This comes out very clearly in the events running up to the Social War (the revolt of the Italian allies in 91). Part of - and this is a tweet-unfriendly complex issue, forgive my simplification - part of the reason for the revolt was that the balance of benefits...8/
-
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/
-
Although, tbh, kicking Turkey out would be a good first step towards showing that the stick also exists. end/
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Difficult, though not impossible, indeed. The Marshall Plan was sold to the American people as the Cold War was looming. Red Army troops were in E Europe, and the US was flush with surplus capital. That context will be _very_ difficult to replicate. I might say impossible.
-
I don't disagree. But I'd rather we try and fail to sell that and end up at a new strategy honestly, rather than the current system where - it seems to me - the American people are encouraged to think as little as possible about the Foreign policy carried out in their name.
- 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.