Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: ltlee1@hotmail.com (ltlee1) Newsgroups: soc.culture.china Subject: What is Nato =?UTF-8?B?Zm9yPw==?= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:00:47 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4004787"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="mNwqq9k4PbjwCNcW/6mPKUh0i9J+bz8EaUjCd0X/OGk"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: 2fefc04777943c472de9022864bceed983aeb27a X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$YLSobgtFvZBiccd5X79g1O4S/t21jCdLU7uODxZZeNzn9ip5nOAam Bytes: 4854 Lines: 69 Ravi Agrawal interviewing Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon policymaker. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/31/elbridge-colby-trump-foreign-policy-military-china/?tpcc=recirc_insider091023 "Ravi Agrawal: You have popularized the argument that there is a trade-off between aiding Ukraine and deterring China. And you’ve said quite clearly that Asia is more important than Europe when it comes to U.S. national security. Why? Elbridge Colby: I approach this from the standpoint of a colloquial realism, a pragmatic realism, focused on Americans’ practical interests. Traditional American foreign policy was basically designed to prevent potentially hostile states from dominating the most important market area, the basis for a great power to use that strength to undermine our way of life. And if you look at it that way, there’s really no question that Asia is the most important area. I think it’s about half of the global population, and it’s where growth is concentrated. RA: Yes, but if the White House makes clear to European leaders that it is less important, doesn’t that hurt America’s most important alliances? Don’t alliances matter? EC: Alliances absolutely do matter. My view is alliances are so important that we actually expect people to do their part. Stepping back, the implicit understanding, if I may be forgiven, behind what you’re saying is that alliances are feel-good operations. Biden describes them as kind of sacred. I don’t think that’s how we should look at alliances. I think we should look at them as, frankly, in a business-like way, that they’re supposed to serve both sides’ interests. Obviously, they have those very deep connections. But at the end of the day, these alliances are meant to do something for us and for others. If people are not doing that, which has been the case, for instance, in Germany, Japan, and Taiwan, then there really needs to be consequences for that. Otherwise, we’re actually not taking alliances seriously. I do take alliances seriously. And so if Trump-proofing NATO leads European countries and Canada to actually spend more and meet their defense commitments there, that’s actually the thing they should be doing anyway. So that’s good for them. RA: But if the White House says Asia is more important, Moscow might get the signal that it can be more aggressive in policies toward Europe. The critique of what you’re saying is that words and signals matter in diplomacy. EC: Sure, but actions matter more. And at the end of the day, we need to reconcile actions with reality and the words implicit behind what you’re saying. For many years, very high American officials of both political parties were politely ignored when they plaintively and nicely made arguments to the Europeans and others. In my view, if we’re not communicating a costly signal that this is very serious and there are real dangers, that’s actually not being good allies. ... RA: But two things can be true at the same time. So, America can ask Europe to do a lot more, and it seems like it is. But second, America can continue to support Europe. Because with the policy you’re describing and suggesting, what if Ukraine falls? EC: My own view is that we should remain in NATO and the European pillar should take lead responsibility. So far our conversation has been focusing on Europe, which is a symptom of the problem that we face in the foreign-policy debate. Europe is a fraction of Asia, and Russia is a 10th the size of China [in population]. Why are we spending all this time dealing with Europe? Of course, I don’t want to abandon Europe, but I’m dealing with the reality that we’re facing. There simply are constraints. China is the largest state we have dealt with. It’s the first time that we are not by far the largest state in the international system for about 150 years. So that, just by necessity, imposes constraint."