British grand strategy in Europe.

[RogerRanger]

I have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and doing geo-political research into what Britain's overall great strategy should be going forward.

Having looked at it the options are as follows. Global Britain, where Britain projects its hard and soft power globally and mainly into the Indo-Pacific region, forming stronger relationships on all fronts with India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Japan/Australia/Singapore/Malaysia/New Zealand, trying to get trade agreements and military partnerships with all these countries. While maintaining a back up role for the Americans. Basically this is the America lite strategy. Which appears to be the one the current British government is following.

51st state. Britain joins NAFTA, folds its military into a wider American military. Buys all its weapons from the US, allows its economy to be given over to the Americans for strategic protection. In this regard the UK is basically in another EU, just with way less power and is basically another US state. There would bring massive economic productivity, military security and political power, because we can call our big brother to sort out our issues in Europe and around the world, we will have no independent capabilities at all and our culture will be totally transverted.

CANZUK. A political/military/economic/cultural union between Australia/Canada/New Zealand and Britain, in which Britain is the main power within its alliance structure, with global reach and globalist power. A huge access to natural resources, economic and growth potential. The need for a huge navy to protect the trade of the alliance and being the balance of power in North America and the Indo-Pacific region. Basically a 3rd super power. This issues with with a huge, so it is basically impossible. However these issues are, the NAFTA agreement which would stop Canada joining any Union, the need for a massive navy and infrastructure program to get the resources out and ship them around the world, with no huge market to put them into within the alliance.

There is also the trend of these three options, which is the Anglo-sphere Union, would which be all these options combined into one.

The independent power strategy. Or the North-South strategy. Where Britain pursues a strategy to secure its strategic position in Europe and the resources it needs in the world, independently of the Americans and EU and common wealth. Britain would seek to form a north sea trade area, fully integrate Ireland into the British economy and military. Be the lead member of the South Atlantic trade agreement, with alliances with Argentina/Angola/Portugal. Would control trade in and out of the Arctic and access to resources in the Antarctic. In this way Britain carves out its own power sphere in the world outside of the Americans/Russians/Chinese/Europeans. It would give Britain control over its own destiny in the world, would give Britain strategic security and made Britain culturally buoyant again. The downsides are massive strategic risk as the strategy is being formed. If it fails, totally destruction of the British military and economy. This would be the strategy I would want to follow. It would be the nationalist strategy as well.

UK/France alliance. A combined British/French grand strategic to push the Americans out of Europe, and allow Britain and France to grow as powers once again. Full military alliance and partial economic alliance. Sharing of strategic bases and islands around the world, join military procurement ventures. Leveraging our historic colonies around the world to push the Americans out of these places. This alliance for me has very little risk, it is the least risky. If it fails we have other options, if its is successful we still have all the other options available. The issue would be trusting the French and being engaged in a almost global conflict with the Americans/Chinese/Russians. And allying with Japan and India would also be a requirement of this alliance as well. This would be my second choice. This option would allow the British to focus our efforts in the North sea and Arctic area, and the French to focus on the Mediterranean. Us moving against the Germans/Swedish/Russians and the French against Spain/Italy/Turkey. End result would be Britain and France being the major world powers again, and having the alliance break apart because of global colonial competition.

Thanks, let me know what you think and what questions or other options you can see which I can't see.

 

[Ryder]

I have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and doing geo-political research into what Britain's overall great strategy should be going forward.

Having looked at it the options are as follows. Global Britain, where Britain projects its hard and soft power globally and mainly into the Indo-Pacific region, forming stronger relationships on all fronts with India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Japan/Australia/Singapore/Malaysia/New Zealand, trying to get trade agreements and military partnerships with all these countries. While maintaining a back up role for the Americans. Basically this is the America lite strategy. Which appears to be the one the current British government is following.

51st state. Britain joins NAFTA, folds its military into a wider American military. Buys all its weapons from the US, allows its economy to be given over to the Americans for strategic protection. In this regard the UK is basically in another EU, just with way less power and is basically another US state. There would bring massive economic productivity, military security and political power, because we can call our big brother to sort out our issues in Europe and around the world, we will have no independent capabilities at all and our culture will be totally transverted.

CANZUK. A political/military/economic/cultural union between Australia/Canada/New Zealand and Britain, in which Britain is the main power within its alliance structure, with global reach and globalist power. A huge access to natural resources, economic and growth potential. The need for a huge navy to protect the trade of the alliance and being the balance of power in North America and the Indo-Pacific region. Basically a 3rd super power. This issues with with a huge, so it is basically impossible. However these issues are, the NAFTA agreement which would stop Canada joining any Union, the need for a massive navy and infrastructure program to get the resources out and ship them around the world, with no huge market to put them into within the alliance.

There is also the trend of these three options, which is the Anglo-sphere Union, would which be all these options combined into one.

The independent power strategy. Or the North-South strategy. Where Britain pursues a strategy to secure its strategic position in Europe and the resources it needs in the world, independently of the Americans and EU and common wealth. Britain would seek to form a north sea trade area, fully integrate Ireland into the British economy and military. Be the lead member of the South Atlantic trade agreement, with alliances with Argentina/Angola/Portugal. Would control trade in and out of the Arctic and access to resources in the Antarctic. In this way Britain carves out its own power sphere in the world outside of the Americans/Russians/Chinese/Europeans. It would give Britain control over its own destiny in the world, would give Britain strategic security and made Britain culturally buoyant again. The downsides are massive strategic risk as the strategy is being formed. If it fails, totally destruction of the British military and economy. This would be the strategy I would want to follow. It would be the nationalist strategy as well.

UK/France alliance. A combined British/French grand strategic to push the Americans out of Europe, and allow Britain and France to grow as powers once again. Full military alliance and partial economic alliance. Sharing of strategic bases and islands around the world, join military procurement ventures. Leveraging our historic colonies around the world to push the Americans out of these places. This alliance for me has very little risk, it is the least risky. If it fails we have other options, if its is successful we still have all the other options available. The issue would be trusting the French and being engaged in a almost global conflict with the Americans/Chinese/Russians. And allying with Japan and India would also be a requirement of this alliance as well. This would be my second choice. This option would allow the British to focus our efforts in the North sea and Arctic area, and the French to focus on the Mediterranean. Us moving against the Germans/Swedish/Russians and the French against Spain/Italy/Turkey. End result would be Britain and France being the major world powers again, and having the alliance break apart because of global colonial competition.

Thanks, let me know what you think and what questions or other options you can see which I can't see.

Everybody is moving in their own direction just like the old times.

 

[Ryder]

I have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and doing geo-political research into what Britain's overall great strategy should be going forward.

Having looked at it the options are as follows. Global Britain, where Britain projects its hard and soft power globally and mainly into the Indo-Pacific region, forming stronger relationships on all fronts with India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Japan/Australia/Singapore/Malaysia/New Zealand, trying to get trade agreements and military partnerships with all these countries. While maintaining a back up role for the Americans. Basically this is the America lite strategy. Which appears to be the one the current British government is following.

51st state. Britain joins NAFTA, folds its military into a wider American military. Buys all its weapons from the US, allows its economy to be given over to the Americans for strategic protection. In this regard the UK is basically in another EU, just with way less power and is basically another US state. There would bring massive economic productivity, military security and political power, because we can call our big brother to sort out our issues in Europe and around the world, we will have no independent capabilities at all and our culture will be totally transverted.

CANZUK. A political/military/economic/cultural union between Australia/Canada/New Zealand and Britain, in which Britain is the main power within its alliance structure, with global reach and globalist power. A huge access to natural resources, economic and growth potential. The need for a huge navy to protect the trade of the alliance and being the balance of power in North America and the Indo-Pacific region. Basically a 3rd super power. This issues with with a huge, so it is basically impossible. However these issues are, the NAFTA agreement which would stop Canada joining any Union, the need for a massive navy and infrastructure program to get the resources out and ship them around the world, with no huge market to put them into within the alliance.

There is also the trend of these three options, which is the Anglo-sphere Union, would which be all these options combined into one.

The independent power strategy. Or the North-South strategy. Where Britain pursues a strategy to secure its strategic position in Europe and the resources it needs in the world, independently of the Americans and EU and common wealth. Britain would seek to form a north sea trade area, fully integrate Ireland into the British economy and military. Be the lead member of the South Atlantic trade agreement, with alliances with Argentina/Angola/Portugal. Would control trade in and out of the Arctic and access to resources in the Antarctic. In this way Britain carves out its own power sphere in the world outside of the Americans/Russians/Chinese/Europeans. It would give Britain control over its own destiny in the world, would give Britain strategic security and made Britain culturally buoyant again. The downsides are massive strategic risk as the strategy is being formed. If it fails, totally destruction of the British military and economy. This would be the strategy I would want to follow. It would be the nationalist strategy as well.

UK/France alliance. A combined British/French grand strategic to push the Americans out of Europe, and allow Britain and France to grow as powers once again. Full military alliance and partial economic alliance. Sharing of strategic bases and islands around the world, join military procurement ventures. Leveraging our historic colonies around the world to push the Americans out of these places. This alliance for me has very little risk, it is the least risky. If it fails we have other options, if its is successful we still have all the other options available. The issue would be trusting the French and being engaged in a almost global conflict with the Americans/Chinese/Russians. And allying with Japan and India would also be a requirement of this alliance as well. This would be my second choice. This option would allow the British to focus our efforts in the North sea and Arctic area, and the French to focus on the Mediterranean. Us moving against the Germans/Swedish/Russians and the French against Spain/Italy/Turkey. End result would be Britain and France being the major world powers again, and having the alliance break apart because of global colonial competition.

Thanks, let me know what you think and what questions or other options you can see which I can't see.

You know what makes me sad.

Turks, British, French, Spanish, Russians and Germans all have potential to bring back the old days. I cant forget Japan and China too.

But cant say the same for Portugal or Austria.

Honestly I really feel sorry for Austria they were a superpower for like 300 years now today they are just a small landlocked country that cant do anything.

Habsburg monarchy even ruled Spain.

 

[RogerRanger]

You know what makes me sad.

Turks, British, French, Spanish, Russians and Germans all have potential to bring back the old days. I cant forget Japan and China too.

But cant say the same for Portugal or Austria.

Honestly I really feel sorry for Austria they were a superpower for like 300 years now today they are just a small landlocked country that cant do anything.

Habsburg monarchy even ruled Spain.

Basically we all agree the world was better when it was ruled by Europeans? Its fascinating because the US has been the least exploitative global power in history, yet everybody hates it because it has no history and no culture, we all view it as lesser than us. We all want our old empires back and the US actively subverts our cultures and way of life, enforcing rules on us which we don't want. So we all want to overthrow the Americans, but each time we try they form an alliance against us.

Australia really needs to take back Slovenia.

 

[Ryder]

Basically we all agree the world was better when it was ruled by Europeans? Its fascinating because the US has been the least exploitative global power in history, yet everybody hates it because it has no history and no culture, we all view it as lesser than us. We all want our old empires back and the US actively subverts our cultures and way of life, enforcing rules on us which we don't want. So we all want to overthrow the Americans, but each time we try they form an alliance against us.

Australia really needs to take back Slovenia.

Australia should takeover New Zealand lmaoo

You know New Zealand came close to being part of Australia. The British especially the New South Wales state wanted the NSW and New Zealand to be one state or province. For some reason you had some states in Australia who opposed the move this was before federation in 1901. They believed NSW was getting too powerful.

 

[RogerRanger]

Australia should takeover New Zealand lmaoo

You know New Zealand came close to being part of Australia. The British especially the New South Wales state wanted the NSW and New Zealand to be one state or province. For some reason you had some states in Australia who opposed the move this was before federation in 1901. They believed NSW was getting too powerful.

For me New Zealand should be its own country, just needs about 10 million population. Also New Zealand is like 4 hours flight from Australia, they are totally different parts of the world. That's like me flying to Turkey from Newcastle air port.

 

[Ryder]

For me New Zealand should be its own country, just needs about 10 million population. Also New Zealand is like 4 hours flight from Australia, they are totally different parts of the world. That's like me flying to Turkey from Newcastle air port.

Yeah I know but still Australia should takeover New Zealand lmaoo

Australia and New Zealand relationship is like a big brother and a younger brother relationship.

Both love dissing each other while you know being classic siblings.