Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Of course it's possible to exert influence, within limits. You're proposing that "influence" can persuade a nation to perform a 180 degree pivot in a long-standing policy and undertake actions that it has consistently considered diametrically opposed to its own interests. That's outside any realistic assessment of the limits of available influence.

Outcomes much more unlikely than that are realistic because they are real.

* U.S. support for Israel after '67

* EU turning on Yugoslavia, ripping a piece of it away and giving it to a group of bands who were previously advised by EU officials how to garner the needed support

* various U-turns in regard to being allied / rivals in the Second World

* Molotov-Ribbentropp pact

* U.S. turning away from preventing/destroying left-leaning governments in Latin America

* half of the U.S. turning towards domestic economic and fiscal policies that hurt their own self-interest

* Germany and others giving up stable national currencies and lender of last resort

* collapse of Apartheid in South Africa

* conservative German government U-turning against nuclear energy

* U.S. so-called "conservatives" u-turning towards nation building '02

* Britain allowing its colonies to go

* U.S. becoming involved in East Asia post-'38 on behalf of China (post-Nanking) despite this actually harming its trade interests

* U.S. participating in WWI without serving any of its interests, after a three-year propaganda campaign by Britain

* sudden U.S. tolerance of North Korea as a nuclear power

* Turkey turning away from EU towards its own neighbourhood policy

* France dropping Arab dictators in favour of good relations with Arab populaces

* Saudi Arabia's sudden tolerance for foreign troops '91 and later


Such U-turns happen all the time, just look at history.
China has even turned on former allies before, and that didn't take any outside influence.