LOTM wrote
In the short run the only possible alternative superpowers are the EU, Russia, and China. I think we share a common interest in Russia not reemerging as a superpower, esp if that means Russia reasserting dominance over the "former Soviet space".
In the short run the only possible alternative superpowers are the EU, Russia, and China. I think we share a common interest in Russia not reemerging as a superpower, esp if that means Russia reasserting dominance over the "former Soviet space".
Agreed, but I don't think that's much of a risk.
What the rise of China means for Europe is what we're debating.
I don't think that's much of mystery. Economic opportunities, but further decline in terms of political weight. If it weren't for the risk of a confrontation over Taiwan, I'd be all for selling the Chinese all the guns they'd pay for; now I'm quite ambivalent.
What the unification of Europe means to the US depends on what that Europe intends to do. I, personally, am less pessimistic than most on the right in the US about Europe, and think European power is a net gain for the US. Doesnt mean we wont disagree on a lot.
There are two sides to this; i) a more powerful Europe would make a more effective ally, and ii) a more powerful Europe might become a rival. If I were an American policymaker, I'd take a look at demographic trends and populat attitudes to aspiring to superpowerhood in Europe, and conclude (ii) isn't much of a worry.
well you see Ive never thought the Bush admin really intended to follow up Iraq with more full scale invasions, at least not in the kinds of circumstances that the Iraq war took place under, which would set us apart from our allies, in quite that way. I think actions we can take together could make wars on those countries unnecessary.
Well, accepting that assumption, I'd say friendlier trans-Atlantic relations are bad news for Syria and Iran, and pretty much irrelevant for NK.
Comment