My point being that the system here is both carrot-and-stick, and the Romans often got more mileage out of the carrot - the promise of loot, collective security, just generally respecting their allies - than they did the stick. There simply wasn't enough stick to go around. 7/
-
Given that framework, it seems to me we ought to be willing to make considerable sacrifices of *our* interests just to keep our alliance network intact - rather than, as the Romans did, pounding the table for a better deal and ending up in an unnecessary war 16/
Just like the ruthless thing to do for the Romans was to *not* keep all of the loot, but share it out, because the future loot was worth it, the ruthless thing for the USA to do is to, if necessary, slap large amounts of money on the table to keep this system going. 17/
-
-
Obviously, selling that to the American voter would be difficult...but the Marshall Plan was sold to the American voter on similar terms - a mix of 'it's the right thing' and 'it's the expedient thing' so I hardly think it impossible 18/
-
So, to take Nord Stream 2, which is obviously a problem for an alliance that ought to be worried about Russia - my question is 'what are we willing to offer the Germans that they want in order to reconsider'? We talk a lot about stick, but I hear little about carrot with NS2 19/
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.