US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Biden 2 - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[Remius]

Again, Europe can do that without the US chipping in. Anyone who seriously believes that Putin is lining up to attack a NATO member ought to behave accordingly. I'm not seeing much urgency except in the countries bordering NATO. I'm not seeing any in Canada. From that I infer that behind the closed doors of the high councils their information is telling them an invasion of a NATO member is low-risk. All the noise about what the US should be doing is just the usual opportunistic free-loading.

Sad isn’t it. But the army is ramping up albeit very slowly certain capabilities. Canada not ramping up the way it should is no reason at all to dismiss the threat that Russia poses.

Should that be what our PM tells them when confronted by requests to ante up a little more? We aren't forbidden to step outside that "system".

Who cares. We weren’t discussing that now we’re we. We absolutely should be increasing. You mentioned Taiwan. Again how does that fit into NATOs mandate and goals? If China attacks the US and they invoke article 5 then I expect NATO to step up.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Once beyond NATO members, it's reasonable to look at the entire world.

Go read the NATO goals and mandate. Yes, it is reasonable to look at the entire world. Your position would have the US retreat from that.

Is Ukraine in Europe? Yes. Very much a NATO issue.

Is a Russian occupied Ukraine good for the US or bad? I think it’s bad. We either try and check Russia’s ambitions or we might as well pack it in. I’d rather not pack it in.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They wouldn't need to.

If Trump's previous tone/attitude re: NATO continues into a POTUS47 term, if RUS poked, say, Finland or Estonia ....
1) if US audiences are tired of helping out Europe, they'll be OK with RUS taking off a bit without the US getting involved, and
2) if foreign actors continue to help whip up the "Europeans want to defend NATO to the last American/Canadian/whatever" narrative via the usual suspect info ops, and various publics buy into the "what have they done for us lately?" (like they did during POTUS45's term, and are starting to with UKR), there'll be less public appetite - and more political pressure - on all governments to stay out of 'er in spite of Article 5.

Trump's tone/attitude applies to "deadbeats". Finland and Estonia aren't deadbeats by any customary measure. Why is it appropriate to keep moving the goalposts on what Trump said?

"Helping out Europe" is not the same as "meeting a NATO commitment". Everyone ought to stop blurring that line, too. There isn't going to be a majority of Democrats and Republicans in either the House or Senate to renege on NATO, and Congress has both the power to declare war and the power to pay for it.

People worried about Trump and a shift of isolationist American voters from the Democratic party to the Republican party ought to be less antagonistic toward Trump and isolationist American voters. Supplicants aren't really in a position to be insulting.

 

[GR66]

Like it or not, much of the open global trade structure that underpins our modern economies is based on the post-WW2 security guarantee provided by the United States.

Much of what makes modern commodities and technology so cheap and available around the entire globe is based on the fact that the United States as the global hegemon ensured that regional powers did not disrupt the flow of key resources, materials and products by seizing the sources for themselves. That included, when necessary, the US stepping in - directly or through proxies - and preventing belligerent states from taking other states by force. The threat of US intervention has been a deterrent factor in major wars of aggression.

US support of Ukraine is a manifestation of that deterrent role of the US in maintaining the Global system. If the US decides that it is not in its direct interest to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine then it will inevitably lead Russia (and other nations including China) to conclude that they can get away with aggression so long as it doesn't cross the line of being a direct threat to the US.

At the same time, it tells the nations bordering potentially aggressive neighbours that unless their independence in some way directly benefits the US then they cannot count on the US intervening should they be invaded. That will leave these nations much more vulnerable to not only direct invasion, but also other forms of coercion from their more powerful neighbours. So when Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines begin to question whether the US will support them in a conflict with say China, then they may be much more willing to bend to pressure from China and shift their policies to be more pro-China and less pro-USA.

As the US becomes more and more isolated from the World it will lose many of the advantages that a global economy provides. Will it mean an American collapse? Of course not, but as access to cheap resources, labour and products lessens due to decreased American influence then the cost of everything will become more expensive and labour is near-shored away from the cheapest sources and supply moves away from the lowest cost producers. The result is a poorer nation with both less money and less global reach to influence events around the World.

That's why I think that the USA pulling back from supporting Ukraine is a very bad idea in the long run. Does that mean that I don't understand American frustration of bearing the cost of being the World's policeman? Of course not. But to my mind the solution is the rest of the Western-alligned nations stepping up to bear much more of the burden alongside the United States to maintain the current order rather than the US turning isolationist and allowing the system to contract/collapse which will make the World both much poorer and much more dangerous (including for the USA).

$0.02

 

[Brad Sallows]

If anyone thinks the prospective isolationism of the US in a few months is a worry, be prepared to panic if the Democratic election AAR tells them they lost too many non-college-educated voters. If they conclude they were outflanked on trade protectionism and isolationism by populist Republicans, Democrats will adopt positions further enough out to be distinct.

As usual, the obvious solution is for other countries to contribute more to international security - provided they believe all the Chicken Little talk.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Douglas Murry on Trump.