Macron.. Europe should build Army to protect itself from Russia, China & the USA ??

[Slant]

And Merkel for 13 years, what's the point in bringing up dates?
And fcs, when you yell things like that you are supposed to bring some links proving your claims.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't know about you, but fascists are at 20% in our polls.
I'd call that a failure.

And let's see how Germany is going to survive their next election. Or heaven forbid, France...

Aah yes, whataboutism.
How does that refute the point?

Merkel has had a lot more trouble in her elections. And she had to endure the main opposition being inside her Government. I don't get how you think it's even remotely comparable? Germany will survive the next election just fine, so will France. What's with the sudden madness in your posts here?

[Daethz]

Looks like the US needs to think about strategically placing ordinance to wipe the EU from existence, just in case.
Anything that is not the united states is a potential enemy, all potential threats should be accounted for and prepared for.

[Fuiking]

Looks like the US needs to think about strategically placing ordinance to wipe the EU from existence, just in case.
Anything that is not the united states is a potential enemy, all potential threats should be accounted for and prepared for.

Nice... hows being paranoid working out for you?

[Daethz]

Nice... hows being paranoid working out for you?

It's working out great, I have never been robbed or attacked before.
If I was more paranoid and got a engine-off set of cameras for my car maybe I would have been able to see who hit and ran me last year, being even more paranoid than I am now would be good.

[Fuiking]

It's working out great, I have never been robbed or attacked before.
If I was more paranoid and got a engine-off set of cameras for my car maybe I would have been able to see who hit and ran me last year, being even more paranoid than I am now would be good.

Dont let it destroy you mr troll baiter.. dont want to see you in a dark basement, being mentally unstable.

[Shalcker]

Yeah, now add the other parts I mentioned...

You bet, here is Prokhorov saying he wouldn’t accept the presidency, if he beat Putin:

It’s harder to find his concession speech in English, but as you can see above, he had no intentions of winning.

Your comprehension seems to be lacking - it wasn't about presidency, it was about accepting some government post as potential Putin's reward for Prokhorov's participation (and, presumably, allowing to get some of agenda on which he ran done using it).

- - - Updated - - -

Anytime a political leader wins elections with more than 70% that alone should make anyone sceptical.

So that's why everyone was so sceptical of Merkel! /s

[Slant]

So that's why everyone was so sceptical of Merkel! /s

Yeah, she didn't win with any margin close to that, fool...

[Shalcker]

Yeah, she didn't win with any margin close to that, fool...

United Russia doesn't win with such margins either.

[Noradin]

And still the entire world thinks the USA is the bigger threat.

Becasue it has bigger capabilites, not so much because it is more likely to use them (in Europe).

[Shalcker]

Why?
Holy fuck, how ideologically bankrupt do you have to be to call shit like this?

People living in societies divided over every issue expect every other society to be divided as well - and consider that to be a good thing too.

[Slant]

United Russia doesn't win with such margins either.

76%!!! I linked that shit... wtf. :P

[Slant]

It's not really opposition if they are governing the country together with you, right?

You're disappointing me. I know you can do better than this, yet you decided to side with the Putinista and somehow forget how democracy works? Where opposition forces the Government to make compromises for the consensus doesn't matter half as much as that this process happens. The result is the same, in the case of a grand coalition... ah nevermind, why the fuck am I even trying. Blabla, Putin great leader, Russia stronk!

lol

[Slant]

This current travesty is not how a democracy should work.

Your early quote is ironic, seeing as centrist parties got over 80% of the votes. Perhaps that is iffy too?

Oh, so now you're combining different parties to have an argument?

I mean, seriously? Have you been hacked? Let me try... The Netherlands is an authoritarian dictatorship, because their political parties got 100% of the valid votes! Shocking!

Ah, I think I understand how The Express make their headlines now...

[Felya]

Anything that is not the united states is a potential enemy, all potential threats should be accounted for and prepared for.

Conspiracy theorist, we have a problem...



- - - Updated - - -

It's working out great, I have never been robbed or attacked before.

Than why are you paranoid? Is it the TV? It’s the TV, isn’t it?

- - - Updated - - -

Your comprehension seems to be lacking - it wasn't about presidency, it was about accepting some government post as potential Putin's reward for Prokhorov's participation (and, presumably, allowing to get some of agenda on which he ran done using it).

Nope, it’s just fine. The article repeats President several times and only mentions him taking any other post, as a consolation, since he was polling so well. Sad, low energy... lie harder...

- - - Updated - - -

The article links to Bloomberg which is behind a paywall.
Luckily you get debunked in the first two sentences, which can still be seen even if you are not subscribed to them.

The guy did not say he wouldn't accept the presidency if he beat Putin.
The guy said he's not going to work for the state bodies because Putin owns all of them, he says he would rather focus on building up the political party.

Verdict: FAKE NEWS.

Reading 2 cut off paragraphs that don’t say what you claim? Try again... read the fucking article that is linked, if you cannot see the link from business week. You literally just ignored the links I provided, because you only read 2 paragraphs. You might also want to read the fun Porkorov have been having since. WTF? Read the fucking article...

[Felya]

Your shitty link used bloomberg as a source.
Their source doesn't say that.

You read the first two paragraphs, the rest were behind a pay wall. The free article I linked that you could, but refuse to read, actually explains those two paragraphs... just like Bloomberg... My shitty source was business week and your shitty source doesn’t exist,

The guy said he wouldn't take place in the state AFTER it was known he was going to be third.
He announced he would continue opposition.

See, this why reading just 2 paragraphs isn’t enough and I am perfectly content on agreeing that your reply is based on what you hope a paywalled Page said... even though I provided a shitty article talking about the whole thing. Bias is a bitch...

[Shalcker]

Nope, it’s just fine. The article repeats President several times and only mentions him taking any other post, as a consolation, since he was polling so well. Sad, low energy... lie harder...

Seriously, i watched Prokhorov's campaign pretty intently - because he backed our local well-liked opposition figure, Roisman, against "his own" party - which basically resulted in "his party" (one he paid for and all) being taken over by Presidential Administration guys and made irrelevant (and dissolving soon after if i remember correctly).

He never said he'll not accept presidency if he would won. That's pure, 100% bullshit. If you actually read it in the article you should note author as promoter of bullshit; but i trust Bloomberg to be mostly right there and you just misreading it.

And his party being taken over by AP when it could get actual likeable, electable opposition figures like Roisman is proof of his independence.

Reading 2 cut off paragraphs that don’t say what you claim? Try again... read the fucking article that is linked, if you cannot see the link from business week. You literally just ignored the links I provided, because you only read 2 paragraphs. You might also want to read the fun Porkorov have been having since. WTF? Read the fucking article...

Business Week says:
Bloomberg reports that Prokhorov is planning to refuse any government position offered to him, and hopes instead to build his party fast in time for future elections.

"I am not interested in working in state bodies," he told state TV on Sunday.

Nothing about not accepting presidency if he would won.

[Skroe]

(Finally getting to these now that the Holiday week is over. Sorry about the delay.)

Of course we don't have a role to play. We're the reason why you a) don't want to enter that Cold War II, not with China. And we're also b) the reason why you won't be able to defeat China the way you defeated Russia.

See, we'll keep on trading with China. Doubt it? China is arguably worse, much worse at human right violations than the castrated Russia is these days. Do you see us slapping them with sanctions? The most they get is a warm critique. Nah, with the money from Europe, they'll be able to outlast anything you'd like to do to them. Unless it's outright war, which would be stupid.

You're entirely off base here.

First, that Cold War II with China is probably more in the US's interests than it is against of its interests. Fact is, the only way the conflict could be avoided is if the US's very crucial foot print in the Indo-Pacific region is uprooted... something that is simply not going to happen (and the people there don't desire it, aside from China). Cold War to hold on and to expand that dominance is preferable to handing it over to China.


Secondly, if you think Europe would keep trading with China, you got another thing coming. RAND actually did a very interesting study a few years ago that gamed this out. Far from your assertion that trade would keep going, a multi-year sustained US-Chinese conflict (one of several scenarios) would see the Chinese economy shrink by about 30% after one year (compounding every year there after), while the US would shrink by about 6%. This is because the US economy is largely an internal market and the Chinese economy is largely an external one (with the US its largest partner).

Furthermore contrary to your assertion, yes indeed, the entire West-Pacific and South China Sea would be a massive war zone. Trade ships from Europe or anywhere wouldn't leave port to travel through there. Especially considering the docks they'd be heading to would be among the first thing destroyed by US strikes on the mainland or Chinese strikes against US allies.

Yes, this would create a severe disruption in the global economy... but it is one the US would feel very limited effects of compared to other countries. Foreign trade (import and experts combined) is a significantly smaller share of the US economy than other countries, and most of that trade besides China is with Canada, Mexico Japan and "Europe" (through really, mostly Germany, and the UK with France, Italy and others about half that of the UK... aggregate, Europe is our fourth largest partner after Mexico). Our biggest concern, and also China, would be access to crude oil. The US, however, largely does not pull from the Middle East, while China does (and Angola)... and we would not let shipments make it there.

The thing that would take down China in the end, would likely be exactly the thing you'd say wouldn't happen: lack of fuel (coal as well) for their military industrial complex, because the sea-based route China is dependent on would be out of their hands and in ours. This is also why China is seeking to extend its reach through the South China Sea, and into the Indian Ocean. It's their strategic weakness. As it stands, they can be "starved" out (in the sense of limitations on essential resources), just like Japan was, and ultimately Germany was in the Second World War

I don't get your fascination for the idea of CW2.

It's not fascination. It's horror. Don't mistake me, this is a fucking terrible thing that is befalling the world. If the US gets through the next 30-60 years of whatever the conflict with China looks like and comes out on top, it will have achieved another unipolar moment that will prove as fleeting as the last one. It'll be 15 to 20 years of liberal democratic hegemony, followed by a 10-15 year decline in that order. History ryhmes, and the US is finding itself exactly where the other premier powers of their time have found themselves: engaged in large scale conflicts against a near-peer, only to find in that conflict they're ending nearly exactly where they started.

The root of it is that, it turns out, global economic integration is not an inhibitor of conflict between the strongest powers in the World, when core interests are threatened. As I said, to China, there is not a pile of money in the world large enough to accept the US presence in what it considers "its" domain. And to the US, there is not a pile of money in the world large enough to accept a withdraw from it. Similar conflicts have played out through history.

There is a terrible thing that is happening, but the trend lines are clear and every year it gets worse. We've had the privilege in these threads since 2014, starting with Crimea, to see the world change from the sunset of the post-Cold War order into the beginning of what comes next. Things we talked about in supposition terms back in 2014 are now fact.

There is nothing good coming of this. It's going to lead to global economic disruption, underinvestment in domestic affairs of many countries, and a spreading of conflict the likes of which haven't been seen since the mid 20th century. But also liberal democracy and the Chinese alternative are not compatible for mutal co-existence, in no small part because China doesn't accept the rules to a game it is late to show up in. So this is happening, and it's a conflict the United States must win.

To me, it sounds very much like the US is dying for a fight. Mostly to have another reason to keep on spending instead of focusing on their own social problems. I'd even go as far as saying the smart money is on the US tearing itself apart before it starts CW2 with China...

This nonsense as got to stop. It's as fanciful as ever.

To be direct, and a little bit the crude American here, I'm not sure what it is going to take for "you Europeans." You people have been lecturing us on this sort of "oh we need to mind our own business" and "America is so divided" nonsense for literally 250 years.

You all nearly killed yourselves in the two biggest clusterfucks in human history, and you all lost your empires and were replaced as the center of the world but the United States. You are not the model to emulate. Sorry.

I have nothing but respect for Europe... but seriously, our countries grew up together over the last 250 years. We are not your children; we are your cousins that live across the lake. We are not you. We do not want to be you. You are not the model to emulate. Sorry.

America built Pax Americana when it was kicking its own ass and rife with social problems with dwarf todays, with resources a fraction of todays. Like this notion - repeated in this thread - we have to have all of our ducks in a row and have hands joined around some ridiculous unity campfire is fucking absurd. Americans have never done that. Americans being irate at their fellow Americans is as American as apple pie. I'm sorry if you people can't handle the drama, but simply put, you've forgotten that this is who we are. We are not Merkel's Germany... skittish at raised voices. We're not contemporary UK, which is a Masterpiece in weak political leadership as they execute the Brexit nobody really wants for some reason. We love a fight with ourselves. This is nothing new.

The more I read this "US tearing itself apart" nonsense, the more I think it's just Europeans transposing their fears about the European Union's terrible internal contradictions. Americans being at each others throats is an age old story that usually ends in just voices raised. Europeans being at each other throats ends in continental scale wars. Not very likely right now admittedly, but in a sense, Modern Europe under the EU is hardly unprecedented. All of Europe's continent wide settlements - Westphalia, Utrect, Vienna, Versaiiles, Yalta... they all lasted two generations or less. Is Maastricht next? I certainly hope not. But we can't rule out the EU being another Concert of Europe. You are not the first generation of Europeans to think a continent-scale war is unthinkable.

And through that the US has endured and prospered and grown in power and wealth.

The point is, from where I'm standing in the United States... and I relish fighting Trumpkins as you know... Europe has absolutely no grounds to lecture us on how we should focus our energies and our internal stability. I remember a time, not so long ago, the Euro was poised to be a peer to the dollar, or displace it, and the European Union was poised to be a peer to the US. And that's fallen away, as Financial Crisis gave way to EuroCrisis gave way to Brexit and the discord of the union brought on by the populists. To get Europe back to where Europe was around 2005 will take a generation or more. Europe will have to be "good" before it is "great".


Don't get me wrong. I am as ardent a believer in that as ever. The European Union remains the most important project in the world, and the most important geopolitical creation since the founding of the United States. Europe as a true peer and equal, and not a mercy-ruled one that we humor out of respect, affection and kinship, is in the best interests of the United States. But I'm not going to softball it, and I'm not going to sit idly by as Europeans, to be blunt, drag us down to their level. Donald Trump is a problem. European integration not failing fantastically within the next decade, particularly if an economic downturn comes that threatens the Euro again, is a far greater one.

The fact is, the standard you set, if applied to both America and Europe equally, is unrealistic. Both the US and Europe have to set about their ambitious global agendas, for the good of themselves and all, while dealing with the things that bring about great internal discord. We must walk and chew bubblegum. Even the young EU has made a real positive contribution to the cause of justice and peace around the world, while figuring out how the damn integration this is going to work? Do you suggest the EU sit on its hands while it figures out how to deal with Viktor Orban? Or Poland? Or Southern Europe's budget problems? No way. No one sane would. And just the same because Roads Suck in Tulsa, it doesn't mean the US shouldn't built more bombers, more carriers or more bases. It's exactly the same thing.

Now to the question "is the US spoiling for a fight". No. Ten years ago it would have been. Today, it's been more than patient. I would have been less patient. We slow-walked confrontation with China, and put ourselves in a tighter spot.

Make no mistake: there are two outcomes to this - one where China backs down, or one where we engage in a growing Cold conflict that'll get hot.

- - - Updated - - -

but you also said that you are opposed to interventionism, and he is an interventionist, you mentioned that the south china sea and taiwan are none of america's business

I'm not an inverventionist. I was many years ago (early 2000s). My opinion has significantly changed over the years. You just have to look at my position on Syria.

In 2012 and most of 2013 it was "don't get involved... if anything use it to give Russia and Iran a bloody nose, but stay out of it".

In 2013, post-Red Line incident, it was "a limited campaign to back up Obama foolishly putting American credibility on the line, but not one inch more".

In 2014 and 2015 and 2016 it was "do the minimum amount to give Russia a blood nose, or leave entirely, and focus on Russia and China"

In 2017 and 2018 it's been "who gives a fig about ISIS and Syria? It's all about Russia and China".


the United States should not be using its military power to fight in brush-fire wars across the world, particularly in the middle East. As I've said dozens of times, ever bomber, every fighter, every warship tied up fighting ISIS or bombing Syria in general, is one not warding off China or Russia.

I've been broadcasting for the past year that the Pentagon moved the War on Terror to about sixth place on it's priority queue, after China, Russia, Space, Cyberspace, and North Korea.

I even shared recently how the Pentagon refused Central Command's request for a carrier in the Persian Gulf - it rather keep them in the Atlantic/North Sea / Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific, than in the Persian Gulf. This after the US had a continuous carrier presence in the Gulf for nearly 15 years. It underscores the shift in priorities.

The US defending its interests and allies in Indo-Pacific and Europe is not interventionism. That is defining interventionism down to mean the same thing as defending alliances in general, which is not the case. Interventionism means humanitarian interventionism, which is not what this is. The US most focus the whole of its diplomatic and military power in defending the liberal democratic world order since World War II from challengers in Russia and China, first by establishing regional defense / trade/ political relationships, and then defending those from being upended by rivals. This means a large Naval and Air presence in the Indo-Pacific region. This means a large air and army presence in Europe. It means lots of exercises, trade deals, and regional diplomacy. It does not mean sending in the 101st Airborne to fight terrorists or any crap like that. That shit is behind us.

If you want a name for it, it is defending the American-led world order. That is what we should be doing. That is where our tax dollars are widely used. "Fate of the world" type stuff. Not chasing ISIS. That is not interventionism. We can't install democracy at the point of a gun, and we can't want it more than the people living there. We must encourage democracy at every turn, especially in the face of the Chinese alternative, but 1990s and 2000s style "installing" of it? Never again should we do that. We destroyed ourselves in those endeavors. America lost Afghanistan when it decided to treat the Taliban and Al Qaeda as one and the same, and turned a counter-terrorism mission into a nation building one. The US should focus its power on what it's very good at - busting up industrial powers and containing regional hegemons, - and leave counter insurgency and the like to the people living there.

Or let me put this another way. Once I hope puts forth my seriousness with how I view this: the American interventions since 1992 that are over as part of our global strategy as of January 2018, I believe will come to be viewed by future historians as ruinous as Napoleon's March on Russia. The brushfire wars since 1992 are a classic imperial miscalculation and roughly halved our relative power to our rivals while will make the next general conflict much more even. This is also, not unprecedented in history.

[Kiri]

-snip for brevity-

While I do agree that there are serious issues on both sides of the pond and that each should focus resolving theirs first, there are some remarks I would like to make regarding your argument.

First, you seem to frame it as if Donald Trump and the European integration issue are disconnected, when in my opinion they are anything but. Both of these are rooted in the same core issues of the rut and rot of democracy and the globalization of fear. However, these things have a tendency to reinforce one another. Giving Donald Trump the success he had electorally and the megaphone to proudly beat his nationalistic chest has emboldened nationalists and populists everywhere. If the project EU were to fail, it would in turn embolden the nationalists in the US as well. The thing is, in my opinion, we should not point fingers as to who should focus more on solving their issues, we should focus on aiding one another in resolving them together.

As a European that grew up with every reason to dislike the US, from being considered expendable in case the cold war ever got hot to my father having to face down GIs with his gun to protect my family (long story), I very much still like and, in a way, revere the US. However, that has diminished in recent times due to the last few presidents, and I think a lot of Europeans think - or maybe rather feel? - the same way. The US has been the beacon of the Western world, a nation that for many years led by example. Maybe it has always been a facade, a mask, but the cracks have become more and more visible, which creates the kind of criticism you see today. Sure, there is a lot of Schadenfreude as well. Everyone likes to smugly feel superior to someone who was so far above you. But I think there is a vastly different dimension to this.
The US is still a focal point of the world. Even though China has grown more powerful in most areas, it simply has not managed to create this kind of focus, which is a good thing. But, as you in part alluded to as well, due to being such a focal point, it needs to show greatness, not decline. To put it into Marvel terms "most others do the same you do, just slower". Yes, not the obvious quote about responsibility. But the image that the US projects resounds around the world. That can lead to freedom and morals spreading, but it can also be used as an excuse for isolationism. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but when I criticize something the US does, I do so not necessarily from a point of smug superiority, but rather, in an attempt to help restore that beacon. In some respects, Europe needs the US to have its stuff together, in order to preserve its own. US issues seldom affect the US alone, which in turn gives a lot of people outside of the US reason and, in my opinion, the right to criticize them. That is just one of the downsides of being one of or the only pole in our world.

Anyway, I have been rambling on a bit here. Point two!
As someone who dabbled a bit in comparative historical institutional analysis during my time abroad, I would be careful with statements such as yours regarding the intra-american divide. History has shown that the outcome of a crisis can be fickle. Within a few decades, Germany changed from a nation that was rational enough to surrender when their situation became untenable to one primed to fight until the bitter end. Despite very similar development and political situation, the Glorious Revolution was a mostly peaceful transition of power, while the Nika revolts resulted in mass slaughter.
I am not saying that the US is necessarily heading down a certain path. All I am arguing is that one should never get complacent and believe that a rift will just mend itself, because it had always done so in the past. What is unthinkable, yet preventable today can become inevitable in a few decades. We are not our parents, or grandparents, or whatever. We are our own people, and we are more than capable of shaping the curse of history. It is important to always be aware of that. The past is our teacher, but it can never dictate our future. Only our present can shape that.

[Shalcker]

I find it amazing that a translation error generated so many reactions. Macron said nothing like what's in the title, he said an EU army should be built to defend against Russia and China, and much later talked about cyber security and in this case included the US and other nations. That's very different from saying the EU needs an army against the US.

And the best part is that even the president of the US didn't care to check what was actually said, and went on a rant about it. Looks like those who complain about "fake news" are the best at spreading them.

Media reported it as such and Trump reacted to it.

More like this weird US habit of "everything (bad) reported about me is fake, but I trust them to report truthfully on everything else".

[Slant]

[snip]

So, I've had time to think about your post. I agree with you that I was off base, but mostly because I didn't realise just how damaged your world view is.

See, there's a difference between CW1 and CW2, if we want to call it that. The difference is that this time, the US is the aggressor. When in CW1 you basically fought for survival and didn't have the immediate goal of "winning" the game in mind rather than just "surviving as long as it takes", you had one enemy and focused all your energy on that enemy. "Us" vs. "them" was a simple enough concept to understand then.

Now? You've lost your enemy, you've declared yourself the winner of CW1, so by definition, Russia cannot be the enemy again. Or, at the very least, not the only enemy. So what are you doing now? Let's skip over what you intended to do, but a quick recap: You went into Iraq twice, you went into Afghanistan, you had a small but very public desaster in Somalia, you turned against the Chinese, the Muslims, now the Mexicans. And you're even turning against each other in a seemingly infinite number of divisions that you create. Partly, because the internet makes them easier to create, partly because just like CW1, at some point you declared yourself done with civil rights. You're not. Far from it, as we have seen in the past decade. Years of non-action have led to what can only be described from the outside an eruption of civil right problems.

And while you're doing all that, you're confused about what you're actually doing. And while you're looking for a target, you're losing sight of why you're doing it. Why exactly?

China isn't a threat to the US. The whole Eisenhower doctrine of dominoes and such is based on the idea that communism would spread around the globe and encircle the US, strangling it and its values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. Nobody, not even in the US, can make a claim in sanity that China's communism is the same threat as soviet communism. Or that they're expansionistic beyond their immediate sphere of influence.

So again, I ask you, why? Why China? Because of Taiwan? The US doesn't give two shits about anyone outside the US, I think that much is clear. Everything, including the alliance to Europe, faltering as it may be these days, is to further US American goals. To impose your will upon the world, because you "officially" won CW1 and that is the natural state of things, or so the US thinks.

So, what is it you actually need to happen for you to cease your strategy? I doubt anything less than China withdrawing from everything back into a strict 12 mile zone of their mainland and complete economical surrender to capitalist rules would constitute a "victory" for the US. But for them the goal is somewhat different, isn't it. They just want the US to stay out of their business. They have no further goal than that, and they'll keep on going with that until the end of time or alternatively the end of the Chinese nation.

You're facing the Afghanistan problem all over again. Or the Iraqi problem, depending on the outcome. Either you impose your will upon the Chinese by sheer force, an effect that will not only unite the nation against you but you will lose that effect as soon as you withdraw. Which you will, because that's how the US does war. Shoot around a little and as soon as public support falters, the next President gains votes by promising to withdraw. Or you'll have the Iraqi effect and "win" the war by removing the Chinese regime or collapsing their nation economically into chaos... destabilising the whole region and creating a whole new problem for other nations that are not the US. Because if there's one thing the US hasn't been good at since WW2, it's dealing with the aftermath of its adventures.

Sure, you think it's another European lecturing you, and perhaps I am. But you need to take a hard look at your recent history and answer me this simple question, why China? Because you think this is some sort of dominance jungle fight on an international level? China doesn't care if you think you're dominant or not. You're actually faced with the one country that actually doesn't care what you think about it. Is that what motivates you? Because all the sabre rattling you're doing here verbally, and over there with your navy, isn't going to impress a nation that actually thinks you're the intruder.

And let's look at it geopolitically... unlike CW1, where you managed to not only get Europe behind you and found NATO, you've pretty much got the support of the entire free world. Now? You're making more enemies than allies these days. When was the last time you made a new friend? You're drawing credit on old friendships. You're losing friends rather than making new ones. I know that in US perspective the influence of Europe in "winning CW1" has been miniscule at best, let's not even talk about the third world... but you could rely on amiable relations with nations that basically let you play your spy games in them. And while you're actively trying to lose friends (don't worry, we're stubborn and not that easy to lose), you're dealing with... half a dozen "enemies" at the same time. Putin here, Iran there, China over there, Islamic extremism, Republicans or Democrats, whatever your allegiance lies with... now we've created the whole new enemy set of "populism vs. the truth" and you're actually, ironically dealing with the same bullshit Germany figured out after WW2 was a shite idea to begin with.

In the meantime, China has one enemy: The US. Russia has one enemy: The US. Iran has one enemy: The US. Islamic Terrorists have one enemy: The US. Oh, they attack Europe, too, but let's be clear... that's hating us due to the association with the US. If we were to denounce you, they'd leave us alone the next day. Btw, be so kind to mention that the next time US Americans start shitting on us for "not defending ourselves", because the blood that is flowing here is due to our loyalty to the US.

And while you're doing that, you've begun to betray the ideological goals that set you apart from other nations. You're not about life, liberty and pursuit of happyness anymore. You're about power. You're literally in bed with Putin, your President (yes, I said it... like it or not, but he is representing you) is supporting a regime in Saudia Arabia that literally does the worst impression of an 80s spy killing. You've strayed. Hard. You can talk about all the might of the military that you may have, and it would be very useful to further your immediate goals, your interests. But it does jack all for your values, your long term goals. In the past decade, a time where you liberally spread freedom in 2,000lbs packages by the dozen, you've destroyed more liberties on the planet than you created. You've assisted displacing entire regions. And you're actually thinking about turning another region, that is quite peaceful even with all the tension that may or may not be prevalent there, into the next crisis zone. With an enemy that, unlike Russia, doesn't know you or your red lines. Doesn't even care about you or your red lines beyond their ideological, nay cultural necessity to defend Chinese interests. Oh, will Taiwan support you once you start firing shots? Of course they will, what else is their alternative? Will Japan join you? Singapore? How likely do you think it is you can actually "win" against China on anything but an economical level?

And mind you, even that would be a challenge to the US at this stage. They grow cities with millions as population within 5 years. And while they're doing that, they're going to Africa. Opposing US interventions with always the same, almost litanic, argument "Don't infringe upon other nation's sovereignity." They're actually scoring a lot of points with that. Every enemy that you create is potentially an ally of China.

And let's not forget, unlike Russia, China knows how to beat the US. You don't do guerilla warfare. You just don't. You haven't got the faintest clue how to fight a war against an enemy that just won't show himself on the battlefield. You're ignoring your values when it is important to stick to them, but at the most inconvenient times you remember that you have values and pull the punches, making things worse.

So on one hand, you will absolutely shoot an enemy soldier only to bring him back into your own medic centre and nurse him back to health so he can fight you again in 2 years, because of your values.... while at the same time you torture civilian people off the coast, betraying everything the US stands for, only to gain useless information and exact some twisted sort of revenge, putting you exactly on the same level as the extremists you're fighting against. You can be exploited. Those are weaknesses. Every nation on the planet knows this by now. You are vulnerable and all the billions and billions you put into your military won't solve the one problem you never were able to deal with:

How do you fight an enemy that's not an enemy anymore when he throws the gun into the grass? Or how do you fight an enemy that is a civilian until he picks up a gun and shoots you in the back? You have no clear enemy, you have no clear strategy, your motivation is unclear, your goal is feeble wishful thinking at best...

You're playing a dangerous game there in your mind, mate. I say this with the kindest friendship, but I think you are overplaying your hand.