Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-13/why-europe-is-warning-of-pax-americana-s-end

151 364 9 years ago

This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected.

Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed.

The US and all of its allies are still allies.

Does anyone really think that if some "real" US interests are messed with that the United States won't fuck somebody up? I mean it's just a few years ago we went to war, why all of a sudden are we weak?

Edit: just to clarify "real" interests e.g. a NATO ally is hit, Israel is hit, Japan is hit, South Korea is hit... any US base or military vehicles, etc...

JumpCrisscross3• 9 years ago

If things go wrong, I think the establishment would reassert itself. But there would be a few weeks of chaos. That interval represents a new strategic opening.

It's not enough for a land war in Europe. But a lighting grab for territory? Like Mongolia? Or Taiwan? Or the Baltics or Balkans or a contiguous stretch of the Middle East? If you can secure enough resources to hold strong against non-military retaliations, e.g. sanctions, it might--for the first time in decades--be worth it.

fowlerpower3• 9 years ago

You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war?

You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.

alextheparrot3• 9 years ago

I largely agree with what you've said. Statements from the article such as "U.S. ineffectiveness as a pillar of security" causes me to question the author's understanding of modern American foreign policy. It does not seek to make the entire world stable (See Africa), it simply seeks to make resources of American interest stable.

To your point regarding Russian and Chinese relations, I don't see how in the current frame this is possible. Russia will become more heavily reliant to China in the future, as western Europe modernizes its energy sources. Energy is a major driver in the Russian economy [1].

To your last paragraph, the same logic could have been used after the Russian excursions into Afghanistan, which I believe indicates it is a historically weak argument by itself.

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/vladimir-putin-meet-russian-oil-chief...

knz3• 9 years ago

The US and all of its allies are still allies.

This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" - it's potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how effective our foreign relations are.

The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own intelligence agencies should give everyone some concern regardless of one's political leanings.

coldtea2• 9 years ago

This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is.

As compared to the actions of the previous administrations, like bombing in eastern Europe, invading several countries, and royally fucking up Middle East etc, while constantly pushing Russia in the corner in cold war like rhetoric (for doing 1/10 of what they did, and in its actual bordering countries after) all in the span of 20 years?

herbst• 9 years ago

Not sure why you are grayed out. From what i can tell you are absolutely right. Before that america was usually discussed as some "crazy big brother" kind of position, especially since they started bombing and droning civils it went more to "evil big brother" but still a big brother. From what i can tell the public view changed since the election and the U.S. is seen as some kind of possible threat for our society and economy.

idiot_stick• 9 years ago

the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is.

Thankfully the real decision makers aren't going to toss away decades of political good-will and foreign relations because of 3 weeks of blowhard political posturing.

bad_user9• 9 years ago

Judging by how Trump is behaving, there are two more possibilities:

(1) no strategy is involved at all, populists being known to do that, either because of incompetence or because stirring the pot gives the illusion of progress (it's after all why he was voted), or

(2) his strategy is aligned with his businesses, which is not that far fetched, given how he hasn't banned immigrants from Muslim countries in which he has business interests.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

The countries he banned also all happen to have had historically antipathetic relations with the US. It's hard to tease out one thing from the other; it would have been illegal for Trump to pursue business in Iran.

I think ultimately Trump's foreign policy is going to end up extremely military-directed and won't be that much of a radical departure from what we've seen recently (not that that is necessarily good).

mason2403• 9 years ago

#2 is one the more ridiculous talking points floating around, for a number of different reasons that I'm sure you are already aware of.

lmm• 9 years ago

Is there a clear sharp line where e.g. Estonia is a "real" US interest and Crimea isn't? I mean NATO membership is a line, but it's not feeling as solid as it used to.

lispm3• 9 years ago

A next field of conflict is Belarus, which tries to distance itself from Russia. It's not NATO, it's not a country with a security guarantee like the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...) , it's not trying to connect itself to the EU (like the Ukraine), but still it could be a next conflict.

Then there are European countries not in NATO, but cooperating with NATO, like Sweden and Finland. Both have a border with Russia.

zzleeper2• 9 years ago

"Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO"

I don't know in what world do you live, but you are just giving him too much credibility. It's as if you can't fathom him doing something bad in him.

grotsnot• 9 years ago

That seems a bit harsh. One could just as easily claim that Trump's opponents can't fathom him doing anything well and give him even less credibility than he deserves. While both assertions give that nice truthiness rush, neither is mature or productive.

Like any other human being, Trump is allowed to be right about some things, wrong about some things, and somewhere in the middle on the rest. People can support specific actions or areas of action without implicitly supporting all actions. The GP didn't even come across as all that Trump-apologist or even -supportive to me, just stating that the status quo has not crumbled despite the doomsayers claiming otherwise.

Let's all try and dial back on the polarization, please?

flukus2• 9 years ago

It sounds like your falling into the trap of thinking Trump is an idiot.

semi-extrinsic• 9 years ago

[if] any US base or military vehicles, etc...

This is precisely why the US stations so many troops in Eastern Europe, South Korea, Japan etc. It's to act as a multiplier on the deterrence value of US alliance with said country. If Russia were to invade just Estonia, with only Estonians killed, it's harder for the US internally to justify military aid, as opposed to if hundreds of US troops are killed.

tomjen3• 9 years ago

NATO is held together with the unquestioning belief that all countries will strike together if one of them is hit. If there is some reasonable doubt as to whether it will happen or not, will the US really go to war with Russia over Latvia, which I doubt most of Trumps voters can find on a map?

Well what if Putin thinks no, goes in and Trump then says yes?

mcguire6• 9 years ago

If a Russian-backed Syrian regime gets frisky against Israel again....

mmjaa• 9 years ago

why all of a sudden are we weak?

$Trillions of War Debt, owed to world banks outside of Americas' reach, thats why.

grabcocque2• 9 years ago

Because, to put it mildly, Europe has always been able to rely on the US bailing it out when it mishandled some internal or external crisis. Now it's worried it may not be able to take that for granted any more, and may have to take responsibility for its own actions.

Frankly, that's terrifying for Europe. Trump has forcibly removed our training wheels.

That said, NATO's not going anywhere. Theresa May's first action was to get the Trump to publicly reaffirm his commitment to NATO. At worst the US is going to demand other member states start paying the 2% of GDP the treaties they're signatory to actually already require.

bluetomcat4• 9 years ago

Just like the US bailed out Europe during the "external" migrant crisis, caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East?

leereeves• 9 years ago

The migrant crisis is often attributed to the Syrian Civil War; how was the Syrian Civil War "caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East"?

chillydawg• 9 years ago

That's not a crisis. World War II was a crisis.

BurningFrog3• 9 years ago

Trump publicly affirms a lot of things.

VeejayRampay• 9 years ago

Managing to pack that much condescension for Europe in a sentence is a wonderful feat.

Why do you need to be a self-hating European like that? Do you think if you cast a good enough light on the US and shit on your own enough, people from the States will somehow recognize you as one of their own?

resiros• 9 years ago

The full report can be downloaded here as pdf here: http://report2017.securityconference.de/

Synaesthesia• 9 years ago

Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.

grabcocque2• 9 years ago

Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?

fowlerpower3• 9 years ago

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any country in the NATO umbrella being hit would lead to the United States retaliating decisively.

President trump would be advised by the generals he knows more than that he has to go in front of the American people and let them know why he has to take the actions he is taking. Sending US troops into Europe.

Believe me, there is zero doubt, if NATO is hit its game over. Why does Putin cry about NATO so much?

alextheparrot3• 9 years ago

There is a reason why Ukraine is not in NATO, which is because putting everyone under NATO does not necessarily mean everyone is safer.

tdkl• 9 years ago

You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

I don't really feel safer knowing the US would go to war with a nuclear power over a bunch of Eastern European republics, no.

elthran• 9 years ago

A pretext for what exactly?

I have no issue with the existence of a military cooperation agreement to defend each other in the event of war breaking out, and fail to see how it would be a bad idea.

dajohnson892• 9 years ago

FWIW, I think that complex military alliances are a major reason why WWI was so expansive.

Scarblac2• 9 years ago

Russia is the Soviet Union's continuation, and it still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and is currently fighting in and occupying a European country. The threat isn't gone at all.

RobertoG• 9 years ago

So, what should happen so "the threat" is gone?

tiatia6• 9 years ago

"is currently fighting in and occupying a European country." If Russia were fighting Ukraine, the war would be over in 1 week.

Spooky23• 9 years ago

Russia and Europe itself.

The US basically has access to the command control infrastructure of the NATO allies. Our officers know their officers. We know their capability.

Svenskunganka• 9 years ago

It exists for reasons such as 9/11, which was the only time article 5 was invoked, and European military was sent to aid US military actions.

literallycancer5• 9 years ago

Now the threat is gone

Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens and many others would disagree.

pabloski2• 9 years ago

Georgians? The ones who attacked the russian peace keepers in South Ossetia to ( as said by Saakashvili in person ) humiliate Putin!

konart• 9 years ago

I won't touch Ukrainian and Georgian part, but Chechnya is out of context here, honestly.

alkonaut7• 9 years ago

the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone

We call it the "russian threat" now. It's the same as the old one.

seppin22• 9 years ago

Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.

Ask Eastern Ukraine, or Crimea, or Georgia, or Syria, or Tajikistan, or Moldova.

Or any of the Baltic states now planning on having to fight for their lives.

mark_l_watson2• 9 years ago

While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined.

As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world.

spinchange2• 9 years ago

The reluctance comes from what I expect to be some chaos as the world shifts to a multi-polar world.

As a fellow taxpayer, I just want to point out that another way to look at ROI on our military industrial complex is global stability safe for commerce which leads to things like being the world's reserve currency, having our debt viewed as the safest global asset class, etc. It strikes me as foolhardy to want to give this up, even if nothing lasts forever.

Edit/addition/afterthought: There are other ways to pare back military (and all special interest) spending and influence- which is a worthy effort- without abdicating a global leadership role.

zoner• 9 years ago

I almost fell off my chair. First of all, every operation the US army did so far was the cause of destabilisation. While the military industry is a huge business alone, it's causing harm everywhere else. The US traded stabile far east for oil (Afghanistan), now they are creating conflict to find a cause to grow the military economy.

mark_l_watson2• 9 years ago

I agree that in the past, we did receive a reasonable ROI for military expenditures. However, I don't think we can hang on to that, given the wider use now of other currencies for international trade. One solution for preserving influence and saving money would be an accurate accounting of where our tax dollars go: there is a lot of money that 'goes missing', some on legitimate black projects, but likely most is simply stolen or otherwise misappropriated.

wuschel2• 9 years ago

ROI on our military industrial complex is global stability safe for commerce

I am not sure if this is the case in the long run. However , I have never seen ROI calculations when it comes to something like the use of military apparatus. IMHO, the amount of collective hurt that has been generated by military interventions might backfire in numerous, unpredictable ways. At the end, a small number of people profit (e.g. those who finance successful military operations), while soldiers, victims of war pay the price for hegemony status.

65827• 9 years ago

I think a little chaos from the transition won't be nearly as bad as the bizarre paternalistic "we know best" puppet master horseshit that the USA is known for. Not to mention the mountains of bodies created in the process.

I just hope people start questioning whatever institutions they are part of more and more, government, private or other. Trump is not on your team, neither is Facebook, neither is your employer, neither is your school. Stop looking for meaning there.

rrggrr7• 9 years ago

You may understand why you are wrong if you do a quick inventory of countries that are independent, and politically and economically stable, because of United States. For example, ask yourself what distinguishes Venezuela from Columbia; North Korea from South Korea; Syria from Jordan; Somalia from Kenya. Intervention doesn't work all the time, it sometimes go spectacularly badly. Sometimes just the possibility/threat of intervention is enough to stabilize a fragile nation.

nkassis• 9 years ago

I agree with questioning everything, I disagree with the second part of you last statement. We cannot go at it completely alone, we need institutions to fight for things as blocks. I think it be better to get more engaged.

Lets not reverse thousands of years of Civilization.

drynewton• 9 years ago

How does the "military industrial complex being the largest 'special interest' lobbying..." change this? Do you mean that because the complex is always pushing for more military spending that the US will not have a chance to back down on the world stage?

The article did compare the spending of the US military to the spending of the UE so that comparison was drawn at least on a smaller scale.

wallace_f2• 9 years ago

Alternative hypothesis: political populism is rising to popularity levels which endanger the plutocratic and military rulers. Don't think they won't set the stage for future wars just so they can stay in power.

danmaz74• 9 years ago

How is Trump not a plutocrat?

rrggrr7• 9 years ago

Because now that he is President the Constitution and Congress are his source of power. There's nothing his money can buy him right now that trumps the power of the office and the Congress.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

Why would they bother when all of Trump's cabinet is plutocrats and they're pursuing a radical pro-business agenda?

rukittenme• 9 years ago

What do you consider a "radical pro-business" agenda to be?

wallace_f2• 9 years ago

Douglas Adams:

/* “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?" /

Trump is the wrong lizard.*

95% of the media you see and hear (more if you just read the paper and watch cable news, which I gather is the vast majority of the US population) is owned by one of five corporations. CNN is telling us, verbatim, that "it's illegal to read Wikileaks," while civil and human rights abuses go on every day in America while the media remains silent on many of them.

Look, HRC and DT are both evil, awful people. Let's stop fighting about which lizard gets in--after all, that's what they want--and start thinking about how we can make it so you don't have to be a lizard to get in. The real people that hold power are the ones that win after every election. One example: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-gold...

usgroup• 9 years ago

Am I alone in feeling that the present drama with Trump is doing wonders at educating people broadly about geo-politics, the inter-dependence of global powers and national agendas? I feel it's been an education.

alphonsegaston• 9 years ago

For those already keen on understanding these kinds of relationships, sure. I spend more time concerned with the large swathes of people who think that the machinations of a trans-national fascist alliance are a return to "populism" and "individual sovereignty."

ethbro• 9 years ago

The sad truth is that most US citizen are more educated about the world through where we fight our wars than curiousity / travel / etc.

daxfohl3• 9 years ago

I keep thinking China could take the opportunity here to open up its own political system and really start competing against the US as a desired landing spot for US/EU tech/science grads, and other capable/interested young talent. In a play for "world dominance", this could be a prudent non-military move. It would force The West to reconsider the direction it's heading too.

richmarr2• 9 years ago

I don't think they'd want to make significant changes to their political system. The Chinese middle class is already larger than the US middle class (and growing), so they're already going to be the culturally dominant force over the next century.

Edit: "they" above being those in power. Obvs there are people in China who want reform.

BurningFrog3• 9 years ago

A reasonably wealthy middle class will take power. Because money is power, and they have most of it.

At least that is one way you can view the democratization of the west. The same mechanism - if real - should apply in China as well.

del822• 9 years ago

I agree, but it would take more than political reform to make China an attractive landing spot. Pollution and food safety are also big problems, for example, to the extent that my spouse (who is Chinese) and I have discussed and rejected the idea of raising our children in China, independent of qualms about the political system.

daxfohl3• 9 years ago

Yeah, mine is Malaysian Chinese and we've discussed the same things WRT going there (Singapore notwithstanding).

However China has to start somewhere. If they go all in on renewable energy along with their political changes, then that has the potential to make it an even more attractive landing spot, due both to increased quality of life and to interesting new job opportunities in that field.

(This is actually the outcome I'm hoping for, as I'm seeing global warming as the largest threat to humanity right now, and a large-scale challenge to big oil from China is the only thing that'd work before it's too late. The only politically viable way that's going to happen is if it helps win some other zero-sum game such as the competition for worldwide talent. If it works out that way, then it would eventually force the US to reconsider its oil alliances too and maybe we'd all be okay. This is all just somewhat stream-of-consciousness though.)

gbog5• 9 years ago

Food issues is the very reason for me to raise my kids in China. They learn to use chopsticks before forks and knives. They eat rice daily and have no desert. I sometime had to literally tell my daughter: "if you do not eat this chocolate cake, I'll not give you more bone soup".

There is a very big food problem... in the US.

Also, there is a very annoying problem with people of other colors in the West. I do not want to have to tell my kids to be afraid of "some people" when I take the subway, but I also do not want them to be unsafe. This is another reason to avoid the West for raising kids. (Just one last: in Japan, parents are NOT allowed to take their kids to school, kids have to go by themselves. In the West this would be considered irresponsible. I want my kids to be happy, free and safe.)

intended• 9 years ago

I think You have it the wrong way around - CHina will tell the west how to organize itself, and many people are going to find it hard to argue, especially when the crop of leaders in the west become more unpredictable, less inclined to follow science or systems.

the political and citizen class are currently sufficiently satisfied with their arrangement, that they will do what they can to maintain the system.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

China could take the opportunity here to open up its own political system

Not going to happen unless the current leaders somehow end up deposed.

yorwba• 9 years ago

Note that China's attitude towards foreigners is currently in a state where even opening up the job market to recent graduates without work experience (if they have good grades) is big news: http://www.ecns.cn/2017/01-15/241676.shtml

AFAIK, previously only "specialists" were granted an employment license.

daxfohl3• 9 years ago

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Given overpopulation is still a problem there, and given their surfeit of home-grown tech grads, recruiting young talent may not be much of a priority. Still, I think it has to be eventually if they want to be considered world leaders.

kitschshrine• 9 years ago

Highly doubtful on both points. As for open up political system

- Xi Jinping is consolidating his power to be the dictator of China. He is removing rivals using routing out corruption as excuse (and not targeting his own supporters)

- China's economy is crashing. It's approaching 300% debt ratio in combined corporate + government + individual. Its gross reserve is down to less than 3T (IMF believes China needs at least 2.7T to operate). Its net reserve (gross - debt) is down to 1.7T. It had a capital outflow of 700B in 2016. Yuan fell the most in 2016, since 1994. It is now trying to close up the internal system via capital control, rights restrictions, censorship, etc

as for desired spot for foreigners

- Poisonous air - "pollution levels hovering over 12 times the level recommended by the World Health Organization" http://theweek.com/articles/672007/filth-breathe-china

- Poisonous food: "Fake Chinese seasoning ring, operating for 10 years using cancerous industrial ingredients" http://shanghaiist.com/2017/01/17/fake_seasoning_factories.p...

- Dirty water: "Shanghai water supply hit by 100-tonne wave of garbage" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/shanghai-water...

- censorship, bad access to world internet, corruption, zenophobia/racism, bad manners/behaviors from locals, no weed

- China only has 600,000 foreigners registered living in there in 2016. Half of those are from Taiwan/Hong Kong. Super small number for a country of 1.3B.

emodendroket13• 9 years ago

I've been hearing about this supposed "disengagement" since Obama was elected. I will believe it when I see it.

wobbleblob4• 9 years ago

After the round of elections in France and Netherlands this spring, and Germany this summer, Europe may or may not start disintegrating, depending on the outcome.

Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day. A correctly timed scandal or major terrorist attack in the second round may sink her opponent. Moscow, London and Washington are hard at work with her, to make this happen. When she, or someone like her, wins in either France or Germany, the EU comes to an end.

It is very difficult for me to understand what strategic goal the new White House administration intends to achieve by disintegrating the EU and thereby pushing parts of it from the American to the Russian sphere of influence, but I'm sure they have thought this through very carefully.

jerf5• 9 years ago

You seem to be operating under the belief that the disintegration of the EU started three weeks ago or something? It's been an ongoing saga for years. I mean, Brexit predates Trump, and Brexit itself is the result of years of pressures.

I can see why you'd be so confused by the "strategy" if you think Trump is causing it, but he's reacting to it. And my assessment of the situation is the other way around; there's nothing Trump could do to stop it even if he wanted to. The explosion is in progress, the very latest I could put the date for that is the Brexit vote (which, again, is itself a result, not a cause), and the only question is who can best surf the aftermath.

The EU is falling apart because of issues within the EU, not because somewhere in the early 2010s the penumbric emanations of the future Trump presidency reached back in time and started whispering in politician's ears.

bad_user9• 9 years ago

The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by the great depression and a precursor to WWII.

It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.

quonn4• 9 years ago

The UK was never a very convinced member of the EU, so Brexit is not a good example. But more importantly, the EU is not falling apart, it is merely facing a crisis. A pro-EU US administration could help to save it while Trump will likely accelerate it's decline.

pi-err• 9 years ago

Ms. le Pen may not win this time, but she will one day

There is very little to support this. FN has been around 20% for decades, racking in about the same 5-6M voters at most elections. Structurally, far right in France (as in other countries) splits up as soon as it starts compromising to reach a wider audience. Also structurally, contrary to UK/US, all elections in France have 2 rounds - and Le Pen will never get to win the 2nd one.

Yes, she and Mélenchon are symptoms of anger/apathy. Netherlands and Germany have similar issues. It doesn't mean the extremes are nowhere near winning.

The EU is falling apart because of issues within the EU

Predictions on how the EU will die started in 1957. The last 10 years have put an impossible amount of stress on it - and here it is, alive, and with increasing voter support.

sveme3• 9 years ago

If gp thinks a win by Le Pen or her counterpart in Germany is a given, he does not understand the election system in each respective country.

Living in the EU, I actually experience quite the opposite to what jerf is predicting: a reemergence of the EU as a passionate project after Brexit. People have taken the EU for granted for way too long, now it starts to emerge as an issue that is worth fighting for (check e.g., pulseforeurope.eu). Granted, there's also a nationalistic reemergence acting against the EU, but at least it's proponents are starting to fight back.

TorKlingberg• 9 years ago

People have been saying the Euro will collapse "any day now" since about 2008. Things don't just happen by themselves, and trends do not continue forever. It does seem like Trump and Putin are playing a divide-and-conquer strategy with Europe, but not necessarily coordinated.

jonathanstrange2• 9 years ago

I doubt that the EU is falling apart, but if it ever does, then certainly more because of perceived issues rather than real ones. Although it was created democratically and by countless unanimous votes of its member states, the EU has always been an easy scapegoat for national politicians who did not do their own job right. In the UK, they quite obviously got the revenge for this behavior. (Remember, most MPs were and probably still are against the Brexit, and for good reasons, of course.)

The good news is that the vast majority of national politicians know fairly well how they abused the EU rhetorically and that their own countries would be crushed by global economic pressures if they left the EU. The UK and Germany are quite possibly the only countries who may be able to afford to leave the EU without major harm, and most smaller countries are aware of that.

But I agree that the perils of cheap populism and nationalism ought not be underestimated, and let's not forget that weakening Europe is in the current interest of Russia, the US in the eyes of the current Trump administration, and maybe even China. Anti-EU forces are strong, no doubt about that.

In the end, the current state of discussion is rather saddening anyway. The EU was primarily funded as a way to prevent Europe from being destroyed by inner conflicts again, which makes some sense after two devastating world wars that left Europe in ruins and killed millions of citizens. It's sad that this is sometimes forgotten and only emphasized by older politicians.

zmb_• 9 years ago

what strategic goal the new White House administration intends to achieve by disintegrating the EU

Together the EU is a formidable negotiation partner (GDP equal to the US), while alone each EU state is in a much weaker position, thus giving the US an advantage.

Also Trump has said that he sees the EU and the Euro as a tool created by Germany to give them a competitive advantage. And Trump seems to see Germany is one of the main competitors of the US (and has a massive trade surplus with the US).

quonn4• 9 years ago

There is not doubt that in Germany the moderate parties will win again (SPD, CDU/CSU, Green Party, Liberals currently get 75% of the votes; The parties that constitute the current government would get 60%; The party that is currently openly opposed to the EU is at 11%.) [0]. Fortunately, I don't see this changing, even in the far future. The far left and far right can perhaps get up to 20-40% in total in the long run, but they are opposed to each other.

[0] http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

DarkKomunalec6• 9 years ago

France, Netherlands, Germany, and the U.K. are all countries with large and growing immigrant populations. Seeing their countries 'taken over' by foreigners, people vote for parties promising to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, there are no pro-EU parties making those promises. Quite the opposite - they prefer to chastise their people for not wanting their countries to irreversibly change. So that's how you end up with this mess - I don't think prodding by the Americans had much to do with it.

raverbashing3• 9 years ago

This is an issue. But it seems even the Europhiles are smarting up to it

It's easy to be "humanitarian" with somebody else's money and resources

yokisan5• 9 years ago

It's literally this simple. Integration has been a disaster to the extent that soldiers now patrol within the borders of France and Belgium.

The great opportunity-cost of integrating populations and monitoring them when it fails has clearly become too expensive and people are saying "enough".

Oddly, the EU doesn't seem to acknowledge the sentiment of the public and just keep hammering on about 'ever closer union'. Clarity from mainstream Parties on this issue alone would shrink the poll numbers of the Far-Right.

raverbashing3• 9 years ago

I'll only say one thing: people outside of France are much more worried/supporting LePen than the ones inside it

In fact, anglophones have some trouble understanding the situation through the language barrier

She's getting "pumped up" through the Brexit/Trump wave, but don't assume it's the same thing

(though I am worried about the repercussions, if she gets elected, naturally)

wobbleblob4• 9 years ago

On the contrary. People outside of France get to see her through the mainstream media, which makes it look like only xenophobes could be voting for her. From Francophone friends I hear she's actually smart, witty, an excellent debater, and if she weren't held back by her name and the reputation of her father, she could have more mainstream appeal.

runeks• 9 years ago

The EU coming to an end is not the disintegration of Europe. Personally, I would feel no less united with my fellow Europeans if we were to lose a common regulatory body looking over us.

disgruntledphd2• 9 years ago

I would dislike having to get visas to visit other parts of Europe. And inevitably, if the EU falls apart, at least some parts will get very nasty towards others.

ptaipale2• 9 years ago

Europe is not disintegrating. Europe is just geography.

The European Union might be disintegrating. Why it might be disintegrating is then a more complex thing.

But mostly it's not because of Trump or because of populists or because of Russian influence. It's because those who are building a federal state, United States of Europe, are far too impatient and try to rush it. We are witnessing a backlash. I am myself contributing to a backlash, because EU is doing things it shouldn't.

Yes, I definitely don't want to be in a Russian sphere of influence, but EU isn't acting credibly here. And the White House has little to contribute to current development. It's done by the EU itself by trying to legislate member countries over things I and many others don't want to be legislated at.

Starting from things like whether we are allowed to control who comes to our country and lives here. Or to prepare for and resist to Russian attempts to take over.

EU leaders (Juncker, Schulz and many others) act as if they had an empire, before they actually built it.

mason2403• 9 years ago

Asserting that the US, UK, and Le Pen herself are planning terrorist attacks in France is a serious allegation.

tim333• 9 years ago

I guess now Putin's got a buddy in the whitehouse the Europeans are going to have to do more stop the red army rolling westwards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trum...

wsc9812• 9 years ago

I find it highly unlikely that Putin would want to invade Europe (this is what you seem to suggest). I do understand the importance of the Krim for Russia, as it has their only southern military harbour. It's not something Russia can afford to lose.

Dutch people should listen to this very interesting interview with Laszlo Maracz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83G10vWamAc

In the interview Maracz explains that the heartland of Eurasia will be very important in future trade. A very good infrastructure is being setup by China and Russia to support this trading network. China and Russia have grown tighter and China in particular won't allow the USA to try the same as it did with Ukraine (i.e.: trying to limit the influence sphere of Russia). I think it's unlikely the USA will want to confront both Russia and China. I think Trump will be wiser in this regard compared to Clinton, who seemed out on a confrontation with Russia (by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Syria).

Regardless of all being said the USA might be fine for the nearby future. Like Laszlo, I don't see a bright future for Europe. I do think Asia will become much more economically prosperous as a result of the trading network that is being setup by Russia and China. As such, I will be emigrating from Europe to Asia in the nearby future (either this year or the next).

gbog5• 9 years ago

Yep. And also, about Krimea, there is this game of musical chairs: once the music stop everyone gets its chair but one. Some seem to consider that after WWII and Yalta, no border should ever change anymore. That's not fair, not natural, and too rigid. If no borders are ever modifed, will the Kurds never have their own country as maybe they ought to?

To me border moves are always painful, dangerous, need to be done carefully, etc. but not allowing them at all is worse: the pain and danger accumulates and after a while, we get earthquakes sized changes.

markhahn3• 9 years ago

The US is just pouting, and it's shameful.

We need adults in the room, being thoughtful, pointing out, for instance, that withdrawing is not a form of strength, and only permits other countries (China) to fill the vacuum. The vote for DT was a nihilistic, anti-establishment moment from a demo that wants change but isn't willing to think about what kind of change.

zepto• 9 years ago

The vote was for the only kind of change on offer.

jerf5• 9 years ago

"withdrawing is not a form of strength"

Umm.... wasn't that almost literally Obama's position? Haven't other countries been filling the vacuum in? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to look at Trump's election precisely as a rejection of eight years of that idea? Aren't we supposed to be very afraid of Trump being a maniac with the nuclear button and using the US military to do crazy things?

Obama wasn't that long ago. I'm astonished at how quickly his policies and platforms have been memory-holed in the service of the need for today's claims.

Obama always had a muscular foreign policy based on the ability of the United States to bring its unique moral rightness and light into the world. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

wuschel2• 9 years ago

(...) always been at WA with Eurasia.

That is an interesting formulation that reminds me former presidential advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński's book "The Grand Chessboard".

jbattle• 9 years ago

Obama campaigned specifically on getting out of Iraq & Afghanistan. IIRC he was gung-ho on getting more involved in Pakistan. He authorized military operations in dozens of countries and didn't question the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in any significant way

markhahn3• 9 years ago

No, Obama simply wanted to shift from invasion to engagement.

Trump is purely an anti-establishment impulse (lubricated by racism, sexism, etc). To claim it's a reaction against Obama is to claim (ludicrously) that Obama == establishment.

rrggrr7• 9 years ago

Nothing has substantively changed yet. The United States has reaffirmed its support for NATO, for its Asian alliances, and it has rhetorically asserted itself with Iran and North Korea. Rumors of grand changes to US foreign policy may be greatly exaggerated. Don't confuse quips and press coverage for action.

macintux5• 9 years ago

So Trump spends a year giving Putin all the reason in the world to believe that he can destabilize the Baltics without worrying about war with the US, and we're supposed to trust that Russia will believe our current posturing instead?

Gustomaximus3• 9 years ago

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three."

While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The diversity can be a strength.

And the article talks about european NATO spending doesn't cut it... well go look at the stats. UK/France/Italy etc vs Russia spending. Russia is vastly outspent by the NATO forces, almost the same spend via UK and France individually. Who else is this European threat coming from? It hogwash Europe is not militarily self sufficient. Maybe not US style dominant but hardly weak.

It feels to me there is so much 'fear the bear' information being coming out it feels like soft propaganda on the other side building to something. Sure Russia is behaving badly with Ukraine and Georgia. And they deserve international punishment for this, and hopefully pushback at some point. Syria I'm not so convinced Russia are the bad guys. They are supporting a long time ally and stable government while the west is the the one pushing regime change. Do you really think Assads replacement will be an improvements? This is geo-politics, nothing about improving the nation.

Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.

End of the day its a shame the people in power create all this. Most of us want to enjoy life and live in our bubble. Don't let the governments let you believe any nation is bad. And take these articles with a pinch of salt. Some extreme minority nationalists/religious nuts aside, people want to get along.

purple-again• 9 years ago

The pros and cons of each system? You think the US would only use 3 types if there was any strategic value to more? We have lobbyists and congressmen salivating at the whisper of evidence that more war machines need to be built.

They exist because they are old outdated technology that the host countries feel no pressure to replace since they have to buy their replacements not build them and thr expectation of war has been marginal for a long time.

LanceH• 9 years ago

Some are just plain better, as you state.

Even if they were each best at something, diversity comes at a very high cost. Every additional design of MBT means an additional supply chain for parts and ammunition. Additional personnel are needed for every line of MBT.

Since you have a different logistics line for each tank, they can't support each other on the battlefield without bringing their whole logistics with them.

zzleeper2• 9 years ago

Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

yokisan5• 9 years ago

For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.

monkmartinez• 9 years ago

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on...

I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

droopyEyelids• 9 years ago

First off, I think Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy.

But think about it for just one second. Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. For the whole country. A country that spans two continents.

Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. America has dozens of warm water ports on both oceans, and it overthrew countries a thousand miles away to secure shipping convenience.

It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port. And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'.

And this isn't even going into the peninsula's tumultuous past. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-y...

vondur2• 9 years ago

Well, we pushed NATO onto the borders of Russia. I can't imagine the US would be too happy with Russian military bases on our borders.

Gustomaximus3• 9 years ago

I'm Australian. We tend to understate things as our way of expression. If you nit pick on words, you miss the theme. I find this is a good chuck of the internets problem in exploring a high emotion topic. The old cant see the forest for the trees.

rrggrr7• 9 years ago

Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.

Show me a recent Western intervention that threatens Russia's legitimate security interests. Syria? Perhaps. Aside from that your assertion is unsupported.

aaron-lebo4• 9 years ago

Disclaimer: Russia is an authoritarian country and not a shining example of freedom.

That being said....

If you were Russian and you'd spent the last century watching the West undercut you and try and control you at every step (for valid reasons in a lot of cases), you'd be threatened, too.

They went from being a superpower to having 100 million more people than California with the same GDP, while watching their own neighboring states get courted by the West.

Russia isn't justified in what they've done, but put yourself in their shoes. Of course it doesn't help that history has been exceedingly cruel to the Russian people, but it's given them a lot of pride and being dictated to by the US has upset that pride.

If the Russians believed that he US genuinely had their best interests in mind, things might be different.

PacketPaul• 9 years ago

The expansion of NATO deep into former Warsaw Pact countries.

baursak2• 9 years ago

Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

seppin22• 9 years ago

Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.

Who is under a greater threat of being invaded: Russian by the west or a ex-Soviet Union Baltic state by Russia?

grigjd3• 9 years ago

The disadvantage of having several different MBTs is that you need parts for all the different models. Logistics is a serious issue for any military operations, often just as important as any tactical advantage.

yequalsx• 9 years ago

When discussing EU military capabilities one must go beyond dollar amount spent. The huge inefficiencies in the collective national militaries in terms of having an integrated force should not be discounted. Diversity of equipment at the level mentioned in the article is not a collective strength. It is a weakness.

The real weakness however is the inability for the EU to collectively act militarily. Recall Kosovo and Europe's inability to deal with it without the U.S. And that was when Russia was very weak. The EU in political terms is a military lightweight. It lacks the political will and the military capability to act on it's own.

mcguire6• 9 years ago

Specifically, diversity makes for a terrible battlefield logistics problem. It doesn't matter how many rounds of 5.56mm you have if your rifle fires 7.62mm.

Further, has the EU ever projected it'd forces outside of Europe without US backing? Can the EU put troops in the middle east or Africa collectively? (Yes, I know the individual countries can.)

baursak2• 9 years ago

I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing.

I also feel compelled to partially quote Gore Vidal's old article on this:

"When Japan surrendered, the US was faced with a choice: Either disarm, as we had done in the past, and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy to the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a full military basis, which would mean tight control not only of our allies and such conquered provinces such as West Germany, Italy, and Japan but over economic–which is to say political–lives of American people. As Charles E. Wilson, a businessman and politician of the day, said as early as 1944, “Instead of looking to disarmament and unpreparedness as a safeguard against a war, a thoroughly discredited doctrine, let us try the opposite: full preparedness according to a continuing plan.”

The accidental president, Harry Truman, bought this notion. Although Truman campaigned in 1948 as an heir to Roosevelt’s New Deal, he had a “continuing plan”. Henry Wallace was onto it, as early as: “Yesterday, March 12, 1947, marked a turning point in American history … Yesterday, President Truman proposed, in effect, America police Russia’s every border. There is no regime too reactionary for us provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path. There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of contest which may widen until it become a world war.” But how to impose this? The Republican leadership did not like the state to be the master of the country’s economic life while, of the Democrats, only a few geopoliticians, like Dean Acheson, found thrilling the prospect of a military state, to be justified in the name of a holy war against something called communism in general and Russia in particular. The fact that the Soviet Union was no military or economic threat to us was immaterial. It must be made to appear threatening so the continuing plan could be set in motion in order to create the National Security State in which we have been living for the last forty years.

What is the National Security State? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947; it was implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything the United States had ever known before. This document, known as the NSC-68 for short, and declassified only in 1975, committed–and still, fitfully, commits–us to the following program: First, never negotiate, ever, with Russia. This could not continue forever; but the obligatory bad faith of US-USSR meetings still serves the continuing plan. Second, develop the hydrogen bomb so that when the Russians finally develop an atomic bomb we will still not have to deal with the enemy without which the National Security State cannot exist. Third, rapidly build up conventional forces. Fourth, put through a large increase in taxes to pay for all this. Fifth, mobilize the entire American society to fight the terrible specter of communism. Sixth, set up a strong alliance system, directed by the United States (this became NATO). Seventh, make the people of Russia our allies, through propaganda and CIA derring-do, in this holy adventure–hence the justification for all sorts of secret services that are in no way responsible to the Congress that funds them, and so in violation of the old Constitution.

Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not only openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better “scare hell out of the American people.” Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general (December 4, 1947) published a list of dissident organizations. The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman’s successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state."

- Gore Vidal, "National Security State"

jcranmer• 9 years ago

I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing.

The Baltic states, Georgia, and Ukraine beg to differ. Three of those six states have seen unwanted interference by Russia in the past decade.

bad_user9• 9 years ago

I find it curious that it's only Europeans who are worried about Russia and their expansion threat, and the most loud about it are those who don't even have a common border with Russia. On the other hand, countries with a common border -- China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc., are kind ho hum about the whole thing.

That's because of what the Soviets did after WWII, and let me remind you of the Warsaw Pact countries, which included Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Albania and the vast Soviet Union, countries that have suffered a soviet invasion, suffered under communism and the war reparations some had to pay, along with the draining of resources by soviet enterprises.

I could tell you about Basarabia, currently part of Moldova, a territory that was taken by force under the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, which is the agreement they did with the Nazis, a territory in which they did what Russians do when occupying a territory, which is to uproot the population by deportation and imprisonment, along with destroying the local culture and forced building of Russian settlements.

To tell you the truth, to see such an ignorant comment on HN fills me with anger that I can hardly contain.

mcguire6• 9 years ago

A Russian invasion of China would be an interesting strategic problem. They'd have to go through Siberia, Mongolia, or Xinjiang to get to the meaty filling.

MichaelMoser1232• 9 years ago

I think that is a report that is sponsored by Thyssen Krupp or by Kraus Maffei (or by both of them) - they want to push their products because the largest arms shop will dominate an integrated commands procurement process.

Why is this report bullshit? Because Europe and Russia are interdependent: Europe stops buying Russian gas - Gazprom and the Russian state by extension are toast; Europe stops buying - everything that is made in Europe will be much more expensive.

With this information everything else is trivial.

Now a non related question: is the no politics period for HN now officially over?

mcguire6• 9 years ago

"Trade prevents war" was everyone's diplomatic policy for a while. Until WWI.

nsomaru• 9 years ago

To your OT question: that was stopped shortly after it begun, mostly because it's quite difficult to actually classify what's 'politics' and what's not.

a-saleh3• 9 years ago

I heard interesting comment in one of newspapers I was reading, proposing a closer union between Baltic countries, Poland and Scandinavia.

The argument was that these countries combined have roughly the army spending around half of Russia spending.

And to be frank, you should be quite worried about Russia doing the invading iff:

* you have significant russian minority * your population can speak russian * you border Russia * you have been part of USSR

Therefore, I could see baltics pushing for closer cooperation.

jacquesm• 9 years ago

Not to mention the issue of Kaliningrad.

Kalium• 9 years ago

While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to recognise diversity . Any of these weapon systems will have pros/cons. The diversity can be a strength.

You're right! And military planners are keenly aware that a diversity of capabilities is a significant strength and asset.

That said, there is a point beyond which military diversity is a handicap to ongoing operations. 20 types of fighters means maintenance is very complex and requires a lot of specialized crews. 13 types of air-to-air missiles that can't be used by all 20 types of fighters is a significant complication to battlefield logistics. Both mean manufacturing costs are higher than they need to be.

Redundancy in military equipment is perhaps not an ideal situation.

known• 9 years ago

AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence

exelius• 9 years ago

Unfortunately, with all of the major problems in the world today, the US is too much to blame to be able to solve them. We were seen as a neutral force around much of the world in the post-colonial era (we were a colony who threw off our empire, as much of the world was doing in the 1950s through 1970s -- not coincidentally the apex of American power). But as we've operated the world, we made mistakes, and we're having to deal with those now.

Look at all the big problems: global warming (we're the major cause and we're so addicted to oil that it ain't gonna change), Islamist terror (so we inherited the modern conflict through Sykes-Picot, but we escalated it enough that it's our problem now), North Korea (we caused it but China has to live with it), and so on.

China is in a MUCH better position to address all of these. Their economy is just now industrializing heavily, and they're doing it with the focus of leading a new global clean energy revolution because they have determined that it is the only way China can obtain widespread prosperity. Sea level rise will hurt China as much as anyone, and their pollution levels are unacceptably high. Their peak industrial scale is 3-5x that of the United States, and their manufacturing capacity will never be challenged given the population difference.

They also don't have the baggage that we do in the middle east -- America and the Christian west are collectively referred to as "Crusaders", even by liberal Jews in Israel. In many minds, we're just the latest in an ugly, 1200 year long procession of white people who come in and wage wars of conquest to distract from the problems at home (the early crusades were a way for the European nobility to keep their 3rd and 4th sons occupied / killed lest they cause a succession crisis). Sure, they're mixed up with the Uighirs, but honestly they don't oppress the Uighirs any more than they oppress similar opposition groups. And the key here is that China only does it within their borders.

And Korea... yeah, China really doesn't want a small-scale nuclear war happening on its border. Any radioactive fallout would likely destroy China's economy for a decade or more -- considering the engines of China's economic might are mostly on the eastern coast of the country. So China is willing to tolerate almost any level of bad behavior by the Kim family. Best case scenario for North Korea is a power vacuum caused by the death of a Kim where the Chinese military comes in and runs peacekeeping and propaganda with an iron fist. Very few countries know how to urbanize farmland filled with illiterate farmers. China is one of them.

mindcrime4• 9 years ago

Good, we don't need a "Pax Americana". The US has been trying to dominate the entire world (or at least large chunks of it) for far too long. At least since Harry Truman decided he wanted to get into a pissing contest with the Russians at the end of WWII. It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation, not conflict.

seppin22• 9 years ago

It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation, not conflict.

War is over laddies and gentlemen !

mindcrime4• 9 years ago

War will never be "over", but it can be minimized. One good way to do that is through (real) free trade. Countries that depend on each other economically are generally less likely to go to war with each other. Wasn't it Jack Ma who said "when trade stops, war starts"?

danielam• 9 years ago

"NATO is an illusion" - http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says-nato-is-...

Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

Related Stories