Aaron747 wrote:

They certainly don't use ridiculous 'news' outlets like Epoch Times, yes.

Different priority and focus is mostly irrelevant - I first became aware of PRC human rights problems thanks to Amnesty events on my university campus in the late 90s. These organizations are consistently and prominently focused on China.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/as ... fic/china/

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/c ... -and-tibet

Amnesty has listed human rights abuses for almost every country on earth.

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Docume ... NGLISH.PDF

Every major nation, inc USA and Europe, is on it. So if we’re going to be consistent there’s going to have to be a lot of calling out going on from almost every country, including themselves

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

They certainly don't use ridiculous 'news' outlets like Epoch Times, yes.

Different priority and focus is mostly irrelevant - I first became aware of PRC human rights problems thanks to Amnesty events on my university campus in the late 90s. These organizations are consistently and prominently focused on China.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/as ... fic/china/

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/c ... -and-tibet

Amnesty has listed human rights abuses for almost every country on earth.

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Docume ... NGLISH.PDF

Every major nation, inc USA and Europe, is on it. So if we’re going to be consistent there’s going to have to be a lot of calling out going on from almost every country, including themselves

Just to clarify - I was not saying their primary focus was China.

johns624 wrote:

The EU can't even take care of things that are in her interest. They couldn't end the Yugoslavian debacle without US help.

O, this is going to be funny.

Ending the Yogoslavian debacle hadn’t much to do with the EU. When this started in 1991, the EU didn’t exsist as we know today. It was called the European Community (EC) and had only 12 members. The European Union (EU) started in 1993 as a result of the Treaty of Maastricht.


I found this 26 year old article about the USA and the involvement in the Yugoslavian war:
https://carnegieendowment.org/1995/11/06/america-bosnia-europe-compelling-interest-pub-268

Some quotes:
”For the United States as a world power, the problem of Bosnia is, and always has been, about more than Bosnia. It has been about America's will and capacity to use its power effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, which in turn is the essential foundation for maintaining a world order conducive to American interests and ideals.”

” The policy of the Bush administration, in fact, was precisely to try to build a diplomatic firewall around the Balkan blaze, to separate it from Europe's great-power diplomacy, to avoid any distractions from America's paramount interest in the cohesion and vitality of the NATO alliance, and to keep it from becoming an explosive issue between the United States and Russia. The deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, albeit with NATO components, was a product of this effort to define the Bosnian conflict as a humanitarian crisis outside NATO's purview. Europe was the "core" of U.S. interests, insisted the foreign policy " realists" both inside and outside the Bush administration. Bosnia, although part of Europe, was the "periphery."”

” From the moment European troops were deployed, the crisis in Bosnia became a test of America's commitment to its NATO allies. Some leading American policymakers may have wanted to wriggle out of that commitment without quite admitting it. Former Secretary of State James Baker tried to square the circle last summer, when he argued for an American foreign policy of "selective engagement." As a good Atlanticist, Baker declared that the United States had to continue to be a "European power" in the post-Cold War era. But in the next breath he declared that Bosnia was a "European problem," not an American one. He obviously did not notice the contradiction.

marcelh wrote:

Some quotes:
”For the United States as a world power, the problem of Bosnia is, and always has been, about more than Bosnia. It has been about America's will and capacity to use its power effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, which in turn is the essential foundation for maintaining a world order conducive to American interests and ideals.”

” The policy of the Bush administration, in fact, was precisely to try to build a diplomatic firewall around the Balkan blaze, to separate it from Europe's great-power diplomacy, to avoid any distractions from America's paramount interest in the cohesion and vitality of the NATO alliance, and to keep it from becoming an explosive issue between the United States and Russia. The deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, albeit with NATO components, was a product of this effort to define the Bosnian conflict as a humanitarian crisis outside NATO's purview. Europe was the "core" of U.S. interests, insisted the foreign policy " realists" both inside and outside the Bush administration. Bosnia, although part of Europe, was the "periphery."”

” From the moment European troops were deployed, the crisis in Bosnia became a test of America's commitment to its NATO allies. Some leading American policymakers may have wanted to wriggle out of that commitment without quite admitting it. Former Secretary of State James Baker tried to square the circle last summer, when he argued for an American foreign policy of "selective engagement." As a good Atlanticist, Baker declared that the United States had to continue to be a "European power" in the post-Cold War era. But in the next breath he declared that Bosnia was a "European problem," not an American one. He obviously did not notice the contradiction.

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Some quotes:
”For the United States as a world power, the problem of Bosnia is, and always has been, about more than Bosnia. It has been about America's will and capacity to use its power effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, which in turn is the essential foundation for maintaining a world order conducive to American interests and ideals.”

” The policy of the Bush administration, in fact, was precisely to try to build a diplomatic firewall around the Balkan blaze, to separate it from Europe's great-power diplomacy, to avoid any distractions from America's paramount interest in the cohesion and vitality of the NATO alliance, and to keep it from becoming an explosive issue between the United States and Russia. The deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, albeit with NATO components, was a product of this effort to define the Bosnian conflict as a humanitarian crisis outside NATO's purview. Europe was the "core" of U.S. interests, insisted the foreign policy " realists" both inside and outside the Bush administration. Bosnia, although part of Europe, was the "periphery."”

” From the moment European troops were deployed, the crisis in Bosnia became a test of America's commitment to its NATO allies. Some leading American policymakers may have wanted to wriggle out of that commitment without quite admitting it. Former Secretary of State James Baker tried to square the circle last summer, when he argued for an American foreign policy of "selective engagement." As a good Atlanticist, Baker declared that the United States had to continue to be a "European power" in the post-Cold War era. But in the next breath he declared that Bosnia was a "European problem," not an American one. He obviously did not notice the contradiction.

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Oh please, stop that fake American superiority complex. The EU and the US need each other.

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

this. A lot of goodwill is gone. That needs to be restored as well.

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

this. A lot of goodwill is gone. That needs to be restored as well.

How is good will going to influence Putin, are we deflecting from what he has been doing?

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Well it didn't display the sort of unity some hoped to achieve through this G7 meeting

This has been coming for years. The combined effects of trade imbalances and fiscal challenges is a perfect storm of making alliances and agreement harder than before. Most developed countries are in the same boat - people under 35 have fewer prospects to grow net worth than their parents did, middle classes are squeezed, and demographic change means fewer children and a huge amount of social cost for the elderly in the future. Everyone in the G7 will be Japan if they are not careful.

Agreed 1000%.

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

+100

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Are you kidding me? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norway not Sweden, the Peace Prize Committee is based in Norway, the committee is appointed by the Norwegian Government, the ceremony is held in the Oslo Town Hall.

All the other Nobel Prizes are awarded in Stockholm, however.

Yes, they are, but we were talking about the Chinese reaction to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo in 2010. And that one is awarded in Norway.

When I hear of a Nobel being awarded, no matter the category, they always talk about Stockholm and Sweden.

seb146 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

A video from 2018

5 Countries Punished for Angering China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2QoCrnuGko

I watched the first three minutes and it was about China "punishing" Norway over a Nobel peace prize. Which takes place in Sweden. The "punishment" to Norway? A Eurovision contestant could not perform in China, diplomatic ties were cut for six years, and salmon could not be sold in China.

The Nobel Peace Price is handed out by the Norwegian Nobel Comittee in Oslo, Norway. Not Sweden.

Having trade relations is important and yes being cut off from the Chinese market is problematic. Selling seafood is an important industry for Norway. It has to do with capitalism. a concept that you Americans have a tendency to be big fan of and I would expect you to understand.

The Eurovision thing is not important, but it's part of a bigger problem with China. It uses it's influence and punish countries / people it doesn't like.

That said, Russia does it too and guess what ... so does our so called ally and friend the USA. Washington does not like like it when Oslo questions it's policies and has on multipal occasions been in conflict with Norway and has threatened Norway with consequenses. Last time in the lead up to the Iraq war, when Norway refused to be part of the invasion. It was clear from day one that the US was missusing inteligence information and straight up lied in the UN. The US threatened Norway with damages to the relationship etc. The relationship, sadly hasn't really been the same since.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Some quotes:
”For the United States as a world power, the problem of Bosnia is, and always has been, about more than Bosnia. It has been about America's will and capacity to use its power effectively to maintain a stable and secure Europe, which in turn is the essential foundation for maintaining a world order conducive to American interests and ideals.”

” The policy of the Bush administration, in fact, was precisely to try to build a diplomatic firewall around the Balkan blaze, to separate it from Europe's great-power diplomacy, to avoid any distractions from America's paramount interest in the cohesion and vitality of the NATO alliance, and to keep it from becoming an explosive issue between the United States and Russia. The deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, albeit with NATO components, was a product of this effort to define the Bosnian conflict as a humanitarian crisis outside NATO's purview. Europe was the "core" of U.S. interests, insisted the foreign policy " realists" both inside and outside the Bush administration. Bosnia, although part of Europe, was the "periphery."”

” From the moment European troops were deployed, the crisis in Bosnia became a test of America's commitment to its NATO allies. Some leading American policymakers may have wanted to wriggle out of that commitment without quite admitting it. Former Secretary of State James Baker tried to square the circle last summer, when he argued for an American foreign policy of "selective engagement." As a good Atlanticist, Baker declared that the United States had to continue to be a "European power" in the post-Cold War era. But in the next breath he declared that Bosnia was a "European problem," not an American one. He obviously did not notice the contradiction.

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Um, you got help rom Europe in Afghanistan and Syria.
You also got help from several Euro countries during the shameful 2nd Irak war, albeit not from France and several others (and I'm well glad), seeing how all this Irak invasion was lying on a litter of lies (mass destruction weapons, sic Colin Powell, anyone?).

What else did you exactly want?
Each time you guys waged war in a not totally shameful way, we followed you.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

this. A lot of goodwill is gone. That needs to be restored as well.

How is good will going to influence Putin, are we deflecting from what he has been doing?

If you want a united block, you need goodwill between the trans-Atlantic partnership. Putin regime used the disunited partnership to his advantage. The EU isn't lap dog of the US.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

this. A lot of goodwill is gone. That needs to be restored as well.

How is good will going to influence Putin, are we deflecting from what he has been doing?

The US is the one that needs to get back their goodwill.

Say what you want about Putin, but the man is honest enough not to pretend he has any.

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

Yeah, other than a couple of countries, it was a battalion contributed. Just enough to say that they did something. Some weren't even allowed to be combat troops. Same thing with the anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Africa. So many countries sent a part time frigate just so they could get a participation award. If it wasn't for the US and UK leading, it never would've happened because they wouldn't have done it on their own.

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Oh please, stop that fake American superiority complex. The EU and the US need each other.

You're right. Needing each other implies a partnership. Yet, so many EU countries don't even follow NATO recommendations for the amount spent on defense.

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

To be fair, European criticism of our actions after Afghanistan are absolutely warranted...from Iraq to Yemen. As a result of that lost goodwill we have all sat around and collectively done nothing as Putin has patiently reconstituted Russian influence the last 15 years.

this. A lot of goodwill is gone. That needs to be restored as well.

That "goodwill" works both ways. Are you Europeans going to keep blaming the 4 years of Trump for everything for the next 20 years. He was an idiot but the main reason you got your panties in a bunch was because he told you to spend more on defense and you don't want to. That is the main reason for the rise of Putin.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

Yeah, other than a couple of countries, it was a battalion contributed. Just enough to say that they did something. Some weren't even allowed to be combat troops. Same thing with the anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Africa. So many countries sent a part time frigate just so they could get a participation award. If it wasn't for the US and UK leading, it never would've happened because they wouldn't have done it on their own.

Let me guess, you get your info from CNN and Fox news ?

johns624 wrote:

That "goodwill" works both ways. Are you Europeans going to keep blaming the 4 years of Trump for everything for the next 20 years. He was an idiot but the main reason you got your panties in a bunch was because he told you to spend more on defense and you don't want to. That is the main reason for the rise of Putin.

Trump didn't do anything but name-calling and he didn't push anything within the NATO countries. In 2014, 2 years before Trump got elected, each NATO member pledged to reach the 2% norm in the next decade, or in 2024, 3 years from now. So your statement has no foundation in history.

You need to reread the books on the 'rise' of Putin and why he acts as he acts. Hint: got nothing to do with NATO, but more with the internal legitimacy of the regime. What do you suppose would have happened differently in Ukraine, or Georgia if all NATO countries were at 2%?

johns624 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Oh please, stop that fake American superiority complex. The EU and the US need each other.

You're right. Needing each other implies a partnership. Yet, so many EU countries don't even follow NATO recommendations for the amount spent on defense.

Because the recommendation is pure BS to make the US (read US as the industrial-military complex) happy.

It's arbitrary, unenforceable and makes no sense because each country counts different stuff as defence anyway.

johns624 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Oh please, stop that fake American superiority complex. The EU and the US need each other.

You're right. Needing each other implies a partnership. Yet, so many EU countries don't even follow NATO recommendations for the amount spent on defense.

Yes, the EU countries need to spend more on defense, I agree. I furthermore will say, that our defense budget needs to be spend a lot smarter and more efficiently. European cooperation will help in that. Only looking at this from a defense point of view is a bit too simplistic. Soft power is important and so is economic power. We have left the age of pure military power behind us, hopefully. I understand that in some nations, the military seems to be the dominant force, but I remember a US general pleading for no cuts in foreign diplomacy because that is the most efficient way to have a foreign policy. The times of sending in gunboats to force countries is behind us.
That's why Macron commented that he doesn't want to see the next cold war between the West and China. So the title you have chosen is not a diplomatic one, but just to point fingers at the EU (or France, Germany, Italy and the EU representatives) at the G7 summit).

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh please, stop that fake American superiority complex. The EU and the US need each other.

You're right. Needing each other implies a partnership. Yet, so many EU countries don't even follow NATO recommendations for the amount spent on defense.

Yes, the EU countries need to spend more on defense, I agree. I furthermore will say, that our defense budget needs to be spend a lot smarter and more efficiently. European cooperation will help in that. Only looking at this from a defense point of view is a bit too simplistic. Soft power is important and so is economic power. We have left the age of pure military power behind us, hopefully. I understand that in some nations, the military seems to be the dominant force, but I remember a US general pleading for no cuts in foreign diplomacy because that is the most efficient way to have a foreign policy. The times of sending in gunboats to force countries is behind us.
That's why Macron commented that he doesn't want to see the next cold war between the West and China. So the title you have chosen is not a diplomatic one, but just to point fingers at the EU (or France, Germany, Italy and the EU representatives) at the G7 summit).

I think it's the same for all the countries. Also conventional war has changed. Now the 21st century would be played on information domination and information denial. The term 'fire sale' which was coined for the movie Live Free or Die hard is a reality today.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/china-refutes ... 09721.html

And this is not the first nor the last time they have attacked us i.e. India. So while conventional army, navy and Air force will be needed, more would be in the cyber, quantum and space domains and only few countries have mastery over it. Even U.S. is concerned with the Chinese ascent into the whole thing.

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

Yeah, other than a couple of countries, it was a battalion contributed. Just enough to say that they did something. Some weren't even allowed to be combat troops. Same thing with the anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Africa. So many countries sent a part time frigate just so they could get a participation award. If it wasn't for the US and UK leading, it never would've happened because they wouldn't have done it on their own.

Let me guess, you get your info from CNN and Fox news ?

No, Warship IFR and World Naval Review. Both European publications. Try again.

Dutchy wrote:

In 2014, 2 years before Trump got elected, each NATO member pledged to reach the 2% norm in the next decade, or in 2024, 3 years from now. So your statement has no foundation in history.

You need to reread the books on the 'rise' of Putin and why he acts as he acts. Hint: got nothing to do with NATO, but more with the internal legitimacy of the regime. What do you suppose would have happened differently in Ukraine, or Georgia if all NATO countries were at 2%?

1. So, in other words, they kicked the can far down the road so that they wouldn't anger the voters, who might vote them out of office.
2. Nothing would be different on Ukraine or Georgia. I'm speaking more of threatening the Baltic republics with "little green men" to "protect" the Russian minority. Also the killings and attempted killings in Western cities.

Dutchy wrote:

Only looking at this from a defense point of view is a bit too simplistic. Soft power is important and so is economic power. We have left the age of pure military power behind us, hopefully.

You are correct. However, soft power works best when there is hard power to back it up, if need be.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

Tell that to the parents of the Armed Forces from several European countries who got killed in Afganistan after 9/11….

Yeah, other than a couple of countries, it was a battalion contributed. Just enough to say that they did something. Some weren't even allowed to be combat troops. Same thing with the anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Africa. So many countries sent a part time frigate just so they could get a participation award. If it wasn't for the US and UK leading, it never would've happened because they wouldn't have done it on their own.

It was the Russians, Indians and Chinese who really sorted out the pirates, they sank there boats and weren't worried about picking up survivors.

johns624 wrote:

So anytime we help Europe, it's because it's in our interest but anytime there's a problem outside of Europe, it's not Europe's problem. Got it!

hammer in hand thing.

The US hammer is deadly force and corruption.
( and they have a thing for unpremeditated use of same )

The EU hammer is soft power.

But soft power takes time to work.
bombing is more or less instant.
so the EU usually sits on the shards the US produced.

johns624 wrote:

1. So, in other words, they kicked the can far down the road so that they wouldn't anger the voters, who might vote them out of office.?

No, you cannot just increase the budget two fold and invest the money effectively, you need a plan to do so. Investing in men (training them) and hardware (long lead times). So ten years is about right. And of course shifting money towards defence isn't the most popular thing to do, but looking at polls, the majority sees a budget increase as logical. So your premise isn't right.

johns624 wrote:

2. Nothing would be different on Ukraine or Georgia. I'm speaking more of threatening the Baltic republics with "little green men" to "protect" the Russian minority. Also the killings and attempted killings in Western cities.

The Baltics haven't been threatened, the Putin regime will not tempt it because they are a member of NATO. Please show us how the European NATO countries are at 2%, it will stop (attempted) killings on European soil by the Putin regime? My premise, it can't stop a single or two-man set on killing a third, but hey what do I know, so please enlighten me.

We agree that the European countries should invest more in defence and be more effective about it, but let's be realistic at the same time.

Dutchy wrote:

The Baltics haven't been threatened, the Putin regime will not tempt it because they are a member of NATO. Please show us how the European NATO countries are at 2%, it will stop (attempted) killings on European soil by the Putin regime? My premise, it can't stop a single or two-man set on killing a third, but hey what do I know, so please enlighten me.

We agree that the European countries should invest more in defence and be more effective about it, but let's be realistic at the same time.

Even at less than 2% a piece Europe still outspends Russia 5 to 1.

The 2% is a completely made up figure. You can get improvements in capabilities by pooling and spending better than just arbitrarily increasing spending.

In any case, first define the role and then spend as much as necessary.

And do US politicians really want the EU to invest more, in EU hardware ? I'm not convinced. Much better to have a "weak EU" as a reason for the US spending like mad on the military, spreading the money across all 50 states of course.

Thread went off topic and will be locked.