Independent Britain.

The truth is that people don't seem to think geography matters at all. That fear doesn't exist, that nations don't want things, that nations don't have interests they must protect. That there is only friendly relations or war, nothing in between. That when I say nothing about war, people think I want to invade Ireland, Norway and Denmark. They seem to have no understanding of nuance. Since people don't seem to understand, I am trying to tell them but they won't listen.

The UN doesn't have any power, I don't care about it. I believe NATO and the EU will be gone or diminished within 5 years. No my strategy works if the EU and NATO exist or not. We need to give up the strategy we have had since the end of the USSR. That strategy is to be the bridge between the EU and US, and counter balance them both so be have some kind of independence and can improve our position. The trouble is the US is far to strong, the EU is weak. The Americans no longer can be counter balanced by the EU. We have been between a rock and a hard place, we need to leave and be independent where we can support the Americans and be worth while to them, rather being constrained by Germany and France through the EU and NATO.

I'm sure people do care about geography, just not in relation to British local borders. Or at the very least there are better ways to pursue those aims. Alliances and international institutions that bind us to Germany and France already achieves the aims you propose.Iceland could be used against us, Denmark and Norway may be weak, but they are a part of NATO and that guarantees British security,

Yes see here is your problem, geography matters, yes it is important, but you are trying to look through a geopolitical prism and nothing else. You say we need to worry about Germany and France dominating the low countries. We do not, because of our relations with these nations and the existence of NATO and the EU. Your entire obsession with British geography becomes irrelevant provided these institutions exist. This is why you are being mocked in this thread. Your foreign policy ideals for Britain are out of date. Just look at the reaction to Russia, which is no doubt pursuing a foreign policy you should like. At least in methods, not aims. Russia has become a pariah because it has launched a more extreme version of your foreign policy. I suggest looking into the Eurasian Customs Unions to see the economic side of Russia's attempts to secure its borders.

Look up Democratic Peace Theory. I know another user mentioned it, read up on it, it applies well to Mature Democracies.

Your strategy cannot exist whilst NATO and the EU exist, neither organisation will tolerate a foreign policy that aims to dominate other members. Your foreign policy would actively work against the aims of both these organisations. One has to go. Either could see shrinkage, but shedding the dead weight may well boost both institutions. You won't see any of the major players or NATO or the EU leave. The only chance of Britain leaving the EU is the referendum, which is unlikely to even
happen given the electoral arithmetic of Britain right now.

Yet it was unable to continue after a war (second world war) because it was too expensive. The British Government spent more money on the empire than gained from it. All empires have eventually come to an end. They aren't sustainable.

So let me get this straight. Britain should leave NATO (the best defense against the Russians) to attack our friends (Germany and France) to defend two countries who are also friends and have never expressed any intention of invading (Belgium and the Netherlands). While we're doing this we will take back Ireland (who pose no threat) and Norway (who pose no threat).

How will you fund this costly war?

I am still holding out for Russia (although in the quickly arm NATO sense of the phrase). The PM is more liberal than Putin so it might relax a bit when he dies.

Could be waiting a while for him to die. I'm also not convinced sadly that the Russians are 'one of us'.

There have been modernization efforts particularly with respect to a more liberalized economy, the society is of course more autocratic and tribal. It has had a difficult history in these past two decades, it needs time.

I suppose. I'd be interested to know whether Russians between 91-08 were keen to ally and become western actually.

I don't really agree with this, i do think that geography matters and most certainly that nations have interests to protect and even that most 'friendships' are in reality attempts to manipulate events to your advantage.

What i don't share is your fear of our neighbors. France and Germany as things stand make up two sides of the EU (Germany along with the UK seeks a more conservative Europe, France along with Spain and Italy a somewhat more socialist Europe) and it is their balance within the EU that threatens our interests, not simply whether they dominate trade in the low countries (it's unlikely that Germany is going to suddenly go all protectionist). Right now France is with the US the biggest military ally we have, Germany is regaining its prestige in the world and is now de facto on the security council (P5+1), they've also taken a more active military role. So right now Germany largely serves our economic and diplomatic interests albeit it is consolidating it's own power within Europe.

My 'fears' are more directed towards the Balkans, Turkey and Ukraine. You think that Russia simply wants a buffer, i think that it wants power and will do what it can to take any non-EU state that it can. Russia is creating a rival customs union for economic dominance within that and it is also taking advantage of more aggrieved European allies like Turkey and Cyprus. The real important event in the world right now is not ISIS (a potential threat in 10-20 years but an annoyance right now) or France/Germany, it is Russia vs EU. Both (the EU here being the institution rather than it's member states - it has the advantage that it's goals don't change every 5 years like the state governments do) are expansionist powers who are quite happy to rip countries apart for future expansion even if by proxy.

Over the coming decades the EU will drop some members, become pretty much a state and expand into northern Africa and the Middle East. The core institution itself is under no serious threat. NATO will persist so long as the UK, France and to a lesser degree Germany continue to want to have some kind of military role in the world.

I can't say I agree with much of that. Regardless of the reasons for the formation of NATO or the EU your underestimating evolution. NATO serves primarily US interests anywhere and is a vehicle for the US to put a media friendly image on events. The EU had progressed beyond its original intent and its core institution is in itself moving towards statehood of some kind, its interests are threatened by Russia.

NATO served a specific American interest to defeat the USSR. Of the USSR's fall the military alliance no longer exists, but the political body does. The Americans have basically only just realised this and have been attempting to take the back seat to NATO so they aren't sucked into places they don't really want to be like Libya, Syria and Iraq. However the Americans are doing things without NATO in supporting Eastern European nations in conflict over the buffer with Russia. Britain is taking an active role in this, German's and French not so much. The Italians, Spanish and Portuguese aren't doing anything. NATO's evolution has made it useless for the Americans interests.

What is the EU's core institution? The EU can't even bailout Greece, it can't tax anyone, it doesn't have an army. All it has is a currency and printing press, along with the ability to create red tape and ruin the economy of Europe for the sake German exports. It's interest aren't threatened by Russia, it doesn't have any interests. Its member states have interests.

NATO served a specific American interest to defeat the USSR. Of the USSR's fall the military alliance no longer exists, but the political body does.

The Americans have basically only just realised this and have been attempting to take the back seat to NATO so they aren't sucked into places they don't really want to be like Libya, Syria and Iraq. However the Americans are doing things without NATO in supporting Eastern European nations in conflict over the buffer with Russia. Britain is taking an active role in this, German's and French not so much. The Italians, Spanish and Portuguese aren't doing anything. NATO's evolution has made it useless for the Americans interests.

What is the EU's core institution? The EU can't even bailout Greece, it can't tax anyone, it doesn't have an army. All it has is a currency and printing press, along with the ability to create red tape and ruin the economy of Europe for the sake German exports. It's interest aren't threatened by Russia, it doesn't have any interests. Its member states have interests.

The threat has moved a thousand miles east, so Poland is now the nation which will get the American support the build up its army and form its own alliance. The Italians, French, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese and Austrians aren't threatened by Russia.

Also why would the Polish want France, Britain and Germany in their alliance against the Russians? Why would the Americans want have the French, British and German's to constrain Poland and the American support for Poland? The Americans are bypassing NATO and going directly to Poland, Romania, the Baltic state and Bulgaria.

Put simply the politics of NATO make it useless for the Americans. So it should be useless for us.

If we want to keep the strong friendship with have the US, which we do we need to be useful to them. We are no longer useful through the EU or NATO. They can go directly to the Germans for the EU and directly to the Polish if they need something to stop the Russians. The basis for our current strategy of being the bridge between Europe and America no longer matters.

Germany and Britain don't see eye to eye on Europe and we aren't some conservative block within the EU.

We purely want a trade and customs union.

The Germans want regulations, bailouts and currency union. The French want to stop the Germans becoming a military threat ever again and constrain Britain so they accept the regulations, bailouts and currency union until it gets to hard for them or until Germany weakens because of its demographics and falling American support, as that moves to Poland. Once the French, Dutch, Italians and one or two others see the Germans weakening they will be gone from the EU in a shot.

My fear is what the Germans will do as their economic market is gone. Will they Germans lash out, or will they accept it.

How does Russian actions 1,500 miles threaten Britain? Why does the Baltic or Black see matter to Britain.

The Russians are no threat to Britain and only were a threat because of Soviet Union, but Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

However we can use the Russian threat against Norway, Denmark and Iceland so help our manipulation of them.

Really? When was Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty repealed? I never saw this.



Actually, NATO's more relevant than ever, but it is, and always has been, a reactive alliance against the USSR/Russia. So far, Russia's only interfering in Ukraine and the Caucasus, where NATO has no presence. If Russia tried anything in the Baltics, however, there is no question that NATO would respond to the hilt.

The EU's lack of initiative in this area is intentional, because countries like the UK object to the EU being anything more than a free trade zone. So don't be surprised if the EU is a self-defeating homunculous when it comes to international relations that doesn't involve trade - it's a feature we want, not a bug.



You're correct that Member States have interests, and the EU is meant to represent the sum total of those interests to the outside world. I'm not quite sure what your point is.



And Britain wasn't threatened by the Germans invading Czechoslovakia or Poland?



Why would they want them? I don't know, perhaps because they are friendly major military powers that share a border with them who have a mutual interest in containing Russia? Just a completely random idea.

As for the Americans bypassing NATO, I don't think they are doing that. There's nothing contradictory in fostering closer relations with other countries and maintaining the Alliance. Undermining NATO is not in the interests of the US. Undermining it while buddying up to military minnows on the Russian border makes even less sense.



Why? Because the Member States occasionally bicker? Oh lordy, I'm getting a case of the vapours!



What on earth could the Poles alone do to stop the Russians?

Your premise is utterly flawed. Russia's renewed antagonism means NATO is more relevant now than it's been in generations, and that means it's far more in our interests to bolster it.



Actually, the Germans prefer the market-economics focus of the British over the state-focus of some of the other states, including France. We may not always agree on everything, and we may not be a solid bloc, but we do have a lot in common.



Do we? I don't.



Yeah....this is entirely in your mind.



I dunno, how did Britain react when its economic market 'was gone'?



If they attack Poland and we do nothing, they're on the German border. If they attack Germany and we do nothing, they're on the French border. If they attack France and do nothing, they're far more of a direct threat than they ever were. So yes, Russian actions 1,500 miles away do threaten Britain.



Russia is to all intents and purposes the Soviet Union revived. They may not be run by the Communist Party and they may be a bit smaller, but the desire to dominate and manipulate is as strong as ever.



Why on earth would we want to do that? That would make us as bad as the Russians.

A bunch of myths and opinion (of the uninformed kind). Full of banalities. Without substance. Don't expect a scholarly talk, this is "entertainment" at best - if you like that kind of distraction. Oversimplification based on a lot of wrong assumptions. This talk might deliver a nice backstory for a SiFi computer game or book, but it's not based in reality. It's the video equivalent of a Business Insider article.

And even if it was true, and we should take it seriously, there are a dozen other books just as 'authoritative' which argue different things. Some other author could say our true enemy is the US, and Britain, France and Germany should unite in the face of American imperialism, or another could be warning that Ireland is preparing to invade Northern Ireland, so we should attack first. Still another could insist there are Moon Nazis preparing to attack, and we should accelerate the space program to fight them.

I did, I'm afraid. I want half an hour of my life back.

The video wasn't half an hour long, it was an hour long. So you didn't watch the video then.

I urge everybody to watch the video, George Friedman is a geopolitical forecasting genius. He also has excellent people working for him. He is an actual expert, unlike ourselves.

I watched half an hour of it, then skimmed the remainder. It's about as informative as reading Harry Turtledove for a history of WW2.