Why do you believe military allies are more likely to trade with each other? Neutral countries are open to trade with everyone, and there is no direct link between trade and military alliances. Correlation of trade and defense agreements is not evidence of a causal relationship. However, military agreements do directly result in embargoes and blockades of nations, which is antithetical to free trade.
The free market does not "love" any particular business model or supply chain by default. It just means various individuals and voluntary associations are free to find what works and change as needed without political intervention.
Regional specialization and trade are beneficial to everyone. Imagine of Canada mandated only Canadian-grown citrus fruit could be sold in Canada for an extreme example of why economic nationalism is dumb. Yes, most of the world's chips are made in Taiwan, but you may want to look at the many anti-market factors which also pushed manufacturing overseas. Taxes and regulatory pressures played a major role in making domestic manufacturing untenable in the US, and new subsidy schemes or mandates do not restore sustainability, they add chaos.
The US became wealthy through freer markets and freer trade, and only this wealth created by market action made the Leviathan State parasite possible. It is now killing its host, and military expansion with pointless wars is one of the key indicators of a dying empire.
Military allies provide a sense of stability.
Trade Agreements usually have processes to resolve international company disputes and dealings with companies in countries without an agreement can be a costly legal exercise.
It's not just trade, this stability offers US companies opportunities to partner with international companies on specific ventures which obviously requires a lot of trust since billions of dollars are often at stake.
I don't know if the USA develops military alliances specifically for trade or if its developed alliances with major trading partners but a huge number of its top 30 trading partners are also military allies.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree whether this is all the right way or best way to operate. I'm just saying that I have no idea what the cost to US companies and citizens would be if the US were to drop all its military alliances.
Unsupported assertion. The past several decades of pointless war empirically suggest otherwise. Hell, WW1 exploded from a minor incident to continent-plus conflict because of alliances and treaties.
That's just an appeal to the status quo. Meanwhile, in the real world, merchants created solutions and processes to resolve such disputes centuries ago. Innumerable disputes are resolved globally even today by arbitration. There is nothing about dispute resolution which requires territorial monopolies in violence, a.k.a governments.
The US trades globally and meddles globally. Correlation is not causation either way. The US traded globally before NATO and even before WW1 when neutrality was at least nominally the usual policy, notwithstanding the anti-market and anti-human gunboat diplomacy or Banana Wars.
I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, there are a lot less wars between countries now than there was 250-100 years ago, and I think that's due to networks of military alliances and trading partner agreements... I do still think if the US dropped its military alliances there would be unintended consequences and negative effects on US citizens and you remain convinced it would be positive.
It's an interesting thought experiment and I appreciate the time you've taken to explain your position and thought processes. I hope you enjoy the remainder of your weekend.
Again, you are relying on a correlation/causation fallacy. Trade reduces the likelihood of conflict. One of the saving graces in the American saber-rattling against China preventing the hawks from doing something violent and stupid is the trade connections between their respective populations. They don't really care if war kills the people, but if war kills their tax revenue, they have a real problem. And again, WW1 blew up because of old military alliances and treaties. Military alliances increase the likelihood of conflict. Did you not see how the mere possibility of Ukraine cozying up to NATO helped spark open war again a year and a half ago? And all these "allies" are pumping weapons into the warzone while Ukranians die.
I really don't think that military alliances increase the likelihood of conflict because within a military alliance network, you don't attack the ally of one of your allies. The number of international wars has dramatically decreased in the last 70 years.
My guess would be that China likely hasn't attacked Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc because they have strong military allies, not because its trading a lot with them.
I don't truly believe that NATO was the reason Putin invaded Ukraine.
If that was the reason, it has backfired spectacularly, now that Finland and Sweden have joined and Putin has lost half his army. He can stop killing Ukrainians and stop sending Russians to die at any moment... but he's unlikely to, I think. I really don't understand how he can claim any sort of victory at this point.
We might not ever know exactly why Putin decided to invade Russia, I think it was either to reestablish the Soviet Union or to grab Ukraine's resources like natural gas and lithium. Without ally support, many more Ukrainians, particularly non-combatants, would have been murdered by Russian soldiers.
Dear god, where do I even start? Everything you just said is laughably wrong.
First, if you think military alliances prevent wars, I suggest reviewing World War I history. Also, I have no idea where you've gotten this idea that the world is more peaceful now than it was 70 years ago. Do you have any idea how many armed conflicts the US alone is involved in? The US has taken over meddling in the affairs of African countries now that the Soviet Union isn't around to do it anymore. Neither is justified...
...and I'm tired of tankies pretending that it is.
Next, no, NATO expansion was definitely the provocation. The democratically-elected government of Ukraine (which was allied with Russia) was overthrown by a NATO-backed coup in 2014. The oblasts of Donetsk, Lugansk, and Crimea refused to accept this, and seceded. Putin ordered the occupation of Crimea, but Ukraine invaded Donetsk and Lugansk.
Pro-NATO shills in Ukraine call this the "Euromaidan revolution," but everyone else calls it the "Euromaidan coup." Does it justify Putin's actions? No, absolutely not, two wrongs don't make a right. But my question to you is this: why does Ukraine deserve self-determination, but Donetsk and Lugansk don't?
Also, Russia hasn't lost half its army (just half its tanks), and Ukraine isn't winning. Ukrainians don't even want to fight anymore, and NATO is calling them cowards for it.
Putin doesn't even want more territory. It's an administrative nightmare to expand Russia, and Russia has plenty of natural resources, just not a whole lot of high-tech manufacturing, hence the need for trade, which segues perfectly to my next point. Putin only wants a direct land connection to Crimea because without it, Russia has no ice-free deepwater ports. This wasn't an issue when Ukraine and Russia were allies, but as you can see, alliances aren't forever, thus nations need to be as self-sufficient as possible. Putin knows this, I know this, but the oligarchs don't care, and thanks to systemic apathy brought on by corruption and government red tape, change is going to have to come from the top. We can't rely on West Taiwan forever.
I'm saying that the number of international wars has decreased, ie, the number of times one country has attacked another country is less in the last 70 years than, say, from 1800 to 1950. I think this is due to increased military ally networks in the world since WWI.
Ukraine is winning for as long as Putin doesn't succeed. As long as Putin doesn't forcibly take over the government of Ukraine, they are winning. If they're able to limit the number of towns the Russian army will bomb to the ground and civilians they murder, they're winning. Again, the Russian army can stop their invasion at any time to save both the lives of Ukrainians and Russians.
I honestly don't know much about this region, but the people of Donetsk and Lugansk want to succeed from Ukraine then I would support that. With nearly no knowledge of the history, if Ukraine invaded Donetsk and Lugansk and took away their rights that's clearly wrong. I don't see how the Russian army bombing their cities into dust and murdering the citizens actually helps the people of those regions now though.
Your opinion that Putin just wants a land bridge to Crimea definitely sounds plausible. I haven't heard that opinion before so thanks for sharing that. Personally I'm not sure if trying to march on Kyiv, turning cities to dust and murdering civilians is better than developing ports in places like Sochi, but again, I really don't know much about any of this so I'm sure there are many factors I'm not understanding.