[fowlerpower]

This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected.

Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed.

The US and all of its allies are still allies.

Does anyone really think that if some "real" US interests are messed with that the United States won't fuck somebody up? I mean it's just a few years ago we went to war, why all of a sudden are we weak?

Edit: just to clarify "real" interests e.g. a NATO ally is hit, Israel is hit, Japan is hit, South Korea is hit... any US base or military vehicles, etc...

[knz]

> The US and all of its allies are still allies.

This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" - it's potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how effective our foreign relations are.

The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own intelligence agencies should give everyone some concern regardless of one's political leanings.

[coldtea]

>This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is.

As compared to the actions of the previous administrations, like bombing in eastern Europe, invading several countries, and royally fucking up Middle East etc, while constantly pushing Russia in the corner in cold war like rhetoric (for doing 1/10 of what they did, and in its actual bordering countries after) all in the span of 20 years?

[herbst]

Not sure why you are grayed out. From what i can tell you are absolutely right. Before that america was usually discussed as some "crazy big brother" kind of position, especially since they started bombing and droning civils it went more to "evil big brother" but still a big brother. From what i can tell the public view changed since the election and the U.S. is seen as some kind of possible threat for our society and economy.

[idiot_stick]

>the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is.

Thankfully the real decision makers aren't going to toss away decades of political good-will and foreign relations because of 3 weeks of blowhard political posturing.

[JumpCrisscross]

If things go wrong, I think the establishment would reassert itself. But there would be a few weeks of chaos. That interval represents a new strategic opening.

It's not enough for a land war in Europe. But a lighting grab for territory? Like Mongolia? Or Taiwan? Or the Baltics or Balkans or a contiguous stretch of the Middle East? If you can secure enough resources to hold strong against non-military retaliations, e.g. sanctions, it might--for the first time in decades--be worth it.

[fowlerpower]

You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war?

You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.

[alextheparrot]

I largely agree with what you've said. Statements from the article such as "U.S. ineffectiveness as a pillar of security" causes me to question the author's understanding of modern American foreign policy. It does not seek to make the entire world stable (See Africa), it simply seeks to make resources of American interest stable.

To your point regarding Russian and Chinese relations, I don't see how in the current frame this is possible. Russia will become more heavily reliant to China in the future, as western Europe modernizes its energy sources. Energy is a major driver in the Russian economy [1].

To your last paragraph, the same logic could have been used after the Russian excursions into Afghanistan, which I believe indicates it is a historically weak argument by itself.

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/vladimir-putin-meet-russian-oil-chief...

[lmm]

Is there a clear sharp line where e.g. Estonia is a "real" US interest and Crimea isn't? I mean NATO membership is a line, but it's not feeling as solid as it used to.

[lispm]

A next field of conflict is Belarus, which tries to distance itself from Russia. It's not NATO, it's not a country with a security guarantee like the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...) , it's not trying to connect itself to the EU (like the Ukraine), but still it could be a next conflict.

Then there are European countries not in NATO, but cooperating with NATO, like Sweden and Finland. Both have a border with Russia.

[tomjen3]

NATO is held together with the unquestioning belief that all countries will strike together if one of them is hit. If there is some reasonable doubt as to whether it will happen or not, will the US really go to war with Russia over Latvia, which I doubt most of Trumps voters can find on a map?

Well what if Putin thinks no, goes in and Trump then says yes?

[bad_user]

Judging by how Trump is behaving, there are two more possibilities:

(1) no strategy is involved at all, populists being known to do that, either because of incompetence or because stirring the pot gives the illusion of progress (it's after all why he was voted), or

(2) his strategy is aligned with his businesses, which is not that far fetched, given how he hasn't banned immigrants from Muslim countries in which he has business interests.

[emodendroket]

The countries he banned also all happen to have had historically antipathetic relations with the US. It's hard to tease out one thing from the other; it would have been illegal for Trump to pursue business in Iran.

I think ultimately Trump's foreign policy is going to end up extremely military-directed and won't be that much of a radical departure from what we've seen recently (not that that is necessarily good).

[mason240]

#2 is one the more ridiculous talking points floating around, for a number of different reasons that I'm sure you are already aware of.

[semi-extrinsic]

> [if] any US base or military vehicles, etc...

This is precisely why the US stations so many troops in Eastern Europe, South Korea, Japan etc. It's to act as a multiplier on the deterrence value of US alliance with said country. If Russia were to invade just Estonia, with only Estonians killed, it's harder for the US internally to justify military aid, as opposed to if hundreds of US troops are killed.

[zzleeper]

"Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO"

I don't know in what world do you live, but you are just giving him too much credibility. It's as if you can't fathom him doing something bad in him.

[grotsnot]

That seems a bit harsh. One could just as easily claim that Trump's opponents can't fathom him doing anything well and give him even less credibility than he deserves. While both assertions give that nice truthiness rush, neither is mature or productive.

Like any other human being, Trump is allowed to be right about some things, wrong about some things, and somewhere in the middle on the rest. People can support specific actions or areas of action without implicitly supporting all actions. The GP didn't even come across as all that Trump-apologist or even -supportive to me, just stating that the status quo has not crumbled despite the doomsayers claiming otherwise.

Let's all try and dial back on the polarization, please?

[flukus]

It sounds like your falling into the trap of thinking Trump is an idiot.

[mmjaa]

> why all of a sudden are we weak?

$Trillions of War Debt, owed to world banks outside of Americas' reach, thats why.

[mcguire]

If a Russian-backed Syrian regime gets frisky against Israel again....