I wonder why americans trashed their own hegemony in record time. Was it just to own the libs or are they lashing out because the elites know something we dont
US non-interventionism was the norm for the longest time. Hence US entering WWII late - the US had no interest in helping their European cousins for a long time.
Perhaps this is just the US going back to its natural state.
US practised non-interventionism when wasn't the dominant world power. It's existed for 229 years, only in the 75 years after 2 world wars dethroned Britain did it become dominant. Since then its pretty much continuously projected it's power using miliary means across the world.
Look around, and you'll notice most countries are non-interventionist. That includes countries that were once attempted to colonise the world - like Britain, France and Spain. I guess once it was clear they could not take on the USA single handedly, they stopped spending on their military. Looked at as an asset that generates a return, what use is it if you have to ask the USA for permission to use it?
The corollary is if the USA loses it's "dominant military power status" military spending will probably drop back to the levels of other countries. It's held the position for 75 years, but if current trends continue it won't make 80 years.
I guess the obvious candidate for taking on the role of "dominate power" is China. Given they way they've been building up their military, it's almost like they are preparing for it. Their major competitor for the position will be India.
as a European, I’m cautious optimistic about this, especially given headlines like these. Europe should be able to stand on its own
Germanies foreign reserves are nearly all treasuries. We might (naturally) diversify away. By taking on a large amount of debt we will simultaneously create an alternative safe asset (bunds).
what he is is opinionated and narcissistic with a highly unusual, but predictable - and successful - way of operating that people still somehow fail to recognise. if you think he's stupid, he's winning because you're not seeing his real intentions.
I will also point out that he's a political obsessive, including when it comes to foreign policy, and it would be once again quite obviously impossible for someone in his position to not know how US foreign policy works. he quite clearly just doesn't care about losing the benefits of world influence and prefers the long term idea of a different system, one where the US is more self-reliant and his businesses have less competition from foreigners.
obviously most economists will tell you that that is stupid, and I'd mostly agree, but it's a far far softer kind of stupid than not understanding the incredibly basic central tenet of US foreign policy for the last 80 years.
I ask sincerely, because I would love nothing better: can you point to an interview where he demonstrates any depth or nuance to his foreign policy decisions, that would indicate he pays attention to any of the details we’re discussing?
He’s clearly a political obsessive, but that doesn’t guarantee knowledge. Rather I think he operates on a set of brutish principles that appeal to a certain sets of people.
To your example, it’s easy to espouse a simple idea like isolationism and obsessively work towards it without understanding the finer implications.
first of all, I shouldn't have to, because what we're talking about is a surface-level issue that a child could understand, not something deep or nuanced.
but anyway, here's one example: a while ago Trump suggested that there's a chance the US won't support NATO in the case of an invasion of a member state. can you yourself analyse the real intention and actual result of this foreign policy decision?
He's smart at scams and self promotion, anything else he's intellectually lazy about.
He cares a lot about influence at least while he's in charge but he undervalues or ignores soft power and just tries to bully allies.
He is involved a lot ... just more on the fascist side then on the Democratic side.
The post-9/11 forever wars were really disasters. We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan to end up with ISIS rising in Iraq and the Taliban back in charge in Afghanistan. It’s really soured the US on interventionism.
Ukraine is viewed differently by many but that’s kind of an exception, and support for actually committing significant US troops there would be soft.
They are much more friendly with China on all levels compared to US and its deepening since his first term.
But now US can be sure as hell Europe won't give a flying fuck if such conflict would happen. We were fractured and weak but as all psychologists know a common enemy can solidify a society like nothing else. A recent stab in the back can be interpreted that way. And we're half a billion and rich market which once dominated all known world.
It just shows that in order to be a good respected politician adding value to one's own country, one need to be way more than some nepo kid with daddy issues, reality show host, hyper arrogant narcissistic investor who made hundreds of millions of his father into billions (while crashing handful of casinos).
At the same time USA stopped investing in its military (as compared to Cold War times) and, what is equally important, its European allies did the same (with exception of Greece and to some extent France). As a result whole Euro-Atlantic alliance become weaker and heavily dependent on China.
This was a long, slow process, stared in the '2000.
Trump tries to revert this trend, but makes unnecessary mistakes, most notably, he is hurting USA soft power and is conflicting USA with its European allies, which gives an impression that "something" happened suddenly now.