Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2023, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,194 posts, read 13,482,880 times
Reputation: 19524

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Of course, not having the same agreements or relationships doesn't inherently mean better or worse. A non-NATO relationship can be better than a NATO relationship. Or it could be worse. Or it could be no different.

Regardless of whether bases are US bases or not, the point is that the US has access to them and can operate out of there. True, the host nation can always put restrictions, but having base accesses there is important.

Of course, from a regional influence perspective, while Russia is rearing its ugly head (not that it stopped) in Ukraine, the most pressing battles for the US ahead lie in the Pacific and deal with China. On that front, our relationships with nations in that region, to include Japan, are likely more consequential than those in Europe. NATO may be expanding, but Russia's influence is also waning, whereas China's continues to increase.
If the US left NATO it might have access to military bases, in the same way that European countries have access to US ports and military bases if required, however this would involve a lot more oversight and scrutiny.

As if you leave NATO's Central Command NATO's Central Command, countries may be a lot more suspicious about US activities, as US forces would be there in relation to their own agenda rather than the previous joint NATO remit.

In terms of Russia, it may well end up weaker and China is already the main focus of US attentions, however the rise of the BRICS is also of concern to the US.

Currently the BRICS, consist of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, however other nations have shown an interest in joining such as Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and even Iran, although it's doubtful Iran could co-exist in the organisation alongside it's enemy Saudi Arabia.

The BRICS are becoming an increasingly powerful economic force, and the pact has even suggested a new reserve currency to challenge the dollar, with this international pact becoming ever more powerful in terms of global influence.

The rise of the BRICS, means that the US will want to keep it's allies close, as a means to maintain power and influence and NATO members are an important part of this, as are new alliances with countries such as Australia in terms of AUKUS or other such emerging alliances.

Last edited by Brave New World; 02-05-2023 at 08:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2023, 10:23 AM
 
2,230 posts, read 1,333,320 times
Reputation: 3417
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
He's an over the top figure and he is going further out of orbit lately with a pretty much full throttled embrace of... Q-anon - sheesh.. but during his Presidency I would say he made some progress as you noted with North Korea -which well maybe it was just Kim admiring an authoritarian vibe - but actually he did make some measurable progress in terms of M.E peace. I actually think that was his biggest Foreign Policy success. On the other hand he was not well regarded by traditional western allies.

Do you really think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still President? I mean what the Russians are doing to Ukraine is absolutely tragic. It is hard to advocate that the west and particularly the U.S could just sit on the sidelines!? So on that note, what do you think would happen globally if the U.S truly embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy?
Did any of you follow last month fact checking at the US House wrt Russian aggression? Below are two excerpts pertaining to Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.


https://youtu.be/VJdbMj8fStA

https://youtu.be/VadMTEgBbj8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2023, 03:27 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 869,355 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
He's an over the top figure and he is going further out of orbit lately with a pretty much full throttled embrace of... Q-anon - sheesh.. but during his Presidency I would say he made some progress as you noted with North Korea -which well maybe it was just Kim admiring an authoritarian vibe - but actually he did make some measurable progress in terms of M.E peace. I actually think that was his biggest Foreign Policy success. On the other hand he was not well regarded by traditional western allies.

Do you really think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still President? I mean what the Russians are doing to Ukraine is absolutely tragic. It is hard to advocate that the west and particularly the U.S could just sit on the sidelines!? So on that note, what do you think would happen globally if the U.S truly embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy?
I don't believe there would be war in the Ukraine if Trump were president. Not because Putin fears him, but rather Trump wouldn't provide the same level of support to Ukraine or Europeans making them hesitant in their approach. In addition, Trump stance and policies regarding NATO, essentially gave Putin no need to expand the conflict beyond Donbas.

As far as what would occur if the U.S. were to embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy. Like empires of the past, being the hegemonic power pays good. Doubtful the U.S. could sustain its current level of economic prominence without being interventionist. Don't believe that tired line of "we play the world police out of the goodness of our hearts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2023, 03:26 PM
 
1,764 posts, read 1,028,117 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
I don't believe there would be war in the Ukraine if Trump were president. Not because Putin fears him, but rather Trump wouldn't provide the same level of support to Ukraine or Europeans making them hesitant in their approach. In addition, Trump stance and policies regarding NATO, essentially gave Putin no need to expand the conflict beyond Donbas.

As far as what would occur if the U.S. were to embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy. Like empires of the past, being the hegemonic power pays good. Doubtful the U.S. could sustain its current level of economic prominence without being interventionist. Don't believe that tired line of "we play the world police out of the goodness of our hearts.
Yet Putin said in 2005: The collapse of the USSR “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. He always had ambitions to bring Ukraine into Russia. Even with Trump in the office he was just waiting for the right moment to invade. Within Donald Trump presidency there he was voted to impeached for withdrawing military aid into Ukraine due to his claim Biden Son getting kickbacks from the Ukrainian government with his business and requested the Ukranian government release the activity Biden son conducted there.

During Trump presidency Putin military aid and Russian military still occupied the Ukrainian territory Dombas and war was still ongoing there. Events such as covid virus and outspoken anti Putin president who was Biden gave Putin the right time to invade the rest of Ukraine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2023, 11:54 PM
 
Location: The Heart of Dixie
10,219 posts, read 15,937,421 times
Reputation: 7206
I'm surprised Saudi Arabia isn't listed here but Tunisia is. Saudi Arabia is a much more major country and their government is friendly to us, even if there are elements in the population that are not.

Also surprised that Mexico isn't listed when Colombia is.

I don't know if Ukraine counts as an ally. We now give them more military aid than any other country and its in America's best interests that Ukraine remain independent and not be recolonized by the Russians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2023, 08:18 PM
pdw
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,675 posts, read 3,097,591 times
Reputation: 1820
I don’t know if alliances instigate or prevent war truly. It seems like imperialistic countries like China and Russia are using the formation of alliances as “red lines” as pretext to invade. I used to be skeptical about Canada’s involvement with things like NORAD and NATO, maybe I took for granted the relative peace we had for such a long time. One thing is for sure, the isolationist movements in the US are getting stronger and until more countries pull their weight on a per capita level, support for smaller countries like us by the US is going to be less and less popular. I say this as a left leaning person who generally was not in favour of higher military spending in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top