Is this an accurate interpretation? If so, is it that they're less fearful of reprisals (tariffs?) or that they're less confident in the benefits of cooperation with the USA? Or a mix? Or something else?
The USA behaves like Russia and China, they spy on foreigners, influence their elections, start unjustified wars for oil and generally have a very low regard for freedom and liberty outside of their soil.
USA are not the good guys and Russia and China are not the bad guys they are just powerful, and USA are clearly loosing that power to Russia and China.
> If so, is it that they're less fearful of reprisals (tariffs?)
These sorts of threats only work on small poorly established countries and Europeans know it. We wrote the game Americans are playing and I hope they learn from our mistakes, or they will end up like us.
That perfectly summarises the sentiment I get as a European in Europe, the UK and elsewhere in the world. The US is not different to any other bad actor. In fact the US looks increasingly worse to the rest of the world, which not only means that lots of other countries (and their leaders) lose respect for the US, but it also fuels a bigger sentiment that the Western values represented by the US are doomed to fail, because the US is visibly more plagued by social and criminal issues which you don't find elsewhere.
I haven't heard any clear views on that one way or the other, although I'm not sure the question itself makes perfect sense in terms of actual real world politics.
The 'problem' with China is that it's an ethnostate, or wants to be. So in a practical sense most Westerners are better off fixing their allegiances to the US, for better or worse.
At least then you can be part of the apparatus and not pre-emptively sidelined. I like some aspects of China vs. the US too, but China is for the Chinese, as they say.
Today Americas police and prison system has institutionalised racism. USA has camps they keep Mexicans in and separate their families.
China and Russia do these things too I know but that doesn't white wash what we do.
> Americans (and Europeans) are very used to the idea that no matter your race or creed you can be just as American as anyone else
As long as your race is white and your creed is western. I would say the same thing about china as long as you are Chinese.
You could say that this is somehow improved since the civil rights movement, and you'd be right, but its legacy as a de-facto patriarchal ethnostate looms large to this day and if this is the beacon of inclusion and harmony that the rest of the world aspires to that's a sorry situation indeed. The US line of "all men are created equal" should have come with a footnote explaining that "some are more equal than others."
I would say most westerners would be better off not fixing their alliances to any imperialist machine, Russian, Chineese, or American. Even the EU is suspect, but its moderating influence against the worst possible facism still seems to be worth the costs and is worth reforming.
If you look at the way they're trying to integrate the outer provinces, and even just the way they view day-to-day and business interactions between Chinese and Westerners.
A Chinese billionaire in the US is no big deal, a US billionaire in China is unimaginable--they'd consider it out of order and I'd be surprised if it could even happen without them being cut down mid-journey. A contrived example maybe but success is reserved for the Han, not for outsiders.
Our current president is not the United States, despite his tendency to speak as if he is. I would argue he does not represent the main stream of American foreign policy and has continually fought against the majority opinion to protect institutions that preserve these freedoms and liberty (NATO / OTAN) and oppose actions that threaten said freedoms (annexation of crimea, etc).
September 11th had a huge impact on the country's view of civil liberties (rightly or wrongly is another discussion entirely) especially looking outward. While that might undermine the argument about America being a protector of liberties, I think it would be a mistake to believe that there is no belief held at all, or that America does not continue to fight for these beliefs. History is not something to rest on, but it does leave an indication of a country's intentions, I think.
What are these "liberties" and "beliefs" of which you speak? I'm an American and think the place is run by lunatics and mafiosos and has been for my entire life. It's more obvious now, and the lunatics are vastly less competent and more ham handed and corrupt.
NATO was there to keep the Russians out and the Germans down. I don't support this organization at all in current year; it is simply a tool of US imperialism, and is spectacularly dangerous as US power fades and they add more shitty non-countries to it so some ding dong from Georgetown can win an award.
Can you tell me more about keeping the Germans down? I'm not sure I follow, but I'm probably misinterpreting what you mean by "down".
Without NATO, the Baltics would probably already be a part of Russia again.
The mainstream of American foreign policy is completely divorced from mainstream voters, which is one of the reasons for Trump's election: the foreign policy establishment has remained utterly impervious to American political sentiment for decades.
Most Americans are non-interventionist and veering on isolationist. They don't want to send foreign countries billions of dollars of foreign aid and they don't want endless US military expeditions. The US foreign policy establishment has ignored this at their own peril. They were able to neutralize Obama's foreign policy electoral platform; they haven't been so fortunate with Trump.
It's not very clear that American foreign policy has done anything to serve the interests of the average American in the past fifty years. It might have done great things for Europeans - I'm not a European, so I don't feel qualified to judge - but decades of American empire building have, if anything, hurt Americans, who have died in terrorist attacks caused by US foreign policy, been maimed in endless wars, and who have suffered from the economic globalization promoted by the foreign policy class. And frankly, I don't care about European interests or Crimean interests if they come at the expense of my interest.
It's truly insane how people are so poorly educated on current events, and their magnitudes, outside of polarizing media, that they sincerely believe this is true.
Yes there are restrictions on what people there can say about the party, but it's not North Korea--people say what they really think in private conversations, and from what I've seen they are mostly happy with their government.
Will that change if government performance changes? Possibly, but I don't think there's any noble suffering aspect to it.
I'm sorry, but which of those do European nations not engage in as well?
By recent, I'm willing to accept things in the past 30 years. Again, exclude France, the UK and Russia.
> We wrote the game Americans are playing
This is a very naive and unrealistic take. In a world where nations like Russia and China are willing to play dirty to encroach on western democracies, you cannot simply counter by playing fair. Where do you think the world would be if Allied forces did not resort to spying and influence operations (which were crucial by the way)?
So Spain with it's $12B of export can risk imposing tariffs (it's essentially a tax at mostly US companies) compared to e.g. Germany which exports much more.
I don't follow your point?
> The USA behaves like Russia and China, they spy on foreigners, influence their elections, start unjustified wars for oil and generally have a very low regard for freedom and liberty outside of their soil.
As a natural-born US citizen...Yeah I feel the same way. I feel like my government uses "freedom" the same way they use "think of the children" or "terrorism." To a lot of folks it seems like it's just a nebulous concept they can use to push a -- in my opinion unrelated -- political agenda. It's very sad to me.
Really goes to show that Europe aren't "good guys" either. A European who could look at despotic China and their Uighur Holocaust and say "not bad guys" is not a good person themselves.
Lest we also forget that Russia is openly engaging in non-stop assassinations on European soil, caring so little for their soverignity that they announce to the world their power by murdering folks in the streets.
The false equivalence here is very sad. "Sure, Russia murders citizens in the streets and China literally has a Holocaust going, but America spies on people (just like us and with our help but shhh)!"
If you displease the USA economically you may get tariffs, but then, if you don't you may get tariffs too, because the President is tweeting in bad mood, or because America first, or whatever random reason. So why even bother?
Also note that Brexit has increased the cohesion of the rest of the EU. The UK government with their ludicrous attitude has managed to make all other EU countries agree, euroskeptic movements have been largely discredited by the utter chaos that is Brexit, and there's also the fact that the UK itself always acted as a roadblock vetoing integration policies, and a pro-USA influence in the EU. So lately I'm seeing more teamplay and mutual support between EU countries than ever, which makes them stronger.
At least in terms of major repercussions, threats do happen, but it seems like compromises are the end result, usually done quietly with little press (e.g. the recent Canadian free trade agreement).
Economic politics from USA the last years has been quite protectionist and it seems in the coming future it will have to fight against countries with literally billions of people, so my feeling is western countries better stay together.
Is not about fear but working class being tired, among other things, of big corporations avoiding taxes and they having to maintain the social structure.
I should point out that this isn't a universal problem in Europe. For many countries in Europe, a bloated, inefficient and sometimes corrupt government is the reason why tax rates have to be so high and not multinationals avoiding taxes.
Sure, taxing those multinationals _might_ make it easier on the working class, but it's just as likely that the government would find other ways to spend that money.
I am not positioning myself about how European social system works but it seems something has to change, specially after the crisis. Also this is obviously happening in the weakest economies in Europe.
Now Turkey acquired Russian made defence system s400 that was supposed to devastate the economy through embargoes. A few years ago a wealthy Iranian businessman living in Turkey was caught laundering billions of dollars through a Turkish state bank, He was well known for his connections in the Erdogan government. This was supposed to devastate the Turkish banking sector, bringing huge huge fines like those that French or British banks paid back in the day. These and many other actions were supposed to make Uncle Sam very angry and punish Erdogan.
Nothing of significance happened. Actually, a year ago Trump plummeted the Turkish lira with few tweets but it was about a prisoner that was kept hostage that created political trouble to Trump.
These days it's not a credible position to say "Erdogan, don't do that it may bring trouble", everyone who advocated this position is now a laughing stock.
Europe seems to be behind the curve on this, they are still afraid to trade with Iran but I think that it will happen. They just need to find a way to do it while helping with the presidents career, it worked marvellously with Erdogan. Sometimes I think Erdogan has Jedi superpowers over Trump, it was amazing how He and Trump entered Syria despite of Pentagon and the US allies.
Anyway, times are changing. I hope after the change we plateau in a nice position, I would not be thrilled to see Chinese or Russian style governments be the new de facto way of how the world works. The liberal waster world order was nice(though not perfect) when we had it, I dislike the current trends.
Turkey was removed from the F35 program, for which they are a manufacturer. They are barred from purchasing the 100 F35s they wanted. They will lose that manufacturing position and the jobs that go with it. They have been demanding to still have the right to purchase the F35 jets - they will not be able to so long as they have the S400s.
Turkey was manufacturing about 1,000 parts for the F35. That has now been reduced to 12 as of November. It will drop to zero during 2020.
Losing access to the next generation of planes to upgrade their air force and losing their manufacturing role is significant, according to Turkey's own behavior and words on the matter (Erdogan states it very plainly that they are upset about it). The Turkish economy is a mess right now, having just finally climbed out of a recession. The unemployment rate had climbed from under 10% to 14% as of August. Clearly Turkey could use those manufacturing jobs and they know it.
Also, as it Turns out Turkey does have its own flourishing defence industry and the Brits are helping Turkey to actually build it's own gen 5 warplane and Russia is offering to sell some.
That's the catch with nationalism and authoritarian governments: The citizens are willing to endure economic pain in the name of patriotism and the US doesn't seem to bring much of that anyway.
The US-led world order seems to be vanishing and it's scary when you know some of the alternatives.
Unfortunately the new possible friends look less friendly than the USA of the second half of '900.
What the USA is doing is in no way isolationist. That is something completely different with no parallels or relations in any way. Using the word isolationist is misleading to the point of mistruth.
It would be more accurate and representative of reality to say the USA appears to be acting more independently on the international stage. Isolation would imply the USA is not acting on the international stage at all.
Definition of isolationism
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations
Further reading. American Isolationism in the 1930s[1].
[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isol...
"America First refers to a foreign policy in the United States that generally emphasizes American nationalism, unilateralism, protectionism, and isolationism."
The US is the center of NATO and, despite Trump's occasional rhetoric, is not moving to leave the alliance.
The US is persistently using its naval projection capabilities to challenge China's territorial ambitions around Asia (including constantly sailing its navy through the illegally annexed South China Sea territory). Nobody else in the world can or will do that, including none of the fellow NATO members.
The US has a very large military presence in South Korea and Japan, positions both countries are openly thankful for and willing to pay more money to the US to keep (as North Korea continues threatening both countries and both are weary of China's military ambitions in the region). Currently the US has around 75,000 to 80,000 (!) military personnel stationed in South Korea and Japan combined.
The US is persistently deploying its military in the Middle East, including in Syria, Saudi Arabia and the waters near Iran.
The US is the extreme exact opposite of isolationist. Go by what the US does, not what Trump campaigns on to win an election (he also has built zero miles of a new wall on the Mexico border thus far and is deporting fewer illegal immigrants than Obama did, again despite his rhetoric to the contrary).