Melissa Chen: What Americans Don’t Understand About China

[stroopwafel]

Myth. China has never owned more than ~10% of US debt, and it's currently ~5%.



5G does not a civilisation make.

How much does China actually make that the USA / EU / Japan etc. can't do as as well or better? Actually, very little. Remember, vast amounts of important stuff that China is making is IP designed and owned by Western companies. The West could hardly stop importing from China overnight, but production could be moved away over a course of a few years.

And, no, there is just about no chance the USA or most of the EU will permit China ownership of vital infrastructure.

That is not the point. Western countries indeed had the technological advantage with China serving at it's production facility but now you see the gap being closed without the West ever being able to compete on it's manufacture capacity or pricing. It simply isn't economically feasibe to compete on China's terms and conditions other than maybe some highly specialized pharmaceutical necessities. When China is also starting to have a competitive edge in innovation than you can see where this is going.

I'd have a stop and think about the contradictions in there...



Like it hasn't violently suppressed Tibet, or the Uighurs, or unilaterally claimed the South China Sea (which it's covered in military bases, right off the coasts of several other nations) and Senkaku islands, and invaded India over specious border claims? And if you've missed all the overt military posturing China makes towards Taiwan, well you need to do some checking. You are however right that it is unlikely to militarily attack it soon: but mostly because it doesn't think it would be able to win and get away with it.

Well yeah, that is why I was specifically referring to Taiwan that it's unlikely China would violently suppress it and why criticism of it's human rights violations(indeed in regards to Uighurs or Tibet or Mongolians) is legitimate. Disputes over territorial waters or border claims is more of a security consolidation aggravated by historic grievances(espescially with Japan). Same reason as those joint military exercises with Russia. It is to communicate China's military responsiveness and to probe America's waning influence in the region. But the same reason why China will avoid direct military confrontation with the U.S. at all costs is the same reason why it won't invade Taiwan; it simply isn't in it's interest to do so. It is in it's interest to keep relations as good as they can be. China understands economic influence is of much more importance than military might but ofcourse you still need a strong deterrent to prove your capabilities. But it's unlikely China will ever actively pursue military aggression unlike the U.S. with it's disastrous campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc in the last two decades alone.

Again, you need to think really carefully about what you're arguing here. Imperialism in terms of invading places and permanently occupying them is relatively old hat for everyone these days. Economic and political domination has been the new imperialism for a long time now, and China's getting right up there. China's abilities to influence the world have been limited by underdevelopment for decades. As its growth and development progress and these barriers increasingly fall away, China is going to assert itself steadily more. We'd be fools to think it's going to sit on all that power and not use it.

That is why I said that countries with weak leaders, weak institutions and (unpayable) debt that reach out to China will have that political system exported to them and espescially populist leadership will prove receptible(other than corruption like in most third world countries). That is why I also said a divided E.U. could ultimately be of grave strategic disadvantage even if it's dissolution is ultimately inevatible. That more countries will fall under China's sphere of influence is a fact since not only is China emerging as the new superpower at the same time the U.S. has also given up on multilateralism(a trend accelerated by Trump but already started under the Obama administration). That is why I said the U.S. as this 'shining city on the hill' as something other countries aspire too well it no longer serves that purpose. China simply jumps into this vacuum. This is not imperialism. Imperialism are the pointless military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan where the U.S. tried to supplant these countries tribal cultures with their own cultural values through the barrel of a gun. In a way I guess the neocons and PNAC were the last dying reflexes of traditional imperialism.

 

[Agema]

I notice a diplomatic exclusion from that statement.

I notice a diplomatic exclusion from that statement.

The UK government's history with Huawei is complex. This is the story I heard:

Apparently, the main UK telecoms provider (BT) decided to use Huawei in the early-mid 2000s and informed certain relevant people in government, who appear to have not bothered telling other people in government for several years. As the government therefore remained silent on the matter, BT and later other UK telecoms firms thought it all seemed fine and filled their networks with Huawei equipment.

When the latter government people suddenly found out lots of the telecoms network was now on Huawei equipment, there was considerable unhappiness. Instead of unravelling this, they set the intelligence services to check over and monitor all the Huawei tech being installed. Now years later, as 5G is effectively built up on the 4G network, it's harder to remove Huawei. This then also goes back to politics, and that the parties made a big deal of promising improved broadband ASAP. Using competitors to Huawei would both be more expensive and slower.

* * *

Huawei is an unusually high security risk. There's the issue of Chinese law requiring Chinese companies to comply with the Chinese government, and there's also the question of its ownership. This is very opaque. Following the paper trail reveals two shareholders: the founder, with about 1%, and the remaining 99% with what is called a "trade union" body, which might give the idea that Huawei is owned by its employees and has a profit-share scheme. However, this is unlikely. It's very unclear what this trade union body actually is, however, as part of China's Communist system, trade unions are not actually employee-run organisations but state-controlled bodies. In other words, there's a good chance Huawei is de facto a state-owned company.

It almost certainly has been subsidised up the wazoo by the Chinese government. There are estimates that Huawei can sell its mobile phones at 30% off the cost they probably should go for due to subsidies, and it has certainly won telecoms infrastructure deals by running a loss. However, that's not necessarily so sinister, as that's similar to the model companies like Uber have employed: use an absurdly vast cushion of investor money to undercut and crush opposition, then when established and the competition thinned out, raise the prices.

Mind you, Google/Alphabet et al. do all sorts of lucrative stuff for the US military and intelligence services too, so we're putting a lot of faith in their internal firewalls.

 

[Agema]

That is not the point. Western countries indeed had the technological advantage with China serving at it's production facility but now you see the gap being closed without the West ever being able to compete on it's manufacture capacity or pricing. It simply isn't economically feasibe to compete on China's terms and conditions other than maybe some highly specialized pharmaceutical necessities. When China is also starting to have a competitive edge in innovation than you can see where this is going.

We don't need to compete with China in manufacturing, nor do we particularly want to - our economies have developed past that point. We assist other developing world countries to compete with China.

China has a few, very specific competitive edges built up from heavily targetted subsidies. Broadly, it's still years behind.

Well yeah, that is why I was specifically referring to Taiwan that it's unlikely China would violently suppress it and why criticism of it's human rights violations(indeed in regards to Uighurs or Tibet or Mongolians) is legitimate. Disputes over territorial waters or border claims is more of a security consolidation aggravated by historic grievances(espescially with Japan).

Let's be more clear. China just declared "That shit's ours because in 1400 the Chinese emperor said it was" and relied on no-one having the military ability to oppose them. I wonder what else it will feel like adding for "security consolidation" when it's militarily able to?

This is not imperialism.

Yes, it is imperialism.

It's not the old, pre-20th-century military-focused concept of imperialism, but that's not all imperialism is.

 

[stroopwafel]

We don't need to compete with China in manufacturing, nor do we particularly want to - our economies have developed past that point. We assist other developing world countries to compete with China.

China has a few, very specific competitive edges built up from heavily targetted subsidies. Broadly, it's still years behind.

How have western economies moved past it? Do they no longer need clothes, computers, phones, industrial ingredients etc(basically everything) if China can't provide it? That Cambodia or Vietnam can suddenly take over? Our economies are dependent on those long supply lines and trade. Without there would be no need for finance, banking, insurance and pretty much every aggregate economic activity that makes our economies so 'developed'. It is all dependent on this crucial infrastructure that is wholly owned by China including America's state deficit and with it the dollar itself. If China wanted it could bankrupt the U.S. over night.

Let's be more clear. China just declared "That shit's ours because in 1400 the Chinese emperor said it was" and relied on no-one having the military ability to oppose them. I wonder what else it will feel like adding for "security consolidation" when it's militarily able to?

You're mistaking the forest for the trees here. China expanded it's influence in these waters as a reaction to America's withdrawal and to assert itself as a maritime presence. The joint military exercises with Russia serve that same purpose. It doesn't necessarily want to claim these islands or waters it simply doesn't want it's rivals(historic ones like Japan or current ones like the U.S.) to have an influence; and as such indeed consolidate it's security concerns. In some international matters this has also proven effective like for example the CP being able to keep the Kims in check and maintain diplomatic channels to mitigate their nuclear missile tests. You'll never see North Korea openly defy China or provoke their maritime policies like it does with the U.S. or it's (former) allies. And this is ofcourse their strategic objective not some insignificant islands.

Yes, it is imperialism.

It's not the old, pre-20th-century military-focused concept of imperialism, but that's not all imperialism is.

No it's not. You can't blame China imperialism if countries knock on China's door asking them to invest and subsidize their debt. Do you think the U.S. has ever done such a thing from the kindness of it's heart? No, it's creating a sphere of influence and internal markets similarly as the one that followed WW2 when the world was divided in east and west. Imperialism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Agema]

How have western economies moved past it? Do they no longer need clothes, computers, phones, industrial ingredients etc(basically everything) if China can't provide it? That Cambodia or Vietnam can suddenly take over? Our economies are dependent on those long supply lines and trade. Without there would be no need for finance, banking, insurance and pretty much every aggregate economic activity that makes our economies so 'developed'.

I already said it couldn't be done overnight, do keep up.

It is all dependent on this crucial infrastructure that is wholly owned by China including America's state deficit and with it the dollar itself. If China wanted it could bankrupt the U.S. over night.

Either you're misexplaining something, or this is just wrong.

You'll never see North Korea openly defy China or provoke their maritime policies like it does with the U.S. or it's (former) allies. And this is ofcourse their strategic objective not some insignificant islands.

Yes, ensuring everyone falls obediently into line isn't imperialistic at all.

No it's not. You can't blame China imperialism if countries knock on China's door asking them to invest and subsidize their debt. Do you think the U.S. has ever done such a thing from the kindness of it's heart? No, it's creating a sphere of influence and internal markets similarly as the one that followed WW2 when the world was divided in east and west. Imperialism has nothing to do with it.

"Subsidise their debt" sounds like a corporate euphemism.

If China is offering loans to other countries when others won't, then China is either facilitating unsafe borrowing/lending, or it is buying influence and parts of other countries' economies. It's exactly the sort of thing the West has done and will do. It allows exercise of power, to help ensure that these countries will not, as you put it, openly defy China or provoke them.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[stroopwafel]

If China is offering loans to other countries when others won't, then China is either facilitating unsafe borrowing/lending, or it is buying influence and parts of other countries' economies. It's exactly the sort of thing the West has done and will do. It allows exercise of power, to help ensure that these countries will not, as you put it, openly defy China or provoke them.

The reason China invests in countries others won't is exactly because it is anti-imperialistic. You're a Sudanese dictator with a Janjaweed militia that kills children? China doesn't give a shit. High risk/high reward is also fine by them. As long as Chinese investment in natural resources is secured and the Sudanese end of the bargain is fulfilled then that concludes their terms of agreement. Whatever else they do do in their country is their own concern. It is the kind of soft power that is the siren call for any country in need. China will never preach to the country it does business with but export it's political system if asked for(again why populist, weak countries are at risk similarly as corrupt dictatorships and bankrupt banana republics). China is amoral in it's international relations which is the complete opposite of imperialism with it's messianic delusions.

I'm not saying China is the preferable alternative to the U.S. but this is simply the reality in a world where the U.S. has departed from the post-WW2 world order and where the balance of power has shifted. That post-war era of the last 70 years is simply never coming back and the world(including Europe) will have to get used to that new reality. The coronavirus hysteria also accelerated the demise of western hegemony but that also counts for China's status as a superpower in general. Existing trends are rapidly speeding up. America is like a third world country burning with riots and a nation divided to the core with one person having a trillion dollars with others sleeping under a bridge while China asserts itself as the new superpower.

But, you know, I'm sure we can argue about the definition of gender a little more.

 

[Agema]

The reason China invests in countries others won't is exactly because it is anti-imperialistic. You're a Sudanese dictator with a Janjaweed militia that kills children? China doesn't give a shit. High risk/high reward is also fine by them. As long as Chinese investment in natural resources is secured and the Sudanese end of the bargain is fulfilled then that concludes their terms of agreement. Whatever else they do do in their country is their own concern. It is the kind of soft power that is the siren call for any country in need. China will never preach to the country it does business with but export it's political system if asked for(again why populist, weak countries are at risk similarly as corrupt dictatorships and bankrupt banana republics). China is amoral in it's international relations which is the complete opposite of imperialism with it's messianic delusions.

China muscles in with investment and so on, but what happens when the interests it has put in are challenged? Do you think China is going to meekly back away, "No problem, it's your country, we wouldn't dream of interfering!" Of course it will interfere to protect its interests. It still has limited power now, but that is changing. It's not all benign help and assistance, it's leverage and, if it needs to, it will end in threats. For instance, you wanted to talk about how much of the USA's debt China owned and how much power that give China over the USA, well China owns far more of Africa's debt, and increasing as we speak. China is absolutely going to expect its African clients to back it on international affairs such as UN votes when required, and so on.

 

[stroopwafel]

China muscles in with investment and so on, but what happens when the interests it has put in are challenged? Do you think China is going to meekly back away, "No problem, it's your country, we wouldn't dream of interfering!" Of course it will interfere to protect its interests. It still has limited power now, but that is changing. It's not all benign help and assistance, it's leverage and, if it needs to, it will end in threats. For instance, you wanted to talk about how much of the USA's debt China owned and how much power that give China over the USA, well China owns far more of Africa's debt, and increasing as we speak. China is absolutely going to expect its African clients to back it on international affairs such as UN votes when required, and so on.

Sure, but how many times in 70 years have Nato countries(excluding perhaps Turkey) ever disagreed on U.S. foreign policy? Even recently during the illegal invasion in Iraq or the protracted occupation of Afghanistan European countries followed the U.S. in their futile exercise at great cost. Blair was Bush's lap dog. Remember Rumsfeld's speech about 'new Europe' with eastern Europe's blind allegiance or Colin Powell's 'testimony' in front of the Unsec? The U.N. is a joke. Yeah, Africa will folllow China in international matters, even Russia is choosing China's side. Such is the nature of power politics. Something the U.S. have also always been very adept at. Also even if we are indeed entering another Cold War I probably don't have to remind you about the previous one with the Iran/Contra scandal, the Vietnam and Korea war or any of the numerous covert CIA programs to overthrow South American regimes with any means necessary. They could get away with it because they didn't have a strategic rival(Russia has always been weak). Now that is different. When China completes the belt and road initiative it will break U.S. hegemony for good. Main trading and shipping routes will be completely owned by them. Trump is also a weak, impulsive and emotional leader that comes at the worst possible time. He doesn't even understand Nato briefings.

 

[Agema]

Sure, but how many times in 70 years have Nato countries(excluding perhaps Turkey) ever disagreed on U.S. foreign policy?

Like France overtly threatening to veto a UN resolution on the invasion of Iraq, you mean? Or the fact that virtually all the NATO countries except the UK sat it out beyond some very minor peacekeeping duties during the occupation? NATO is an alliance of mutual benefit because Europe and the USA had a lot of common outlooks and objectives (it is no surprise it is gradually unravelling with its main threat gone). China's relationship with African countries is vastly more one-sided, and it is unclear they share many objectives.

I get you don't like the USA and feel overjoyed at it's decline, but it has very little to do with the fact China is not going to be a kinder, more helpful alternative. If anything, quite the opposite.

And I wouldn't put too much stock in Russian-Chinese friendship. That's a marriage of occasional convenience if ever there was one.

 

[stroopwafel]

Like France overtly threatening to veto a UN resolution on the invasion of Iraq, you mean? Or the fact that virtually all the NATO countries except the UK sat it out beyond some very minor peacekeeping duties during the occupation? NATO is an alliance of mutual benefit because Europe and the USA had a lot of common outlooks and objectives (it is no surprise it is gradually unravelling with its main threat gone). China's relationship with African countries is vastly more one-sided, and it is unclear they share many objectives.

I get you don't like the USA and feel overjoyed at it's decline, but it has very little to do with the fact China is not going to be a kinder, more helpful alternative. If anything, quite the opposite.

And I wouldn't put too much stock in Russian-Chinese friendship. That's a marriage of occasional convenience if ever there was one.

Lol minor? You tell that to the families that lost loved ones or the horrible terrorist attacks it provoked. Chirac was a contrarian I wouldn't put much faith in(something Sarkozy was also quick to reverse) and when it comes to actual policy Germany says A and does B(meaning it actively supported the U.S. far in advance of the invasion in Iraq including covert operations).

Also not true I don't like the U.S. I like the U.S. a lot and visited it often. But that is different from agreeing with their foreign policy or objectively observing the changed geopolitical landscape. I also think it's obvious from my post that the relationship between China and Russia is vastly unequal. Your idea of Nato as a 'value community' is also very naive. It mostly served for European countries to spend jack shit on defense budget and essentially be vassal states.

 

[Agema]

Lol minor? You tell that to the families that lost loved ones or the horrible terrorist attacks it provoked.

Yep, minor. The total deployment of troops by the UK to Iraq since 2003 is something like an order of magnitude more than the likes of France, Germany and Italy. Disgruntled fanatics don't really need much of an excuse to bomb infidels.

Your idea of Nato as a 'value community' is also very naive. It mostly served for European countries to spend jack shit on defense budget and essentially be vassal states.

There speaks a man who clearly has never looked at European defence spending during the Cold War.

Actually, the problem is not my naivety, it's your superficial knowledge of history. I'm British, we know that whole "51st state" shit that serves as a trite, cynical way to think about things for people who can't really be bothered with the heavy stuff. Yes, the USA was and still is definitely the dominant partner, but it was really not as simple as the myth you're propounding. You clearly know nothing about things like France not being a part of NATO for many years, and other frqeuent divisions, disputes and debates about the relationship between the USA and European countries since its inception.

 

[stroopwafel]

Yep, minor. The total deployment of troops by the UK to Iraq since 2003 is something like an order of magnitude more than the likes of France, Germany and Italy. Disgruntled fanatics don't really need much of an excuse to bomb infidels.



There speaks a man who clearly has never looked at European defence spending during the Cold War.

Actually, the problem is not my naivety, it's your superficial knowledge of history. I'm British, we know that whole "51st state" shit that serves as a trite, cynical way to think about things for people who can't really be bothered with the heavy stuff. Yes, the USA was and still is definitely the dominant partner, but it was really not as simple as the myth you're propounding. You clearly know nothing about things like France not being a part of NATO for many years, and other frqeuent divisions, disputes and debates about the relationship between the USA and European countries since its inception.

I have yet to see you disprove anything I posted and now you suddenly sit on a high horse pretending how I do not understand your sophisticated understanding of history. It just makes you look more stupid to be honest espescially since you wrote absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts. Circumstances might have varied in the last 70 years but the predictable constant have been that the U.S. have always taken on the majority costs of both Nato and E.U. defense. So much so that Nato is falling apart with the U.S. retreating from multilateral organizations and many European countries depending so much on the U.S. for safety with defense budget so low that they wouldn't even be able to defend their own airspace if the need arises. Also as a British person you must understand how a nation whose glory days are long gone can still hang on to a delusional self-image as if they somehow still matter on the international stage.

 

[Agema]

I have yet to see you disprove anything I posted and now you suddenly sit on a high horse pretending how I do not understand your sophisticated understanding of history.

If you want to be picky, it's not you not understanding my understanding of history, it's just your limited knowledge of history. You want to claim everyone did what the USA wanted, but France clearly didn't. The UK refused US pressure to get involved in Vietnam. It took a lot of persuading to get Western European nations to intervene in Bosnia. You can observe all sorts of tensions with the USA attempting to dismantle the British and French empires and influence, with plenty of resistance and so on.

It just makes you look more stupid to be honest espescially since you wrote absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts. Circumstances might have varied in the last 70 years but the predictable constant have been that the U.S. have always taken on the majority costs of both Nato and E.U. defense.

No, it hasn't. The USA has maintained a global military with its navy, deployments in Korea, Japan etc. and a huge nuclear deterrent. Sure, it stationed quite a lot of troops in West Germany and would have pumped in a lot more if needed, but let's not pretend that was most of US military funding. In contrast, bar some postings of the UK and France in their declining empires, pretty much all Western European defence funding (~70-80% total US spending) was on its own defence.

It's only been since the fall of the Berlin Wall that European countries dramatically cut their defence spending compared to the USA (although some like Italy never spent that much in the first place). The USA complains now about how much it spends on defence compared to Europe and it certainly has something of a point, but on the other hand NATO does not exist to prop up the USA's excursions in other parts of the world: the USA's commitments to places like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are its own responsibility.

Also as a British person you must understand how a nation whose glory days are long gone can still hang on to a delusional self-image as if they somehow matter on the international stage.

I think anyone pretending that the USA is not a major player on the world stage should be tested for being delusional. It has the world's most powerful military, it's the world's most advanced country, and its economy is at least 50% larger than China's (around 20% of the entire world's economy). It is surely in relative decline as the rest of the world is growing faster than the USA and no longer has the supremacy it did in the 90s, but it should remain the world's most powerful country for decades yet, even if it chooses not to use it with isolationism.

 

[stroopwafel]

If you want to be picky, it's not you not understanding my understanding of history, it's just your limited knowledge of history. You want to claim everyone did what the USA wanted, but France clearly didn't. The UK refused US pressure to get involved in Vietnam. It took a lot of persuading to get Western European nations to intervene in Bosnia. You can observe all sorts of tensions with the USA attempting to dismantle the British and French empires and influence, with plenty of resistance and so on.



No, it hasn't. The USA has maintained a global military with its navy, deployments in Korea, Japan etc. and a huge nuclear deterrent. Sure, it stationed quite a lot of troops in West Germany and would have pumped in a lot more if needed, but let's not pretend that was most of US military funding. In contrast, bar some postings of the UK and France in their declining empires, pretty much all Western European defence funding (~70-80% total US spending) was on its own defence.

It's only been since the fall of the Berlin Wall that European countries dramatically cut their defence spending compared to the USA (although some like Italy never spent that much in the first place). The USA complains now about how much it spends on defence compared to Europe and it certainly has something of a point, but on the other hand NATO does not exist to prop up the USA's excursions in other parts of the world: the USA's commitments to places like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are its own responsibility.

Obviously in 70 years of history there has been disagreements but never to the extent it threatened the continuation of the organizations which has always followed the strategic imperative of the U.S. Whether it be the placement of nuclear missiles in Europe, military/logistics cooperation or the war in Afghanistan. There has always been a price for the free ride under America's safety umbrella. Even if European countries ostensibly disagreed with the U.S. it was mostly for public opinion reasons as they would still implicitly cooperate like for example with Germany and the war preparations in Iraq when the resolution hadn't even been voted for. Also in very few instances have Europe or other Nato countries ever veto'd any U.S. U.N. resolutions. The differences of opinions were just minimal, and even if they were there was still silent agreement without consequence. Europe has always been in a position of relative submission to the U.S. It had it's advantages for sure, espescially in economic and military terms. But it's never been a relationship on equal footing and you implicated that China and Africa should somehow be the exception. Ofcourse not, China follows the exact same strategy even if it's intentions are different. New time, new problems. It's the nature of international politics with it's vertical power structure.

I think anyone pretending that the USA is not a major player on the world stage should be tested for being delusional. It has the world's most powerful military, it's the world's most advanced country, and its economy is at least 50% larger than China's (around 20% of the entire world's economy). It is surely in relative decline as the rest of the world is growing faster than the USA and no longer has the supremacy it did in the 90s, but it should remain the world's most powerful country for decades yet, even if it chooses not to use it with isolationism.

I think it's obvious from my posts that this isn't in direct analogy to the current state of the U.S. When I just said that China is the U.S. first real strategic rival that ends U.S. hegemony it obviously implicates that the U.S. is still very powerful. Britain's role on the world stage however is completely played out.

 

[Agema]

Obviously in 70 years of history there has been disagreements but never to the extent it threatened the continuation of the organizations which has always followed the strategic imperative of the U.S.

Western Europe (and to an extent the rest of the world) not being overrun by Communists was very much the prime strategic objective of Western Europe, too. Most of it wasn't a "US" imperative, but a mutual one. Thus, unsurprisingly, they tended to work in concert. Who'd have thought?

Whether it be the placement of nuclear missiles in Europe, military/logistics cooperation or the war in Afghanistan. There has always been a price for the free ride under America's safety umbrella.

At Cold War peak, the US forces in West Germany were about 270k. Around that time, the standing West German military was ~500k. France had over 500k, the UK 3-400k, Italy >300k. Plus Belgium, Netherlands, etc. It's unclear to me what you think this "free ride" was, because the bulk of defence of Western Europe was always going to be done by Western Europe. Combined, with a slightly larger population but smaller economy, throughout the Cold War Western Europe maintained a military strength only slightly smaller than the USA.

This is without considering that Western Europe was by far the USA's most important ally, both economically for trade, and in terms of general geopolitical influence. The USA was defending Europe not just for the benefit of Europe, but for itself because were Western Europe to fall, it would have suffered a massive economic hit, and of course its chief rival, the USSR, would have had free access to all Western Europe's advanced technology too to incorporate.

I think it's obvious from my posts that this isn't in direct analogy to the current state of the U.S. When I just said that China is the U.S. first real strategic rival that ends U.S. hegemony it obviously implicates that the U.S. is still very powerful. Britain's role on the world stage however is completely played out.

Britain's past as a world power and continuing attitude of self-importance has nothing useful to do with this conversation at all, it only seems to have any purpose here as a feeble and petty attempt to annoy the British person you're arguing with.

 

[stroopwafel]

Western Europe (and to an extent the rest of the world) not being overrun by Communists was very much the prime strategic objective of Western Europe, too. Most of it wasn't a "US" imperative, but a mutual one. Thus, unsurprisingly, they tended to work in concert. Who'd have thought?

Who is arguing that? I am solely listing contemporary examples where subjugation to U.S. interests percedes long after any Cold War threats. I even noted how it is exactly for this reason that protection comes at a price.

At Cold War peak, the US forces in West Germany were about 270k. Around that time, the standing West German military was ~500k. France had over 500k, the UK 3-400k, Italy >300k. Plus Belgium, Netherlands, etc. It's unclear to me what you think this "free ride" was, because the bulk of defence of Western Europe was always going to be done by Western Europe. Combined, with a slightly larger population but smaller economy, throughout the Cold War Western Europe maintained a military strength only slightly smaller than the USA.

Yeah, it consisted of conscripts drafted from office jobs to fulfill some artificial quota that couldn't lift a finger in the face of any threat. The reliance have always been exclusively on the U.S. and the marginal defense budget reflects that. Even today European countries are unwilling to increase it that is how dependant they have become.

This is without considering that Western Europe was by far the USA's most important ally, both economically for trade, and in terms of general geopolitical influence. The USA was defending Europe not just for the benefit of Europe, but for itself because were Western Europe to fall, it would have suffered a massive economic hit, and of course its chief rival, the USSR, would have had free access to all Western Europe's advanced technology too to incorporate.

Yeah, that is kind of the popular assumption but domino theory shows a much more imperialistic streak in that policy with the violent interventions and suppressions in eg South America and Vietnam. That had nothing to do with creating new trade markets and everything with ideological ambitions the same that led to the disastrous campaigns in Afghanistan and espescially Iraq. U.S. European policy occured in that same Cold War geopolitical frame. 'Trade' has always been low in the hierarchy of U.S. foreign policy(read the excellent Running the World: the history of the NSC and the architects of American power by former Clinton sec of commerce David Rothkopf). Europe was a strategic buffer first and a trade market second.

Britain's past as a world power and continuing attitude of self-importance has nothing useful to do with this conversation at all, it only seems to have any purpose here as a feeble and petty attempt to annoy the British person you're arguing with.

No, Britain seem to believe after seceding from the E.U. that it can somehow make bilateral agreements with eg China as if somehow on equal footing which I implicated is compeletely delusional.

 

[Agema]

Who is arguing that? I am solely listing contemporary examples where subjugation to U.S. interests percedes long after any Cold War threats. I even noted how it is exactly for this reason that protection comes at a price.

International relationships are full of quid pro quos. Germany for instance has virtually no interest in overseas military adventures, but it receives benefits of various forms: intel and technology sharing, etc. The UK and France which are more active in overseas deployments receive US support as required, and so on.

Yeah, it consisted of conscripts drafted from office jobs...

Conscripted troops were from mandatory military service at age 18. They served a dedicated period (12-18 months, usually) during which they received proper military instruction, and whilst unlikely to be as enthusiastic as volunteers on average, still knew their business as well as anyone with that much experience. They were a minority of the standing militaries of postwar Western nations. Let's also remember that the USA used conscription for most of the period 1945-1990, as did the Warsaw Pact heavily rely on conscription to pad out their numbers.

If necessary they could be called up after service (West Germany had 300k reservists and a total listed theoretical strength of well over 1 million), but the basic standing military was 500k and perfectly capable.

Yeah, that is kind of the popular assumption but domino theory shows a much more imperialistic streak in that policy with the violent interventions and suppressions in eg South America and Vietnam. That had nothing to do with creating new trade markets and everything with ideological ambitions the same that led to the disastrous campaigns in Afghanistan and espescially Iraq.

Yes, ideology surely played a part, although underlying that is also access to resources and geopolitical power. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, suggests the risk to the USA that Soviet-allied Central and South American countries could threaten important supply routes of the USA. Nationalised industries under Soviet-allied governments could discriminate against the USA. Domino theory was flawed, but the USA had genuine reason to be concerned about Soviet influence in the Americas. As for the USA's general actions in Central and South America, it's certainly imperialistic.

'Trade' has always been low in the hierarchy of U.S. foreign policy(read the excellent Running the World: the history of the NSC and the architects of American power by former Clinton sec of commerce David Rothkopf). Europe was a strategic buffer first and a trade market second.

Great, so we agree on that then.

No, Britain seem to believe after seceding from the E.U. that it can somehow make bilateral agreements with eg China as if somehow on equal footing which I implicated is compeletely delusional.

Who cares, with respect to this discussion? You just started having a go at the UK for no constructive reason, there's no need to make one up now.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[stroopwafel]

International relationships are full of quid pro quos. Germany for instance has virtually no interest in overseas military adventures, but it receives benefits of various forms: intel and technology sharing, etc. The UK and France which are more active in overseas deployments receive US support as required, and so on.



Conscripted troops were from mandatory military service at age 18. They served a dedicated period (12-18 months, usually) during which they received proper military instruction, and whilst unlikely to be as enthusiastic as volunteers on average, still knew their business as well as anyone with that much experience. They were a minority of the standing militaries of postwar Western nations. Let's also remember that the USA used conscription for most of the period 1945-1990, as did the Warsaw Pact heavily rely on conscription to pad out their numbers.

If necessary they could be called up after service (West Germany had 300k reservists and a total listed theoretical strength of well over 1 million), but the basic standing military was 500k and perfectly capable.



Yes, ideology surely played a part, although underlying that is also access to resources and geopolitical power. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, suggests the risk to the USA that Soviet-allied Central and South American countries could threaten important supply routes of the USA. Nationalised industries under Soviet-allied governments could discriminate against the USA. Domino theory was flawed, but the USA had genuine reason to be concerned about Soviet influence in the Americas. As for the USA's general actions in Central and South America, it's certainly imperialistic.



Great, so we agree on that then.



Who cares, with respect to this discussion? You just started having a go at the UK for no constructive reason, there's no need to make one up now.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of this other than the assumption Europe would have been 'capable' to defend against any Soviet threat on it's own with Germany completely demilitarized. None the less it's been an interesting discussion.

 

[ralfy]