Europe at War

[Todd]

Having the relative merits of living in such societies in plain sight of the Russian populace, as opposed to corrupt to the bone kleptocracies like Belorus, could be beneficial to the West.

How would it be beneficial to the West?

More importantly, how would it be beneficial to the US?

Considering just basic trade, Eastern European members of NATO, Finland, Sweden, and even Ukraine and Belarus were they to become liberal democracies, amount to very little in trade with the US.  Some individual countries amount to rounding errors.  (See attached info, reported in billions of 2021 dollars, found on tradingeconomics.com.)  Even with robust GDP growth and massively liberalized trade, it is not possible for the countries in Eastern Europe or Scandinavia to amount to a material portion of US trade.  I hasten to add that I am far more interested in imports, since that indicates that the cited countries have goods of some value to Americans.  So from an economic standpoint, the countries do not really matter to the US.  And in the event some great company or companies emerge from the countries, there is a good chance that American money can buy said companies.

In terms of security, one can argue that some of these countries offer close proximity to Russia and therefore are valuable from a surveillance standpoint.  There is truth to that, but Echelon and other signals intelligence relies comparatively little on these countries.  That would leave human intelligence.  There is ample history that human intelligence can be bought or people can be persuaded to provide such intelligence for various non-monetary reasons.  So whatever strategic benefit the US receives is far more than offset by the security commitments that the US must make.  The commitments come in the form of taxpayer money spent, military deployments to member countries or partners, and the potential for conflict.  Which could mean the loss of American lives.  The security arrangements are entirely lopsided to the benefit of the countries seeking protection from the US.  Vague assurances that an expansion of liberal democracy to more countries will somehow make the world safer is wishful thinking.

In terms of other benefits that the US may receive, they would have to be lesser, intangible benefits.  Like culture, art, etc.  And it is exceedingly unlikely that the US would not receive such benefits even in the absence of security guarantees. 

So, again, I ask, how are current security arrangements beneficial to the US, how would expanding them be beneficial, and to the point of the post being responded to, how would the geographic proximity of open societies to various illiberal states be beneficial to the US?

[drogulus]

     The Russian missile cruiser Moskva has suffered damage from a Uke missile strike. The Moskva is not a piece of shit in the slightest. The Russians blame an accident of some kind.

     

[LKB]

When Putin amassed troops at the Ukranian border but denied he was planning to invade, I assumed he lied and was preparing an invasion

This time I think it is mere saber-rattling and postering, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is Russian manufactured "fake news".

The point is: Putin is lying, all the time.

I doubt the Finns are overly worried, as the Russian army's ass has been shown to be thoroughly kickable.

Rattling your saber only makes an impression when others respect your swordsmanship.

[drogulus]

     Unfortunately there are no tank donation sites, so....

     World Central Kitchen

[Madiel]

How would it be beneficial to the West?

More importantly, how would it be beneficial to the US?

The fact that you personally cannot imagine a benefit is not the issue. Again, relationship-building is not thoroughly utilitarian, and to the extent that a relationship is utilitarian it can just as easily be on the grounds of potential in the future.

You might not know exactly why you need your friends until the time that you actually need them.

[drogulus]

     The Moskva crew has abandoned ship. Consider it destroyed.

The fact that you personally cannot imagine a benefit is not the issue. Again, relationship-building is not thoroughly utilitarian, and to the extent that a relationship is utilitarian it can just as easily be on the grounds of potential in the future.

You might not know exactly why you need your friends until the time that you actually need them.

     In a way, such relationships are utilitarian by not being narrowly so. It's a kind of "evolution of cooperation" thing, as Dawkins would say. Or, as I would put it, it's a higher, smarter form of selfishness.

[Todd]

The fact that you personally cannot imagine a benefit is not the issue.

No one on this forum can imagine the benefits.  They do not exist. 

[Madiel]

    In a way, such relationships are utilitarian by not being narrowly so. It's a kind of "evolution of cooperation" thing, as Dawkins would say. Or, as I would put it, it's a higher, smarter form of selfishness.

Exactly.

Heck, in my own office there's a team of editors that I need to work with but where I have more status and power than they do. They're basically expected to work on what I and the other drafters want. But I'm consciously nice to that team, arguably nicer than some of my colleagues are. And then, when I have something super urgent come up that requires the editors, they are happy to help me out.

I'm well aware in my own mind that one of the reasons that I'm nice to that team is because it might help me in a rare situation when the pressure's on. And I started being nice to them from the beginning.

Sure, they're supposed to help me anyway, but when it comes to real pressure and competing priorities, and meeting my deadline versus meeting someone else's deadline, who's going to get better service: the drafter they're just obliged to work with, or the drafter they actually like?

[Madiel]

No one on this forum can imagine the benefits.  They do not exist.

Todd, the whole point of imagination is to deal with things that don't currently exist. If they existed, imagination wouldn't be necessary. Observation would be sufficient.

And that's your whole problem. You cannot observe current benefits and so you stop.

[Todd]

Todd, the whole point of imagination is to deal with things that don't currently exist. If they existed, imagination wouldn't be necessary. Observation would be sufficient.

I notice no one here has imagined any benefits that the US enjoys from continually expanding NATO and its military commitments. 

[JBS]

Quoting for emphasis:

Exactly.

Heck, in my own office there's a team of editors that I need to work with but where I have more status and power than they do. They're basically expected to work on what I and the other drafters want. But I'm consciously nice to that team, arguably nicer than some of my colleagues are. And then, when I have something super urgent come up that requires the editors, they are happy to help me out.

I'm well aware in my own mind that one of the reasons that I'm nice to that team is because it might help me in a rare situation when the pressure's on. And I started being nice to them from the beginning.

Sure, they're supposed to help me anyway, but when it comes to real pressure and competing priorities, and meeting my deadline versus meeting someone else's deadline, who's going to get better service: the drafter they're just obliged to work with, or the drafter they actually like?

No one on this forum can imagine the benefits.  They do not exist. 

It's a very basic benefit: the more friends we have, the more friends we have and the fewer friends regimes like Putin and Xi and the mullahs of Iran have. Which limits their ability to do things that are negative for us.

[Todd]

And that's your whole problem. You cannot observe current benefits and so you stop.

I explicitly stated that even vastly expanded GDP growth in the assortment of countries listed, and massively liberalized trade, would not result in the cited countries becoming economically relevant to the US.  Unless those countries expand their geography - which is exactly the issue being dealt with now - they will not become strategically important.  There is no path for those countries to become important.  Economic, geographic, and demographic reality precludes it.

As a counterexample, the benefits that exist today, and potential future benefits of ongoing alliance with Canada, are enormous. 

It's a very basic benefit: the more friends we have, the more friends we have and the fewer friends regimes like Putin and Xi and the mullahs of Iran have. Which limits their ability to do things that are negative for us.

This is dubious.  Focusing on key relationships with significant economic and strategic powers is far more beneficial to the US.  An example here would be India.  The US has worked to improve relations with India, and should continue to do so, because it offers a material potential counterweight to China.  Bhutan does not, however happy the country may be.  Bhutan can be a friend, or not, it does not matter.  Latvia is a Baltic Bhutan.

[Madiel]

I notice no one here has imagined any benefits that the US enjoys from continually expanding NATO and its military commitments.

I notice your goalposts move a lot. I also notice you repeatedly ignore the basic benefit of having friends.

[steve ridgway]

I also notice you repeatedly ignore the basic benefit of having friends.

Possibly America is so great it doesn't need any friends. A bit like Russia.

[greg]

Possibly America is so great it doesn't need any friends. A bit like Russia.

"Needing" friends sounds like a poor position to be in. They should gravitate naturally.
And the easiest way to do that is to be interesting. Continue to make great art- Art is diplomacy. As long as the US still has that, we will have some part of people's hearts all over the world- to name a very much current example, look at South Korea and their pop culture boom.
At least that's one way. There are other ways, but people's hearts won't be into becoming allies in quite the same way.

[Madiel]

Possibly America is so great it doesn't need any friends. A bit like Russia.

Remember that during the next vote in the United Nations that the USA is pushing. The Baltic states get 3 times as many votes on General Assembly resolutions as the USA does.

Same goes for any other international organisation that the USA bothers being part of. Of which there are still quite a few.

[Madiel]

And the easiest way to do that is to be interesting. Continue to make great art- Art is diplomacy. As long as the US still has that, we will have some part of people's hearts all over the world- to name a very much current example, look at South Korea and their pop culture boom.

This is true. Quite a few countries make a conscious effort around this. Thailand is an example, having made a deliberate push to be seen in the West as a friendly Asian country - a little exotic, but not too exotic or threatening. Thai cuisine did not become popular simply by happenstance.

[Que]

Russia says warship 'seriously damaged' after ammunition explosion


Translation: Ukraine managed to destroy the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet.

For the Russian military the humiliations keep coming....

[Florestan]

Russia says warship 'seriously damaged' after ammunition explosion


Translation: Ukraine managed to destroy the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet.

Yay! Go, Ukraine!

[Todd]

I also notice you repeatedly ignore the basic benefit of having friends.

Nation states are not friends.  Nation states may be allies.  Or enemies.  Or neither.  As improper and inaccurate as it is to compare family finance to national finance, so it is improper and inaccurate to compare relationships between nation states and people.

As to your assertion that I am moving goalposts, that is inaccurate.

Remember that during the next vote in the United Nations that the USA is pushing. The Baltic states get 3 times as many votes on General Assembly resolutions as the USA does.

Same goes for any other international organisation that the USA bothers being part of. Of which there are still quite a few.

How would these organizational changes be made?

Possibly America is so great it doesn't need any friends. A bit like Russia.

The US of course benefits from many alliances, though the concept has been distorted due to US hegemony.  The current extent of alliances has overextended the US, which puts the US at risk, and material allies at risk.  Not all allies are equal.  The relative priority is pretty obvious from existing policy, organizational structures, and recent actions.  English speaking countries are the most valued allies, then Western European countries, then long-established Asia-Pacific allies, then allies added in the wake of the Vietnam debacle and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The US is undertaking vigorous diplomatic efforts to improve relationships with potential key future allies to address potential conflicts or challenges, something which everyone imagines will be important.

Alliances and the relative value of those alliances must change as conditions in the world change.  We are witnessing a diminution of US hegemony in the Middle East or Greater Middle East, depending on one's preferred label.  The strategic value of that region has diminished.  It would be foolish of the US to continue to devote as many resources to the region given the developments of the past decade.  It does seem that Europeans seem to think that evolving global conditions and significant shifts in relative significance of alliances do not apply to European nation states.  They do.  To quote Henry Kissinger, America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.  This is of course a variation on a similar proclamation from Lord Palmerston.