Bernd
02/02/2024 (Fri) 16:55
No.51604
del
02/02/2024 (Fri) 16:55
No.51604
del
>>51598
More or less.
As for the common foreign policy there is a will - at least on paper, or appearing in the media - that EU members have to show united front.
>isn't much motivation
Right now there is a huge campaign to show how threatening Russia is, and Russia will attack NATO and Europe. Zelensky's latest speech in Davos is part of that campaign.
>>51599
>In a perfect world of advancing capitalism and economic stability
>The US' own nukes and the sheer level of destruction to their own economic interests means they won't make that choice rationally
It's all boils down on how the actors view themselves and the others. Especially in the West where they apply Realpolitik and liberalism selectively. They all about the common market, and that free market will fix everything, creating trade between countries and economical relationships prevent wars, and that have to create international organizations where states can express themselves and negotiate, but when it comes to Russia, they suddenly demand to cut these ties, and say they have to arm themselves.
>The EU's and West sanctions didn't weaken Russia as much as they wished but did weaken their own soft power and gave Russia and China some of it. Yet, Russia's own neighbor's Russia has lost a great deal of soft power due to the fear of being invaded.
I can agree on these.
>>51600
>if their divergence in foreign policy interests
>try to divert resources away from power projecting assets such as the Navy and foreign military bases.
Well, now I'm thinking that there are always differing interest and opinions. Antique Athens had her own debate to build up army or the navy. They had their own decision making body and they opted for navy. US is the same. There are issues in the US which matters for the coastal regions with big cities, and there are issues the central "empty" rural US consider important. They have the decision making bodies and processes, and they deal with it. EU would be the same.
More or less.
As for the common foreign policy there is a will - at least on paper, or appearing in the media - that EU members have to show united front.
>isn't much motivation
Right now there is a huge campaign to show how threatening Russia is, and Russia will attack NATO and Europe. Zelensky's latest speech in Davos is part of that campaign.
>>51599
>In a perfect world of advancing capitalism and economic stability
>The US' own nukes and the sheer level of destruction to their own economic interests means they won't make that choice rationally
It's all boils down on how the actors view themselves and the others. Especially in the West where they apply Realpolitik and liberalism selectively. They all about the common market, and that free market will fix everything, creating trade between countries and economical relationships prevent wars, and that have to create international organizations where states can express themselves and negotiate, but when it comes to Russia, they suddenly demand to cut these ties, and say they have to arm themselves.
>The EU's and West sanctions didn't weaken Russia as much as they wished but did weaken their own soft power and gave Russia and China some of it. Yet, Russia's own neighbor's Russia has lost a great deal of soft power due to the fear of being invaded.
I can agree on these.
>>51600
>if their divergence in foreign policy interests
>try to divert resources away from power projecting assets such as the Navy and foreign military bases.
Well, now I'm thinking that there are always differing interest and opinions. Antique Athens had her own debate to build up army or the navy. They had their own decision making body and they opted for navy. US is the same. There are issues in the US which matters for the coastal regions with big cities, and there are issues the central "empty" rural US consider important. They have the decision making bodies and processes, and they deal with it. EU would be the same.