Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-13/why-europe-is-warning-of-pax-americana-s-end <comment><USER3> 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...

<comment><USER4> > 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.

<comment><USER5> > _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?

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure how this relates to US allies questioning the reliability of the US? Our allies (as a country not necessarily it's population) are usually involved in the same conflict and support the same worldview towards Russia.

It's been widely reported that allies are increasingly military spending and reassessing defense strategies after comments/actions by Trump.

<comment><USER5> > _Our allies (as a country not necessarily it 's population) are usually > involved in the same conflict and support the same worldview towards > Russia._

That's because they have been in bed with US interests (as countries, not necessarily as populations) since the Cold War.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER9> Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to stay in their own countries?

<comment><USER8> I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably _automation_ and not immigrants.

Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs, or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc.

Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries.

You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.

<comment><USER9> You get automation either way - immigration only buys you ten or so years before the costs fall below even immigrant wages, after which you're left with unemployed immigrants.

And lets not pretend the availability of cheap labour has nothing to do with jobs being low-end.

Medical doctors sure is a funny example to give however - the USA has a lot of immigrants - how well has that worked in keeping healthcare affordable?

<comment><USER10> Immigration is keeping health care affordable in Germany and probably a bunch of other European countries. Until the Brexit, cheap foreign labor helped keep prices low in the UK.

The USA don't have a problem with immigrants - they have a problem with the runaway corruption of their political leaders. Corporate lobbyists get to write laws for representatives to rubber stamp. The reason the same drugs cost 5x more in the US than in Canada has nothing to do with immigrants.

<comment><USER9> I'd love some statistics on this - what is the proportion of immigrants who are doctors, and how does that compare to the native population (for Germany, the U.K., etc..)? How does it depend on the immigrant's country of origin? And, if the goal is to reduce medical costs - why not accept only doctors?

<comment><USER10> I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected.

First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that completely dwarf just that for doctors.

Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane.

Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of populations.

The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.

<comment><USER9> Fleeing from countries such as Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia? And pretending there are only two options - let them stay forever, or gun them down at the border, is dishonest at best. We ship food half way around the world, there's no reason wealthy countries can't fund refugee camps and in general help and give aid to countries that accept refugees. This would also reduce the number of tragic drownings in the Mediterranean. But I don't see it suggested much as an option in the media...

And, are you saying the stance of governments to their people is "We need more workers - breed faster, or we'll import someone who will"? Britons are now an ethnic minority in London, but only racists would be bothered by the same taking place in their countries, I guess.

<comment><USER10> First of all, governments are for the most part able to differentiate between refugees and economically driven immigrants - the main influx of refugees in Germany and other European countries these days is from Syria, and it's not easy for Croats, say, or Slovenes to pass themselves off as Syrians. So unsurprisingly enough, we're not seeing a huge influx of Eastern Europeans - partly thanks to sensible limits on immigration.

Turks, Greeks and (though you didn't mention them) Italians are another matter: The industries of Germany (and other countries) practically begged people from these countries to come to Western Europe and augment labor pools here. The first deals were for short-term working arragements; later it was decided that there were good humanitarian and societal reasons to let these people emigrate and stay. The city I live in has a complement of about 10% (ethnic) Turks plus a colorful mixture of other origins. My dentist is a Turk!

Your idea of shipping aid to where it's needed is poorly considered, as another commenter has explained nearby. Syria, for example, continues to be a slaughterhouse, and its broken infrastructure can't feed and house people in bales of money.

No, it's not governments blackmailing their public to breed faster - <USER2> compulsion to maintain population figures is a purely social thing, no coercion needed. Former immigrants from Turkey and elsewhere will be working to pay part of my pension. You, meanwhile, are considering immigration as a threat. I have to tell you, your concern about "ethnic minorities" in London really is troubling. When people from other countries emigrate to England, they become British, and then only racists are concerned that those British people or their parents were formerly residents of a different country. Do I need to remind you that the USA is populated almost exclusively by emigrants from other countries? Oh wait, most of those were white, so that makes it... different? Conclude what you will.

<comment><USER11> There are no limits on immigration for people from Croatia or Slovenia in the EU. They could move over here to Germany tomorrow and immediately start working. They can't immediately apply for welfare though.

Syrians are not the only significant refugee group, there is also Afghanistan and Iran in the top 3. Together they currently make up about a third of all applications for asylum in Germany according to BAMF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> >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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER13> >every operation the US army did so far was the cause of destabilisation.

The 20th & 21st centuries have seen thier share of blunders but our NATO partners and allies in Asia seem to still want an active United States presence. The post WWII liberal order hasn't been perfect but many would argue it was headed in the right direction, generally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER7> "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.

<comment><USER16> > (...) always been at WA with Eurasia.

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

<comment><USER17> The quoted text is a reference to Orwell's 1984.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER20> 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.)

<comment><USER19> You're absolutely right that from a dietary perspective, and painting with a very broad brush, Chinese people in general eat healthier than Americans. My spouse certainly eats healthier than I do, though I've been a bit of a bad influence.

My point was about food safety, not nutrition. To some extent I can control how healthily my children eat by choosing what to feed them. But while in the US we can be fairly confident that the food and drugs they get are safe, that is less true in China, due in part to some recent food safety scandals like [0]. When we travel to China, there are certain things (like infant formula) that we bring with us rather than buy there. We also bring things like vitamins to my in-laws because they ask us to.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal)

<comment><USER20> One scandal doesn't make a general rule. Also as your wife is Chinese you certainly noticed that Chinese people are obsessed with food. In some place like Sichuan it is the only conversation topic that's ever talked about. With such an obsession, a restaurant won't last a week if it's serving bad food. I have seen it with my colleagues, one had a "laduzi" and told others, the next the restaurant had no more patrons from our company, it's a kind of blacklist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 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.

<comment><USER22> 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."

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The full report can be downloaded here as pdf here: [http://report2017.securityconference.de/](http://report2017.securityconference.de/)

</comment><comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> Why would they bother when all of Trump's cabinet is plutocrats and they're pursuing a radical pro-business agenda?

<comment><USER26> What do you consider a "radical pro-business" agenda to be?

<comment><USER25> Deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-union legislation on a massive scale.

e: Also probably cuts to social spending.

<comment><USER25> I guess I should have also mentioned privatization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global- opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on- ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html)

<comment><USER28> 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](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).

<comment><USER20> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 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.

<comment><USER30> > It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation, > not conflict.

War is over laddies and gentlemen !

<comment><USER29> 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"?

<comment><USER30> > War will never be "over", but it can be minimized.

You are right. In the past 60 years, since NATO/UN/Pax Americana there has been less war than any other time in recorded history.

And you, as well as countless others in MAGA hats are celebrating it's downfall. Unless you are Putin himself, or an sadist, I don't understand your position.

<comment><USER29> _since NATO /UN/Pax Americana there has been less war than any other time in recorded history._

So is that the benchmark then? Just "lowest in history"? How much lower can we get in absolute terms? I think we can do much better.

 _And you, as well as countless others in MAGA hats are celebrating it 's downfall._

Not sure if you're somehow thinking that I'm one of those MAGA people or not, but if so, believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm more of a MEGA (Make Earth Great Again) person. My position, vis-a-vis the US specifically, is that we need to quit with the empire building and radical interventionism all over the world. More broadly, I posit that encouraging free trade among all nations of the world is one of the best routes to minimizing war.

I also think that a lot of terrorism is rooted in blowback as a result of our (USA) activities in the rest of the world. Maybe, for example, we could have a lot less tension with, say, Iran, if we hadn't meddled in their affairs so much in the past. That is, of course, just one example.

<comment><USER30> > I think we can do much better.

I think things could be a lot worse. I have history and data to back me up, where does your opinion come from?

<comment><USER29> I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Saying "things could be worse" is just trivially true.

As for where my position comes from: mostly logic / inference / reasoning, however you want to describe it. And a bit of history and data. See, for example:

[https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson- can-...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade- prevent-war)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "NATO is an illusion" \- [http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says- nato-is-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-says-nato-is-an- illusion-2016-4)

</comment><comment><USER32> AKA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence)

</comment><comment><USER33> 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.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've been hearing about this supposed "disengagement" since Obama was elected. I will believe it when I see it.

</comment><comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER35> Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

<comment><USER36> 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.

<comment><USER37> Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

<comment><USER38> Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.

<comment><USER37> And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

<comment><USER39> 1\. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so.

2\. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.

<comment><USER40> 1\. Just like Crimea?

<comment> a-saleh Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ?

Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond?

I think that is flat out wrong.

I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.

<comment><USER41> A) Most Crimeans are ethnically Russians, B) The vote was ~94% to join Russia and was done in the presence of international observers (Ukraine didn't challenge the results of the election they challenged it on the basis that it was unconstitutional) and C) the invasion was a reaction to an elected president who represented their interests being deposed.

Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.

<comment><USER38> > Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated > more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.

You mean the referendum, not election? Yeah, "kinda", just enough for some people to be able to say something like this (and even that not with a straight face).

To say there was any "respect for democracy" is a joke. Girkin (leader of the Russian military squad that seized the Crimean Parliament building) later went on record saying that his soldiers basically had to force the parliament members into the building in the middle of the night and make them "vote" for the referendum (you can imagine what would've happened to those who'd refused)[1]

The referendum date itself had been changed several times (if I remember correctly, from 2 months to 1 month to 2 weeks). You can't force an issue like that in 2 weeks and claim "respect for democracy". In fact, both of the questions asked at the referendum meant secession from Ukraine; i.e. it wasn't a simple "yes" or "no", it was essentially "secede immediately" or "do it a bit later". And, even if that hadn't been the case, for anybody to vote against it, they'd have to risk being abducted and killed by the pro-Russian militia[2][3][4]

[http://empr.media/news/russian-fsb-colonel-admits-crimean- mp...](http://empr.media/news/russian-fsb-colonel-admits-crimean-mps-forced- to-vote-for-referendum/)

[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappeari...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappearing- crimea-anti-russia-activists-201412110405525656.html)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S2Vhkr- bc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S2Vhkr-bc)

[http://en.sobytiya.info/crimean-tatar-activist-kidnapped- in-...](http://en.sobytiya.info/crimean-tatar-activist-kidnapped-in- crimea.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> 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?

<comment><USER44> 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.

<comment><USER45> Well, the bases aren't actual aggression, you know. They're generally built based on agreements with host countries. Most often the host countries enthusiastically welcome them.

Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending "little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.

<comment><USER46> Yeah I saw that CNN interview where the girl from Ossetia was telling what actually happened and then got cut off for "technical difficulties" :). Georgia got off easy.

As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist. History is full of such examples.

<comment><USER30> wow, you know this isn't infowars or zerohedge, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 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.

<comment><USER37> Just like the US bailed out Europe during the "external" migrant crisis, caused by inadequate US foreign policy in the Middle East?

<comment><USER47> 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"?

<comment><USER48> The refugee crisis is not just Syrian, it's also very much Afghan and Iraqi. I think the main mistake has been to consistently prioritize opposing Russia over fighting Islamism and a failure of working more eloquently towards a peaceful solution for the Palestinians.

A number of socialist leaning, authoritarian but secular regimes, all cold war allies of Russia, were removed with the help of the US and the UK (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), leaving behind chaos and civil war. Assad was the last of the bunch and he was very nearly toppled with US help before the Russians saved his ass.

I have no sympathies for these regimes and dictators, but not realizing even after multiple failures that they were not the worst that could possibly happen in those societies was a terrible mistake.

Continental Europe is bearing the brunt and the fascist right in the US and the UK are pouring scorn over the EU for failing to sort this mess out, even exploiting it to support their claim that anything other than bigoted nationalism of the Trump and Brexit variety is bound to fail. "Told you so!"</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why I Code - <AUTHOR> http://sturgill.github.io/Management/2013/04/11/why-i-code/

<comment><USER2> so, are you looking to hire? ;o)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at the moment, no, but I appreciate the validation!</comment></comment>


For an artist with amnesia, the world takes place through her pencil - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/30/an-artist-with-amnesia

<comment><USER2> Very similar to Clive Wearing, who, without memory, fills his notebooks with variations on the phrase "Now I am really, truely awake, for the first time"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing)

also, he can still play the piano at an expert level</comment>


Covariance and Contravariance in C++ Standard Library - <AUTHOR> http://cpptruths.blogspot.com/2015/11/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c.html <comment><USER2> It is probably worth mentioning that the standard containers (and in general, any mutable container) cannot be covariant in their element type without compromising soundness. A vector<Circle•> should not have a push_back(Shape•) member function inherited from vector<Shape•>. (However, a vector<Circle•> could be safely _copied_ to a vector<Shape•> via an implicit conversion.) Java arrays infamously covary, leading to dreaded ArrayStoreExceptions if misused.

(Edit: any way to write literal asterisks in HN?)

<comment><USER3> Java has a nice solution: An ArrayList<Ellipse> is an ArrayList<? extends Shape>. But it is also an ArrayList<? super Circle>.

The former is "read-only" (can read elements which are all guaranteed to be shapes). The latter is "write-only" (we can add circles to it, but not all elements in it are guaranteed to be circles).

I use quotes because it is not strictly true, but any writes or reads will be of the sort that they don't cause type problems. For instance you can call clear() on a ArrayList<? extends Shape></comment></comment>


The Era of Unlimited Everything: Unlimited Materials and Unlimited Money - <AUTHOR> https://www.juandavidcampolargo.com/blog/unlimited-everything <comment><USER2> The author quotes Yuval Noah Harari "Sapiens" then argues against him with:

> That's one of the big differences in our times. For me to thrive does not > mean you could not thrive. The chances for you to thrive are higher if I > thrive

A grand statement for which I see very little support of this stance. Much of the article is based on plastics (and credit). Plastic is limited and finite. The more plastic you make, the less materials there are for me - so I will not necessarily thrive. Now, I may live in the same country as you and thrive because of your prosperity - but not necessarily if I live elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Says a lot about nothing. It could just be summed up as material science and mediums of exponential finance have bolstered what we can do such that consequences are comparatively worth it from the world prior. And even then, that's not really profound a statement.</comment>


When Poaching Wrecks a Tech Company - <AUTHOR> http://insights.dice.com/2015/10/20/when-poaching-wrecks-a-tech-company/ <comment><USER2> ...or it could easily be re-titled, "Electric drive engineer fulfills life- long dream of working at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA. Invites colleagues to join."

I think Apple's easy to villify for their participation in the policy not to "poach" (or hire) from other tech companies like Microsoft, Google, et al. This article seems to focus on the damage done when they nab top-talent at smaller companies (that never would have been part of that no-hiring deal). It's hard to fault Apple for hiring talented teams. It is regrettable that such hiring can have a devastating impact to smaller companies.</comment>


We Need Multi-Valued Columns in Spreadsheets. - <AUTHOR> http://designedbyme.net/we-need-multi-valued-columns-in-spreadsheets

<comment><USER2> how would this work with, say, sc (the curses-based spreadsheet app)?

</comment><comment><USER3> Sweet suffering jesus, no. Please no. Spreadsheets are evil enough already.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you think the Leap Motion launch flopped? - <AUTHOR>

I recently just got my Leap Motion, and after playing with it, I'm deciding to return it.  I guess at a very minimum I expected an app where I can use it to navigate my Windows 8 interface (I kind of envisioned using it by flipping my hand up and down to scroll through pages).<p>Integrating the Leap Motion to the OS seems like a really basic thing, and I'm curious if people are returning it for that reasons or am I being overly critical of an early product? <comment><USER2> A flop? That's harsh IMO. It works really work for us - it's a lot of fun. That said, we are anti-Windows 8 here so we've only tried it with the apps on their site + Google Earth. I have been disappointed more than once with its performance, yes, but not enough to return it. This is first-gen technology and so I think it's reasonable to expect the experience to be lower quality than a tenth-gen product's would be. Given that the firmware + apps are all updateable, I'm hoping for bigger and better things soon.

</comment><comment><USER3> At least you got yours. I posted recently about my toils. I gave them one more chance and spoke with them. They promised to send a code to allow me to reorder at preorder prices with free upgraded shipping to Canada. Like the preorder, the repeated delays, and the no hassle order this too was nothing but vapour ware. Leap motion should rebrand as crash landing...

</comment><comment><USER4> I was thinking of voiding the warranty on a magic mouse and a developer edition Leap... but alas... I didn't get one.</comment>


Moving 6 Billion Messages Without Being Noticed - <AUTHOR> http://dt.deviantart.com/journal/Moving-6-Billion-Messages-Without-Being-Noticed-285571516

<comment><USER2> Moving databases between clusters is no easy feat. Can you share more details on the man-hours it took to oversee and verify the migration?

I see you mention several days for the data to be copied, but how about the time to put your solution together and verify it? Also, did recomputing checksums take less time between passes, proportional to the size of the remaining changes?

 _We didn't find much published material about the best way to do this,_

You may want to have a look at our live migration solution: <http://chronicdb.com>

It goes beyond checksums: it guarantees the data move is atomic and data consistent.

<comment><USER3> It took a while. cant put a number cause a lot of it was done in spurts between other projects. altogether the project took about four months, but that included refactoring a lot of old code to play nice with mirrored writes and developing some framework level components. and waiting for hardware. and waiting for innodb conversion. and building setting up proper monitoring and alerting. future projects like that will take fraction of the time. Migration and verification itself took about 2 weeks. Yes, passes got proportionally quicker. first took almost a week, last few hours. we did not crank the speed to the max though as we wanted to keep the load low and we had time.

thanks for the link, will check it out

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The first comment on the article expresses surprise that nothing broke when we did this. Normally I might think that's a vote against our expected competence, but honestly I was a bit surprised that nothing went wrong as well.</comment>


It's-A-Me, Ishmael: Can Nintendo tell a proper story? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/03/25/its-a-me-ishmael/

<comment><USER2> I appreciate how Japanese works can defy a canon. I am thinking of Tenchi Muyou, or the Evangelion reboots, or the endless doujinshi made of every story. Redo all the characters, if it's interesting. In contrast it almost feels like Western media and fandom is obsessed with finding the theoretical "correct" version of a story, and declaring it canon. Arguments over Star Trek physics, and "retconning" remind me of this. The fact that Legend of Zelda games cannot be rectified with each other doesn't bother me one little bit. Nintendo games aren't lesser because of it.

<comment><USER3> Also compare Anime to American cartoons. In an American cartoon, main characters never die (or even minor recurring characters). In Japanese Anime, major characters do die. The story usually has a beginning, middle, and end, instead of Batman fighting the Joker each week, puts him in jail, and then the Joker escapes again.

Star Trek has the same problem. Episodes were produced independently, which means the state of the universe has to be reset at the end of each episode. More recent American series tend to have a season-long plot, though.

<comment><USER4> Another thing I have noticed is that Japanese Anime tends to be more willing to end a show once it is over. American cartoons seem to keep a show going for as long as it is popular. Of course there are exceptions to both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "What makes a good game" and "what makes a good story" are two different things.

Doom didn't have a plot. Tetris didn't have a plot.

Also, if you want the game to have a MEANINGFUL plot, then you have to pretty much make the game linear, which isn't the point of a game.

Trying to make a game like a movie is missing the point.

When I hear things like "This game has 20 hours of gameplay!", I cringe, because if it's a really good game I want to play it more than 20 hours (one reason I like roguelikes).

<comment><USER5> Not all games should be 80+ powerhouses. The Costume Quest games, for instance, each clock in at approximately 8 hours to complete, maybe a bit longer for 100%. And that's perfect. Any longer, and you get tired of the combat and repetition, but during those 8 hours you feel magnificent because somehow they're able to recreate the feeling of being 9 years old and trick or treating. The actual overarching story serves to keep you from overindulging and boring yourself with the mechanics.

<comment><USER6> Different people like different parts of games. Some people like games that are immersive and really long like skyrim. Others like shorter games which are more cut down.

Other media example: Some people love serial television, other love 2 hr movies. Some people like both for different reasons.

It's okay for people to like what they want for whatever reason they have.

<comment><USER7> And after all, I still prefer chess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought the examples were very cherry picked. Super Mario has been running as a very popular cartoon for many years. The Zelda comics were highly regarded by many fans. Pokemon has spawned endless cartoons, movies and comics.</comment>