lanes. The US, newly oil independent -  at least nominally, and flush with NG, can restrict its protection uniquely to US trade and a small selection of favored trading partners, while letting the various "pirate states" attack oil tankers and cargoes headed to or from other countries.

As Peter Zeihan likes to point out, world trade never looked like the freewheeling business of today, with fragile complex supply chains flowing through the entire planet with cargoes safely going where they will without worry of attack and no nation needing to worry about access to raw materials or markets, and insurance costs being puny rounding errors. The "natural state" of trade was that of mercantile empires protecting their individual trade partnerships for supplies and end markets against other empires and militarily throwing their enemies/competitors out as necessary through conquest.  Vertically integrated empires were the rule. A few small free port nations and banking centers and pirate havens were "in between". Spain was the first large empire and it was in constant war with Britain and occasionally France and then the US as it attempted to maintain control of, and trade with, its colonies in the face of state sponsored pirates and direct navy attacks on its shipping.  Remember "Sir" Francis Drake and his deliveries of pirate loot to Queen Elisabeth? The infamously murderous East India companies of England and the Dutch? The equally malevolent Belgian empire in Africa, the cruel heavy hand of the French in the Americas, Middle East Indochina and Africa? 

The European idea that they can benefit with the same kind of free protection by the US without providing the US with substantive military support, nor mercantile advantages is a cognitive disease where momentum of the past clouds their judgement of the shape of the future given the hard choices at hand. The US is too small relative to the global trade world to be able to foot the bill on its own without a tangible benefit to its industries. Nor is it capable of absorbing the financial strain of carrying the burden of reserve currency, where Triffin's dilemma (the inevitable hollowing out of industry of the issuer of the reserve currency) far overwhelms any other benefit (Jacques Rueff's "exorbitant privilege") to "free external financing" of government deficits.  It is indeed that idiotic economically inverted point of view that the system should provide benefits to governments rather than individuals and their businesses, that puts Europe on the wrong side of reading the situation, just as it undermines their economies and financial system, which, BTW, remains 2/3 dollarized. 

The current choice the US offers is between a select few partners in a US centered and US protected free trade system with the tables decidedly sloped to the US' mercantile benefit, and real carrying of their part of  the military burden, which does not include a Chinese empire, Or the alternative to be left out and have a target on your shipping without the US participating in retaliation if it is attacked. So let us see whether China goes to war against state sponsored pirates from Somalia stealing their cargoes. Let us see if insurance costs remain a rounding error under these conditions, for all but US protected shipping with its selected trade partners.. 

Europe is trying to play soviet era cards and considering partnering with a China that only intends to make them into true obedient vassal states, rather than provide the rather narrow mercantile costs that the US is demanding in order to continue the current arrangement. Which include cutting off China from the future until the CCP vanishes. 

Cont...

.  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

@Marcin2 makes a correct argument from a European political elite point of view. They have been subsidized by US protection of trade for the better part of a century and have flourished by spending nearly nothing on the effort that makes Europe viable along with its trade with China, or anyone else other than Russia. They were "bribed" with mercantile favors for 70 years while the US fought the cold war while being undermined at every turn by the NATO "allies", and then when a foreign oil dependent US actively put forces on the ground to assure both the world and itself an oil supply.

The European thinking is that if there is a cold war or containment of China, then they want to be on the same terms as they had with the cold war with Soviet Russia. Where they cut deals with the "cold war enemy" and trade freely with them while the US pays for the defense and for their constantly flailing allegiance with mercantile benefits. 

This is where the new US transition away from the postwar order that started well before Trump is finding friction. Trump is saying that the US has no existential interest in the global order. If it were to remain committed, it must flip the mercantile balance of benefits to its own industries. The US, having no real interest in China's attempted hegemony and Europe's lame lip service in its resistance to China will not accept terms that allow Europe to continue with its integration with China while the US provides the safety of the sea lanes. The US, newly oil independent -  at least nominally, and flush with NG, can restrict its protection uniquely to US trade and a small selection of favored trading partners, while letting the various "pirate states" attack oil tankers and cargoes headed to or from other countries.

As Peter Zeihan likes to point out, world trade never looked like the freewheeling business of today, with fragile complex supply chains flowing through the entire planet with cargoes safely going where they will without worry of attack and no nation needing to worry about access to raw materials or markets, and insurance costs being puny rounding errors. The "natural state" of trade was that of mercantile empires protecting their individual trade partnerships for supplies and end markets against other empires and militarily throwing their enemies/competitors out as necessary through conquest.  Vertically integrated empires were the rule. A few small free port nations and banking centers and pirate havens were "in between". Spain was the first large empire and it was in constant war with Britain and occasionally France and then the US as it attempted to maintain control of, and trade with, its colonies in the face of state sponsored pirates and direct navy attacks on its shipping.  Remember "Sir" Francis Drake and his deliveries of pirate loot to Queen Elisabeth? The infamously murderous East India companies of England and the Dutch? The equally malevolent Belgian empire in Africa, the cruel heavy hand of the French in the Americas, Middle East Indochina and Africa? 

The European idea that they can benefit with the same kind of free protection by the US without providing the US with substantive military support, nor mercantile advantages is a cognitive disease where momentum of the past clouds their judgement of the shape of the future given the hard choices at hand. The US is too small relative to the global trade world to be able to foot the bill on its own without a tangible benefit to its industries. Nor is it capable of absorbing the financial strain of carrying the burden of reserve currency, where Triffin's dilemma (the inevitable hollowing out of industry of the issuer of the reserve currency) far overwhelms any other benefit (Jacques Rueff's "exorbitant privilege") to "free external financing" of government deficits.  It is indeed that idiotic economically inverted point of view that the system should provide benefits to governments rather than individuals and their businesses, that puts Europe on the wrong side of reading the situation, just as it undermines their economies and financial system, which, BTW, remains 2/3 dollarized. 

The current choice the US offers is between a select few partners in a US centered and US protected free trade system with the tables decidedly sloped to the US' mercantile benefit, and real carrying of their part of  the military burden, which does not include a Chinese empire, Or the alternative to be left out and have a target on your shipping without the US participating in retaliation if it is attacked. So let us see whether China goes to war against state sponsored pirates from Somalia stealing their cargoes. Let us see if insurance costs remain a rounding error under these conditions, for all but US protected shipping with its selected trade partners.. 

Europe is trying to play soviet era cards and considering partnering with a China that only intends to make them into true obedient vassal states, rather than provide the rather narrow mercantile costs that the US is demanding in order to continue the current arrangement. Which include cutting off China from the future until the CCP vanishes. 

Cont...

.  

I have nothing to add, just loved reading it again. 

Dude, write your book, I'll buy it in advance if I need to.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

That France is long gone. 

Today's France? Not so much…

Sadly, that America is also long gone.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

New version:

"Unless you are white and educated stay the fuck out."

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Wombat + 1,028]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

My major concern is how far it has to get, how serious, what measures are you going to implement, how much US society could radicalize ?

How far it needs to get, before you let it go.

I sense that a lot of American users here are actually internally ashamed of their radicalization.

I think that is why it is difficult for you to directly answer my provocative at times, but well researched comments.

I ask very inconvenient questions and a lot of Americans have difficulty to answer them, or admit that the answers are bordering radical nationalism or at times fascism.

Would it be right to destroy a foreign country, and probably also yours, just because they are dictatorship and there are 4 times more of them, so long term you do  not have a chance to win ?

I am afraid of the herd mentality I observe also here and generally in US narrative.

It is good that you mentioned Chamberlain.
Chris Hedges, Pullitzer winning author, wrote a book „American fascist” - try to understand its message.

My crystal ball tells me that 2022 cnn headlines could be: How long can we stand Uighur genocide, they are Jews of our times, we need to stop China even by military means”

 

Crap. There is a big difference between mild abuse of human rights and genocide.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Sadly, that America is also long gone.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

New version:

"Unless you are white and educated stay the fuck out."

Piss off. 

You're wrong and spouting the MSDNC lines. If you had any intellect you'd come to your own conclusion based on facts, not Fantasy. The US allows immigration of well over 1,000,000 every year! Legal immigration buckwheat! Canada has vastly worse immigration policies than the US. You dare to lecture from your pasty white glass house? 

Our porous southern border has been getting abused for decades. The entire US protects your southern border! The fantasy that the only people coming across our border are happy, healthy, willing workers has been supplanted by the reality that the illegals pouring into this country are indeed the rapists, murderers and drug dealers Trump was worried about. 

My sister lives in Phoenix. Her house was invaded by a gang of illegals, who pistol whipped her husband and took everything they pleased. The police response? Pathetic. Her daughter was stopped at a red light. Her car was plowed into by an illegal, nothing was done. She had to give her insurance information but the illegal didn't have to do a damn thing. Welcome to the state of lunacy the Demoncrats have foisted on this once great country. 

You have no standing to criticise us. None 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You have no standing to criticise us. None 

Fair enough.  Last time I was in Tuscon I was surprised at how many border cops were about, there must be a real problem.

 

I do live in a land that doesn't really have to enforce borders much other than at airports. First time I went to the US I didn't even need a passport.

 

Regardless, I think Canada could be doing better on this front too.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Sadly, that America is also long gone.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

New version:

"Unless you are white and educated stay the fuck out."

That USA existed for ~100 years.  At no time was unrestricted immigration allowed.  This was a made up poem slapped on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Stop the lies, and no there is not free land available for farming, logging, mining anymore.  That stopped in the year 1900. 

Why the Hell does the USA want to become Western Europe/China/Vietnam/S. Korea/Indonesia/India/Egypt with insane population densities??? WHY?   For all that is Holy, answer that question.  << crickets >>

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Stop the lies

I didn't lie, I quoted something on a monument.

Quote

Why the Hell does the USA want to become Western Europe/China/Vietnam/S. Korea/Indonesia/India/Egypt with insane population densities??? WHY?   For all that is Holy, answer that question.  << crickets >>

I live in Canada with lots of space and fewer people.  I will be long dead by the time Canada's population density gets anywhere close to the US let alone elsewhere.

High population density cities are popular (New York).

Edited February 23, 2020 by Enthalpic