[flagged]
Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election (if they hold every one that they currently hold, it requires them to take 20 of the 22 Republican-held seats.)
> I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
I don't think the world is waiting at all, it is just taking time to work out the shape of the big changes, whether its European defense integration to replace the historically-pivotal role of the US, or any of large number of other changes nations are actively and openly working on.
Now, if the present direction of the US changes, some of those efforts may be abandoned or deprioritized, but "could potentially stop work" is not the same thing as "waiting to start".
I know, it is very unlikely this will happen. But I was just pointing out what I think needs to happen for the article to be wrong.
And someone in another comment brought up the military. A failing/fascist US with its military is something I really worry about for the world. I think Nov 2026 is the last chance the US has to change path.
Even as an insider it's hard to understand how a country could re-elect the worst person on earth and then two years later vote the opposition into power, so it's hard to believe that outsiders are taking such a nuanced view.
And to be honest the fact that this president is not impeached over a sex abuse scandal and starting a war nobody wanted says a lot about how detached and uninterested the population of the US is from its government.
I mean the US already re-elected him after the first time so it wasn't a one off. US allies are already increasing defense spending and diversifying supply chains (especially for weapons) away from the US.
Would you bet the safety of your country on the US being stable going forward?
Nobody actually does this outside opinion pages. Like, Argentina has defaulted on its debt nine times. It still finds lenders. Similarly, an America that has stabilised its foreign policy still represents a military superpower and consumer dynamo that would be hard for any rational leader to pass up aligning with.
Unfortunately the anti-Japanese folks are the loudest in the room and loves to manipulate online opinions that that is the mainstream consensus.
They don't pause to ask, who benefits from this manufactured crisis that is aimed at driving a wedge between Korea and Japan in particular, both close US allies.
I'd actually say that's a decent corollary versus counterpoint. The folks you attack will hate you. Regardless of whether you genuinely change. But we aren't directly attacking our allies right now. The folks who weren't directly war crimed by Japan, e.g. South Asia, have moved along just fine.
Not to mention the tariffs against our allies we levied. Or the fact we personally insult them from our highest office WRT things like calling their dead service members cowards.
They're not going to just forget how the US population and half it's legislative body just... Doesn't care at all. Will just let all of this happen.
We have become an apathetic, unserious people.
It's not like America was super popular before all of this, it was more tolerated then celebrated. This very large straw broke the camel's back and everyone is working on moving away and after that's done, why come back?
Personally, I find this depressing but I don't see the US polity as being a reliable partner for at least a generation. Definite Britain after Suez vibes right now.
Practically? In a germane context? I don't think that delineation exists in geopolitics.
Every U.S. ally under its nuclear umbrella trusts its life with D.C. Same with NATO and AUKUS and other defensive partnerships.