WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Screw Germany, if we must deploy to the Euro's let it be to those that actually want us and pay their 2%.
Redeployment due to Deadbeat Germans!
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
So, I am absolutely NOT saying we do any of what we might do in Europe for Germany's sake. We do what we need to do because it's in our U.S. national interest to do so.
Can't remember who said it, but geography is politics. As such, Central and East Europe (among other areas, such as the Middle East, etc.) will continue to remain important as they will always be areas that are competed for (so-called "shatter belts").* "Shatter belts" can be seen as a consequence of Mackinder's "Heartland" concept.
* You'll note that these areas maintain a continued, historical focus of Great Power attention. Why I earlier noted WWI and WWII (both had their starts in "shatter belt" issues...). Rather than retreat and go back a third time, maybe better to stay in Europe...?
Regarding "shatter belts," see this:
Shatter belt (geopolitics) - Wikipedia
A key quote:
For more, go here (I disagree with the author's contention that "shatter belts" are a legacy of colonial/imperial collapse, but anyway):
Shatterbelt
A region of persistent political fragmentation due to devolution and centrifugal forces. The term has been applied by political geographer...
dictionaryofgeography.blogspot.com
Anyway, as the quote above postulates, shatter belt areas are not only important to those in the shatter belts/those adjacent to the shatter belts they are important to the "great powers."
So if we (the U.S.) want to continue to be a Great Power, then we have to play in areas that don't seem to be immediately important to us. If we don't want to be a Great Power, then we don't play. Conversely, if we don't play we will no longer be a Great Power.
I would prefer a seat at the international table. And not just any seat, but a Big Player seat. And not just a Big Player seat, but sitting in THE Biggest Player seat. Not because I necessarily want to; rather, because the alternatives are much worse. Whatever role we choose to assume comes with its own dangers. I choose to pick the one that is less dangerous/more advantageous to the U.S. And that means staying in Europe. Whether Germany or Poland..., that's still be be decided/worked out as both have advantages/disadvantages.
BTW, I'm not in the "let's do good and spread democracy so let's be overseas everywhere to do so" camp. Nope; instead, I'm a solid realist** and staying forward-deployed in a sensible, meaningful, advantageous manner is the best way to "stay real."
** John Mearsheimer is a great place to start if one wants to know more about "realism":
John Mearsheimer - Wikipedia
His "school" is called "neorealism":
Neorealism (international relations) - Wikipedia
--- End of line (MCP)
Last edited:
Well I am enough of a bastard to pull 100% out of Germany - **** them and their attitude Poland seems to more welcoming at this point
I understand having Troops right in Europe ... but how about somewhere that will appreciate the presence.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Simple as that..................
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Not sure that's true. Granted, I, too, would like our troops forward-deployed where they're appreciated (e.g., Poland), but we (i.e., U.S. and "The West") assume some risk moving east. At this point in time we have an uneasy rapproachment with Russia having our troops in Germany that, granted, isn't optimal (with either Russia or Germany), but is workable in that no one seems hellbent on disrupting the status quo (though Russia and Germany are seeking to undermine it bite by tiny bite. One reason both are so angry at Trump is because he's been calling them out for it). But I get the frustrations with Germany and moving east might help.
The problem is this: moving east may solve this "smaller" issue, but solve it by dealing us a "larger" one: Russia ups the ante with the Baltics, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey (etc.) because they'll claim we've already upped the ante moving to Poland. So, how do we play our hand to our benefit?
I think there is good reason to believe this "U.S. forward-deployed basing issue" may be playing some role (not a big one, but one that bears consideration) in Trump's (and his NatSec team's) posturing moves in other areas of the world (such as Afghanistan, Syria, etc.). Perhaps someone is gaming a situation whereby Russia has less leverage on us in Central Europe if we lessen Russia's ability to mess with us in these other areas (or we "entice" them into situations that distract them, bog them down, limit their maneuverability in areas important to us).
Such is the interwoven tapestry of international affairs and this latest edition of the "Great Game," eh?
--- End of line (MCP)
We needed Turkey during the Cold War ...... well that's over we don't need them, do we
Syria ...... who cares about that crap hole ?
Sell them Beans and Bullets
Encourage Islamist's to keep killing each other ... it keeps them busy not killing Americans
If Putin wants to turn Syria into their next Afghanistan, have at it
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
In and of themselves, I agree with you. But these "places" are not necessarily important in and of themselves, they are important in the context of the entire matrix of international engagement.We needed Turkey during the Cold War ...... well that's over we don't need them, do we
Syria ...... who cares about that crap hole ?
Sell them Beans and Bullets
Encourage Islamist's to keep killing each other ... it keeps them busy not killing Americans
If Putin wants to turn Syria into their next Afghanistan, have at it
So I'm not saying we should care in any meaningful way; just that, at a minimum, we should care because these places tend to be the loose threads that unravel the whole garment.
--- End of line (MCP)