There is no "special relationship" between the USA and UK (for some time)

Politics & Elections
1

All my life Ive heard of the “special relationship” between the USA and UK.

An "I’ve got your back kind of thing. “Bridge over Troubled Water” kind of sentiment.

Since Reagan, at least, it’s been “Do what the USA wants, and we’ll be much obliged.”

Maybe the term could still be used, seriously, up to and including the March Oval meeting between Starmer and Trump. Who was more polite? Who was rude, interrupting questions? Doesn’t matter.

Starmer was basically asked, “When do I get that invite?” and Starmer pulls it out, presents it to the president, who looks at a couple of pages, recognizes the King’s signature, and hands it back to a surprised Starmer to actually read it out loud, as is customary. Oh, wait, it was really unusual. Yet Special Relationship was still the status.

Trump accuses Starmer of seeking to 'join wars after we’ve already won.

Comparing Starmer unfavorably to Winston Churchill, saying Britain is “uncooperative”’

Then, at some point this week, Starmer allows B1-Lancers to land in the UK, only to be used for “defensive purposes”. Then more B1-bombers. B2’s expected this week. The UK is sending more Typhoons to Qatar.

All for “defensive purposes” only. Show me how, other than a show of force by flying over, how the B1, B2.

So maybe Starmer is trying really hard to keep up that special relationship, including draping his coat over a puddle (puddle, not poodle!) so trump won’t get his platform shoes wet.

I am unsure when the phrase originated, yet am sure “special relationship” has not meant the President insulting/trashing the UK PM or that the UK must cower to the whims of whoever is President and say “Chill out, man, it was just a joke” when insulted.

2

Do you know about the Five Eyes that Wikipedia has an entry for?

3

Does that mean 24 special relationships? Do they make and stick with “only for defense” promises when made?

4

Did you read the Wikipedia entry?

5

Okay, it’s the collective of the spy agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and USA (meant as an ETA).

Yet I had heard the others were at least very wary of giving trump stuff to relay to putin not long AGO.

6

The Five Eyes is a matter of history since at least World War II. You’re asking about what it is now. During the presidencies of Trump there may have been changes in it.

7

If the other members of Five Eyes are not spying a lot more on the US than with the US or for the US, since the advent of Trump, I would be surprised. And trusting the US with a lot less of their own intelligence information, especially about their own field assets.

8

it’s not only is related to sharing of intelligence - which as Roderick noted, the others are wary of as trump has said intel stuff out loud (it’s not intel if he says it!) and has putin to chat to.

Certainly the five members would (at least once) have considered each-other allies, yet that’s what being al allly means.

Yet I must have missed the air-show where the USA’s stealth bombers fly around being defensive against air-to-air being defensive by shooting down “offensive” drones. They likely have self defense for themselves (though trump would still rather they be truly iinvisible).

The UK is queued up with a shit-ton of some of the most powerful flying weaponry ever.

9

The USA does not have any “special relationships” with any countries anymore. They barely have allies. (Starmer’s attempted suck-ups notwithstanding).

Mark Carney put it quite succinctly in his speech at Davos:

Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.…

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection…
This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Trump has ruptured the world order. It’s not coming back. It has been destroyed.

America is alone.

10

Until Trump and anyone similar is no longer President.

11

That seems pretty optimistic, what guarantees does the rest of the world have that “anyone similar” will not be elected in a few years?
Creating trust is hard, destroying it is very easy, re-creating it after it’s gone is very hard.

12

No, I think you are overly optimistic. Relationships and trust, once broken, do not just magically go back to normal.

I work with 20 somethings. Their political and world views are being shaped at this time, and will stick with them for decades. Trust me - they do not have a great opinion of the USA, and this will not be easy to change.

13

Tell us the ways in which they have a bad opinion of the U.S.

14
  • You can’t trust them to abide by any treaties or agreements
  • Warmongers - a large proportion support invading other countries on behalf of corporations
  • They elected an obvious mental patient and felon. Twice.
  • They have a very, very different moral and ethical outlook (me first, money is to be worshipped)
  • Far, far too many racists, misogynists and other assholes
  • Unlikely to ever change
15

Please give me a citation for each of these six things being more common among 20-somethings than among older Americans.

16

As I explained upthread, this is simply what I am hearing from those young people I work with.
These are not Americans. These are young people from another country who are currently forming their impressions of the relationship of their country with the USA.

It’s an anecdote. No more, no less.

17

This is confusing. I thought you were saying that you had been talking with American 20-somethings and the six things you mentioned about them were true of those American 20-somethings. First, Americans under 30 are less likely to be racist than those 30 and over. Second, Americans under 30 mostly didn’t vote for Trump. Third, Americans under 30 are less likely to want to invade foreign countries than those 30 and over. Fourth, Americans under 30 are less likely to want to violate any treaties or agreements.

Asking foreigners about what most Americans believe is useless.

18

EP is Canadian and was talking to Canadian 20-somethings about their views on America. It’s exactly on point (since it’s about a special relationship between Canada and the US, while the thread is about the UK and US), but I think it illustrates that many young foreigners who may have once had a positive view of the US no longer have it.

19

But they’re getting this position not by talking to young Americans but by listening to their news, which doesn’t necessarily have to be accurate.

20

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

I’m American, and I agree with Canadian youth that we have been bad partners, bad actors, and we can’t be trusted to honor our commitments, protect the planet, or help our allies.