Like others, I doubt Putin thought he could actually succeed in getting Trump to win the election – he would have been fine with questions about Hillary Clinton’s legitimacy and inevitable attempts to impeach her, a circus that would have easily consumed the 1st half of her presidency and likely most of the latter half of her term. That Trump actually won is a bonus.
And I think it’s now obvious that the Russians probably have a mountain of dirt and/or financial leverage on Trump’s associates if not Trump himself. There’s no other rational explanation for Trump cozying up so quickly to Russia while endangering a decades-old Trans-Atlantic alliance. I’m sure some of the bromance with dictators is Trump’s penis-envy for people with autocratic power, but that explanation only goes so far.
It seems pretty clear to me that Trump’s chief complaint with NATO is that it’s not strong enough. He wants Europeans to beef up their armed forces. He’s using the NATO benchmark of 2% of GDP and threatening to not support them if they don’t. It’s not unlike parents kicking a grown child out of the house and telling him to get a job. The parents’ goal is to help the child become self-sufficient, not endanger the family or leave the child homeless. Western Europe is like America’s jobless 30-something basement-dwelling comic-book-reading son and Trump is the stern father figure telling them to get their shit together or pack their bags.
ETA: Do you think Putin would be happy or unhappy about a world in which all NATO countries spent at least 2% of their GDP on their military?
Actually, while I have no doubt that Russia has lots of usable blackmail on Trump and his crew, Trump’s bromance can be entirely attributed to his worship of autocrats and his desire to be the American (1920s era) Mussolini. It is not as though such a shallow, unthinking blowhard needs any more enticement.
I don’t think donald has that kind of thought process or long game. It’s just not a strong enough motivator to me. Remember he is blowing smoke mostly and not actually “leading” anything. He’s throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks. It doesn’t sound like an intentional dictator to me.
I get the “enlightened self interest” vibe. He needs enticement but he only understands material things. Like “I get power to manipulate a market” or “I won’t go to jail” or “My family won’t go to jail” or “I will get money”
This is Trump’s explanation, but it’s mostly bullshit, IMO. The NATO 2% benchmark was agreed to by NATO as a whole in 2014 to be a goal to be achieved within 10 years (2024) by those countries who weren’t already at 2%. Europe’s not slacking – they’re meeting their commitments per NATO agreements.
The idea you are an adult parent trying to teach the European children to stand on their own is very laughable to start with. It shows zero self awareness of course.
The presumption that your American obsession with having the Imperial Armed Forces of a size as if the Cold war had never ended and that your hard right wing obsession with the pure focus on the expensive shiny military hardwares (making some of us think of the expensive man-toys of the insecure man who compensates for a small other kind of equipment) and the complete ignorance of the lessons of long history about the utility of the ‘soft power’… that this is shared by the Europeans.
The idea it is comparable, the Western Europe with its developed export economies , to ‘basement dwelling teenager’ is so very laughable as a comical distorted self image of the Americans that it made me laugh out loud.
It is like the sloppy young drunk person wearing the badly matched clothes of the poor taste and with the vulgar demeanor giving a lecture to the older quieter person who is not dressed in the vulgar flashy manner about how to stand out in the world and make your way forward.
Trump’s refusal to commit to mutual defense (Article 5) goes well beyond a simple spat over a 2% increase and anyone other than a shameful partisan would understand that. Past administrations - including Republicans and Democrats alike - have urged more spending from military partners. At no time in recent memory, however, did the United States imply that it would refuse to come to its defense, as it would encourage the very kinds of rogue actors we’ve been concerned about. It’s not just Article 5, either. Trump’s threats of trade tariffs make it clear he’s creating distance between the US and Europe. Putin probably has to rub his eyes and pinch himself to make sure he’s not dreaming.
I’m not exactly an Obama or Hillary cheerleader on this issue, either. I’ve gotten into arguments on this forum about NATO and the policies of the American-led NATO alliance. Frankly I have felt for a long time that the nexus of Pentagon, State Department, and Corporate Contractor America has been an unholy alliance that has unnecessarily complicated relationships with Russia. I was not a fan of George W Bush’s approach to Russia, and I wasn’t a fan of Barack O’s either – and there is every indication that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy (Russian and otherwise) probably would have been an epic disaster but for different reasons than the concerns I have now.
I don’t necessarily find fault with Trump seeking better relations with Russia, and over the past several years there have been several intelligent and erudite foreign policy analysts who have argued for reconsidering the long-term purpose of NATO. But you don’t just reward someone with Putin’s track record without getting some concessions in return (getting out of Ukraine would be good for starters). What Trump is doing is making it clear that he is going to ignore what Russia is doing in hopes that Putin will gradually reform himself. But Putin would have no reason to behave at all? He’d know that he has this administration by the balls and can do whatever he wants. Russia at Western Europe’s doorstep would also have consequences of its own. What Drumpf is doing now is beyond dangerous, and sooner or later, the armchair warrior society who cheer him on are going to get the real warriors in this country killed – as if our country’s right-wing brainlessness hasn’t already filled enough cemetery plots in the first place over the past 15 years.
Just curious, could you share some of the best examples of “the utility of the ‘soft power’”? What do you think soft power’s biggest wins throughout history have been? And maybe it’s biggest wins in the last decade or two?
I think this is where I’m at as well. I think Trump never imagined he’d actually win – he just wanted to be able to say “He could have if Hillary hadn’t stolen the election from him” and then raked in more money with his namesake.
When he won he probably had no idea how to act, but living in the moment, he transitioned into his new life. He probably knows he could be impeached, or hell, maybe he just steps down for ‘health reasons.’ But he’s going to get as much money out of the gig as he can.
The real concern here is what Trump is doing to institutions, whether he benefits from that or not. I worry a lot about the fringe groups who now have a lot more access to power than they should have. The Nativists, the Christian nationalists – they probably have even less use for democracy than Trump does. And these are the sorts of sketchy characters who have designs on long-term power.
People are sadly mistaken if they think that all our troubles will evaporate the moment that Trump resigns or is forced out of office (if that even happens, which is not at all clear at the moment).
What has the USA’s investment in the most obscene military in the history of the world bought it these past 70 years? Not a single war won, the hate of most of the world, a war on terrah! it can never, ever win, and the most scrutinised population in the history of the world.
And lets not forget the $billions of profits career parasites from lobbyists to manufacturers take from the tax payer every year.
Depends on how you phrase the question, doesn’t it? Are you asking “Prove that an armored division ever surrendered to the Amish”? By its very nature, the “soft power” of diplomacy is less dramatic.
Yes, it does, and I’m not asking for something like your armored division / Amish example, but I’m curious what people think the best victories of ‘soft power’ are? Is the Paris climate accord the pinnacle of soft power’s achievement? The Iranian deal that might have averted / delayed a messy little war with Iran? The Cuban missile crisis being resolved without incinerating most of mankind? It certainly wouldn’t be something like Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” or the Arab Spring, right?
While I acknowledge that our record has been decidedly mixed for a country that is thought of as a superpower, it’s hard to look at Operation Desert Storm as anything but an unmitigated victory for America.
That seems like a bit too harsh of a judgement. Boatloads of people (literally!) still want to come here.
While we’re unlikely to have a formal surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri anytime soon, there are victories, like liberating Mosul from ISIS.
That’s not really the fault of the military (or at least what I traditionally think of as the military, I suppose one could make the argument about the NSA).
Dude, boat loads of people are trying every single day to escape the worlds we created for them. They don’t give a damn where to, they just want to escape the carnage US exceptionalism created.
So you in fact do not understand at all and in any way even the most superficial, the concept.
Perhaps you can first do some background reading to educate yourself from your completely mistaken idea that the soft power is the crisis management. Then you can read about the history of the soft power application from the Marshal Plan through to the development of the European framework and its expansion to the eventual concept of the European Union.
Or you can engage in the partisan political posturing and the silliness, as you wish.
