There are (commercial, trade, military, political) RELATIONSHIPS we are talking about.
There is no switch to have them accepted or not, there is a continuous effort from both parties.
And like any effort, it implies a cost. We have been in a toxic relationship with the USA for decades.
There is a chance for them to get better? Good for them, we will contemplate the possibility for that to be in our interest once I will see it happening.
In the meanwhile, having them showing their true face allows us to be lucid about the current state of affairs and redirecting our efforts elsewhere.
There is a chance for them to get better? Good for them, we will contemplate the possibility for that to be in our interest once I will see it happening.
So you agree. What are we even talking about then?
I did. My point is that europe would be better off with USA as a reliable partner rather than whatever it currently is.
Nowhere have I said that it means we need to somehow make it work with the current USA administration or that nothing has to change whatsoever.
But in principle, it would be much better to have USA as a partner rather than as an enemy. I’m not even saying it is realistic right now, I am saying, in general, it would be better.
And from that one sentence alone what you said, i’m pretty sure you agree.
So you are just arguing against something I never said in the first place.
And I don’t think so, because what we have gotten addicted to is over reliance on a partner that has never really behaved as one.
Now that we have this situation, we are looking around and rediscovering the extent of the influence and power we can have in relations with other actors.
I’m not saying this shake-up is not good, I’m saying USA permanently not being an ally would be bad.
Obviously we would want to be more independent and strong and less reliable, but that doesn’t mean we need to fight USA over greenland or have permanent trade wars with them or whatever.
There are (commercial, trade, military, political) RELATIONSHIPS we are talking about. There is no switch to have them accepted or not, there is a continuous effort from both parties. And like any effort, it implies a cost. We have been in a toxic relationship with the USA for decades.
There is a chance for them to get better? Good for them, we will contemplate the possibility for that to be in our interest once I will see it happening.
In the meanwhile, having them showing their true face allows us to be lucid about the current state of affairs and redirecting our efforts elsewhere.
So you agree. What are we even talking about then?
Read the last lines of my comment.
I did. My point is that europe would be better off with USA as a reliable partner rather than whatever it currently is. Nowhere have I said that it means we need to somehow make it work with the current USA administration or that nothing has to change whatsoever. But in principle, it would be much better to have USA as a partner rather than as an enemy. I’m not even saying it is realistic right now, I am saying, in general, it would be better. And from that one sentence alone what you said, i’m pretty sure you agree. So you are just arguing against something I never said in the first place.
And I don’t think so, because what we have gotten addicted to is over reliance on a partner that has never really behaved as one. Now that we have this situation, we are looking around and rediscovering the extent of the influence and power we can have in relations with other actors.
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5VYUewImUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOSBKgM188
This is at all possible because USA is in shambles.
I’m not saying this shake-up is not good, I’m saying USA permanently not being an ally would be bad. Obviously we would want to be more independent and strong and less reliable, but that doesn’t mean we need to fight USA over greenland or have permanent trade wars with them or whatever.
I don’t think we will be doing any of that. Also because it takes two to tango and, again, our efforts are best spent elsewhere.
they are not, its not an either-or.
This is what we really disagree on, but I already explained my position.