I doubt europe intentionally pursued soft power as a strategy. Don't forget all leading european countries were colonizers not so long ago. they understand hard power better than the rest of the world.
instead, europe thought it will always be able to ride on the coattail of the US which possesses the hard power and acts as the world police. europe can enjoy the benefits as a junior partner or minion without the investment and cost.
to call Nato a soft power organization is strange - didn't it bomb yugoslavokia shortly after the end of the cold war? it pretty much followed the US on the forever wars and color revolution inspired conflicts all over the middle east.
europe is a vassal today because it chooses to be a vassal to a hard power, not because it values soft power per se.
as for india, it's hardly an independent super power. it is an opportunistic, fence-sitting middle power at best. modi's biggest aspiration is to be a junior partner to the US, which has finally realized india is more a liability than an asset or in Chinese, an 阿斗。
That's interesting. I’m a goofball about lots of stuff, but one thing I never got with was “the end of history”. I couldn’t even finish his book; it just seemed like a naive college professor blabbering dreams and thinking he was seeing the world.
The world is hard power, always has been. It’d be nice if it wasn’t, but that’s dreaming.
I never read the book myself, more so the “we’ve reached endgame and it’s liberal democracy and free markets” vibe.
Post Soviet collapse, with no peer competitor, the American exceptionalism mindset of “we’re the good guys, we won, we will bring our system to everyone” rah rah really took over. You saw the energy going into the Iraq invasion.
And I agree 100%, it’s a hard power world might makes right world. Nobody has soft power without hard power first. Don’t have to agree with it or like it, it’s just how it is
It’s a lot of “we’re special because of our freedom and liberal democracy and free market systems and American can do spirit and Christian values.”
The sentiment has been in decline for a while but the US people in power still believe in varying degrees of the above.
Every culture and people have its stories and legends that bind them together. The US was all in on the above story in the 90’s and 2000’s.
Along with the growing inequity in the US, A lot of the infighting and division in the US now is because that story fell apart and there is no longer a shared story and vision among Americans.
Yeah, that's about right. For me, living in China, all that stuff has been called into question. Not that I'm advocating for CPC systems or disparaging that list of exceptionality, but I see things differently now. I'm more of a "who's in charge, what are they doing and how are they doing it" mindset than belief in any particular system approach.
Aristotle thought democracy was idiotic; he listed several points why. I'm starting to understand those points.
"Government is the myth wherein everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.".....Bastiat
Just because the EU loses doesn't mean the USA (and especially Trump) wins. The old question of who pays for the tariff etc. If costs mostly fall on US counsumers then tariffs will likely make Trump less popular at home as well as abroad. As for the investment promise, I'm pretty sure that is meaningless as there is no mechanism for the EU to force it.
As for European weakness in hard power it is less that they cannot make weapons or fight just that they are incredibly unwilling to do so. Don't let the show of support for Ukraine fool you. It comes with only modest action. The $X billion dollars of military aid announcements are particularly bad. Sticking unrealistic price tags on old kit you are giving away does not mean that it has that value of opportunity cost. It is not nothing but such support has not required any noticable economic changes for any EU country.
IMO Europeans are not afraid of USA or Russia or China, the sense of threat is just not that great. Being willing to tolerate these tariffs comes more from complacency than fear of reprisal. Basically, we assume he will just go away and things will go back to normal. It is an expedient path to that. Crazy as it sounds that is also how most Europeans instinctively feel about Russia in Ukraine. By and large Europeans are still sleeping the deep sleep of peace and have yet to be awakened by the sound of bombs.
"Soft power" has an outsized element of being able to buy political favors in exchange for financial ones. Doing this effectively, even if it's essentially a bribe (ie corruption of the principal-agent relationship betw third country elected officials and their publics), in requires some degree of savvy and institutional basis to make it stick. The US was pretty good at this.
But nowadays, the US does the reverse - demand tribute, and publicly humiliate the counterparty at the same time.
Also at the same time, the hard power is slipping. Hard power was US going halfway around the world to fight Vietnam (setting aside the immorality and criminal conduct for a moment, as well as the ultimate failure of the endeavor). What we see today when the US tried to flex, is an abandonment of the fraudulent but nevertheless somewhat accepted "rules based order" pretense. Instead it's undisguised bullying - but only of those weaker than oneself.
Europe is a full-time vassal, not a partner, of the U.S. and has been since the aftermath of World War II, with the exception of De Gaulle's exit from NATO. (Ended by Sarkozy.) European elites know a good deal when they see one, and if the cost of their staying in power is turning Ukraine into a killing field, well, then bring it on and on and on.
I wouldn't have written that when I moved to Europe a dozen years ago but it's undeniable now.
Europe's soft power, as you call it, was peace, stability, culture: a sort of boutique for the rest of the world. Sounds good but it's just a disguise for a bureacratic Super-State that crushes national identity while dancing to NATO's tune.
Kudos! a v good read from a part of the world we don't hear from very often. Even if I don't accept your distinction between Hard and Soft Power, two sides of the same coin.
I personally give the EU five years max before countries start jumping ship.
I doubt europe intentionally pursued soft power as a strategy. Don't forget all leading european countries were colonizers not so long ago. they understand hard power better than the rest of the world.
instead, europe thought it will always be able to ride on the coattail of the US which possesses the hard power and acts as the world police. europe can enjoy the benefits as a junior partner or minion without the investment and cost.
to call Nato a soft power organization is strange - didn't it bomb yugoslavokia shortly after the end of the cold war? it pretty much followed the US on the forever wars and color revolution inspired conflicts all over the middle east.
europe is a vassal today because it chooses to be a vassal to a hard power, not because it values soft power per se.
as for india, it's hardly an independent super power. it is an opportunistic, fence-sitting middle power at best. modi's biggest aspiration is to be a junior partner to the US, which has finally realized india is more a liability than an asset or in Chinese, an 阿斗。
It's fun being able to spend an extra 5% of GDP on butter instead of guns.
It's also fun exporting the US (+200B net) to balance out your importing from China (-300B net).
But all fun must come to an end.
I was a true believer in the end of history and feel quite naive in the aftermath.
I think the soft power world was mostly a mirage for people in the US core and its periphery, like parts of East Asia.
The bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq should tell you it’s always been a hard power world, even during the “end of history” era.
That's interesting. I’m a goofball about lots of stuff, but one thing I never got with was “the end of history”. I couldn’t even finish his book; it just seemed like a naive college professor blabbering dreams and thinking he was seeing the world.
The world is hard power, always has been. It’d be nice if it wasn’t, but that’s dreaming.
I never read the book myself, more so the “we’ve reached endgame and it’s liberal democracy and free markets” vibe.
Post Soviet collapse, with no peer competitor, the American exceptionalism mindset of “we’re the good guys, we won, we will bring our system to everyone” rah rah really took over. You saw the energy going into the Iraq invasion.
And I agree 100%, it’s a hard power world might makes right world. Nobody has soft power without hard power first. Don’t have to agree with it or like it, it’s just how it is
Revolution is not a dinner party....someone said.
I never got with the idea of American exceptionalism either. "We're special because we're American!"...doesn't hold water for me.
It’s a lot of “we’re special because of our freedom and liberal democracy and free market systems and American can do spirit and Christian values.”
The sentiment has been in decline for a while but the US people in power still believe in varying degrees of the above.
Every culture and people have its stories and legends that bind them together. The US was all in on the above story in the 90’s and 2000’s.
Along with the growing inequity in the US, A lot of the infighting and division in the US now is because that story fell apart and there is no longer a shared story and vision among Americans.
Yeah, that's about right. For me, living in China, all that stuff has been called into question. Not that I'm advocating for CPC systems or disparaging that list of exceptionality, but I see things differently now. I'm more of a "who's in charge, what are they doing and how are they doing it" mindset than belief in any particular system approach.
Aristotle thought democracy was idiotic; he listed several points why. I'm starting to understand those points.
"Government is the myth wherein everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.".....Bastiat
This is why China prospering peacefully is a threat to the US. It breaks the spell and gives people an alternative.
邓小平：“不管黑猫白猫，能捉到老鼠就是好猫”
Deng Xiao Ping: Doesn’t matter if it’s a black or white cat, if it can catch mice, it’s a good cat.
My parents remember when China was super ideological. Now China is the practical one and the US is steeped in culture wars and ideology.
Just because the EU loses doesn't mean the USA (and especially Trump) wins. The old question of who pays for the tariff etc. If costs mostly fall on US counsumers then tariffs will likely make Trump less popular at home as well as abroad. As for the investment promise, I'm pretty sure that is meaningless as there is no mechanism for the EU to force it.
As for European weakness in hard power it is less that they cannot make weapons or fight just that they are incredibly unwilling to do so. Don't let the show of support for Ukraine fool you. It comes with only modest action. The $X billion dollars of military aid announcements are particularly bad. Sticking unrealistic price tags on old kit you are giving away does not mean that it has that value of opportunity cost. It is not nothing but such support has not required any noticable economic changes for any EU country.
IMO Europeans are not afraid of USA or Russia or China, the sense of threat is just not that great. Being willing to tolerate these tariffs comes more from complacency than fear of reprisal. Basically, we assume he will just go away and things will go back to normal. It is an expedient path to that. Crazy as it sounds that is also how most Europeans instinctively feel about Russia in Ukraine. By and large Europeans are still sleeping the deep sleep of peace and have yet to be awakened by the sound of bombs.
"Soft power" has an outsized element of being able to buy political favors in exchange for financial ones. Doing this effectively, even if it's essentially a bribe (ie corruption of the principal-agent relationship betw third country elected officials and their publics), in requires some degree of savvy and institutional basis to make it stick. The US was pretty good at this.
But nowadays, the US does the reverse - demand tribute, and publicly humiliate the counterparty at the same time.
Also at the same time, the hard power is slipping. Hard power was US going halfway around the world to fight Vietnam (setting aside the immorality and criminal conduct for a moment, as well as the ultimate failure of the endeavor). What we see today when the US tried to flex, is an abandonment of the fraudulent but nevertheless somewhat accepted "rules based order" pretense. Instead it's undisguised bullying - but only of those weaker than oneself.
Europe is a full-time vassal, not a partner, of the U.S. and has been since the aftermath of World War II, with the exception of De Gaulle's exit from NATO. (Ended by Sarkozy.) European elites know a good deal when they see one, and if the cost of their staying in power is turning Ukraine into a killing field, well, then bring it on and on and on.
I wouldn't have written that when I moved to Europe a dozen years ago but it's undeniable now.
Europe's soft power, as you call it, was peace, stability, culture: a sort of boutique for the rest of the world. Sounds good but it's just a disguise for a bureacratic Super-State that crushes national identity while dancing to NATO's tune.
Kudos! a v good read from a part of the world we don't hear from very often. Even if I don't accept your distinction between Hard and Soft Power, two sides of the same coin.
I personally give the EU five years max before countries start jumping ship.
Yeah, looks familiar.