Change my view: USA is going to strengthen ties with AUKUS instead of European NATO allies (except select counties like Poland) regardless the administration.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
So we hear their grand claims, and they never enforce it.
This creates frustration in Europe because the leader of the European identity has a reputation of being a C student. (And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead)
Including the Germans.
The stand-up comedy in question
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at...
French defense spending, strategy, and export has always been... less aligned with US interests. SK's recent resurgence in popular awareness is in part due to the alignment between Ukraine's situation and SK's situation (ie, artillery production). France's defense industry has been aligning towards French interests for the last few decades (ie, maintain high end halo products like Rafale, FREMM, and also have equipment suitable for expeditionary war in Africa). Similarly with SK... just that SK's situation involved huge amounts of artillery.
Especially with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, I think it is quite difficult to speak of a single "European NATO". I think there's a clear east-west split in terms how you hear American analysts speak of NATO. It's not really possible to criticize the activity of most of the eastern NATO countries.
They did do a deal where artillery shells needed in Ukraine were laundered through the US
They are looking at changing their law.
Marcon, at least, seems to get it though? I thought the words about the "end of abundance" were fairly spot on, though it does seem like he's pushing the ship himself.
The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated).
Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite.
The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers.
The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority.
There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy.
> As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers.
I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
They literally fended off communism and stalinism.
Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza?
Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well.
Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
Oh boy.
Yes exactly.
Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved.
You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics.
These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true.
(And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. )
Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?
But you might just remain convinced that you are just better because murica.
Which colonies have been established by the US? Are you talking about the military bases in foreign countries?
[1] I don't know enough about the events you're referencing in Armenia and Romania, but Afghanistan was war. Of course we were going to set up a government that was friendly to the US.
The only wrinkle is the "occupied" part. But most European colonies in Africa didn't have a huge number of settlers either and nobody questions whether these colonies were colonies.
Of course, Australia found out they got the raw end of the deal a couple of years later: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/australia-may-...
I'm not even being snarky. Despite fighting a war for independence, the USA has always loved mom (the UK) and likes its siblings (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Five Eyes is probably the most obvious example of our familial cooperation.
The USA will always prioritize AUKUS and Five Eyes before NATO.
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).