We, the USA, is not going to have any friends left... Seems like Trump is pissing off Canada, Mexico, NATO, and EU.
The last part is in itself a serious problem, flawed reasoning behind the messages are a compounding factor.
And this isn’t just the same as before. Past Presidents don’t claim that NATO partners owe the US money based on a misunderstanding of how NATO works (they have complained about NATO partners not pulling their weight which is why all of them have set concrete targets for increasing involvement which are set to take place over a few more years, for which of course Trump will try to take credit ignoring that these were negotiated by Bush/Obama).
They also didn’t pull out of treaties such as the Iran deal or the Paris climate accord the way Trump did, or constantly threaten countries about pulling out of treaties that the US pushed for and drive such as NAFTA or TPP.
They also didn’t try to wreck other countries’ economies based on the fact that they need to placate their base such as with NATO ally Turkey.
They also didn’t spread lies and misinformation about partner countries based on the latest Fox News conspiracy without first checking with the largest intelligence operations in the world which is available to them like he did with falsehood about London and the U.K. before visiting.
They also didn’t have allied intelligence agencies basically stop sharing sensitive information with their US intelligence counterparts because they leaked (inadvertently or deliberately) it to Putin.
There is a lot more than just “media hysterics” that make things different.
Can you explain your differentiation to me on how past presidents complaints about NATO members not meeting obligations is based on a proper understanding of how NATO works, but the current president's same complaints are based on a misunderstanding of how NATO works?
Or did you mean conspiracy theory?
Five Eyes will be never a friend of continental Europe, no matter what administration.
It's not just about Trump anymore. He could be kicked out of office at the next election, sure. But the elected republican leadership, who have their own democratic mandate, are just rolling over and letting all this happen. If they can't be relied on now, they can't be relied on after Trump either. As a conservative Brit, that grew up politically during the titanic partnership between Reagan and Maggie, this is all bewilderingly horrible.
I still remember the Falkland war and the way that, while it took the US a while to realise what was happening, in the end here was never any real question over here that we would be able to rely on the US in the end. I don't think that would have been substantially different under any subsequent US president even right up to Obama. But now? I don't think there is any such confidence. Can you imagine a British Prime Minister worrying about what Trump might tweet after we sank the Belgrano?
Trumps criticism is against the EU, Trump is a nationalist, something he is scolded for by the left, but everyone wants to forget his nationalism when it fits the argument that he is anti-UK (or any other European country)
And not to mention, Trumps "foe" comment was in regard to trading with EU, not a military conflict.
Trump's trade actions against the EU, including Britain, and other allies were on national security grounds. He's publicly sided with Putin against his own national security agencies. None of this is encouraging from a European perspective.
Nobody is anticipating military conflict between the EU and US, but hostile acts via security agencies? Especially targeting trade and economic activities? Operations on that front that would have been inconceivable just a few years ago cannot be discounted.
Is this a factual statement? What is the source?
And I don't mean this in a snarky way, I mean it in a literal, epistemological sense.
I regularly read, both in forums and in the headlines, that "everyone" believes certain "things", but whenever I did just a little into the details I almost inevitably find that in reality, there is an extremely wide variety of opinions. After all, life is extremely complicated. So, likewise, I am interested interested in reading a bit deeper into this particular fact so I can be a more informed voter.
Are these statements factual? What are your sources? In a literal, epistemological sense, by what means did you obtain the information you have written in your comment?
EDIT: And it appears I have once again deviated from the acceptable narrative and had my commenting privileges suspended for the day. This is how perceptions are managed.
We are having a conversation, not posting peer reviewed fact checked academic papers. If you doubt or disagree with a post then it's much more effective and useful to others to provide reasons for your disagreement or counter-arguments and evidence. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, this thread is off the home screen and effectively dead. We're just communicating with each other at this point, so I'm just trying to explain how the commenting culture works, as I understand it. Best regards.
"Between 1999 and 2006, Germany’s federal intelligence service BND spied on around 2,000 targets at political institutions, international organizations, banks, companies and weapons producers in Austria, said daily Der Standard and weekly Profil."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-germany-spying/au...
"A number of US businesses and government entities were being monitored by the German foreign intelligence agency, according to documents received by the German newspaper Der Spiegel.
Between 1998 and 2006, several White House emails, phone, and fax numbers were reportedly tracked using a set of 4,000 keywords."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Rule of thumb - never trust spy agencies.
---
Ken: Mr. Wimmer, can you imagine headlines "Vladimir Putin has listened to cellphone of the German chancellor for ten years"?
Wimmer: That would lead to revolutionary situation in Germany.
Ken: And if they would say "China runs a flat spy operation in Germany"?
Wimmer: They are accused of that anyway.
Ken: But why nothing happened after NSA affair? At first they said "we don't do such thing", then "we do it a will do it further".
Wimmer: That's a question of national dignity.
Ken: Do we still have it?
Wimmer: You already answered that.
Ken: Did I?
Wimmer: By asking the question. If it happened anywhere else, we would definitely cut the contact. But the reality is, as you just described. Business as usual.
---
Based on information from interviews like this, I think that nothing has happened, and no action was taken. US (correctly) assessed, that Germany can do nothing, and did what they wanted/needed/whatever. Germany can't do anything from it's position of weakness.
If Germany wants to change that, the steps necessary do not take into account the past, current or future US administration. Only German interests.
Both he and Willy Wimmer toe the Kremlin line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KenFM
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/juergen-elsaesser-und-sei...
See how easy is to label someone? Address the points, do not ad-hominem the messenger.
Wimmer spent decades in CDU, with results to show. He "toes the Kremlin line" because he disagreed with the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we cannot have that.
My translation from the introduction of “Rechte Hetze im Netz - eine unterschätzte Gefahr” by Patrick Gensing: “This heated atmosphere is fired by pro-Russian strategists who propagate a close alliance with Putins Russia. The result is a cross-front that wants to impose an authoritarian-nationalist system.”
I assume Jebsen and Wimmer try to suggest that Germany is not a sovereign state. Points like that are often made in their circles and link to the “Reichsbürgerbewegung”.
Trump isn't the problem, he's just the populist enabler that is allowing the GOP to undermine American institutions. Even if Trump and his cronies are thrown in jail (wishful thinking), remaining in power will be the republicans who have actually done the most damage and will continue to do so as long as American's stay silent.
Is it hysteria to believe his words?
Next week/month/year he'll declare the EU are our best friends, likely timed with a trade deal. See: how he behaved with Macron, or how he snap pivoted with Mexico and was lauding them.
He blatantly isn't representative of much of anything, even in his own administration. We're seeing that demonstrated on a daily basis.
You have to understand that Trump operates by an obnoxiously simplistic - often antagonistic - method in every single thing he does. It starts with lambasting and overreach, which he uses as a tool to stake a far out position/demand that isn't expected to be realized. In his approach, that is used to get something closer to what he really would like out of a negotiation. Every action and word Trump says on these fronts is part of a negotiation as far as he's concerned. One may plainly find his negotiating tactics poor or disagreeable, of course.
So to explain the EU statement by his approach: why call the EU a foe? He wants the EU to recoil and respond that they are in fact not a foe. He's trying out that statement to see if that pushes them to give ground. The idea is likely that they would find that terrifying, to have the US as an actual foe, or to consider that the US may now view the EU as a foe. Give me a great trade deal or we're not going to be friends any longer.... Don't push us any further, or else. There are few proclamations off the table as far as this process goes for Trump. He'll keep it up all the way to burning the house down. In that negotiating strategy, as far as Trump is concerned, the worst thing you can do is give ground. Outrageous statements are preferable in his approach, than to soften and give ground.
I really don't think he's insane. I think he's a narcissistic man child and an idiot. I'll expand on that. Just look at his behaviour on The Apprentice. He would routinely favour ineffective sycophants over effective, successful independent minded candidates, and that's what he does in office.
Being an idiot doesn't mean you're completely useless. There are some things he's very good at, his father prepared him well for success in the real estate world. However he has a very simplistic view of the world and doesn't have the intellectual skills to change that. This leads him to actions that seem insane to anyone who understands their context and implications, but he doesn't understand those so from his perspective his actions are rational. Combine that with his instinctual preference for the appearance of success over actual success, and you've got a recipe for real trouble.
He has the power of the US dollar and the US banking system to force other countries to his will.
He has abandoned allies of 70+ years standing, has abandoned positions regarding the US influence in Asia, the Pacific and Europe.
He does not appear constrained by diplomacy and is engaging in a zero-sum game of bullying.
Any nation that doesn't take this seriously is in danger.
I agree with your assessment of his approach, but it's not up to us to "understand" how Trump operates. It should be up to your Congress to rein him in and enforce checks and balances on his behavior. They have abdicated that responsibility completely.
But taking him seriously is hysteria!?
Trump introduced tariffs against Canada under the rubric of "national security". He may not have meant that Canada was a security threat, but he didn't do that.
Diplomacy is a requirement of any nation-state. Trump has hollowed out the State department and has issued proclamations that overturn 70 years of US policy on international norms of relations with allies in NATO, regard for WTO rules, and opposition to autocrats and criminal nation-states.
It's not "hysteria", it's a practical reaction by nations to the perceived and actual changes in US foreign policy.
This is going to be a big deal for many years: until now U.S. foreign policy was based on the assumption that we took agreements seriously. The casual attacks on long-time allies are going to take generations to undo.
Many of the wackier conservatives felt that Obama had done a terrible wrong to Russia in the 2010/2011 timeframe after Putin's election. I recall hearing a similar message for a period of time on radio shows. They felt that the US/NATO had benefited from Russia's gracious offer to use Russian controlled railways to supply Afghanistan instead of the expensive and problematic road routes through Pakistan.
It sounded really strange at the time; in retrospect it was probably the early phases of the Russian influence campaign that peaked in 2016.
Putting pressure on our allies? Good. No relationship should be above examining and reevaluating. The EU has been imposing its will on the entire internet, I'm glad the US president is not in lock step with them.
It may not mean much to westerners (although it should, nuclear non-proliferation is a big deal), but large portions of the world see this as a good thing.
Not saying that easing tensions isn't a good Thing. But Trump doesn't deserve any credit for it besides giving away a lot in Exchange for a poor PR stunt.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cheery-trump-tweets-stark...
> U.S. intelligence reportedly estimates that the North Koreans are on track to create five to eight new weapons this year, figures apace with the average of six weapons a year that they were constructing before the Trump-Kim summit.
> Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, already deeply doubtful that inroads could be made with the North Koreans, has become disillusioned with the process when faced with the evidence, per NBC.
> President Donald Trump, on the other hand, continues to tweet messages like “we will get it done together!” and “we will prove everyone wrong!” displaying his affection for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his desire to keep foreign policy messaging positive before the midterms.
Russia is a two-bit crime organization that happens to hold land. Its GDP is less than Italy and its controlled by a dictator that has consolidated power using patronage.
There is no need for "improved relations" with that nation until it has reformed.
Posting like that is a bannable offense on HN. It's not ok to slur another country—any country—regardless of how you feel about geopolitics.
More generally, HN is no place for nationalistic flamewar, so please avoid nationalistic flamebait when posting here. It may be upticking on the rest of the internet, but that makes it more important to avoid here.
I don’t see how you can say this. What’s disastrous about a more open and unified Korea? Tensions have been steadily decreasing since the Trump meeting and if you follow Asian news, you’d see he is getting credit for helping the situation.
No he didn't. He reached agreement in principle with Mexico on NAFTA reforms that Mexico decribes as requiring Canadian agreement to even turn into an actionable concrete deal.
> and has improved relations with N. Korea more than any other president in history.
Granting more visibility and prestige to NK for no concrete results than any other President since NK existed isn't a win, it's getting played.
> His domestic policies might be a wreck
They are.
> but he's actually doing pretty good with his handling of foreign policy.
No, that's a wreck, too, and the second thing you try to cite as a win is a big example.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/09/north-korea-leaves-missiles-...
Not giving him credit for improving this relationship is dishonest.
The agreement was about tariffs between the US and Mexico (not Canada) regarding automobile parts and assembly and relative wages.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/8/27/17786020/usa-mexico-naft...
you can live a life with that world view but what a hollow hollow inhuman life. and those people will desert you the moment you cease to have power.
He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance. He's turning over the tables of the moneychangers and running at the world with a sourge... or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.
Hasn’t it? Imagine if the trillion+ spent in Iraq+Afghanistan had instead been invested in infrastructure in the US.
> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal
What makes you think that?
Ford isn't going to import the Focus from China, because of Trump's misguided policies. They will sell the production elsewhere. The US is deprived of an efficient small car, but it hasn't gained any employment, production or anything else.
Harley Davison will move production of motorcycles to be sold in the EU to the EU and elsewhere. This deprives the US of manufacturing and the associated jobs. It doesn't deprive the EU of Harley Davisons.
> he's playing to a feeling
Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion. Sometime in the last 10 years or so did we decide The One True Proper Way To Run The World, but it wasn't reported in newspapers?
> that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright"
They think certain things are a "birthright", as opposed to thinking (correctly or incorrectly) that it is something they have earned?
> has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies
Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?
> and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.
Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"? I see the debate over nationalism vs globalism as little different than capitalism vs socialism. The US tends to be somewhat more towards the capitalist end of the spectrum, which yields some good results and some bad, I don't agree with the notion that any of that necessarily "belongs" or must necessarily be shared with the overall world. Demanding "charity" is extremely offensive to me. To be clear, I believe charity is very important and by my morality I essentially consider it a near obligation if things have worked out very well for you in life, but I simultaneously believe that it should be absolutely voluntary.
> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance
This sounds lovely at first glance, until you put a little thought into it. Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate? Would you have us believe it is an accepted and widely practiced norm to negotiate in a manner that does not accentuate your strengths, in order to best achieve an agreement most beneficial to your goals?
> or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.
Speculation on my part, but this seems fairly inline with the popular notion that Trump lacks or has lost his mental faculties, and his supporters are all motivated purely by uninformed emotions. Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?
No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic. If you can provide an argument that Trump's behavior has been primarily based on logic, I would like to read it. I have read his tweets and listened to his speeches though, and found plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?
Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist", its use seems to have become so diluted and diffuse as to have lost any practical meaning.
>Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"?
That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."
>Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate?
I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him.
>Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?
I did say some. You're talking about one camp, and I'm talking about another.
I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.
I can only assume that people who voted for Trump on some intellectual or rational political basis can only have done so because he was the only option afforded to them... but I do assert that the reason that became the case was his appeal to emotion, almost in spite of intellect. Those people should be more disappointed in him than anyone.
Let's see if I can figure out why I'm still triggered. For productivity, I will try to steelman your words.
- "No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic." - Agreed.
- "Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist"" - I see the point, yet at the same time, I wonder if you sincerely acknowledge that there is a genuine spectrum between nationalist and globalist preference. To me it seems obvious and no less controversial than capitalist vs socialist.
- "That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."" - Here I disagree. Now, there's no doubt this statement, and the schtick around it is deliberately vague in order to nicely fit into a wide variety of world views (some racist I imagine). But where I (seem to) disagree with you is I don't detect a belief that it could be anything but a return to ~the good ole slave owning days. America, and the whole world, has changed drastically in the last few decades, there are all sorts of completely unoffensive things that it would be beneficial to return to. I wonder if this is psychologically similar to the "racist dog whistle" some people hear everywhere.
- "I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him." - here I mostly disagree (other than the belligerent & insulting part), but I suspect this one would be irreconcilable.
If you're wondering why I go through the effort to write the above nonsense, it's because I agree with your next statement:
> I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.
I have a feeling if we don't identify what the root causes (ie: your words, which I suspect seem perfectly appropriate and accurate to you, "trigger" me in a psychological manner that isn't a simple disagreement, and undoubtedly this occurs on the other side of the spectrum) of the incredible political polarization, this problem is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better. A Trump can likely only get elected in this type of environment (see: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/), and if the same environment exists two years from now, it vastly improves his chances for reelection.