Principia Discordia > Aneristic Illusions

Picking Cain's Brains

(1/66) > >>

Cain:
Whole point of NATO is to keep the Germans down and the Russians out.  So long as America is providing military protection for Germany, there is no viable reason for the Germans to build up their own military (which they do want to do).  And so long as Germany is kept militarily inert, France wont stick it's neck out in providing the majority of troops for a potential EU military force (which is fair, since Germany has twice the population of France).  And no potential European army means the US continues to have no peer competitors who can challenge it's foreign policy on global terms - something the EU (which is essentially France and Germany, plus a bunch of vassal states) has been inclined to do on issues like Iraq, Cyprus, Israel/Palestine, trade and other things.

All US grand strategy is predicated around preventing the rise of movements, groups, states and superstates who could even theoretically challenge it's hegemony.  That's why it remains in Central Asia (control Eurasia, control the globe) and why wherever US troops land, they only leave very reluctantly.

Jasper:

--- Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2010, 10:01:25 am ---Whole point of NATO is to keep the Germans down and the Russians out. <snip>

--- End quote ---

Wow, damn.  That whole post was kind of enlightening/depressing. 

Cain:
Rule 1 of the wonderful world of international relations: nations don't have permament friends, only permament interests.  Germany nearly overthrew the international system twice in a 25 year period at the start of this century, and then near the end helped take down most of the Warsaw Pact without firing a single shot (conditional loans are neat toys) and is the biggest player in the EU, especially for the Eastern European states.  At the end of the Cold War, it was widely expected in US circles that Germany would rebuild its military, assert hegemony over Europe, and possibly even acquire nukes/intervene in the former Yugoslavia.  They obviously overstated their case, just a little, but it is true Germany is at the centre of European decision making, and other states defer to it. 

Jasper:
Well, I don't see a problem with Germany rising again.  The Germans are almost shockingly reformed, from what I can tell, it's a pretty good country all in all.  Am I wrong?

Cain:
Well I don't have a problem with it, insofar as I don't think the Germans are going to bring the international system crashing to its knees.

But I'm not someone profiting in any way from US hegemony, so my views on the matter are not being taken into account much.  There is also a theory that says more centres of power = more war, because there is more potential for conflict, but at the same time, having one power which is massively more militarized than many others also causes lots of wars, because of the power imbalance hypothesis (namely, if you have the means, and the enemies don't seem that threatening, you're more likely to use war as a tool).

As far as I'm concerned, all the current potential great powers are essentially the same, anyway.  All act in their own self-interest, and their home political culture rarely has anything to do with their foreign policy.  One of them might go completely off the wall crazy, but so far, the most likely culprit for such behaviour would be, uh, the USA.  Teabaggers in the White House.  I mean, that's the scenario I'd be preparing for, if I was in Beijing or Berlin or Paris or Moscow.  There is a particular fascination with foreign policy there which most other political parties in other states seem to lack.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page