Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atlantik-Brücke"
(Constitutes update -> Terje) |
m (Update) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
So are you willing to confirm, that we going with DSF now, Terje? Not that I'll switch so many constitutes and next week we've added another 3. thanks in advance. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC) | So are you willing to confirm, that we going with DSF now, Terje? Not that I'll switch so many constitutes and next week we've added another 3. thanks in advance. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 02:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC) And would you be willing to provide a few short examples of mandatary hallmarks in your view for the several networks constitutes? As it seems as I've read it, a lot of networks could fall under those terms? --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 02:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:34, 13 June 2021
Const
Currently this is lacking a |const. Good work, Terje, on adding these important groups. Any ideas on a suitable name for these incubator/hatchery/selection groups? -- Robin (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Germans, who have plenty of them, call these groups for transatlantic influence networks or just transatlantic networks. But it can be hard to generalize to other countries. The Australian American Leadership Dialogue does the same as the transatlantic networks, except it is over the Pacific.
- Tafelronde is obviously a Dutch version or part of the Milner Group; and the really influential French Le Siecle is more of a local deep state network. The equally important Boer Broederbond is also local, and somewhat in opposition to the Anglo-speaking Milner Group networks in South Africa.
- Maybe local deep state network, national deep state network or something similar would work? But that doesn't cover the often international (US) dimension...
Terje (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)---
- Well, deep state faction is a potential source of independent influence (e.g. Milner Group) which the young leaders groups don't seem to be -- they are more of a conduit. All of these distinctions are somewhat fluid, but where a different character is discernible, some language to clarify that is good. Possibly an umbrella term, such as deep state group might help. (c.f. deep state operative) - it would at least provide a const for groups with an unclassified or unknown function. -- Robin (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll sleep on it a few more nights, but deep state group in general,deep state recruitment network for the young ones, and transatlantic influence network for the groups essentially being US tools, would work.
Terje (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)---
So are you willing to confirm, that we going with DSF now, Terje? Not that I'll switch so many constitutes and next week we've added another 3. thanks in advance. --Jun (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
--Jun (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC) And would you be willing to provide a few short examples of mandatary hallmarks in your view for the several networks constitutes? As it seems as I've read it, a lot of networks could fall under those terms? --Jun (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
