Comment by Zigurd
3 hours ago
So many commenters here assume US global hegemony that, in reality, expired after the 1980s. Without its allies in Europe and Asia, the US can't act effectively.
3 hours ago
So many commenters here assume US global hegemony that, in reality, expired after the 1980s. Without its allies in Europe and Asia, the US can't act effectively.
And yet, they imposed FATCA and the whole world asked "how high"?
Isn't it similar to how many countries kept using Russian gaz after the invasion in Ukraine, they weren't ready to turn the switch off?
The US seems "winning" right now because its imposing measure that need time to be bypassed, but will be bypassed.
It seems odd to me that the US supposedly isn't a major power, yet still finances both NATO and the UN primarily and if it lowers it's support it's "leading the destruction of those things".
Likewise if it backs off it's foreign support, hundreds of millions will die.
Are we singularly carrying the worlds on our backs - which sounds hegemonic - are is the US free to stop spending our money on everyone elses problems?
Perhaps the UK or Germany can fund everything for a few decades and be the next major world power for a bit.
The premise is off. These aren’t "everyone else’s problems", NATO, the UN, trade stability, and foreign aid exist because they serve US interests too: security, markets, alliances, and predictability. The US isn’t benevolently carrying the world; it’s investing in systems that reduce the cost of conflict and instability later.
The question isn’t whether the US is allowed to stop spending, but what it wants the world to look like if it does.
It's just the case that some people at the top don't seem to understand that.
Trump is fixing the UN glitch: https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impa...
Whether NATO still exists as a defense organisation is a good question.