Tell me, in the history of the human race, when has someone with the biggest stick not use it when its vassals step out of line. People think the US is different than Russia. It isn’t, it just has better PR.
Sure. And that reinforces my point, better for Europe to have its own stick.
Beyond which, amid AI, aging populations, global warming, blah blah, many countries are going to face serious internal challenges. At least for the USA, the pressure will make the global hegemony harder to sustain. Amid surging debt, it’s not hard to envision a world where the USA literally can’t afford to shield Europe. Get saner minds than Trump leading the USA, and it may be possible to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial relationship of peers.
I mean yeah, it can work exactly that way. The Cold War was horrifically bloody in many countries and regions, but the USA and USSR directly slugging it out would have bathed the world in much more blood. Likewise, the Soviets and China going at it in a full scale war after the Soviet-Sino split would have been horrific.
It’s a high risk strategy but not one without rewards.
There were three guys with sticks. China couldn’t project power far but Soviet-Sino relations were strained and the risk of war was high because they share borders.
I’d love for there to be a world with no sticks period but humanity is a long way from that. Europe becoming the forth guy with a stick could force everyone else, and especially Russia, to be more cautious. And if it comes to blows, the EU/UK are gonna want to have that stick.
If you’re EU/UK and multiple parties are around you with big sticks, would you rather be defenseless or have a stick?
Every one entering into a new stick race won’t get us there any quicker sadly. Stick sellers on the other hand look forward to a bright and prosperous future.
Tell me, in the history of the human race, when has someone with the biggest stick not use it when its vassals step out of line. People think the US is different than Russia. It isn’t, it just has better PR.
Sure. And that reinforces my point, better for Europe to have its own stick.
Beyond which, amid AI, aging populations, global warming, blah blah, many countries are going to face serious internal challenges. At least for the USA, the pressure will make the global hegemony harder to sustain. Amid surging debt, it’s not hard to envision a world where the USA literally can’t afford to shield Europe. Get saner minds than Trump leading the USA, and it may be possible to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial relationship of peers.
The world will be a lot safer if we all have big sticks we can use to hit each other with.
I mean yeah, it can work exactly that way. The Cold War was horrifically bloody in many countries and regions, but the USA and USSR directly slugging it out would have bathed the world in much more blood. Likewise, the Soviets and China going at it in a full scale war after the Soviet-Sino split would have been horrific.
It’s a high risk strategy but not one without rewards.
In that instance there were only two guys with sticks, if I understood you correctly you want to add another stick to the mix.
There were three guys with sticks. China couldn’t project power far but Soviet-Sino relations were strained and the risk of war was high because they share borders.
I’d love for there to be a world with no sticks period but humanity is a long way from that. Europe becoming the forth guy with a stick could force everyone else, and especially Russia, to be more cautious. And if it comes to blows, the EU/UK are gonna want to have that stick.
If you’re EU/UK and multiple parties are around you with big sticks, would you rather be defenseless or have a stick?
I see myself as a pacifist.
Hopefully we reach a war-free era in the not so distant future and humanity prospers.
Every one entering into a new stick race won’t get us there any quicker sadly. Stick sellers on the other hand look forward to a bright and prosperous future.