“His every instinct, in foreign policy, runs counter to those of the men who built the Pax Americana. He’s a mercantilist. He sees no connection between our alliances and our security…He has truly persuaded himself—and worse, many Americans—that peaceful, democratic nations are “taking advantage” of us and that because of this, “the world is laughing at us.” (Claire Berlinski)
We’re supposed to mistrust Trump because he’s a mercantilist? Really? Germany, a nation that does next to nothing to meet its financial obligations towards the common defense of the western world, is as mercantilist as it gets. Japan isn’t far behind. The mercantilist behavior of both of these “allies” damages the American economy and hurts American workers. Criticizing Trump’s mercantilist proclivities while averting your gaze from the mercantilist proclivities of America’s erstwhile allies simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
If our allies are laughing at us they’re doing it under their breath because they have it so good; why would they want to rock the boat? After all, their rich Uncle Sam is footing so much of the bill for their defense that they’re free to purchase butter instead of guns.
Even now, too many of our NATO compadres fail to spend enough on defense to meet their obligation. With few exceptions (eg Poland) even those that do spend two percent of GDP on defense do so only by the skin of their teeth. With almost no exceptions (Poland again) the United States spends twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) on defense as even those nations that have met their obligations.
Even nations that understand their responsibility to contribute to the common defense are so incompetent that their contributions are almost useless. The UK defense capabilities are pathetic. Its army and Air Force just aren’t very good and the navy that once ruled the waves is a national embarrassment. The UK has a brand new ship that it proudly christened just a few months ago. The thing barely floats.
Germany is supposedly well respected for its submarine fleet. Just a few weeks ago it ran a missile test that turned it into a disaster.
Claire, do you really expect us to believe that our NATO allies aren’t taking advantage of the United States? It is self evident that almost all of them are. It’s simply undeniable.
Is the United States supposed to subsidize the defense of its NATO allies until the end of time? If not, for how long should the United States subsidize the British, Germans and French? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000 years?
Face it, the Pax Americana is on its last legs. If we were smart we would begin the process of planning what comes next. We need to figure it out before it’s too late.
"We’re supposed to mistrust Trump because he’s a mercantilist? Really? Germany, a nation that does next to nothing to meet its financial obligations towards the common defense of the western world, is as mercantilist as it gets."
Which is maybe part of Germany's problem? Rather than fattening itself on butter at American expense, the German economy seems to be stagnating.
I finally figured it out. You kind of remind me of a Jehovah's Witness leadership.
The apocalypse is right around the corner, we mean in this time. It's nothing like any time someone else predicted it in the past. We can point to facts this time. The facts last time were wrong. We're recalculating as we speak.
The JW senior leadership has finally started to figure out that they should stop providing dates and specifics... which does defeat the purpose if you're trying to prophesize.
I actually have a theory that for people over a certain age say 50 and above if your main point of reference of American foreign policy is the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Beirut Barracks, 9/11, and the October 7th attack on Israel you are inclined to support Trump or at the very least make a lot of excuses for him. If your frame of reference is instead the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Charlie Wilson's War you are more likely to support Biden even if all else being equal he isn't your first choice.
Obviously this divide has always existed as Trump's criticism of Reagan back in the 1980s proves. Things like the Bittberg Cemetery visit and Iran-Contra were examples of where a kind of Reaganite Cold War First strategy offended the American nationalism values first strategy that today we would now associate with Trumpism(Yes, I know Claire for example opposed Reagan going to Bittberg although I think she was like 10 years old and Claire was obviously a Cold Warrior at the time) or people who make a lot of excuses for Trump like FDD.
Something else I want to throw out is I have been recently reading about the history of the US occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 and something that I do take away from it is the US handled the occupation much more differently than I think it thought it would have the day after Pearl Harbor. Unconditional surrender the day after Pearl Harbor meant something far different then than it did 4 years later. The day after Pearl Harbor almost all Americans would have turned Japan into a parking lot if they could have but after 4 years of absolutely brutal fighting on both sides and actually getting the ability to turn Japan into a parking lot in a limited manner(Hiroshima and Nagasaki) American elites(Truman) went we would now call today "wobbly." But I will also point out that while some American "Jacksonian" nationalists like Trump would say Roosevelt and Truman(the later especially) betrayed the average American patriot in not exacting enough vengeance on Japan and in retrospect cutting what was NOT a true unconditional surrender with Emperor Hirohito the truth of matter is that American public opinion that was 100% behind war with Japan after Pearl Harbor was already faltering 4 year later. While we have written this out of our historical understanding of World War II by the time of the fall of Nazi Germany and Iwo Jima(It is often forgotten just how deadly a battle Iwo Jima was and how badly it went for the United States) a large swarth of the American people had had enough of war with Japan and had no interest in being reminded anymore about Pearl Harbor and quite willing to entertain some type of conditional surrender. Then there is also the fact that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not as popular at the time in the US as history teaches. Dwight Eisenhower then already considering a career in Republican politics criticized the decision but yet was latter elected President twice.
So when people today in the Trump camp complain about Americans going wobbly after 9/11 or October 7th remember there is a long history of the American public doing this.
We have comparable records for the two men - Trump, 4 years as president, Biden 3+.
Based on Trump's statements (when has a politician said anything truthful when campaigning?) and not based on his track record, you repeatedly brand Trump an authoritarian.
Please detail what Trump has done to warrant that label.
Biden is an authoritarian - for just one example, look at the student debt forgiveness after SCOTUS ruled against him.
Claire, as usual you are eloquent, but your TDS is blinding you.
I am not defending Trump (God knows that he has enough defenders, maybe enough to win the election).
I am giving you the gift of doubt so that you can be a better analyst for all of us.
I think the orange specter just provides convenient smoke for Biden’s catastrophic failures. In this sense, Trump aids Biden, who never enough people can know, is every day laying waste to the international system. As Biden postponed Ukraine aid from paranoid fears of escalation, he sent Ukraine on a doomed counteroffensive without air support and inevitably without the ability to strike Crimea with the long-range ATACM’s that he still has not authorized (Ukraine got the short-range version.) Then the administration leaked to newspapers misinformation that the counteroffensive was Ukraine’s fault to hide their hand in it. Meanwhile with the hundreds of thousands of migrants Biden incidentally let in, he sold Republicans the rope to hang himself with, also Ukraine’s future. Now Ukraine’s future is a partisan bargaining chip for both sides, reduced to politics, thanks to Biden. Claire we can both agree that Trump is a menace to the world, and though I don’t think he spells the end of democracy, I concede he does indeed pose a threat to our institutions as any open authoritarian would. But I don’t see a good case from you that Biden is a lot better than Trump. Like maybe in your next post or in an email to me, you can explain why Biden will PREVENT world war three, if say we both agree Trump would provoke it. Why should I vote for Biden because he will prevent world war 3? Make that case for me please. I would love to hear it. What keeps me up at night is war with China. And while I don’t know what a Trump term would bring, I am increasingly confident that if Xi ever moves on Taiwan, it will be if Biden gets reelected while the world smolders. I mean Ukraine isn’t going to be stronger and Europe isn’t going to be any more secure with more Trump, but look at the Middle East where Biden is all but openly making Israel negotiate with Hamas. Is that not exactly as bad morally if not strategically as if Trump were in the process of cutting aid to Ukraine? I mean if Trump is “colluding” with Russia, is Biden not colluding with Hamas?
You're touching on something that's driven me mad since 2015.
The status quo in this country is like politicians lighting little fires around the house. I would love to spend my time trying to put those out. Unfortunately, we've had to waste the last 9 years trying to stop a maniac from driving a gas truck through the front door.
My thinking is that Xi doesn’t know what to think about Trump yet. But we can be sure that he’s not deterred by Biden if Putin, Hamas, the Houthis and Iran aren’t. If anything I would bet that Xi is too afraid of Trump and the real chance that a war breaks out accidentally is high. But even that seems better than Biden’s predictability and his self-evident cowardice.
Fuck that. It doesn’t matter how much people spend on defense. 90% of the most advanced chips are made in Taiwan. Unless you’re ok with letting Beijing become the tech superpower of the world, we have to defend Taiwan. And if Xi takes Taiwan the rest of the pacific will bow down. It would certify china as the globally dominant superpower where China controls the most advanced chips, a third of world trade, and where 2/3 of the world’s population live. You’re not being real if you accept these bogus defense spending fallacies.
In three years, Taiwan's chip manufacturing will have been moved to S. Korea and other technological countries.
We are currently weak (for a war 8,000 miles away), but we can recover.
As chip manufacturing develops in other countries, Taiwan becomes less important to us.
It is only important for being part of the first chain and as an example for other Asian countries.
And do you really think that Taiwan's chip facilities will survive an invasion? Either the war or an American strike will destroy those facilities (see Force H and the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir).
piece of work plan
WigWag
2 mins ago
“His every instinct, in foreign policy, runs counter to those of the men who built the Pax Americana. He’s a mercantilist. He sees no connection between our alliances and our security…He has truly persuaded himself—and worse, many Americans—that peaceful, democratic nations are “taking advantage” of us and that because of this, “the world is laughing at us.” (Claire Berlinski)
We’re supposed to mistrust Trump because he’s a mercantilist? Really? Germany, a nation that does next to nothing to meet its financial obligations towards the common defense of the western world, is as mercantilist as it gets. Japan isn’t far behind. The mercantilist behavior of both of these “allies” damages the American economy and hurts American workers. Criticizing Trump’s mercantilist proclivities while averting your gaze from the mercantilist proclivities of America’s erstwhile allies simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
If our allies are laughing at us they’re doing it under their breath because they have it so good; why would they want to rock the boat? After all, their rich Uncle Sam is footing so much of the bill for their defense that they’re free to purchase butter instead of guns.
Even now, too many of our NATO compadres fail to spend enough on defense to meet their obligation. With few exceptions (eg Poland) even those that do spend two percent of GDP on defense do so only by the skin of their teeth. With almost no exceptions (Poland again) the United States spends twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) on defense as even those nations that have met their obligations.
Even nations that understand their responsibility to contribute to the common defense are so incompetent that their contributions are almost useless. The UK defense capabilities are pathetic. Its army and Air Force just aren’t very good and the navy that once ruled the waves is a national embarrassment. The UK has a brand new ship that it proudly christened just a few months ago. The thing barely floats.
Germany is supposedly well respected for its submarine fleet. Just a few weeks ago it ran a missile test that turned it into a disaster.
Claire, do you really expect us to believe that our NATO allies aren’t taking advantage of the United States? It is self evident that almost all of them are. It’s simply undeniable.
Is the United States supposed to subsidize the defense of its NATO allies until the end of time? If not, for how long should the United States subsidize the British, Germans and French? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000 years?
Face it, the Pax Americana is on its last legs. If we were smart we would begin the process of planning what comes next. We need to figure it out before it’s too late.
"We’re supposed to mistrust Trump because he’s a mercantilist? Really? Germany, a nation that does next to nothing to meet its financial obligations towards the common defense of the western world, is as mercantilist as it gets."
Which is maybe part of Germany's problem? Rather than fattening itself on butter at American expense, the German economy seems to be stagnating.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/germanys-economic-malaise-offers-a-warning
"We should treat NATO allies as allies" ≠ "We should imitate their mistakes".
I finally figured it out. You kind of remind me of a Jehovah's Witness leadership.
The apocalypse is right around the corner, we mean in this time. It's nothing like any time someone else predicted it in the past. We can point to facts this time. The facts last time were wrong. We're recalculating as we speak.
The JW senior leadership has finally started to figure out that they should stop providing dates and specifics... which does defeat the purpose if you're trying to prophesize.
More on the colossal failure of the brand new British ship. See,
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-navy-ships-breaking-down-britain-struggling-hms-queen-elizabeth-2024-2?amp
More on the failure of the German missile launch. See,
https://navalinstitute.com.au/worrying-german-missile-failures/
I actually have a theory that for people over a certain age say 50 and above if your main point of reference of American foreign policy is the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Beirut Barracks, 9/11, and the October 7th attack on Israel you are inclined to support Trump or at the very least make a lot of excuses for him. If your frame of reference is instead the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Charlie Wilson's War you are more likely to support Biden even if all else being equal he isn't your first choice.
Obviously this divide has always existed as Trump's criticism of Reagan back in the 1980s proves. Things like the Bittberg Cemetery visit and Iran-Contra were examples of where a kind of Reaganite Cold War First strategy offended the American nationalism values first strategy that today we would now associate with Trumpism(Yes, I know Claire for example opposed Reagan going to Bittberg although I think she was like 10 years old and Claire was obviously a Cold Warrior at the time) or people who make a lot of excuses for Trump like FDD.
I remember it well - think I was 15, it was a massive story even in the UK.
Bonzo goes to Bitburg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-L_5HedJbw
Something else I want to throw out is I have been recently reading about the history of the US occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 and something that I do take away from it is the US handled the occupation much more differently than I think it thought it would have the day after Pearl Harbor. Unconditional surrender the day after Pearl Harbor meant something far different then than it did 4 years later. The day after Pearl Harbor almost all Americans would have turned Japan into a parking lot if they could have but after 4 years of absolutely brutal fighting on both sides and actually getting the ability to turn Japan into a parking lot in a limited manner(Hiroshima and Nagasaki) American elites(Truman) went we would now call today "wobbly." But I will also point out that while some American "Jacksonian" nationalists like Trump would say Roosevelt and Truman(the later especially) betrayed the average American patriot in not exacting enough vengeance on Japan and in retrospect cutting what was NOT a true unconditional surrender with Emperor Hirohito the truth of matter is that American public opinion that was 100% behind war with Japan after Pearl Harbor was already faltering 4 year later. While we have written this out of our historical understanding of World War II by the time of the fall of Nazi Germany and Iwo Jima(It is often forgotten just how deadly a battle Iwo Jima was and how badly it went for the United States) a large swarth of the American people had had enough of war with Japan and had no interest in being reminded anymore about Pearl Harbor and quite willing to entertain some type of conditional surrender. Then there is also the fact that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not as popular at the time in the US as history teaches. Dwight Eisenhower then already considering a career in Republican politics criticized the decision but yet was latter elected President twice.
So when people today in the Trump camp complain about Americans going wobbly after 9/11 or October 7th remember there is a long history of the American public doing this.
We have comparable records for the two men - Trump, 4 years as president, Biden 3+.
Based on Trump's statements (when has a politician said anything truthful when campaigning?) and not based on his track record, you repeatedly brand Trump an authoritarian.
Please detail what Trump has done to warrant that label.
Biden is an authoritarian - for just one example, look at the student debt forgiveness after SCOTUS ruled against him.
Claire, as usual you are eloquent, but your TDS is blinding you.
I am not defending Trump (God knows that he has enough defenders, maybe enough to win the election).
I am giving you the gift of doubt so that you can be a better analyst for all of us.
TDS is clearly a two-sided blade.
I think the orange specter just provides convenient smoke for Biden’s catastrophic failures. In this sense, Trump aids Biden, who never enough people can know, is every day laying waste to the international system. As Biden postponed Ukraine aid from paranoid fears of escalation, he sent Ukraine on a doomed counteroffensive without air support and inevitably without the ability to strike Crimea with the long-range ATACM’s that he still has not authorized (Ukraine got the short-range version.) Then the administration leaked to newspapers misinformation that the counteroffensive was Ukraine’s fault to hide their hand in it. Meanwhile with the hundreds of thousands of migrants Biden incidentally let in, he sold Republicans the rope to hang himself with, also Ukraine’s future. Now Ukraine’s future is a partisan bargaining chip for both sides, reduced to politics, thanks to Biden. Claire we can both agree that Trump is a menace to the world, and though I don’t think he spells the end of democracy, I concede he does indeed pose a threat to our institutions as any open authoritarian would. But I don’t see a good case from you that Biden is a lot better than Trump. Like maybe in your next post or in an email to me, you can explain why Biden will PREVENT world war three, if say we both agree Trump would provoke it. Why should I vote for Biden because he will prevent world war 3? Make that case for me please. I would love to hear it. What keeps me up at night is war with China. And while I don’t know what a Trump term would bring, I am increasingly confident that if Xi ever moves on Taiwan, it will be if Biden gets reelected while the world smolders. I mean Ukraine isn’t going to be stronger and Europe isn’t going to be any more secure with more Trump, but look at the Middle East where Biden is all but openly making Israel negotiate with Hamas. Is that not exactly as bad morally if not strategically as if Trump were in the process of cutting aid to Ukraine? I mean if Trump is “colluding” with Russia, is Biden not colluding with Hamas?
You're touching on something that's driven me mad since 2015.
The status quo in this country is like politicians lighting little fires around the house. I would love to spend my time trying to put those out. Unfortunately, we've had to waste the last 9 years trying to stop a maniac from driving a gas truck through the front door.
Well one thing is for sure if Trump pulls US troops out of South Korea it makes it a hell of a lot more likely that China would move on Taiwan.
My thinking is that Xi doesn’t know what to think about Trump yet. But we can be sure that he’s not deterred by Biden if Putin, Hamas, the Houthis and Iran aren’t. If anything I would bet that Xi is too afraid of Trump and the real chance that a war breaks out accidentally is high. But even that seems better than Biden’s predictability and his self-evident cowardice.
Yes.
But I am sick and tired of countries who won't defend themselves.
Taiwan spends 2.3% of GDP on defense; we spend 4.1%.
Clearly the US is Plan A for Taiwan.
So we owe them nothing.
We should act solely in our interests.
Of course you don't owe anyone anything. It’s just that if you don’t do this, then you’ll have to send guys again to fight in another world war.
Does that include Israel and why?
Israel spends +/- 5% on GDP. And has a huge percentage of its population defending the country. They are doing their bit.
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA have genocidal and anti-democratic policies - against our cultural standards.
Plus they hate the US.
We need to support Israel.
Fuck that. It doesn’t matter how much people spend on defense. 90% of the most advanced chips are made in Taiwan. Unless you’re ok with letting Beijing become the tech superpower of the world, we have to defend Taiwan. And if Xi takes Taiwan the rest of the pacific will bow down. It would certify china as the globally dominant superpower where China controls the most advanced chips, a third of world trade, and where 2/3 of the world’s population live. You’re not being real if you accept these bogus defense spending fallacies.
In three years, Taiwan's chip manufacturing will have been moved to S. Korea and other technological countries.
We are currently weak (for a war 8,000 miles away), but we can recover.
As chip manufacturing develops in other countries, Taiwan becomes less important to us.
It is only important for being part of the first chain and as an example for other Asian countries.
And do you really think that Taiwan's chip facilities will survive an invasion? Either the war or an American strike will destroy those facilities (see Force H and the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir).
And Chinese communism isn't genocidal, anti-democratic, and against our cultural standards?
And we are (ever so slowly) moving to make their choices more expensive.