The corporations of the USA believe they’re invincible.
The French rejected the American far-right propaganda group’s direct meddling in their politics.
If the French leadership was aligned with the USA’s, they wouldn’t investigate anything harmful to society anyway, as extreme right-leaning folk want a revolution against the civil freedoms that we’ve had over the past decades. Harm to this society is exactly what X wants.
Please stop painting with such a wide brush. The USA is 50 separate states, dozens of Indian reservations, several islands, and a couple of freely associated sovereign nations. There is literally nothing that the USA believes as a whole.
I’m not from the US, but I believe the last time one of those entities meaningfully strayed from the line of the US government was 164 years ago. So, saying the US is basically a confederation with its members acting independently on the world stage is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
That isn’t what I said. The person I am replying to lumped all citizens of the US into a singular belief and I asked them to stop doing that and gave reason for said desire of nuance.
As for your point 4, De Gaulle was right to refuse being subordinated to the US after World War 2, and to pursue “strategic autonomy” instead.
Even before Trump 2.0, I always thought about the nature of the concept of alliance itself. Jacobin magazine made a point about not building alliance, but solidarity instead. Alliance implies impermanence and a tit for tat deal. Whereas, solidarity shows unquestionable mutual cooperation that does not look for anything in return. Jacobin wrote it in the context of social justice particularly on gender, race and lgbt; but going back to De Gaulle, he did say that there is no permanent alliance, only permanent interest. He knew that alliance with US is not everlasting and was correct to de-couple. France has its own interest for sure, but their policy is to first build cultural, political and military solidarity with Europe, which would translate to alliance.
Please stop painting with such a wide brush. The USA is 50 separate states, dozens of Indian reservations, several islands, and a couple of freely associated sovereign nations. There is literally nothing that the USA believes as a whole.
I’m not from the US, but I believe the last time one of those entities meaningfully strayed from the line of the US government was 164 years ago. So, saying the US is basically a confederation with its members acting independently on the world stage is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
That isn’t what I said. The person I am replying to lumped all citizens of the US into a singular belief and I asked them to stop doing that and gave reason for said desire of nuance.
But, that aside, to answer your question; No, not at this time.
Nope they didn’t do that. Neither did I. But maybe you should look up, what it means to be a citizen.
My question was rhetorical, and this doesn’t even answer it in the slightest.
As for your point 4, De Gaulle was right to refuse being subordinated to the US after World War 2, and to pursue “strategic autonomy” instead.
Even before Trump 2.0, I always thought about the nature of the concept of alliance itself. Jacobin magazine made a point about not building alliance, but solidarity instead. Alliance implies impermanence and a tit for tat deal. Whereas, solidarity shows unquestionable mutual cooperation that does not look for anything in return. Jacobin wrote it in the context of social justice particularly on gender, race and lgbt; but going back to De Gaulle, he did say that there is no permanent alliance, only permanent interest. He knew that alliance with US is not everlasting and was correct to de-couple. France has its own interest for sure, but their policy is to first build cultural, political and military solidarity with Europe, which would translate to alliance.