meh, what has US soft power achieved with its European allies? They don't contribute to defence, they buy Russian gas and Chinese infrastructure. There are North Korean troops literally on their borders and the EU are still talking about fish at a defence deal?
I think overall it's better for US power if its allies are military dependent on it. Though on Ukraine Europe contributed a similar amount of military aid as the US has. It does still buy some Russian gas though a lot less than before, and in response to US pressure has reduced Huawei/ZTE influence in telecoms networks (though not completely).
Short of threatening to nuke Paris and Berlin it's hard to see how a Trump approach could improve these things from a US perspective though.
ok. I *think* its bad for US power that it has to spend a lot of money and resources defending Europe from Russia, when the threat to the US and "Western Values" is very much China.
I want to be clear, do you think Biden, the democrats or republicans could have got a different response out of Europe to China and Russia? because the literal history says not.
So I ask again, how much value was that soft "power" when your "allies" get to just follow their own short term interests?
How much of Nato would actually send troops to support the US in a hot war with China if it didn't actually threaten their borders?
What do you mean by different response? Europe cut its Russian gas imports from over 40% in 2021 to 11% in 2024. It's obviously more difficult for Europe to stop using Russian gas than it was for the US. And for Huawei loads of European countries have stopped using them in public infrastructure over the last few years.
I can't see most NATO countries sending troops against China but that's not the point of NATO.
As I said in the article though I do think the US is right to try and bring the war in Ukraine to a close.
meh, what has US soft power achieved with its European allies? They don't contribute to defence, they buy Russian gas and Chinese infrastructure. There are North Korean troops literally on their borders and the EU are still talking about fish at a defence deal?
I think overall it's better for US power if its allies are military dependent on it. Though on Ukraine Europe contributed a similar amount of military aid as the US has. It does still buy some Russian gas though a lot less than before, and in response to US pressure has reduced Huawei/ZTE influence in telecoms networks (though not completely).
Short of threatening to nuke Paris and Berlin it's hard to see how a Trump approach could improve these things from a US perspective though.
ok. I *think* its bad for US power that it has to spend a lot of money and resources defending Europe from Russia, when the threat to the US and "Western Values" is very much China.
I want to be clear, do you think Biden, the democrats or republicans could have got a different response out of Europe to China and Russia? because the literal history says not.
So I ask again, how much value was that soft "power" when your "allies" get to just follow their own short term interests?
How much of Nato would actually send troops to support the US in a hot war with China if it didn't actually threaten their borders?
You're confusing a marker for effect.
What do you mean by different response? Europe cut its Russian gas imports from over 40% in 2021 to 11% in 2024. It's obviously more difficult for Europe to stop using Russian gas than it was for the US. And for Huawei loads of European countries have stopped using them in public infrastructure over the last few years.
I can't see most NATO countries sending troops against China but that's not the point of NATO.
As I said in the article though I do think the US is right to try and bring the war in Ukraine to a close.