Originally Posted by Del Boy

Hi Monty B.

I do not believe that NATO without USA amounts to anything, Germany has no basis for making itself spokesman on this Russia issue. It is USA muscle they are expressing. And if your part of the world were ever under threat that is exactly where you would be looking for help.

I speak from my own Brit point of view on these world issues, and I suggest that USA input is severely undervalued.

There are three sides to every argument; this is mine.

There is a problem with this argument and it is that it relies heavily on having a credible enemy, the only nation that has the potential to threaten the "free" world is China simply because they have the manpower and industrial base to do so, however they lack quality on top of this they also need an economy to fuel their own growth so what is more likely, China goes off on a militaristic "world domination" rampage destroying their markets and overseas possessions or that they achieve dominance through economic success?

The problems facing the world these days are not ones of an expansionist nature but ones of an economic and social nature (the ever growing power of industry and terrorist groups, gangs organised crime etc.) and for that you do not need America's firepower you just need a functioning police force.

The USA thrived while the world had a real enemy that required nations to get together in defence pacts, the day the USSR died American military influence began to wane and nations switched to economic alliances (free trade agreements and the like).

The one outlier in all of this is the potential for military conflict as raw materials move into short supply but even these will be fueled by economic reasons.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

It has been interesting reading the posts in this topic. Seems a number of comments reflect a believe that the US will not be a major player in the next twenty years. Nothing in the original post suggests this.

It is interesting to note the the EU is not listed as a possible major player. I would assume that is a reflection of the very loose bonds between the countries forming the Union. The goals of the Union seem to revolve around economic interests with little concern for global affairs. Kind of a "what's in it for us" attitude.

Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs.

China will become more of a player as it develops it's economy, and it is happening. With the length of China's history they may not even be interested in a world dominate position in the short term (20 years is very short).

The length of time the United States has been dominate in world history would not merit a full paragraph in a world history book. (Not sure it would merit a complete sentence).

As an American I not sure I see anything negative for the US in these reports.

I agree completely, I think it is a very interesting report.

No, a Chinese threat would be more regional so the EU won't have anything to do with it. It's close enough for America to be concerned but as far as Europe, it's not their deal. If they do get involved, it'll probably be in order to aid Australia.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Just because you don't agree with what the US military's been doing in the middle east doesn't mean their presence elsewhere is entirely at the same level. America has been doing a lot of good over here.

Okay, granted that is a good point you made!

Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs.

I don't quite agree with you. Certainly Europe maintains a much lower profile on the world's theater. But you have to bear in mind that almost 70% of all EU trade is with other EU members.
We are a lot less dependent on other global players to earn a descend living. And if you look at the Dutch major export products, heck we are hardly depend on foreign oil etc. We deal in tulips, cheese and building dams all over the planet. So we are principally working in the primary and tertiary economic sector. We leave to producing of things to others....

MontyB - ref your :-

"There is a problem with this argument and it is that it relies heavily on having a credible enemy. "


I rather see the challenges below, which I have already posted on this thread; leading to chaotic situations that have not, in scale, been experienced before. This is where I see USA being sadly missed, if indeed, they are to be in a position of withdrawal from leadership and major influence. You have to admit that eyes are already focussing on Obama regarding world challenges.


The global economy. Energy supplies and prices are stressing all industrialized economies, and they risk undermining less developed and weaker economies. To say nothing of how the global crisis in food production and soaring prices for agricultural commodities could exacerbate conflict in Asia and Africa. Then there's the critical issue of the uneven distribution of wealth and persistent poverty in a belt of countries stretching from southern Africa, across the Middle East and South Asia, to parts of Southeast Asia. Not to mention, a growing instability of international financial markets. The next president cannot ignore these things. Energy, finances, commodities, and poverty are a witches' brew capable of undermining other national security objectives and creating new conflicts to worry about. Therefore, they demand new and imaginative approaches.
Inadequate governance. Governments throughout the world are struggling to ensure the security of their citizens and keep order within their boundaries. Some states have failed; some are fragile; and some are so brittle that they could collapse with a hard push. The consequences of failed states are multiple--sudden or endless migrations, increased poverty, ethnic strife, and civil conflict--and can prove destabilizing both regionally and globally. It's a problem that goes far beyond the distracting fascination with "promoting democracy." Effective and efficient governance that even modestly responds to citizens' needs would put many countries further along the development path than they currently reside.
Identity as a source of conflict. It's too often wrongly assumed that conflicts over ethnicity, nationality, and religion are a reflection of an underlying economic or political clash, with identity simply being manipulated to play out that more fundamental struggle. If anything, the last 20 years worth of conflict in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia have made clear that identity has its own standing as a source of conflict. Identity may be connected to economic and political disagreements, but it can be an equal cause of such disagreements. As such, it needs to be addressed in its own right.
The weakening of national boundaries. A growing share of today's challenges are transnational, problems which, by their nature, flow across national boundaries. They include the current wave of terrorist attacks by organizations that are generally organized independently of states, are often funded privately, and act without state permission or approval. They also involve fundamental cross-national challenges such as migrating populations, international crime and narcotics trafficking, infectious diseases, and a degraded environment and climate change.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

No, a Chinese threat would be more regional so the EU won't have anything to do with it. It's close enough for America to be concerned but as far as Europe, it's not their deal. If they do get involved, it'll probably be in order to aid Australia.

Originally Posted by Ted

Okay, granted that is a good point you made!

"Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs." Quote Chukpike.

I don't quite agree with you. Certainly Europe maintains a much lower profile on the world's theater. But you have to bear in mind that almost 70% of all EU trade is with other EU members.
We are a lot less dependent on other global players to earn a descend living. And if you look at the Dutch major export products, heck we are hardly depend on foreign oil etc. We deal in tulips, cheese and building dams all over the planet. So we are principally working in the primary and tertiary economic sector. We leave to producing of things to others....

Originally Posted by Chukpike

It is interesting to note the the EU is not listed as a possible major player. I would assume that is a reflection of the very loose bonds between the countries forming the Union. The goals of the Union seem to revolve around "Their" economic interests with little concern for global affairs. Kind of a "what's in it for us" attitude.

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

Conflict with large economic nations that have allies (as opposed to bullying ones that are small or unpopular) is bad for economies. China, the US and the EU are dependent on one another and don't want to upset the apple cart. I think the days of large scale conflict between dominant economies are unlikely if only because they can gain more through trade rather than conflict.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

Europe most certainly sees the need of getting involved globally! Why else do we have so many multi national company HQ's in Amsterdam.... and London, Berlin, Paris and Brussels. We do however interpret "serving our interests" differently. Holland has gone to war once trying to uphold our interests abroad. And it was under American pressure we stopped fighting in Indonesia. We have other means nowadays to do this. But the content of many diplomatic letters never reach the public.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

Originally Posted by Ted

Europe most certainly sees the need of getting involved globally! Why else do we have so many multi national company HQ's in Amsterdam.... and London, Berlin, Paris and Brussels. We do however interpret "serving our interests" differently. Holland has gone to war once trying to uphold our interests abroad. And it was under American pressure we stopped fighting in Indonesia. We have other means nowadays to do this. But the content of many diplomatic letters never reach the public.

I agree with you. I was only looking at the original post and trying to understand why the EU was not mentioned.