Trump 2.0 official thread

Lnk111229

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The problem I have with this widely accepted image of Mark Rutte as this figure desperately trying to hold NATO together in the face of profound skepticism from Washington, in large part by telling Trump anything he wants to hear and representing his perspective to other NATO members is just that... I don't buy it.

I'm sure that Trump instinctively despises NATO as an assembly of weak nations sucking on Washington's teat, but there's no sign that he has any real intention of departing the alliance. Presumably, he will have been informed that NATO is an excellent vector for influence over nations that could otherwise theoretically prove troublesome, particularly in concert. The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as leaked to the New York Times was fairly explicit on this point:



The above portion was redacted from the later public release but can be read in context
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Trump's new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
alludes to this policy and its predictable consequences also:



The "past U.S. policymakers" referred to are those who understood that allied material impotence and allied political submission are two sides of the same coin. More capable allies are more politically independent allies -- and we've seen just how enthusiastic Trump is about those.

So Trump is attempting something of a balancing act here: trying to prompt allies into being less useless, while maintaining their subservience. In practice, the only means of achieving this is by making loud noises about leaving NATO and therefore the Europeans to their own devices. But, conversely, leaving NATO is the one thing that Washington cannot actually do, as it is by far the most straightforward path to the formation of an effective independent European security architecture, which remains an undesirable outcome, if perhaps somewhat less so than previously.

So where does that leave Mark Rutte? One could speculate, but I think it suffices to say that asking Rutte about the virtues of NATO is a little like asking Xi Jinping about the virtues of the CPC. Without NATO, Rutte is out of an undoubtedly very comfortable job.
This remind me about Sir Humphrey with his remark in Yes Minister. It give same energy as Trump. Break It Up From the Inside. But in Rutte case? Who now? Maybe some thing like: Rather be a chicken head than phoenix tail. So go Rutte, we fully support you.

 

Lethe

Captain
This remind me about Sir Humphrey with his remark in Yes Minister. It give same energy as Trump. Break It Up From the Inside. But in Rutte case? Who now? Maybe some thing like: Rather be a chicken head than phoenix tail. So go Rutte, we fully support you.

For those unacquainted, Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are two of the shining lights of British comedy from the 1980s, offering uncomfortable insights into the power of the bureaucracy behind elected ministers. Samples:



I remember watching Yes Minister as a kid and, even when I didn't understand the details of the issues at hand, I loved watching Sir Humphrey run rings around his political masters.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The problem I have with this widely accepted image of Mark Rutte as this figure desperately trying to hold NATO together in the face of profound skepticism from Washington, in large part by telling Trump anything he wants to hear and representing his perspective to other NATO members is just that... I don't buy it.

I'm sure that Trump instinctively despises NATO as an assembly of weak nations sucking on Washington's teat, but there's no sign that he has any real intention of departing the alliance. Presumably, he will have been informed that NATO is an excellent vector for influence over nations that could otherwise theoretically prove troublesome, particularly in concert. The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as leaked to the New York Times was fairly explicit on this point:



The above portion was redacted from the later public release but can be read in context
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Trump's new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
alludes to this policy and its predictable consequences also:



The "past U.S. policymakers" referred to are those who understood that allied material impotence and allied political submission are two sides of the same coin. More capable allies are more politically independent allies -- and we've seen just how enthusiastic Trump is about those.

So Trump is attempting something of a balancing act here: trying to prompt allies into being less useless, while maintaining their subservience. In practice, the only means of achieving this is by making loud noises about leaving NATO and therefore the Europeans to their own devices. But, conversely, leaving NATO is the one thing that Washington cannot actually do, as it is by far the most straightforward path to the formation of an effective independent European security architecture, which remains an undesirable outcome, if perhaps somewhat less so than previously.

So where does that leave Mark Rutte? One could speculate, but I think it suffices to say that asking Rutte about the virtues of NATO is a little like asking Xi Jinping about the virtues of the CPC. Without NATO, Rutte is out of an undoubtedly very comfortable job.
Yes. Alienate NATO allies enough to boost their defense spending and focus on Russia while US pivots ostensibly towards Western hemisphere but the real target is Middle East and lesser extent Asia. US can't afford a multi front war and needs Europe to take now of burden is of European security so US can free resources for elsewhere.
 

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Kind of glad to see Professor Walt receive more exposure. For a while, it seemed as if he and John Mearsheimer were getting somewhat blackballed after publishing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Presumably, he will have been informed that NATO is an excellent vector for influence over nations that could otherwise theoretically prove troublesome, particularly in concert. The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as leaked to the New York Times was fairly explicit on this point:
The "past U.S. policymakers" referred to are those who understood that allied material impotence and allied political submission are two sides of the same coin. More capable allies are more politically independent allies -- and we've seen just how enthusiastic Trump is about those.

So Trump is attempting something of a balancing act here: trying to prompt allies into being less useless, while maintaining their subservience. In practice, the only means of achieving this is by making loud noises about leaving NATO and therefore the Europeans to their own devices.

As usual, I applaud the thoughtfulness of your analysis. I wish more people on this forum and in general understood and recognized tradeoffs as you do!

But, conversely, leaving NATO is the one thing that Washington cannot actually do, as it is by far the most straightforward path to the formation of an effective independent European security architecture, which remains an undesirable outcome, if perhaps somewhat less so than previously.

However, assuming I'm reading you correctly, I'm skeptical an effective independent European security architecture will emerge should Washington exit NATO.

1. It's easy for Eurocrats to talk about further European integration — including militarily — but not sure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
secure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

2. Until 1945, European kingdoms, principalities and so forth were frequently — if not constantly — at war with one another. The peace that has been achieved these last 81 years or so may very well represent an exception, rather than a sustainable new norm for the continent.

3. While some European capitals like London and Warsaw are unlikely to make nice with Moscow in our lifetimes, rapprochement between other European capitals — like Berlin and even Paris — and Moscow is plausible, especially if more anti-establishment populist leaders are voted into office on the continent. If nothing else, the Germans need access to cheap Russian hydrocarbons, unless they wish to accept further de-industrialization or allow themselves to meaningfully pursue nuclear power.

As more American elites — especially members of Congress — come to recognize that their moment of unipolarity is over, it's going to make increasing sense for US policymakers to stop letting the interests of fundamentally irrelevant actors like Estonia and Lithuania, and increasingly unimportant states like Britain shape American security priorities (even if that seemed unimaginable in the past).

Not to say this is particularly achievable — with someone as crude and sloppy as Trump at the helm — but a significantly leaner and perhaps rebranded NATO represents another possibility.

Without NATO, Rutte is out of an undoubtedly very comfortable job.

To be fair, Trump's abrasive — if not unhinged and vibes based — public statements combined with Rutte's embarrassing desperation may ultimately translate to unpredictable, if not volatile outcomes.

Hard to say just what'll happen in the next three years, but no "alliance" is forever, not even NATO.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Kind of glad to see Professor Walt receive more exposure. For a while, it seemed as if he and John Mearsheimer were getting somewhat blackballed after publishing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.




As usual, I applaud the thoughtfulness of your analysis. I wish more people on this forum and in general understood and recognized tradeoffs as you do!



However, assuming I'm reading you correctly, I'm skeptical an effective independent European security architecture will emerge should Washington exit NATO.

1. It's easy for Eurocrats to talk about further European integration — including militarily — but not sure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
secure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

2. Until 1945, European kingdoms, principalities and so forth were frequently — if not constantly — at war with one another. The peace that has been achieved these last 81 years or so may very well represent an exception, rather than a sustainable new norm for the continent.

3. While some European capitals like London and Warsaw are unlikely to make nice with Moscow in our lifetimes, rapprochement between other European capitals — like Berlin and even Paris — and Moscow is plausible, especially if more anti-establishment populist leaders are voted into office on the continent. If nothing else, the Germans need access to cheap Russian hydrocarbons, unless they wish to accept further de-industrialization or allow themselves to meaningfully pursue nuclear power.

As more American elites — especially members of Congress — come to recognize that their moment of unipolarity is over, it's going to make increasing sense for US policymakers to stop letting the interests of fundamentally irrelevant actors like Estonia and Lithuania, and increasingly unimportant states like Britain shape American security priorities (even if that seemed unimaginable in the past).

Not to say this is particularly achievable — with someone as crude and sloppy as Trump at the helm — but a significantly leaner and perhaps rebranded NATO represents another possibility.



To be fair, Trump's abrasive — if not unhinged and vibes based — public statements combined with Rutte's embarrassing desperation may ultimately translate to unpredictable, if not volatile outcomes.

Hard to say just what'll happen in the next three years, but no "alliance" is forever, not even NATO.

Rutte was publicly telling the EU that even if they spend 10% of GDP on the military, Europe would still be reliant on the US military.

---

If EU military spending only reaches 5% of GDP (half of Rutte's 10% figure), that works out as $1500 Billion for the combined EU, which is 1.5x more than the US.

Of this, Germany would be $305 Billion. So Germany by itself could build a completely independent military architecture that could defend Europe, given time.

---

So Rutte's address to the EU Is fundamentally wrong and betrays the mentality of the NATO secretary general. But you probably need that sort of mentality to get the job in the first place.
 

Lnk111229

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lol. Amerikkka is such a joke. Trump is a coward as well. He hid this 2 second clip of the Obama monkeys in a minute long video about voting machine tampering. If he had any (racist) balls, he would have posted the monkey video by itself. Half-way coward racist.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I once hope American will implode itself and finally let the rest of world alone. But holy fck the libtard weak ass movement( dont open door for ice, keep filming they not dare to do anything,etc) and the coward Maga crowd show up and messing with tombstone of Renee and Pretti is making me fcking weak man. Where are: we a brave, we have more guns than population, dont tread on us slogan folk? Cheap ass joke country and people.
 

Maikeru

Colonel
Registered Member
For those unacquainted, Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are two of the shining lights of British comedy from the 1980s, offering uncomfortable insights into the power of the bureaucracy behind elected ministers. Samples:


I remember watching Yes Minister as a kid and, even when I didn't understand the details of the issues at hand, I loved watching Sir Humphrey run rings around his political masters.
Did you know that senior civil servants, especially Foreign Office, in UK were/are known as mandarins? Originally the British civil service was based on Chinese imperial model, with strict examination to get in. They also have their own language:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top