Donald I, emperor of the world.

[briantrumpet]

I think they just hate everyone - except the people they know would beat them in a fist-fight, so they pretend to like them.

It ties in with my view of the what the Tory Party turned into when they were still in power (though less extreme than Trumpism): their policies seemed to be mostly about 'winding up the libs', and about what they hated (the EU, 'woke', etc), rather than a positive view of what the UK should be in a changing world. It was government by trolling, and their measure of success was how angry they could make everyone else.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think it's more that they see the US funding Nato and the UN and wondering what they get for the money, oblivious to the idea that sometimes it's not always about material or financial gains. There's a short clip somewhere of an interview with G W Bush where he explains why the US can't follow an isolationist path but I can't find it right now.

 

[Psamathe]

I find the whole anti Europe sentiment odd. I assume it is because there are several far right populists in the Trump administration that despise liberal democracies?

Possibilities:
1. Trump believes (or has said) that the EU was only created "to screw the US" - and for those US politicians differentiating between Europe and EU means using a few brain cells and seconds of using them (a bridge too far).

2. Trump and his cheer leaders seem to be agents of Russia these days sop their attitude towards Europe/EU is more echo of and pursuing Russia's policy.

Ian

 

[Ian H]

(you should have saved that for the other thread.)

Nah. It's not woke enough.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I think it's more that they see the US funding Nato and the UN and wondering what they get for the money, oblivious to the idea that sometimes it's not always about material or financial gains. There's a short clip somewhere of an interview with G W Bush where he explains why the US can't follow an isolationist path but I can't find it right now.

I don't but this line Trump pushes that it is about 'fairness' in relation to balance of funding for NATO for example. I think it is a smokescreen, they have just bought into the Putin narrative and want to pursue an isolationist path as they believe in American exceptionalism.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Possibilities:
1. Trump believes (or has said) that the EU was only created "to screw the US" - and for those US politicians differentiating between Europe and EU means using a few brain cells and seconds of using them (a bridge too far).

2. Trump and his cheer leaders seem to be agents of Russia these days sop their attitude towards Europe/EU is more echo of and pursuing Russia's policy.

Ian

I firmly believe it is the second one!

 

[Psamathe]

I don't but this line Trump pushes that it is about 'fairness' in relation to balance of funding for NATO for example. I think it is a smokescreen, they have just bought into the Putin narrative and want to pursue an isolationist path as they believe in American exceptionalism.

Trump expects Europe to achieve 5% GDP on defence. Fair when the US spends significantly less than 5%?

Ian

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Trump expects Europe to achieve 5% GDP on defence. Fair when the US spends significantly less than 5%?

Ian

That is exactly why I don't buy his argument that it is about fairness. As you have pointed out, he wants European countries to commit to a higher GDP spend than the US has committed to. I don't believe his point that this is about addressing an imbalance, I think it is Trump laying the foundations for US withdrawal from NATO/European defence in general, as this is aligned to his Russian 'interests'.

 

[Psamathe]

That is exactly why I don't buy his argument that it is about fairness. As you have pointed out, he wants European countries to commit to a higher GDP spend than the US has committed to. I don't believe his point that this is about addressing an imbalance, I think it is Trump laying the foundations for US withdrawal from NATO/European defence in general, as this is aligned to his Russian 'interests'.

Also, add how disparaging US/Trumpton politicians are when Europe does "step-up" eg to provide "boots on the ground" as peacekeepers eg Vance and his "some random country that hasn't fought war in 30 years".

Ian

 

[Beebo]

The USA have long been the self appointed leaders of the free world, and with that comes benefits and responsibilities. It isn’t surprising that some smaller states have freeloaded a bit.

Suddenly they don’t like the responsibility and don’t perceive any benefit to themselves. But they are being extremely short sighted.

To openly embarrass your allies is a complete failure in diplomacy.

Will the adults in the CIA and military step in at some point?

 

[briantrumpet]

Also, add how disparaging US/Trumpton politicians are when Europe does "step-up" eg to provide "boots on the ground" as peacekeepers eg Vance and his "some random country that hasn't fought war in 30 years".

Ian

It's government-by-trolling, so they'll come up with some insult for anyone or any entity whom they perceive as sharing their oligarchical world view. It doesn't have to be based in fact, obviously. In fact, better if it's not, as then even more offence is taken at the lies.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Also, add how disparaging US/Trumpton politicians are when Europe does "step-up" eg to provide "boots on the ground" as peacekeepers eg Vance and his "some random country that hasn't fought war in 30 years".

Ian

Yes, particularly as by all accounts Vance was not actually a combat troop. If Europe gets its act together and really does build towards a defence infrastructure that makes the need for US arms and wider military aid in general nearly redundant, it would be a sight to behold. I don't think any of them quite understand what a fully independent Europe means for the US in terms of reduced military contacts/arms sales, lack of intelligence sharing and loss of access to European infrastructure such as military bases etc.

 

[Psamathe]

Will the adults in the CIA and military step in at some point?

At the moment I suspect they won't. If they did they'd likely find themselves out of a job and with massive legal bills as DoJ pursues unrelated vindictive investigations into everything they've ever done (in their lives).

Ian

 

[laurentian]

In the main, I think USA, up to this point, have been a good and dependable ally. Their firepower allied to that of other NATO members seems (to me) to have maintained peace in Europe, the US and the wider world for many decades since the second world war.

There have of course, been many questions regarding their involvements in South East Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan but nevertheless, the NATO agreement (Article 5?) has been honoured by other members of NATO in these conflicts. There are many reasons why NATO was set up but set up it was and I see it as a "gentleman's agreement" built on trust and honour (there was nothing other than the "agreement" stopping any NATO member from ducking out should they have wanted to in the past - what would really have happened if a country had pulled out? - I can't see that it would have lead to conflict between NATO and the nation in question). The present US government seem to be devoid of the honour required for the present set up of NATO to work. Trump and his cronies are only looking at the balance sheet and see their contribution to NATO to be a waste of money without realising that: a) Peace in Europe and the wider world benefits the US and b) Sometimes money can be spent not because there is something immediately tangible in return but because it's the right thing to do.

I guess being the worlds super power may give them certain rights but this lot seem to choose to ignore the responsibilities that come with those rights and power. I believe that there is probably a very good case for the US to say that Europe should contribute more to NATO but this is obviously not the way to go about it. Any potential "bad actor" can readily see that Europe is as weak now as it has been in the past 60 years due to the complete lack of statesmanship or political nous offered by the US at this time (notwithstanding their abject incompetence at times).

If the US intends to pull out of NATO then surely the way to do it is to announce that this pull out will be phased to ensure that there is no weakening of the NATO military capability. The US excuse for their potential pulling out is that they cannot fight on two fronts (i.e. Russia/Europe and China) - phased withdrawal would ensure that both of these fronts are covered (and probably be of great benefit to the US arms industry!)

In the past the US was seen as a large friendly dog in a small room with a very waggy tail, right now, the whole world sees them as untrustworthy, dishonourable, self serving clowns with a worrying appetite for far right ideology.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

The USA have long been the self appointed leaders of the free world, and with that comes benefits and responsibilities. It isn’t surprising that some smaller states have freeloaded a bit.

Suddenly they don’t like the responsibility and don’t perceive any benefit to themselves. But they are being extremely short sighted.

To openly embarrass your allies is a complete failure in diplomacy.

Will the adults in the CIA and military step in at some point?

I would disagree ever so slightly. I don't think it is a case of not wanting the responsibility, they are simply ideologically opposed to it. They are now a populist/autocratic govt. that seeks isolationism and alignment with other similar regimes (even I feel like I am crazy saying this whilst typing!). Diplomacy no longer registers as they do not feel it necessary.

Sadly, nobody sensible in authority is going to step in, they are utterly terrified of Trump. I think it is going to be down to the public to get rid of him, which is not impossible when thinking about how badly he is burning his own country.