Trump hasn't started a war (yet), specially one so damaging as the Irak War, so that's the end of that discussion.
Simply because the other countries weren't falling for his bait to attack first. He's been engaging in escalating conflicts with countries like North Korea and Iran, hell, even Mexico, for months for this purpose. That "yet" is there for a reason.
edit: In the mean time he got America into a trade war with China, which America lost.
Trump hasn't started a war (yet), specially one so damaging as the Irak War, so that's the end of that discussion.
He is still President. He also has shown us to be unreliable when it comes to upholding international agreements or treaties. Why spend years negotiating a trade treaty with us and a bunch of other nations only for us to flip the table at the end?
I would imagine a lot of foreign nations are trying to hedge their bets in hopes that Trump is an anomaly and not the new status quo.
Maybe in three years a sane person will take over and they can reestablish relations with the US with some added protections.
With all deals either ending in or around the time the next cycle could take place (4 years or less if they're just worried about the president, 2 or less if they're worried about how 'pants on head' Congress might get), and sunset clauses or other stipulations that 'if y'all go batshit crazy again, we reserve the right to Nope right the fuck out, and no, we're not going to set decades long precedents just because they make you happy'.
Even if he's just an anomaly for now, I can't help but keep thinking how this is the new low bar (yes, which is being lowered day by day). Americans should be shocked and dismayed (in larger portions than they are) about the bullshit the GOP has been pulling for the last 3 years in particular (McConnell's bullshit as a starting point at a minimum, yes we can go back decades too, I'm talking about this very recent crisis), but the rest of the world gets absolutely zero say about who gets elected into what seats, and for a country that has made some pretty spectacular fuckups in the past, this is the kind of situation that we know is causing damage to America's standing on the world stage.
Listening to the Pod Save America folks, there was an episode a few months ago about how it used to be that the US's intelligence agencies would put out a press release on a given situation or crisis, and the UK and France and other countries would follow that lead. That is no longer the case. Is that a critical thing? No. Is it tragic? No. But it's just one of countless indications that the US is losing that standing, bit by bit, I think. And recovering that won't be easy. One can lose trust in an instant, it can take a lifetime to build it, let alone rebuild it.
The US could elect Obama 2.0 (Michelle 2020 woooo!) and I think it'd be sensible for even allies to keep a bit at arm's length. Special Relationships and treaties and agreements are only as valid as both sides are willing to uphold them, and we've seen a self inflicted wound that cannot simply be brushed under the rug once it is convenient to do so.
Note, I'm not aiming this at you, in particular, Boss, but your comments struck a nerve on something that keeps rattling around. This can and will get better, I have to believe so, I have that much faith in humanity, however shaken it may be of late.
But we (in general, even those who aren't Americans) cannot allow this to get brushed aside like it never happened. Foreign policy in particular is built on trust between non-equals a lot of the time. Up here in Canada: America's Hat, watching this bullshit go on with NAFTA and little snipes back and forth over materials and threatened tariffs (but not actually, but maybe, or not, y'know, whatever) is plenty tiresome in and of itself. Watching Europe decide 'we are on our own, militarily in particular' is chilling and sad and is (probably, hopefully not, but quite possibly) going to cause repercussions in years to come.
Edit: oops, I see I wasn't the only one to latch onto this point...
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't see how saying Northwoods almost happened is a conspiracy.
Sure it seems silly now to suggest the US would even need a false flag operation to just invade a foreign country, but it was a more innocent time.
Stretching "The President personally told the planners to fuck off" into "almost happened" is a reach, at best. Not sure I'd slot of into conspiracy theory territory though.
I would imagine a lot of foreign nations are trying to hedge their bets in hopes that Trump is an anomaly and not the new status quo.
Maybe in three years a sane person will take over and they can reestablish relations with the US with some added protections.
With all deals either ending in or around the time the next cycle could take place (4 years or less if they're just worried about the president, 2 or less if they're worried about how 'pants on head' Congress might get), and sunset clauses or other stipulations that 'if y'all go batshit crazy again, we reserve the right to Nope right the fuck out, and no, we're not going to set decades long precedents just because they make you happy'.
Even if he's just an anomaly for now, I can't help but keep thinking how this is the new low bar (yes, which is being lowered day by day). Americans should be shocked and dismayed (in larger portions than they are) about the bullshit the GOP has been pulling for the last 3 years in particular (McConnell's bullshit as a starting point at a minimum, yes we can go back decades too, I'm talking about this very recent crisis), but the rest of the world gets absolutely zero say about who gets elected into what seats, and for a country that has made some pretty spectacular fuckups in the past, this is the kind of situation that we know is causing damage to America's standing on the world stage.
Listening to the Pod Save America folks, there was an episode a few months ago about how it used to be that the US's intelligence agencies would put out a press release on a given situation or crisis, and the UK and France and other countries would follow that lead. That is no longer the case. Is that a critical thing? No. Is it tragic? No. But it's just one of countless indications that the US is losing that standing, bit by bit, I think. And recovering that won't be easy. One can lose trust in an instant, it can take a lifetime to build it, let alone rebuild it.
The US could elect Obama 2.0 (Michelle 2020 woooo!) and I think it'd be sensible for even allies to keep a bit at arm's length. Special Relationships and treaties and agreements are only as valid as both sides are willing to uphold them, and we've seen a self inflicted wound that cannot simply be brushed under the rug once it is convenient to do so.
Note, I'm not aiming this at you, in particular, Boss, but your comments struck a nerve on something that keeps rattling around. This can and will get better, I have to believe so, I have that much faith in humanity, however shaken it may be of late.
But we (in general, even those who aren't Americans) cannot allow this to get brushed aside like it never happened. Foreign policy in particular is built on trust between non-equals a lot of the time. Up here in Canada: America's Hat, watching this bullshit go on with NAFTA and little snipes back and forth over materials and threatened tariffs (but not actually, but maybe, or not, y'know, whatever) is plenty tiresome in and of itself. Watching Europe decide 'we are on our own, militarily in particular' is chilling and sad and is (probably, hopefully not, but quite possibly) going to cause repercussions in years to come.
Edit: oops, I see I wasn't the only one to latch onto this point...
Similarly to the fact that you can't unrig a bell, if other nations feel the need to build parallel institutions to reduce their reliance on is they have zero incentive to wind them down at any point in the future. Especially since they will have built them to work to their advantage in the first place. The ADB, AIIB, AfDB, and Bank of the South all exist in part because we heavily influence the World Bank and IMF and those regions wanted to get away from us. That will happen even more, and will happen even among allies that we used to be able to count on. Meaning our soft power will go away and all we'll have left are threats of bombings or hoping things line up.
I'm not really bothered by the deterioration of American hegemony, I just hope we get through this administration without a new war. I'd say "without a war" but since we're seemingly permanently involved in a few at this point, that would be an unrealistic hope.
I do fear the prospect of a diplomatically defeated US lashing out militarily in desperation for a "win."
Hegemonic transitions are rarely smooth, which is why I'm not a particular fan of the end of American hegemony. China being the obvious successor isn't great either.
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not really bothered by the deterioration of American hegemony, I just hope we get through this administration without a new war. I'd say "without a war" but since we're seemingly permanently involved in a few at this point, that would be an unrealistic hope.
I do fear the prospect of a diplomatically defeated US lashing out militarily in desperation for a "win."
The only thing I worry about with it is generally speaking Hegemonic eras tend to be stable and peaceful, with the parts around them being...less so. Maybe the EU and China will step up in a way that's creates a stable and peaceful triumverate in the northern hemisphere. Although it would almost certainly lead issues in the Russian sphere and China making a grab for "their" islands.
Hegemonic transitions are rarely smooth, which is why I'm not a particular fan of the end of American hegemony. China being the obvious successor isn't great either.
I agree with your point about the chaotic nature of these kinds of power shifts. Is China the obvious successor, though? Will they be able to impose and maintain the same level of hegemony that the US has? It was a unique set of historical circumstances that led to the USA's ascendance, so even if China might eventually outdo the US in absolute power I'm not sure it's a given that they or anyone else will attain the level of global power and influence the US has since WWII.
Hegemonic transitions are rarely smooth, which is why I'm not a particular fan of the end of American hegemony. China being the obvious successor isn't great either.
I agree with your point about the chaotic nature of these kinds of power shifts. Is China the obvious successor, though? Will they be able to impose and maintain the same level of hegemony that the US has? It was a unique set of historical circumstances that led to the USA's ascendance, so even if China might eventually outdo the US in absolute power I'm not sure it's a given that they or anyone else will attain the level of global power and influence the US has since WWII.
That's very likely an even worse outcome. Woo, great powers eras!
Listening to the Pod Save America folks, there was an episode a few months ago about how it used to be that the US's intelligence agencies would put out a press release on a given situation or crisis, and the UK and France and other countries would follow that lead. That is no longer the case. Is that a critical thing? No. Is it tragic? No. But it's just one of countless indications that the US is losing that standing, bit by bit, I think. And recovering that won't be easy. One can lose trust in an instant, it can take a lifetime to build it, let alone rebuild it.
This probably has something to do with how leaky the current administration is, and so how other countries aren't as willing to share sensitive information.
That's perhaps one thing that can change back quickly with a change to a less mercenary administration that's not willing to sacrifice intel for political points.
But you would at least need to make sure your intel assets go dark before the next Republican president after that gets in.
Fracture into more regional powers, historical uneasiness aside, might be a best case scenario for the near future.
Best case, sure, but an unlikely one. The days of regional powers have been over for centuries. Especially on a climate of globalisation, someone’s going to fill in the gap America leaves and all the contenders aren’t friendly (China being first in line), because hegemonies aren’t in the business of being nice.
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
That assumes one nation fills them all. We only took up as much space as we did because every blew themselves up, and before us, the British were able to easily conquer unindustrialized nations.
If we're looking at a couple decades of America's slow decline a world with larger-than-WW1 but still vaguely regional in their influence powers is foreseable as various contenders eat into our influence.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Except that no one has long range force projection anymore, because America filled that niche for Nato/UN. And every country that gets WMDs is a country that is basically immune to invasion. I don’t see a path to full scale hegemony for China, Russia, the EU, or anyone else in the current military paradigm without decades of hardcore military spending to overhaul their forces, hell, who even has navies anymore that can move troops? Sure, we're going to have a handful of countries you don't want to fuck with on any level, but that's a great power situation, not hegemony.
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
That assumes one nation fills them all. We only took up as much space as we did because every blew themselves up, and before us, the British were able to easily conquer unindustrialized nations.
If we're looking at a couple decades of America's slow decline a world with larger-than-WW1 but still vaguely regional in their influence powers is foreseable as various contenders eat into our influence.
Also depends on how successful a lot of the regional integration efforts are. The EU being the most obvious, but also UNASUR and ASEAN. The Arab League/GCC and African Union/several subafrican regional organizations also exist, but...yeah EU, UNASUR, and ASEAN plus China, India, and US could be how the world overlaps in the future.
The great powers era didn't have MAD, so the possibility space may be very, very different than the last time.
There's also an element to "regional powers = war" that kind of assumes that a one or two super power world has a reduced risk of conflict as well that I find pretty questionable.
Prior to WW1 war was common because consequences were relatively nonexistent by modern standard. Our sample size for how industrialized nations behave in a heavily balkanized world is minimal at best.
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
Yes the murderous dictator who is noted for having had a subordinate chained to be blown up by fucking artillery regrets murdering his own people. Fuck off you normalizing fucks.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
The great powers era didn't have MAD, so the possibility space may be very, very different than the last time.
There's also an element to "regional powers = war" that kind of assumes that a one or two super power world has a reduced risk of conflict as well that I find pretty questionable.
Prior to WW1 war was common because consequences were relatively nonexistent by modern standard. Our sample size for how industrialized nations behave in a heavily balkanized world is minimal at best.
Also, that was before Kellogg–Briand. Which mostly worked at preventing war for conquest. There's a reason Crimea seems like such an outlier.
The great powers era didn't have MAD, so the possibility space may be very, very different than the last time.
There's also an element to "regional powers = war" that kind of assumes that a one or two super power world has a reduced risk of conflict as well that I find pretty questionable.
Prior to WW1 war was common because consequences were relatively nonexistent by modern standard. Our sample size for how industrialized nations behave in a heavily balkanized world is minimal at best.
Also, that was before Kellogg–Briand. Which mostly worked at preventing war for conquest. There's a reason Crimea seems like such an outlier.
I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Pact, and that it had little to do with the instances where it seemed successful. I'm inclined towards the thinking that the world simply changed enough that war between vaguely comparable powers became less and less attractive as economic costs mounted and plenty of opportunities to pick on and really exploit underdeveloped regions came into the fore.
All that needs to happen for America to warm up to the DPRK is for some (white) manchild millionaire to build a factory there without getting screwed. My ten bucks are on Musk or Branson.
Edith Upwards on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't see how saying Northwoods almost happened is a conspiracy.
Sure it seems silly now to suggest the US would even need a false flag operation to just invade a foreign country, but it was a more innocent time.
Stretching "The President personally told the planners to fuck off" into "almost happened" is a reach, at best. Not sure I'd slot of into conspiracy theory territory though.
I mean the planners weren't some randos of the street, it was the DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Being ultimately rejected as it reached the very highest level fits "almost happened" quite well.
Especially when we're discussing how the current president has made others become wary of the US. Such a bugshit insane idea needing to be rejected by the president himself points towards wariness being the best default position. You're not hoping the president isn't a warmongering maniac, you're hoping he's at least able to stop the warmongering maniacs from doing their shit.
Hegemonic transitions are rarely smooth, which is why I'm not a particular fan of the end of American hegemony. China being the obvious successor isn't great either.
I agree with your point about the chaotic nature of these kinds of power shifts. Is China the obvious successor, though? Will they be able to impose and maintain the same level of hegemony that the US has? It was a unique set of historical circumstances that led to the USA's ascendance, so even if China might eventually outdo the US in absolute power I'm not sure it's a given that they or anyone else will attain the level of global power and influence the US has since WWII.
That's the vacuum state that results. When a hegemonic power declines, there isn't an immediate hegemonic successor. That's a consequence of what hegemony looks like, which is a dominant power; there is no "obvious" runner-up, because all others are far behind.
China's the obvious next-hegemon-up, being really the only country with even remotely realistic aspirations, but that's probably decades away at best and we can expect it to be contested.
hippofant on
+3
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I would imagine a lot of foreign nations are trying to hedge their bets in hopes that Trump is an anomaly and not the new status quo.
Maybe in three years a sane person will take over and they can reestablish relations with the US with some added protections.
With all deals either ending in or around the time the next cycle could take place (4 years or less if they're just worried about the president, 2 or less if they're worried about how 'pants on head' Congress might get), and sunset clauses or other stipulations that 'if y'all go batshit crazy again, we reserve the right to Nope right the fuck out, and no, we're not going to set decades long precedents just because they make you happy'.
Even if he's just an anomaly for now, I can't help but keep thinking how this is the new low bar (yes, which is being lowered day by day). Americans should be shocked and dismayed (in larger portions than they are) about the bullshit the GOP has been pulling for the last 3 years in particular (McConnell's bullshit as a starting point at a minimum, yes we can go back decades too, I'm talking about this very recent crisis), but the rest of the world gets absolutely zero say about who gets elected into what seats, and for a country that has made some pretty spectacular fuckups in the past, this is the kind of situation that we know is causing damage to America's standing on the world stage.
Listening to the Pod Save America folks, there was an episode a few months ago about how it used to be that the US's intelligence agencies would put out a press release on a given situation or crisis, and the UK and France and other countries would follow that lead. That is no longer the case. Is that a critical thing? No. Is it tragic? No. But it's just one of countless indications that the US is losing that standing, bit by bit, I think. And recovering that won't be easy. One can lose trust in an instant, it can take a lifetime to build it, let alone rebuild it.
The US could elect Obama 2.0 (Michelle 2020 woooo!) and I think it'd be sensible for even allies to keep a bit at arm's length. Special Relationships and treaties and agreements are only as valid as both sides are willing to uphold them, and we've seen a self inflicted wound that cannot simply be brushed under the rug once it is convenient to do so.
Note, I'm not aiming this at you, in particular, Boss, but your comments struck a nerve on something that keeps rattling around. This can and will get better, I have to believe so, I have that much faith in humanity, however shaken it may be of late.
But we (in general, even those who aren't Americans) cannot allow this to get brushed aside like it never happened. Foreign policy in particular is built on trust between non-equals a lot of the time. Up here in Canada: America's Hat, watching this bullshit go on with NAFTA and little snipes back and forth over materials and threatened tariffs (but not actually, but maybe, or not, y'know, whatever) is plenty tiresome in and of itself. Watching Europe decide 'we are on our own, militarily in particular' is chilling and sad and is (probably, hopefully not, but quite possibly) going to cause repercussions in years to come.
Edit: oops, I see I wasn't the only one to latch onto this point...
I agree with all of this. Some of this damage is going to be permanent, or at least super long term.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think even domestically the damage will be long-term. Trump's ascension is going to cause future candidates to go as extreme as possible. Is that good? Depends on your politics, I suppose. Democrats call for a candidate that wants the Biggest Plans and All the Solutions to raise morale. Ok, but that's not a way to actually govern. There has to be compromises and people have to have hope in the system. Failing on big promises destines us for people becoming even more apathetic.
The damage Fox News has been doing to this country is substantial, and I don't know how we as an American culture deal with that kind of thing. WRT foreign policy, I don't rationally see why our allies would go autarkic with their international goals and relationships.
I'm hopeful...but I have a feeling I'll be spending my entire adult life trying to fix this mistake.
In her Thursday statement, published by the Korean Central News Agency, Ms. Choe called Mr. Pence’s words “unbridled and impudent,” and said that “Pence should have seriously considered the terrible consequences of his words.”
“As a person involved in the U.S. affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the U.S. vice president,” she said.
Ms. Choe added that, if the U.S. continues to offend the North’s “goodwill,” she would tell leader Kim Jong Un to reconsider the Singapore summit with the U.S.
“It is the U.S. who has asked for dialogue, but now it is misleading the public opinion as if we have invited them to sit with us,” Ms. Choe said. “We will neither beg the U.S. for dialogue nor take the trouble to persuade them if they do not want to sit together with us.”
In her Thursday statement, published by the Korean Central News Agency, Ms. Choe called Mr. Pence’s words “unbridled and impudent,” and said that “Pence should have seriously considered the terrible consequences of his words.”
“As a person involved in the U.S. affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the U.S. vice president,” she said.
Ms. Choe added that, if the U.S. continues to offend the North’s “goodwill,” she would tell leader Kim Jong Un to reconsider the Singapore summit with the U.S.
“It is the U.S. who has asked for dialogue, but now it is misleading the public opinion as if we have invited them to sit with us,” Ms. Choe said. “We will neither beg the U.S. for dialogue nor take the trouble to persuade them if they do not want to sit together with us.”
This is all going super well.
I mean, there's a reason I updated the thread title to this...
Bush was an inconvenient shitshow, but he kept looking at us with puppydog-eyes. Trump never stops barking at us, and is overtly an ingrate.
People can grumble and forgive a lot when not actively antagonised.
Posts
He seems determined to get one from iran.
Simply because the other countries weren't falling for his bait to attack first. He's been engaging in escalating conflicts with countries like North Korea and Iran, hell, even Mexico, for months for this purpose. That "yet" is there for a reason.
edit: In the mean time he got America into a trade war with China, which America lost.
He is still President. He also has shown us to be unreliable when it comes to upholding international agreements or treaties. Why spend years negotiating a trade treaty with us and a bunch of other nations only for us to flip the table at the end?
With all deals either ending in or around the time the next cycle could take place (4 years or less if they're just worried about the president, 2 or less if they're worried about how 'pants on head' Congress might get), and sunset clauses or other stipulations that 'if y'all go batshit crazy again, we reserve the right to Nope right the fuck out, and no, we're not going to set decades long precedents just because they make you happy'.
Even if he's just an anomaly for now, I can't help but keep thinking how this is the new low bar (yes, which is being lowered day by day). Americans should be shocked and dismayed (in larger portions than they are) about the bullshit the GOP has been pulling for the last 3 years in particular (McConnell's bullshit as a starting point at a minimum, yes we can go back decades too, I'm talking about this very recent crisis), but the rest of the world gets absolutely zero say about who gets elected into what seats, and for a country that has made some pretty spectacular fuckups in the past, this is the kind of situation that we know is causing damage to America's standing on the world stage.
Listening to the Pod Save America folks, there was an episode a few months ago about how it used to be that the US's intelligence agencies would put out a press release on a given situation or crisis, and the UK and France and other countries would follow that lead. That is no longer the case. Is that a critical thing? No. Is it tragic? No. But it's just one of countless indications that the US is losing that standing, bit by bit, I think. And recovering that won't be easy. One can lose trust in an instant, it can take a lifetime to build it, let alone rebuild it.
The US could elect Obama 2.0 (Michelle 2020 woooo!) and I think it'd be sensible for even allies to keep a bit at arm's length. Special Relationships and treaties and agreements are only as valid as both sides are willing to uphold them, and we've seen a self inflicted wound that cannot simply be brushed under the rug once it is convenient to do so.
Note, I'm not aiming this at you, in particular, Boss, but your comments struck a nerve on something that keeps rattling around. This can and will get better, I have to believe so, I have that much faith in humanity, however shaken it may be of late.
But we (in general, even those who aren't Americans) cannot allow this to get brushed aside like it never happened. Foreign policy in particular is built on trust between non-equals a lot of the time. Up here in Canada: America's Hat, watching this bullshit go on with NAFTA and little snipes back and forth over materials and threatened tariffs (but not actually, but maybe, or not, y'know, whatever) is plenty tiresome in and of itself. Watching Europe decide 'we are on our own, militarily in particular' is chilling and sad and is (probably, hopefully not, but quite possibly) going to cause repercussions in years to come.
Edit: oops, I see I wasn't the only one to latch onto this point...
I don't see how saying Northwoods almost happened is a conspiracy.
Sure it seems silly now to suggest the US would even need a false flag operation to just invade a foreign country, but it was a more innocent time.
Stretching "The President personally told the planners to fuck off" into "almost happened" is a reach, at best. Not sure I'd slot of into conspiracy theory territory though.
Similarly to the fact that you can't unrig a bell, if other nations feel the need to build parallel institutions to reduce their reliance on is they have zero incentive to wind them down at any point in the future. Especially since they will have built them to work to their advantage in the first place. The ADB, AIIB, AfDB, and Bank of the South all exist in part because we heavily influence the World Bank and IMF and those regions wanted to get away from us. That will happen even more, and will happen even among allies that we used to be able to count on. Meaning our soft power will go away and all we'll have left are threats of bombings or hoping things line up.
I do fear the prospect of a diplomatically defeated US lashing out militarily in desperation for a "win."
Also American state TV is talking about a guy who loves basketball and Dennis Rodman like Kim would never really want to murder his own citizens, so that's how that's going.
The only thing I worry about with it is generally speaking Hegemonic eras tend to be stable and peaceful, with the parts around them being...less so. Maybe the EU and China will step up in a way that's creates a stable and peaceful triumverate in the northern hemisphere. Although it would almost certainly lead issues in the Russian sphere and China making a grab for "their" islands.
That's very likely an even worse outcome. Woo, great powers eras!
This probably has something to do with how leaky the current administration is, and so how other countries aren't as willing to share sensitive information.
That's perhaps one thing that can change back quickly with a change to a less mercenary administration that's not willing to sacrifice intel for political points.
But you would at least need to make sure your intel assets go dark before the next Republican president after that gets in.
Best case, sure, but an unlikely one. The days of regional powers have been over for centuries. Especially on a climate of globalisation, someone’s going to fill in the gap America leaves and all the contenders aren’t friendly (China being first in line), because hegemonies aren’t in the business of being nice.
What.
If we're looking at a couple decades of America's slow decline a world with larger-than-WW1 but still vaguely regional in their influence powers is foreseable as various contenders eat into our influence.
Media Matters guy, but you can see the video
Also depends on how successful a lot of the regional integration efforts are. The EU being the most obvious, but also UNASUR and ASEAN. The Arab League/GCC and African Union/several subafrican regional organizations also exist, but...yeah EU, UNASUR, and ASEAN plus China, India, and US could be how the world overlaps in the future.
There's also an element to "regional powers = war" that kind of assumes that a one or two super power world has a reduced risk of conflict as well that I find pretty questionable.
Prior to WW1 war was common because consequences were relatively nonexistent by modern standard. Our sample size for how industrialized nations behave in a heavily balkanized world is minimal at best.
Yes the murderous dictator who is noted for having had a subordinate chained to be blown up by fucking artillery regrets murdering his own people. Fuck off you normalizing fucks.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Someone should explain to this man how psychopaths and sociopaths operate.
Also, that was before Kellogg–Briand. Which mostly worked at preventing war for conquest. There's a reason Crimea seems like such an outlier.
Agreed.
This is not to suggest that he is not some form of socio/psychopath.
I doubt he has that much empathy for anybody. Maybe nobody at all.
I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Pact, and that it had little to do with the instances where it seemed successful. I'm inclined towards the thinking that the world simply changed enough that war between vaguely comparable powers became less and less attractive as economic costs mounted and plenty of opportunities to pick on and really exploit underdeveloped regions came into the fore.
I mean the planners weren't some randos of the street, it was the DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Being ultimately rejected as it reached the very highest level fits "almost happened" quite well.
Especially when we're discussing how the current president has made others become wary of the US. Such a bugshit insane idea needing to be rejected by the president himself points towards wariness being the best default position. You're not hoping the president isn't a warmongering maniac, you're hoping he's at least able to stop the warmongering maniacs from doing their shit.
That's the vacuum state that results. When a hegemonic power declines, there isn't an immediate hegemonic successor. That's a consequence of what hegemony looks like, which is a dominant power; there is no "obvious" runner-up, because all others are far behind.
China's the obvious next-hegemon-up, being really the only country with even remotely realistic aspirations, but that's probably decades away at best and we can expect it to be contested.
I agree with all of this. Some of this damage is going to be permanent, or at least super long term.
The damage Fox News has been doing to this country is substantial, and I don't know how we as an American culture deal with that kind of thing. WRT foreign policy, I don't rationally see why our allies would go autarkic with their international goals and relationships.
I'm hopeful...but I have a feeling I'll be spending my entire adult life trying to fix this mistake.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-threatens-to-call-off-summit-calls-pence-a-political-dummy-1527122683?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/EffPD1RSdu
This is all going super well.
I mean, there's a reason I updated the thread title to this...
People can grumble and forgive a lot when not actively antagonised.