I’ve seen different perspectives say its either a winning strategy ( they stand to alienate little brother Europe from daddy US, and possibly make them dependent on US natural gas ), or that its a losing strategy ( that in the long term it will only stand to unite China, Russia, India, etc more closely, contribute to de-dollarization, etc)

Do you think the west’s strategy is sound, or are they merely making mistakes typical of dying empires?

  • Muad'DibberOPMA
    4•2 years ago

    I hadn’t thought of this being used to cripple leftist movements in euro countries, but you’re right, it does have that possibility… wrangling to get the eurocommunists to support NATO yet again.

    Column A seems to be:

    • Propaganda
    • Creating war-hungry NATO soldiers in europe, who can do the US’s bidding.
    • War industry profits
    • Alienating Russia from the rest of europe
    • Potential new buyer for US natural gas, kicking out their russian competitor.

    Column B:

    • Brings Russia / China / Syria / Iran / the anti-imperialist camp closer together.
    • Hurts USD hegemony
    • Potentially alienates europe if this backfires and euros realize they’re doing the US’s bidding and getting nothing out of it.
    • Star Wars Enjoyer A
      2•2 years ago

      I was talking more so about the leftist movements in the anglosphere portion of NATO, as I speak English and I’ve noticed exactly what I mentioned happening in the anglosphere left. But it’s likely also happening in the rest of NATO.

      The group that opposes NATO the most in the west tends to be counter-culture far-leftists, it’s only natural that a decaying empire would act against the elements of their opposition that are the easiest targets.