You mean by forging win-win relationships with other countries instead of master-slave relationships?

Maybe one form is better than the other, or do you consider those equal?

I'm not from US by the way, I'm Belgian. You know, home of EU and NATO. Both were formed on collaboration agreements, not enforcement.

I think it varies case by case. Sorry, I don’t believe in a equal and just relationship between the biggest economy in the world and economies that are few order of magnitude smaller. As well as I don’t believe in a relationship between 40 years old man and 17 years old girl.

But let’s imagine that this is a win-win relationship, say between Estonia and NATO. I understand that Estonia is getting from them, but what USA is getting?

You claim that the economy of EU+UK is "a few order of magnitude smaller" than US?

USA is getting a strong partnership next to one of its worst enemies.

Let me pose this question: If US would drop out of NATO, would that mean all NATO countries would drop out, or would the rest of NATO still form an alliance?

What did USA gain from joining the allies in Europe during WW1 and WW2? Besides the moral and humanitarian reasons, which I actually believe played a big role even though I'm not American and I know it's easy to be cynical online and disregard those, they also gained a larger market for their products. US hegemony has benefitted the US for decades. Same thing applies now, the more countries that are friendly and politically aligned the better. And NATO isn't just the US, the Baltic airspace is currently being protected by Portugal and Romania.

> As well as I don’t believe in a relationship between 40 years old man and 17 years old girl.

Ridiculous comparison

How's that win-win relationship working out for Ukraine right now?

"The Ukrainian military already is bleeding Russia in the Donbass region (and vice versa). Providing more U.S. military equipment and advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it ... Increasing military advice and arms supplies to Ukraine is the most feasible of these options with the largest impact, but any such initiative would have to be calibrated very carefully to avoid a widely expanded conflict."

- 2019 paper from the RAND Corporation titled Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...

> How's that win-win relationship working out for Ukraine right now?

Without Western support, there would be no Ukraine right now.

If not for this relationship, Ukraine would not exist now and war would be happening in Poland.

Moldova for sure. Baltics or Poland highly likely, and that would mean a direct confrontation with NATO. The nuclear threats now are peanuts compared to what would happen then.

I've assumed reality where there's no "NATO expansionism" (as GP was complaining about US forging alliances), so Poland and entire post-Soviet block wouldn't be in the NATO at all and would be full-time enjoying "Ruski Mir".

Hard to find words to express how shitty that would be.

> I'm not from US by the way, I'm Belgian

i guess that makes you an expert at master-slave relationships

Referring to the private property of the king?

I prefer American profits to Russian rockets. Are you seriously trying to equate the two?

Not to mention that the markets are not a zero sum game (unlike war). Both sides can get richer in the process.