USA Politics

[Azas]

Trump may not be able to pull the U.S. out of NATO on his own, but his overall stance is already sending a signal. There is growing doubt that the US would act decisively against russia.

Under Trump, the risk that putin might test NATO’s resolve increased significantly. Seeing all of Trump’s shenanigans, putin might consider targeting NATO’s eastern flank. That would be a moment of truth - not only for us in the Baltic states, but for all of Europe. Will it act?

Half measures against tyrants don’t work.

 

[Vaenyr]

The one "good" thing about the utter shitshow that the second Trump admin is, is that Europe, Canada and other nations and groups of nations are reevaluating their commitments to each other, and are creating new alliances. We simply can't trust the US anymore. Even if the next president is a Democrat again, and they try to mend a lot of the damage that Trump caused, we simply can't trust that a third of the population won't vote for another fascist dismantling everything, while a large part of the population sits out the election (or depending on the shenanigans of the GOP won't be eligible to vote in the first place).

 

[MrK]

Pam Bondi has been fired. No doubt she'll be replaced by another soulless, middle-aged white man who turns out to be even shittier than Bondi.

 

[Vaenyr]

Hey, at least the DOW was over 50k. Yay?

 

[____no5]

The one "good" thing about the utter shitshow that the second Trump admin is, is that Europe, Canada and other nations and groups of nations are reevaluating their commitments to each other, and are creating new alliances. We simply can't trust the US anymore.

Trump just made it visible to everyone, but US was not to be trusted since at least Bush Jr.

Even if the next president is a Democrat again, and they try to mend a lot of the damage that Trump caused, we simply can't trust that a third of the population won't vote for another fascist dismantling everything, while a large part of the population sits out the election (or depending on the shenanigans of the GOP won't be eligible to vote in the first place).

Democrat or Republican you'd still get a McCain in foreign policy. US will only behave like a normal country when dollar loose its dominance, a world war away.

 

[Azas]

John McCain would have been great. He understood what russia is about and likely would have acted more decisively.

And let’s not pretend we don’t understand that if the United States were to decline significantly, other powers would step in. China wouldn’t be better, Iran wouldn’t be better, and russia certainly wouldn’t be better. If there’s a vacuum of power, it will inevitably be filled - that’s just how the world works.

Right now, there aren’t truly adequate substitutes for the U.S., even if it sometimes behaves like an elephant in a china shop. Europe could be a strong alternative, but it remains somewhat dormant and insufficiently federalized.

 

[Vaenyr]

Trump just made it visible to everyone, but US was not to be trusted since at least Bush Jr.

Eh, that's too cynical. Not saying that the Dem administrations didn't have more than problematic foreign policy. All presidents are war criminals after all. But you can look at Biden for example, and see how much damage he tried to undo after Trump's first administration. There was commitment for defense pacts, for environmental treaties, and so on. There's nuance there. Painting with a broad brush that puts all administrations on the same level misses just how unusual and dangerous Trump really is in comparison.

Not that any of that was a surprise, mind you. Progressives warned against all that, yet Trump still managed to surpass our dire warnings.

 

[____no5]

Eh, that's too cynical. Not saying that the Dem administrations didn't have more than problematic foreign policy. All presidents are war criminals after all. But you can look at Biden for example, and see how much damage he tried to undo after Trump's first administration. There was commitment for defense pacts, for environmental treaties, and so on. There's nuance there.

Biden is largely responsible for not preventing Ukraine war and actively leading EU to energy suicide and total dependency from US, economic recession which Trump capitalized for his "division of labour" and Europe's remilitarisation so USA could focused on the East theater, today Iran tomorrow China. I have no love for Biden who he is part of the same continuity of imperialist agenda like everybody else.
He gave a blanc check to Netanyahu's genocide. He didn’t restore JCPOA.

Painting with a broad brush that puts all administrations on the same level misses just how unusual and dangerous Trump really is in comparison.

Trump is the worst of them all. But he is part of the same plan for imperial dominance.
Since the fall of USSR US dogma is that there could be no coexistence with peer competitors, anyone who is rising consists a threat, and that's why there's this strange rhetoric of "China threat" a country which is an ocean away, when US is the one that has tenths of military bases and an army worth of soldiers based around that country. By the way that reshape of Marine Corps of linked article to deal with "ChinaThreat" started with Biden.

NATO expansion started with Clinton, and the active planing for the naval blockade of China, the cause for the next major conflict, most probably started during Clinton's administration as well. Not even counting strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan which started late 70s early 80s.

 

[Jer]

Since the fall of USSR US dogma is that there could be no coexistence with peer competitors, anyone who is rising consists a threat, and that's why there's this strange rhetoric of "China threat" a country which is an ocean away, when US is the one that has tenths of military bases and an army worth of soldiers based around that country.

If China was a western-style democracy this would be a completely different conversation, so I call bullshit on your whole premise.

 

[Azas]

I saw rumors on Twitter that Donald Trump is in the hospital.

 

[____no5]

If China was a western-style democracy this would be a completely different conversation, so I call bullshit on your whole premise.

You mean to say US is entitled to encircle and blockade all non "western-style democracies"?

 

[Yax]

You mean man the bases, which access to they have been granted to through treaties with sovereign nations? Yes...?

Or are you talking about how China encircle and blockade Taiwan?

 

[Jer]

You mean to say US is entitled to encircle and blockade all non "western-style democracies"?

No, I’m saying the response to the rise of a western-style democracy as a peer superpower would be fundamentally different from the response to the rise of an aggressive authoritarian regime like China. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the U.S. at all, regardless of what some paywalled article from 1992 may or may not say.

 

[____no5]

You mean man the bases, which access to they have been granted to through treaties with sovereign nations? Yes...?

Countries with foreign armies stationed inside are not sovereign, sorry. You want to say that Germany or Japan would have chosen to have a foreign army inside them if they hadn't loose the war?
This is a very naive way of thinking.

Or are you talking about how China encircle and blockade Taiwan?

Have you ever heard about One China Policy? Taiwan is part of China as per UN what are you talking about?
As per "encirclement", take a look at this:

*Note that China has built a pipeline connecting Myanmar to South China to by-pass this planned sea blockade and US is funding Myanmar rebels who actively sabotage this pipeline.

No, I’m saying the response to the rise of a western-style democracy as a peer superpower would be fundamentally different from the response to the rise of an aggressive authoritarian regime like China. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the U.S. at all, regardless of what some paywalled article from 1992 may or may not say.

First, whatever country is considered "western-style democracy" is in USA's orbit, a.k.a. vassals, so they wouldn't challenge USA in any way shape or form. I remind you that Japan sabotaged their own economy when USA told them so and Germany stayed silent upon the destruction of Nordstream.

Second, the only aggressor here is the US. I don't remember China being aggressive to other countries for the last 40+ years the way US has been.
On the other hand US is a country with hundreds of military bases around the world, with hundreds of political assassinations under its belt, regime change operations, unprovoked wars which just started the most stupid and dangerous unprovoked aggression in centuries.

The last year alone they were killing boats offshore and kidnapped the president of Venezuela, bombed Nigeria, Yemen, bombed Iran during negotiations, regime changed Nepal and you even have the stomach to talk about Chinese "aggression"?

 

[Jer]

I remind you that Japan sabotaged their own economy when USA told them so

Source…?

Second, the only aggressor here is the US. I don't remember China being aggressive to other countries for the last 40+ years the way US has been.

Yeah, running secret police stations in foreign countries isn’t even remotely aggressive. Or the Belt & Road bait and switch, which will deliver dozens of ports and potential military bases into China’s hands by grifting smaller countries in the global south, jerking them around with the terms of their loans. Regularly challenging and even ramming ships using international waters in the South China Sea. And “wolf warrior diplomacy” isn’t aggressive? Give me a break. Also, I haven’t even touched on the rampant aggression in cyberspace.

And don’t wax into whataboutism here, trying to say it’s less aggressive than the U.S. and therefore doesn’t count. That’s not the question that was asked — it was purely about China’s aggression.

Also, I’ve discussed some of these topics with you at length already, and I don’t have the patience to rehash arguments you may have conveniently forgotten.