You’re speaking in vague terms and you seem to be giving more weight to your own perception over diplomatic realities. I’m running out of patience with this, but deep, deep my heart, I’m a total asshole, so I
just can’t let a few of your positions go unaddressed.
In short, your argument is that Trump has set the US down a bad path, mostly due to his abrasive diplomacy and dismissal of expert opinion. My argument is that Europe understands the reality that they are utterly dependent on the US for defense, and that this reduces all of Trump’s public diplomatic conflict to essentially a floor show.
It's not, and I've never tried to argue that European countries shouldn't pay for their own defense. If Trump's erratic diplomacy encourages Europe to take a sober look at it's situation and lessen it's dependency on the US, then in my view, that will be a good thing for Europe, but it won't necessarily benefit the US. America has never been dependent upon Europe for defense, whereas it has enjoyed an important trade/diplomatic relationship with Europe. If the latter is compromised, then all parties involved will be worse off.
Thank you for admitting that you do actually understand how both parties are in a mutually beneficial relationship. Please reflect on your statement and realize that the powers that be in the US and Europe
will literally not end a relationship that is mutually beneficial unless it stops being mutually beneficial. This is the very essence of diplomacy and no significant material change to that status quo has occurred.
While perceptions still matter, I’d argue that the political influence of Trump’s opponents and especially the media manipulating perception have done more to harm US-European relations than Trump’s behavior and policy itself. This effect is similar to how perceptions of America and its President skyrocketed once Obama took office and remained relatively high (though with a downward trend). This is somehow despite the fact that he continued or even expanded on the same interventionist foreign policy that caused Bush’s popularity to plummet.
Not to mention the fact that Obama
literally announced to the whole world that he was going to shift strategic focus from Europe to Asia, then followed through on it. https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-pivot-to-asia-was-obamas-biggest-mistake/#:~:text=The Pivot to Asia Was Obama’s Biggest Mistake.,the prophesied center of the 21st century economy.
But hey he talked good so that made everything better with the Euros I guess
All this pedantry about tanks and planes completely ignores the two most important points I raised to you:
- The UK and France have hundreds of nuclear missiles between them, and more than enough to flatten every Russian city. This fact alone renders any suggestion that Russia could take over Europe completely ridiculous.
- Russia's economy is heavily dependent upon maintaining good relations with Europe; much more so than Europe's is with Russia. This removes any impetus for Russian belligerence against Europe.
Putin may try to push his luck with the Baltic states in the absence of US hegemony, but he's been trying to do that even with American presence. The cataclysmic scenarios that you've been hinting at however, are completely fanciful.
You’re demonstrating a massive blind spot in your understanding by dismissing an overwhelming material and operational advantage as “pedantry”.
And yes, I did specifically address nuclear weapons, and I literally did state my position that even all by its lonesome, Europe would likely win
eventually in the extreme scenario of total war. I’m not inventing a doomsday scenario where Russia engulfs Europe in a sea of red with no resistance while twirling its moustache, though I may have initially exaggerated it as such.
To be more concise on the nuclear issue, Israel has had nuclear capabilities since the mid 1960’s and that hasn’t stopped them from being embroiled in a
half-dozen major ground conflicts since then, even with the backing of a superpower. They succeeded largely based on equipment parity, superior doctrine, and the advantage of a (largely) defensive war. I’m not making a moral judgement on Israel’s military entanglements, I’m just demonstrating that the ability to flatten your opponents cities does not immediately make you untouchable. To suggest otherwise shows a neglect for diplomatic nuance even worse that what you suggest Trump has shown.
As for trade as a deterrent, I did say that there was some merit to that argument, but you’ve still ignored the risks posed by the regime of a major military power trying to consolidate its internal influence, especially in times of economic strife.
Something like the massive shrinking of the global economy due to an international pandemic, for example.
Now if only we also had some example of an isolated military power attacking its neighbors during an economic downturn, even if it was outnumbered on paper...
Maybe something from 80 years ago or so?
Unlikely? Maybe. But don’t be so quick to dismiss the idea of Russian aggression as “fanciful“.
Even in a ground war where nuclear annihilation is taken off the table, what do you suppose Russia's plan of action would be? Enter a bloody battle against Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, and then expect whatever troops they've got left to proceed through the meat grinder of NATO forces who would, by this point, be waiting for them at the German border?
Thank you for tacitly admitting that Europe would be unable to guarantee the sovereignty of its member states and allies if the US withdrew its support. That’s all I wanted really.
It’s the point I’ve been trying to make for almost two thousand words and you keep mistaking my position for one of total Russian dominance in the field.
Now connect the dots and realize that this fact is so
utterly crucial to the cohesion of the greater European economic and military alliance that it gives Trump an overwhelming amount of leeway in negotiations and even perception. He hasn’t even begun to test those limits, and I truly don’t think he ever can.
You seem to forget that it's considerably easier for a nation to defend their borders than it is to invade another country, and the strong economic ties between the major European NATO members would make their military alliances sturdier than I think you realize.
You are wrong. Just flat wrong. And it gives me no small amount of pleasure to demonstrate just how wrong you are:
Imaging that polling without the United States involved. Especially considering this other relatively recent poll:
There is not a single country on that list with less than a plurality agreeing that the US will honor it’s commitment. Even with overall low opinions of Trump and middling opinions of the US, nothing Trump has done has impacted Europe’s ability to acknowledge reality, ungrateful bastards they may be.
Luckily for us though, we’re not confined to mere speculation on the cohesion of European alliances:
Countries that place the greatest value on NATO's continuity are more likely to participate. However, allies are less likely to join if other major allies — particularly the United States — do not participate, if they perceive allies' goals as diverging from one another, or if they are not confident in their ability to restrain other allies from unnecessarily escalating a conflict with Russia.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2964.html
Tell me again how great those nukes would be?
As side note, you may protest to my sources; “But Tour of Italy, the Rand Corporation is a bunch of scumsucking warhawks with ties to the arms industry, their opinion can’t be trusted!”. Maybe that does factor in, but dwell on that sentiment for a while and think about how maybe “expert opinion” is not always what it’s cracked up to be.
Experts have an agenda. What you perceive as “ignoring experts” may actually be “weeding through bullshit”. I wish America had been a little more skeptical of the “experts” telling us that Saddam had WMD’s.
The deficit has ballooned under Trump, even correcting for Covid-19, and I have seen no evidence thus far that Biden would direct substantially more resources towards the welfare state than Obama did (who managed to reduce the deficit just about every year he was in office, for the record).
I can’t tell if you are being ignorant or malicious here, but this statement is so blatantly misleading that I can’t let you get away with this shit. Even if only for your own sake because it’s totally fucking obvious you haven’t really taken the time to think about it.
It’s easy to reduce the deficit each year after first increasing Bush’s
worst spending year by
300 fucking percent your first year in office due to a financial crisis. Never mind the fact that you held it roughly at that level until the Republicans gained a majority in congress started some truly desperate escalation to try and reign it in.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Biden's main advantage over Trump is that he has a stronger track record of listening to expert advice and working with his party, which doesn't say much given the state of the DNC, but it does at least reduce the significance of whatever personal failings he may have.
Biden’s main personal failing is that his brain is rotting out of his skull. If you say you care so much about the diplomatic tone for a nation, consider the international impact of a figurehead who is physically incapable of forming a complete sentence.
I’ll take “loud, blunt, and brash” over “I can’t remember what state I’m in, and I belong in a nursing home” even if it means putting up with Trump’s spending.
I don't know what makes you think that Trump getting a second term will help to alleviate America's current problems. Domestically, the US is in turmoil, and not just because of the lockdown, while internationally, America's reputation among it's allies is the lowest it's been in living memory. Though I don't believe that all of this can be laid at the feet of Trump's leadership, there is no doubt that Trump has been an essential catalyst for it
Not strictly true. At the tail end of the Bush years America polled lower than Trump does now, and, against all odds, Trump’s international approval has slowly
climbed over the course of his presidency; in spite of his supposedly volatile foreign policy.
So unless you’re twelve, you’ve lived through a time when people thought less of America.
if the domestic fallout of the last election is anything to go by, you should expect a considerable escalation in the current turmoil if Trump wins reelection.
Whether or not Biden has the qualities to successfully lead America out of it's current predicament remains to be seen, but to pretend that America is doing well in the current circumstances is absolutely ludicrous. There is a very good chance Trump could lose in November, and if he does, it will be well deserved, whatever you may think of Biden or the Democrats.
A Trump victory means that Americans fundamentally want their society to continue. A Biden victory means that people are fundamentally okay with others causing violence in the streets if it’s politically expedient. As you stated, a Biden presidency is essentially a DNC presidency and the DNC has very publicly signaled that they support an
internal breakdown in rule of law and democracy if it means they end up in power. That has a far, far greater potential to cause long-term damage to America and its political system; the same system that you say you have so much trust in.
“Vote Biden so a minority of idiots don’t flip their shit and start burning things” is not a winning argument, so stop making it.
Now please for the love of God, consider voting Trump, and don’t give me anything else to respond to without actually fucking thinking it through first.
