During the Cold War the value of American military protection to South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Western Europe, seemed obvious. There’s a widespread assumption that America, even today, is benefitting other nations by protecting them (and allowing them the luxury of having small military budgets of their own, so they can spend more revenue on domestic programs). But I wonder if it’s true. I see, e.g., no hint of aggressive expansionism on the part of Russia or China today; they understand that that have a lot of problems at home, and are in a situation where wanting more territory just so you can have more territory is like wanting cancer just so you can have more cells. Even SK is now strong enough to defend itself from NK. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia might have been grateful for American protection in 1991, but I doubt they really need it any more (thanks to our having eliminated Iraq as a military threat).
Maybe you see no hint of expansionism on the part of Russia or China BECAUSE the United States is protecting other nations.
I’ve got a pill case that I carry in my purse with me. Since I have been carrying this pill case, I have not been mugged. That’s it! I have a pill case that prevents muggings!
Who wants to buy it?
Snarky quips aside, the power vacuum left by the U.S. should it drastically cut it’s military, would undoubtedly filled buy the Russians and or Chinese. And the west might not like that world very much.
Why by them, and not the European Union or India?
C’mon guys, none of this correlation-is-causation or it-will-happen-because-I-say-so. I’m genuinely interested here, so how about we actually see some real arguments with things like logic and cites?
You don’t see expansionism on the part of Russia or China?
I would submit that you are turning a blind eye then.
China has ongoing and aggressive postures toward Taiwan, and has undertaken active military exercises in the straights.
It also has behaved with real aggressiveness towards Vietnam and with respect to rather dubious island claims in the Pacific. What Chinese behaviour would be like without US counterbalance (and Russian) relative to say South Asia and Central Asia is an open question.
Russia just recently engaged in effectively a neo-colonial war with Georgia and has treated its Caucasian periphery with Medieval savagery. It also engages in extremely aggressive rhetoric with Ukraine, the Baltic states and even Bielorussia. With Ukraine, it engages in actual “economic warfare” such as cutting gas supplies. It is not hard to imagine actual hot war on the Russian’s part on its borders.
You’ve essentially assumed the conclusion you desire. While there are doubtless solid arguments for reduction of American military expenditure and probably reasonable reductions in overseas presence without damage to national interest, pretending China and Russia are not regionally aggressive is hardly a convincing first step of an argument.
You’re not serious are you?
EU can barely make economic coordination work, never mind anything like a common Foreign Policy and beyond that, an ability to project military power. That’s Leftist fantasy land.
India hasn’t anywhere near the capacity to undertake power projection, outside of its immediate neighbourhood, and is tied down with Pakistan.
Obviously, Taiwan isn’t capable of defending itself against China. And China is increasing military spending at a clip that outpaces the growth in its economy, going to far as to invest heavily in missiles, amphibious warfare, and power projection capabilities. Do I think China is getting ready to invade Taiwan in the next ten years? No. Do I think China wants to have the capability to do it? Oh, yeah.
Russia invaded Georgia on behalf of South Ossetia. Would the invasion have gone further if the US didn’t regard Georgia as a close friend? I’m not sure about that one. Maybe, maybe not.
Japan, although it has a very capable military, still relies on the US for blue-water operations. If the US were to draw back, it is pretty likely that Japan would increase military spending because China is doing the same thing. That would drive China berserk.
Finally, let’s say that any EU country was attacked by a terrorist group like Al Shmaeda based in Somewherestan. Could the EU mount a campaign along the lines of what the US (and some partners) did in Afghanistan? Probably, with considerable difficulty. Could they continue the occupation of Somewherestan for years? No chance.
The EU already has a history of military coordination. It’s called NATO. If the U.S. were to pull out of NATO, it would effectively become the EU’s military arm, having a nearly (not quite, but nearly) identical membership, and the all-European remnant could easily be beefed up. The only potential military threat to the EU is Russia anyway, and the EU is a whole lot richer (for that matter, the EU as a whole has a larger GDP than the U.S.).
India has never seen much need for “power projection” up to now, but it is an expanding economy with lots of potential. I wouldn’t be surprised to see its GDP overtake China’s in the next decade. (At present, China is ranked 3rd globally by GDP, India 12th.) They can have a first-rate military establishment whenever they decide they want one.
The last time an ally needed US protection was in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
I would argue that Israel needs US military protection. Also the Middle-Eastern order is pretty dependent upon the US in general.
I noticed you left out North Korea in your list of countries you think aren’t agressive. Residing in South Korea, I’m very interested in North Korea being kept in check.
NATO?
NATO?
Good bloody christ.
NATO is not an EU military arm, its an American-European arm.
EU does have a failed history of independent military cooperation. Actual EU umbrella, hasn’t worked well at all.
No it would not, the Treaty would collapse, and the non EU members have shown no interest in coordination with the actual EU military cooperation bodies. I do not see them magically changing their minds.
As for easily beefed up. Words. Mere words. This is fantasy land.
Military threats are not the same as interest in power projection (as the French practice in expeditionary forces shows).
I would put your analysis of this at about the same value as your NATO analysis (or your analysis as such of the China and Russia behaviour in your OP)
This would need Lounsbury for an adequate response. I’ll leave it at “you are radically underestimating Israel’s military strength vis-a-vis the entire rest of the Middle East”.
(Bolding mine.) I almost choke on my beer - In what way is this a leftist fantasy land?
As it seems to be usually a fantasy of the Left (generally the hard left in Europe) of EU replacing the USA and becoming a more benevolent, touchy feely protector of all FP causes the Left dearly loves. Intervening in Sudan, that sort of thing.
Seconded. It’s not just “usual”, it’s damn commonplace.
Oh please. This is utter nonsense and based on western propaganda. I have no intention to turn this into a thread about these specific events, but I can’t let this pass without some brief comments.
First, the responsibility for the gas problems rests on Ukraine’s shoulders. Basically, Ukraine didn’t pay their gas bills so Russia had to turn off the tap. Of course it would be possible to send gas though Ukraine without them taking any, but Ukraine did anyway. If there’s any “economic warfare”, it’s from the Ukrainian side.
Secondly your view on the conflict with Georgia is wrong. A joint force of Russian and Georgian peacekeepers were put in place after the ceasefire in the early 90’s. In August 2008 Georgia initiated an attack on Tskhinvali, breaking the ceasefire. They attacked the Russian peacekeeper HQ as well as the civilian population. There’s no way Russia could have just shrugged their shoulders and let that continue unopposed.
Saakashvili is the unstable and savage person in that area. He also has an affinity for staging media events and spewing complete lies to the media.
Cuba could use our protection. Would remove a big chunk of their defense budget, they could stick to coast guard duties, supressing Hatian immigrants etc.
Everything I’ve read (and seen posted on this Board) about that situation says the PRC would get its ass kicked in any attempt to mount an invasion of Taiwan (with or without intervention by the U.S. or anyone else), and the leaders know it.