How the West can outlast China & Russia: Historian Niall Ferguson | DW News

While those points are valid, I can’t but realize how simplistic this entire thing is being seen. The US military bases in Europe and Germany arent a one sided charity by the U.S. and painting that picture is utterly ridiculous. The entire premise of US military power which combined with economic power translates into its standing on the world stage, needs military bases in other parts of the world to function. The bases in Germany are central to exerting any kind of power in the region, even down to Africa, otherwise you would need to run them off of an aircraft carrier or AWACS plane. The stability and security of Germany therefore in turn is also in the interest of the US because it not only shows alliance with Europe but because it’s invaluable to be able to triangulate everything half way around the world from a safe base. Logistics, command infrastructure etc. is vital, having troops nearby, having hospitals not within a 18hr flight but 5hr flight is priceless. Having co,and infrastructure and being able to fly drones over Africa and the Middle East is invaluable. It’s just ridiculous if you try to paint the picture that US military bases are charity organizations. That the US stations 35k troops in Germany just to deter Russia (which would need to get through multiple countries first, if the sole purpose was defending against Russia setting up camp further east would make much more sense). It is understandable that Trump drives this rhetoric, he is trying to get the best deal for his military. If it were up to him, the US would not even involve into a confrontation with Russia since Europe should be able to defend that. But he will never talk about reducing capabilities and moving for example the US Africa Command out of Germany because that’s free real estate. And it should be mentioned that US military bases in Germany function de facto as American soil, German police for example have no jurisdiction and cannot enter the area. The US isn’t paying for that, it’s concessions that were made in exchange for military deterrence (which the US since the end of the Cold War only had to sit around in Europe for, not a single soldier died defending Germany in that time.

Denial is a river in Egypt

Niall is an extremely intelligent man, but i would argue that the person to make Germany and others, increase their security spending, was Mr Putin, not Donald Trump.

70 years of nobody wanting Germany to increase its defence spending because of you-know-what, nek minute everyone’s pissed off that the Germans aren’t spending enough on their military 😂

Trump didn’t get Europe to invest in defence. Putin did.

So it is not in US interest to provide security for Europe, but did they need Europe when they invoked article 5 after 9/11? Did they need Europe in Afghanistan/Iraq?

Niall is an intellectual who sees China and Russia as his enemies. The opinions he offers would be consistent with that line of thought.

Open your eyes. It's not a Cold War, it's a Hot War.

Is it serious that Mr. Ferguson wasn’t aware US didn’t have a peaceful transition of power in 2020? That’s the worry of all the leaders in Democratic world.

Succession problems in autocracies. How about Cuba? 64 years!!

The problem with Niall's argument is that the "authoritarian" model of China has been around for 3000 years. China is a paternal hierarchal society and ALLWAYS look to the state for protection- and as long as the state offers Chinese people security, peace and prosperity they will support the state. it does not matter if its a Dynasty or a one party state they don't care as long as their families are safe and prosper they will support it. This is why the West always get China wrong - they look at China through a Western lens and they are always off the mark when making predictions about China.

Instead of delivering a geostrategic forecast for the first half of 21st century by drawing parallels between US - China - Soviet Union Cold War from the second half of the 20th century, it would be better to see what happened in last almost 35 years: (i) Russia and especially China have proved that capitalism can coexist with autocratic political system and that is the most important and consequential historical fact of the 21st century; (ii) Russia and especially China have built relatively strong institutional, political, ideological and social cohesion, while the West is going through institutional, political, ideological and social crisis with destabilising demographic and immigration issues; (iii) Russia and China have created new and strong international ties worldwide that have proved to be very resilient and productive, regardless of the western sanctions (BRICS is not diminishing, but growing); (iv) autocratic political systems are more efficient when it comes to making decisions, while the question of political succession is not problem per se, but is strongly related to social and economical issues.

what cold? is the 500,000 bodies of men not enough to call it hot?

34 trillion reasons is why the U.S. cannot afford another Cold War.

Niall is an historian. When it comes to encouraging rearmament in various countries, we need to pause for thought

this guy is a classic idelogist. Classic hawkish perspective. nothing new-

Just as the carpenter Fukuyama said, it's the end of history. That guy is fukuyama version2, a lower version.

The problem with Dr. Niall Ferguson is that his views have never really evolved beyond the British colonial era.

Thank you both for this interview.

“It was trumps mistake to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal to begin with” gut punch, debate over