Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Tue Aug 01 2023 05:12 pm

This is a problem I have with the modern Western style in general: we think we are the center of the world and we believe we can destroy somebody just by refusing to be their friend.

It's very clearly a pay-to-play scenario. You want access to western markets? Then, you need to play by our rules. I really don't see a problem with this, and part of our enablement of China's threatening rise is in fact us not following this maxim closely enough. We were very content letting China become our factory, and decided we wouldn't be picky about their authoritarianism and one-party state because, we thought, they'll eventually become a democracy if they work with us.

Definitely a false narrative where China has successfully played the west. NATO, on the other hand, is the logical conclusion of entering and succeeding in the United States' global world order.

If you want access to global markets, you have to play by our global rules: transparency, accountability, rules-based order, which largely replaced the arbitrary zeitgeist of Europe during the 1930s and triumphed over the Soviet ideology in the Cold War. If you want to help write the rules, you need to contribute - first, to the economic system (the WTO, or one of its regional trade blocs, including the EEC and Euro-Zone), and then enter into a political bloc that maintains judicial enforcement of the economic system (for Europe, it's the European Union mandated by Maastricht and successor treaties).

NATO reaches the apex of the economic system by providing a defense bulwark against countries that adopt the U.S. pay-for-play standard: support our military industrial complex (i.e., allow us to invest in U.S. defense-aligned jobs in your territory, beginning with defense industries and concluding with military bases) and you can invest most of your profits into a social welfare cap.

NATO becomes unpopular among jingoistic circles and among pacifists, but it rarely becomes a majority of the accountability-seeking electorate. And as the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows us, NATO is ultimately the pinnacle desire of any country that wants guarantees for its sovereignty and simultaneous participation in the US/EU world order. This is precisely why the Five Eyes (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines) are primed to join NATO -- if we can still logically call it that -- in the next 24-36 months.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: NATO
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Tue Aug 01 2023 05:05 pm

NATO becomes unpopular among jingoistic circles and among pacifists, but it > ts guarantees for its sovereignty and simultaneous participation in the US/E > hat -- in the next 24-36 months.

You keep making my case.

Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is good for the protectees.

I don't agree this is the state of things, but if it was, then the situation would be unstable as heck. Protectorate models tend to crumble (and historically do) because they suck for the protectees.

BUt in this case it is even worse because the protectees that must pay protection money are activelly becoming poorer and demolishing their economies in an ordered manner, to the point they won't be able to be Socialistic even with help. Unindustrialized countries have less ability to pay protection money.

I am not saying the NATO will collapse because of this effect, but it is a matter of time that anti-NATO political movements will raise even more because they want the money used for military bases addressed to Hospitals instead. Thelevel of compromise from certain countries is very low.

The party in power in Spain right now used to run many anti-American campaigns and has a history of withdrawing military support from hot zones other NATO members were covering. I expect most members without colonialistic interests tokeep a similar level of compromise.

It looks functional but feeble to me.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: NATO
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm

Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is good for the protectees.

The problem with legacy protectorate models is that contributing to these systems was done in a way that diminished the sovereignty (suzerainy?) of these protectorates. Taxation, for example, is an overt diminishment of the capital capacity of the government and this fiscal burden largely builds resentment among populations and alienates the ruling class.

NATO, and the Marshal Plan that (re-)built Europe after the War, is very different. Virtually none of the NATO member-states contribute the treaty-obligated 2% GDP to expenditures. That's not what funds the operation. Trade does. So thinking of NATO as some sort of classic protectorate model really belies its intended purpose: a trade union with defensive characteristics.

In the United States, significant deficit spending (and the world's largest defense budget) is actually directed to NATO countries for development of industries and technologies that both benefit local consumers (like GPS) and generate nearly ten-fold in military revenues for the U.S. military. The system works so long as it remains pay-to-play, not pay-for-protection. Europe has already decided, fundamentally, it is not interested in its own protection.

If NATO ceases to be a thing, or even worse, if the U.S. pulls out of the region (always a possibility given our xenophobic and aliberal tendencies every couple generations or so), then Europe will be left to smash its institutions, eliminate its social welfare states, and fund costly militaries to thwart Chinese, Russian, and Near-Eastern aggression. And no one wants that.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: NATO
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:09 pm

Re: NATO
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm

Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countri > > to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be
Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is > > good for the protectees.

The problem with legacy protectorate models is that contributing to these sy > ent and this fiscal burden largely builds resentment among populations and a >
NATO, and the Marshal Plan that (re-)built Europe after the War, is very dif > me sort of classic protectorate model really belies its intended purpose: a >
In the United States, significant deficit spending (and the world's largest > military revenues for the U.S. military. The system works so long as it rema >
If NATO ceases to be a thing, or even worse, if the U.S. pulls out of the re > elfare states, and fund costly militaries to thwart Chinese, Russian, and Ne > _____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

The theory would be sound if the US wasn't sinking deeper and deeper in debt, due in great part to their military budget. If they were leveraging debt in order to reap big gains due to their investment, they would not have the astronomical debt they carry.

I don't see that much investment from American companies here either when compared to other actors. The ones that carry operations here have a big tendency to run decoy headquarters in Europe and run the thick of the actual work in Asia.

What you see on the ground is a massive lack of supplies which suggests international supply chains are stressed. Peeople needs a prothesic knee replacement but it takes a month to arrive. People needs an AC coupling but theonly models available are the ones nobody wants to buy. This suggests trading
is not running smooth. If your hipothesis is that the US is recouping their debt expenses via trading then I have to assume revenue is going low because suply chains are thin. This reinforces my own hypothesis that the model is not as tought as thought.

They had to redefine "recession" and now the international market is overflooded by USDs that used to be circulating in the INternational market andnow are not being used. This kind of supports my hypothesis too.

n fact I dare say that if I had to accept your premises, the NATO Itself would be under an extreme existential threat, at least as powerful as the one the Russian population think they face themselves.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL