We changed our privacy policy. Read more.

New answers tagged

2

I don't think you are reading this correctly. This seems largely a procurement dispute rather a question of alliance or alignment. If anything, the only real diplomatic difference seems to be that the US is willing to burn its bridges with China more than France (hence China's fury). The US saw the opportunity to pick up a nice juicy defense contract. ...


1

The TLDR answer is that the EU sees China as being an economic competitor rather than a military adversary. If the EU were to join the US in partnership it want to be able to influence the groups strategic agenda in ways that Washington would disagree with.


2

Why would the U.S. exclude Europe from the new Indo-Pacific security alliance? They did not. They included the UK.


-1

At the end of the day it simply boils down to the fact that France will no longer be receiving the significant amount of money (billions of dollars) that they were expecting from the prior deal with Australia. France has long been militarily self-sufficient, which is why it was the one selling submarines to Australia, but also means that the former has zero ...


9

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has an immediate focus on the north atlantic area, and it is understood that members may have interests beyond that area, individually or as sub-groups. So there should be no general problem if NATO members cooperate with third countries beyond the treaty area. It was understood that NATO is the most ...


12

I think the question is based on a misconception. The first article is about a technology sharing alliance. The second article is about a mission to keep the South China Sea accessible as international waters. The Aukus security alliance is primarily about technology sharing. For example, the BBC talks about Australia being able to get nuclear submarines and ...


2

The biggest difference is the history of both parties which explains a lot of the different priorities and policy settings. The SPD, being a direct descendent of late-19th century Marxism tends to put social security, workers' rights and similar issues first. On the other hand, large parts of the Green party derive from the ecological movement of the 1970's, ...


6

I would call it a question of graduations. The differences are not very apparent when one compares the summarized campaign platforms of the Social Democrats and the Greens. In the long form of the SPD and Green platforms, emphasis becomes clearer, but I believe the key is in what they would trade away in coalition talks. If the election result suggests a ...


2

Your question assumes that there is an overall measure of "importance." But importance varies from context to context. Sweden used to be a neutral country during the Cold War, neither part of NATO nor part of the Warsaw Pact. This gave it diplomatic importance. Names like Dag Hammarskjöld and Olof Palme are still remembered. The reputation exists ...


Top 50 recent answers are included