If we start to see tariffs take off internationally, like we did back with the Smoot Hawley tariffs 100 years ago, we are literally recreating the environment that created WWII, this time with Ukraine playing the part of Manchuria.
If we start to see tariffs take off internationally, like we did back with the Smoot Hawley tariffs 100 years ago, we are literally recreating the environment that created WWII, this time with Ukraine playing the part of Manchuria.
Regardless, I don’t think they’ve been given a choice. And if nobody helps out anyone, you get everyone “militarizing”.
So, Zelenskyy is supposed to just lay down and give up everything for a lopsided deal that will just hurt them more? The US is just going to take advantage of the entire situation. That’s what we have in power now, opportunists.
Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872
> Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
With Trump back in the White House there is an additional motivation for EU countries to up their military spending; at best the US is now viewed as a less reliable ally (that may or may not help in the face of conflict), at worst the US will align itself with autocratic regimes to divide up the world in their respective spheres of influence and actively undermine the EU.
So if you accept the premise that democracy (and the liberal, rule-based world order) is worthwhile defending, increased military spending of EU countries is in fact a "good thing" (as in, better than the alternative of submitting to imperialistic authoritarian neighbors).
Also it's a pretty daft take to think that this sudden armament of Europe is going to help the "contain China" cause. Why would anyone in East/South East Asia now trust USA when they see economics as zero-sum game with military intimidation towards allies as a valid strategy for getting their way. China is doing the latter without the former, and most Asian nations has more to lose economically siding with US to begin with.
Pivot to China have been the long running goal since Obama but why it took long time is because of dynamics like this. Just to on a whim in less than 2 month destroying all that. I can't imagine how this can be spun as a win, even with outlined goals of yours.
Yeah good luck containing China when all their neighbors are now not sure about American commitment anymore. If I'm a Asian politician I'd probably just start nuke development and declare neutrality and ride this one out.
Global free trade, which have benefitted all of Asia (including China) is not something US is supporting anymore anyway
The german model was the european model: spend almost nothing on defense, let the US provide the nukes, sit back and get rich.
One reason this model may fail is the UK and France -- both are expeditionary forces (the UK where-ever the US is, and france in africa) trying to play at being a great power. This only ever worked because the US was prepared to bail them out whenever anything bad happened (cf. Libya). Without the US, both nations may try to drive towards EU military unification and hence genuine great power status.
Good luck balancing the Chinese, Russia and US defense budgets. Europe's spending will be crippled, just as the US's is -- without global currency status to prop it up.
Another reason is a bi-polar American president that can withdraw from NATO tomorrow effectively leaving Europe on its own. Europe has no other choice, they need to spend more on defense if they want to keep the war at bay.
Not being able to defend yourself is strictly worse for security than being able to defend yourself. I don't know how you can think otherwise.