I have seen a number of US-based commentators rail against American involvement in many international events and wars, and to an extent they have a point. Not least, they’re right to ask hard questions about what America gets in return for all that apart from our love. Selling fancy military jets and tech is nice, but not much compensation, arguably, for much of the grief that comes with financing military efforts. So even if a different POTUS was office, we’d have reached this situation, if not quite the same way.
Remember that less than two months ago, the POTUS was a senile, crooked, and in my view deeply unpleasant old man who liked to shove America’s nose into UK domestic matters, such as Northern Ireland, to take just one example. So this is a bipartisan problem, not one specific to Trump and his circle.
In a way, Trump is doing Europe and certain other countries a favour, even if it does not come across that way. I expect S. Korea, Japan, even Taiwan, to spend even more on defence, such as anti-missile defence. Those nations must be deeply alarmed. I expect Israel to get involved in lending out its expertise to countries willing to work with Israel. (One side-effect of this period is that behind the scenes, military co-operation between Europe and Israel will increase. Let’s get IDF pilots of a certain age to train folk up. They’re the best in the world.)
Various thoughts this morning in London, as I get ready to fly on business to Zurich (the Swiss have some clever tech, by the way):
Net Zero is dead. Keir Starmer must in whatever way he can to sway his backbenchers and the chattering class, put NZ into the side of the road. That might mean sacking energy secretary Ed Milliband. Deindustrialisation must stop. Windmills, solar energy and happy thoughts cannot build a submarine, artillery shell factory or a bunch of anti-missile batteries. And screwing the British economy to make a tiny dent in C02 emissions so we feel all virtuous is a luxury belief. Luxuries are out.
Liz Kendall, the minister responsible for benefits in the UK, will have to squeeze benefits paid to millions of people who are currently allegedly too ill to work. We spend tens of billions on keeping working-age adults away from productive work. It’s unsustainabile, financially and morally. It also robs the UK of productive potential, and lets human capital disintegrate. If Starmer can blitz foreign aid, he can instruct his colleagues to do the same on welfare.
European nations will start to further restrict the ability of US-based companies, investors etc from buying controlling stakes in unlisted and listed European firms that produce tech and goods that have military uses, either explicitly, or potentially. Such firms will also be banned, or restricted, from listing on the New York Stock Exchange for the forseeable future.
Americans coming to Europe on various trips may notice that visa-free applications become more onerous. I don’t like it but I won’t be surprised if it happens, particularly if such a person has been to Russia in the past decade.
Intelligence sharing among the “Five Eyes” alliance that dates back to WW2 (the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) will squeeze out the US to some extent, if not completely. Subtly, however, there will be more of a move towards countries we might have to trust a bit more. With Tulsi Gabbard as a intelligence-related US government member, some of the 5E countries will be nervous.
I want to stress that I don’t necessarily endorse all the actions that will be taken, or at least I don’t have time here to go into the finer details. Trump is going to be in office for four years and we don’t know what happens after the mid-terms. He’s also getting older and more volatile. At some point his acolytes will fall out (Musk, probably.) But whatever happens, Europe must rearm significantly, must increase focus on security and intelligence gathering capabilities, and prevent further US leverage over our resources where possible.
Starmer’s government is no more likely to end net zero that it is to end mass immigration. Commies never admit they are wrong, even when it is heads on spikes time. Their plans would have brought us to a socialist utopia if it wasn’t for the fascist reactionaries.
RDJ
“Fascist reactionaries “?
😵💫
Very good, Roué, you have mastered the dialectic.
“Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”
Never underestimate TTK’s ability to channel his inner Red Queen. Net zero isn’t going away.
This post operates on the assumption that the hardcore Left really want to do good.
This is wrong, and much of their destructive ability derives from this undeserved generosity by the rest of us.
They want power. They see nothing but their own advancement. They are completely without conscience or principle.
Look at the back-biting within their claque, the tactical about-faces and situational ethics.
As well, many of them were drawn to the Left by inherent sadistic and vengeful tendencies – unchecked by education.
Fascist reactionaries – suffering from false consciousness.
This is a draft for a Bee article, isn’t it.
(Except the visa stuff, exactly the sort of petty nonsense to warm the lefty’s heart.)
All very good points. If we’re doing this in the USA, it really ought to be happening on your side, also. Problems and misunderstandings and offenses occur when countries have disparate expectations of each other. It should be right up front for all – we’re all retreating into our sides and borders.
I’m thinking y’all will be much happier if you needn’t deal with Trump.
@bobby b
I won’t be. I won’t agree with everything he does, but I think he will be very good for us.
“Fascist reactionaries”.
I have that T-shirt!
bobby,
For all of Trump’s flaws his most serious is he is capricious. I dunno if that is necessarily always a bad thing in itself but it makes him difficult to do deals with. Google “Nuclear Ghandi”
The notion that all the Western European alliances and political priorities all need re-aligning just because Trump has a second and final four year term is peak Trump Derangement Syndrome.
@NickM
For all of Trump’s flaws his most serious is he is capricious.
In this context I’d suggest that “capricious” is a pejorative for “nimble”. The idea that he is “difficult to do deals with” doesn’t hold water, unless by “difficult” you mean, “he is very good at getting the advantage”. I actually think he is a master class in deal making. To give an example: he promised to build the wall and that Mexico would pay for it. What happened to that? Well it is classic Trump. He did build the wall and Mexico is paying for it, the difference is that the wall is not built out of bricks or steel but out of the Mexican army.
Is that capricious? It seem to me better adjectives would be “nimble” and “innovative”.
And I think this is the same situation with regards to Ukraine. What do we want? We want the security of Ukraine. We can’t put the American military in there so put a civilian American component in there that demands American protection. Plus it generates money for both sides, and offers a significant deterrent to Putin. Add in some European troops… Is it perfect? No, because no deal ever is perfect, but it seems a good starting point for negotiation.
Of course if you think the only “deal” acceptable is “Russia humiliated, return to ante-bellum borders, and Putin’s festering corpse hanging from a lamp post in Red Square”, then it isn’t a deal you’d go for. But the simple fact is that there is absolutely no route to that result. Russia will, for example, defend Crimea as if it was St. Petersburg.
I’m not expert enough to judge Trump’s deal in whole. But it is the first innovative thought that has come along since this war started. And, looking at the evidence, it seems clear that Zelenskyy was manipulated by the Democrats shamelessly to gain some advantage. I have mixed feelings about the man, but I think he was royally screwed over in Washington, and not by Trump.
And all this European thing? It is window dressing. The Europeans could not organize a piss up in a brewery. I mean literally they could not. Can you imagine the French arguing with the Italians on the wine list, or the Germans demanding fair representation of their pilsner beers, and some tiny Greek dude jumping up and down yelling “what about Retsina and ouzo”. It would be a nightmare.
Johnathan, I have so much respect for you and your comments, but how can you possibly think this would lead to the end of Net Zero?
I’d agree, and also sort of disagree. Capriciousness seems to be a tool on his belt to be used when he sees fit, as do his more . . . remarkable . . . pronouncements. (Gulf of America?) Everything seems to be a part of setting the negotiation table and setting tones. I think he WANTS to be seen as unpredictable and somewhat of a loose cannon.
To me, that’s one way of using the power of being the USA to best advantage. If our prez is too nice and predictable, the possible power is lessened. (“Don’t worry, they’d never do THAT!”)
For decades, being powerful has meant that one must apologize more, and act weakly. We in the USA are in dire economic times, and dire world-stage times, and I welcome his new approach, mostly. We’re going to suffer through some econ reversals no matter what happens, but his approach might make them more bearable. For us.
But, yeah, he’s kind of scary at times.
(ETA: Timing. What Fraser Orr said.)
Well, I am aware that being capricious can have advantages sometimes. But I’m not sure it applies with friends…
There’s an article on the Telegraph site by Owen Matthews (paywalled) today that highlights that European countries last year spent more on Russian oil and gas than they provided financial aid for Ukraine. Intriguing paragraph, especially regarding who the top 2 suppliers of LNG to Europe are. Does add to my feeling that the posturing by the likes of Macron, Starmer etc are more signs of impotence, not strength:
Also thought this was interesting as Poland is often presented as ardently pro-Ukraine, but don’t want their troops in Ukraine (so why should Britain?) and don’t want Ukraine in the EU to protect their farmers. Might be why Russia say they are okay with Ukraine being in the EU because Ukraine joining that group will stir up a load of strife itself about subsidies, trade, immigration etc.
@bobby b
(Gulf of America?)
I think this is pretty small ball, but I think it serves as a great illustration of Trump’s way of thinking. The left renames things ALL THE TIME, and almost always in a way to elevate some other group to put down America or emphasize its faults. But Trump wants to rename something to honor the USA. I don’t really care much one way or the other, but it is illustrative of the change in thinking in Washington. Moving from the self loathing of America’s faults to a celebration of its greatness. Next year is the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, one of the most important events in modern history. As a thought experiment compare how President Kamala would have celebrated it to how President Trump will celebrate it. It tells you everything you need to know about the shift in the political wind here.
And really, don’t the bein pensants roll their eyes when we call the USA “America”, don’t we plebeians understand that there is so much more to “America” than the USA? Well if you take that approach Gulf of America is a much better, more accurate name. It touches far more countries than Mexico, and Mexico almost certainly doesn’t have the longest gulf coast line. (Though I didn’t measure.)
If I were non-USA, I would be keeping that friends/interests distinction forefront. Trump, right now, seems to be an interests guy.
Fraser Orr
March 4, 2025 at 5:35 pm
“Moving from the self loathing of America’s faults to a celebration of its greatness.”
Completely agree. Had Harris won, we’d be looking at “a year of reconciliation and apology.”
Aside: I’ve now traveled the 2000 mile leg of my trip triangle, and am sitting on a dock looking out over the Gulf of America! So many Trump hats and American (not US) flags around me. Mostly oldsters, who supposedly only support Trump lukewarmedly. Doesn’t seem that lukewarm here.
This is a good post. I agree with basically every single word except:
Without Trump the current situation would not have been reached at all. Without Trump, perhaps a few decades in the future the issue of American financing of European National Security would have been brought up by a POTUS in some meager delicate way, leading to perhaps at best minor, small change in orientation or spending from the Europeans. Trump has basically taught a lot of Americans how to think differently about many subjects, including foreign policy. And Trump appears to be almost singlehandedly attempting to transform the Post-WWII international order (we will see to what degree he actually succeeds in this Herculean endeavor).
It is also worth noting that unlike every other politician, he is not controlled – or at least he is not controlled by the usual Lobbyists, Special Interests and Donors that control basically every other politician Republican or Democrat except for a few Trump aligned MAGA folks. Trump is probably a puppet of someone but not of the usual Lobbyists and Special Interests – the matter of who Trump really works for is an interesting question and not something that is so simple to figure out.
Actually, I detect a trend.
For the last couple of years the moonbats of the American left all rallied behind a senile and demented president.
Now it seems to be the turn of the wingnuts of the American right.
The specific Ukrainian matter appears to have been a pre meeting 40 minutes before the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump – where various people (for example Senator Murphy – Democrat Connecticut) urged President Zelensky to refuse to sign the agreement he had previously accepted, and to be “tough” with President Trump and others – this, President Zelensky was told, would impress them and enable him to get a better deal.
The advice was bad – deliberately bad. Yes DELIBERATELY bad advice – the “friends” of President Zelensky (such as Senator Murphy) are not really friends at all – all they wanted was for the meeting to fail.
Paul Marks
The Democrats are mostly snakes. But can you explain why you think some of the Democrats would have wanted the meeting between Trump and Zelensky to fail? I suppose you are specifically referring to the mineral deal not being signed? Why would the Democrats not want that deal signed?
It is an interesting proposition and certainly plausible, but I am somewhat skeptical and would be interested in understanding what you think the motivation for the Democrats might have been were this actually the case
“All they wanted was for the meeting to fail…”
The meeting did fail and it was due to the overweening vanity of a president.
And I don’t mean the Ukrainian one.
As for “the West” – Johnathan Pearce does not define the term.
The definition used to be nations that accepted certain basic principles, such as Freedom of Speech, but, as Vice President Vance found out a week or so ago, the “allies” do not accept these principles – indeed they hate and despise the principles of the Bill of Rights in terms of individual liberties – if they could the “allies” would put President Trump, Vice President Vance, and the tens-of-millions of people who voted for them, in prison for “Hate Speech” or whatever – how is it practical to try and have an alliance with powers who want to put you, and everyone like you, in prison? And the “allies” have nothing but contempt for the idea of democracy – the idea that the votes of the people can change POLICY.
Elections are either cancelled and the leading candidate arrested (Romania), the result of the election ignored (Austria), or mean no change in policy – as in the United Kingdom where again-and-again the people voted for an end to mass immigration (this was the main issue in several elections and in the referendum for independence from the European Union) only to see mass immigration get more and more extreme – the votes of the British people were treated with total contempt by an establishment that hates them, and is now putting more and more of them in prison for the “crime” of dissent.
So, at least by the old definition, “the West” no longer exists – indeed has not existed for quite some time.
As for alliance of Canada, under the “Woke” “Liberals” (in reality Critical Theory types who are not liberals at all) and some Western European nations.
Such an alliance would be militarily worthless.
@JJM
The meeting did fail and it was due to the overweening vanity of a president.
That is simply not true. Let’s define “failure” here: it is the failure to sign the mineral deal. It did not fail because of Trump, it failed because Zelenskyy didn’t want to sign it, instead he wanted to tweak it in his favor. He was given several opportunities to sign over a week and said he would, every time. But kept backing out. This is what that was about. Someone agreeing to the deal, then when it was time to sign, backing out and demanding more.
I’ve seen this writ small. I’ll interview someone (hiring is a very time consuming and expensive process), and just when we send out the acceptance letter they will come back with… oh wait I need another $10,000 a year, exploiting the fact that I am so far in and have spent so much to get to that point. I’ve seen this a few times, it is infuriating; my reaction is very much “fuck off an die, and you are on my enemies list, and I’ll never do business with you again.” Fortunately Trump was not so ridiculous as I am.
And, as someone said, it seems like it was deliberately set up that way by the Democrats. Why? Because I think they got tired of America winning. Megyn Kelly did a great analysis of this.
I have mixed feelings about Zelenskyy, but here I feel for him. I totally understand he is trying to get the best deal possible for his people as he should, but he can only get a deal that is possible, and Trump set out a path for that. Then the democrats, purely for their own partisan advantage, pushed him off the path. Talk about vanity!
Of course there are many here who think the only deal that is acceptable involves Russian humiliation, withdrawal to ante-bellum borders, and Putin’s bloated corpse hanging on a lamp post in downtown Kiyv. I respect that point of view, but that deal is unachievable. Trump’s deal was the best he is going to get, and the democrats seem to have poisoned it purely to damage Trump. It is hard to imagine something more vain, and, given the massive bloodshed involved, more evil.
He didn’t pick the title, I did.
What’s the evidence for this claim? Israel voted alongside the US, Russia, Belarus,Hungary, North Korea and Nicaragua etc against the UN Ukraine resolution, while Israel’s relationship with many European states is awful. Netanyahu’s closest friendship in Europe is arguably Viktor Orban, who is frequently derided as a Putin apologist. I don’t see what’s in it for Netanyahu to help many European states, including Britain, when so many of them are threatening to arrest him (which, since he’s head of state, would be as good as effectively a declaration of war).
I forgot to add that Israel are lobbying for Russia to keep bases in Syria to counter Turkey.
Trump is *very* close to Israel for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to the Adelsons and other rich Zionist donors to Trump campaigns. There are very strong connections between USA and Israel due to variety of reasons including the very strong pro-Israel lobby in the USA (both Jews and Evangelical Christians/Protestants) and “little tech”‘s links to the US deep state, Trump World, and Israel through businesses like Palantir. Also CIA and Mossad are intermingled and intertwined in a variety of well known and not so well known ways. If USA and Europe are going their separate ways, which I very much doubt, but if that does come to pass it is very unlikely that Israel is going to get closer to Europe.
“And, as someone said, it seems like it was deliberately set up that way by the Democrats.”
Not being an American, I couldn’t care less about your Republican/Democrat bickering, so please stick all that where the sun doesn’t shine.
This isn’t about you, it’s about Ukrainians fighting the Russian invasion of their country.
I am hearing chatter in various places and from people with varying degrees of credibility that there really is a realignment of the international order underway. The basic idea is as follows.
International relations from 1945 through 2016 was conducted in a particular way and different politicians (puppets) in USA basically operated within a certain mold permitted by the people who really run things. Trump is a puppet of one segment of elites who wish to chart a new direction in international relations and Trump has been placed to move things in a new direction.
The primary factor driving this new direction is not at all the war in Ukraine, which is really just a way to justify something new. The real main factors motivating the change to a new direction are the monetary system, the global central banking system, the USD reserve currency status, global trade flows, worldwide immigration flows of people, and trade agreements. The current course appears unsustainable and a new agreement among great powers is needed.
The new direction is basically defined by the USA distancing itself from Europe, instead growing closer to Russia and/or China. Or potentially middle powers like Japan, India or Turkey. The exact new alliances vary in different theories, but the common denominator among the theories is: the post WWII era is ending and a new era is arising where the USA and Europe will not be close anymore.
Personally I am somewhat skeptical of this happening for a variety of reasons. I think it’s quite unlikely that Europe and USA go separate ways. But for many reasons it is difficult to assess the validity of this kind of theory at this point in time, and there are many things happening that plausibly elude conventional explanation.
As far as Europe and USA having shared values, 2020 “election” and COVID “pandemic” ended that illusion for me.
Cool. If it’s not about us, then you can STFU and stay on your side of the water.
No? Oh, you mean it really IS about us?
You went to the Zelenskyy School of Negotiation, didn’t you?
Probably the two key indicators that would substantially corroborate the theory outlined in my previous comment are:
1. NATO – either the USA leaves or the treaty is abolished or membership dramatically changes
2. G7 – either the USA leaves or the G7 is abolished or membership dramatically changes
An interesting wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Two
It is worth noting that there are American companies who have far stronger commercial interests in China than they do in Europe, including for example Musk.
Another important thing to watch is what Trump really does with tariffs not only on Canada and Mexico but other countries all over the world as well.
Europe may potentially have to decide whether or not they will fight Russia through Ukraine until victory over Russia is achieved without significant American support. I’m not sure what I would do if I were in their shoes.
That’s where this falls down for me. I can think of few people more psychologically unsuited to be someone else’s puppet, or even quiet proxy.
I understand. I still have a bit of this same qualm with the theory. But overtime I have become more open to the possibility. It is a strange world. Trump was not supposed to win in 2016. I suspect that once Trump won elites realized they had underestimated his appeal and wanted to find ways in which they could use him for their own benefit going forward.
And I am open to the possibility that Trump was allowed back into the White House in 2024 by certain parts of the elites for reason(s) that benefit certain clans or tribes of the elites. Otherwise it would have been 2020 theft all over again. It is difficult for me to discount the possibility that we are watching an intra-elite power struggle out in the open and Trump is just a representative of one side overturning the status quo and charting a fresh path forward.
Maybe representative is a more accurate term than puppet. Someone needs to lead the political side of any transformation.
@JJM
This isn’t about you, it’s about Ukrainians fighting the Russian invasion of their country.
If you’d take your outrage tinted glasses off for one minute you’d understand that what I said was that a group of American politicians threw the whole country of Ukraine under the bus for small partisan political gain. Used the death and destruction there to leverage better press coverage for one day of the news cycle. Trump is offering the Ukrainian people an alternative. An alternative to stop the blood bath, to save their sons and husbands from the meat grinder. If they don’t want it that is their business. If they have a better idea, they can do that. But nobody is harmed by options.
So put your outrage tinted glasses back on, and fix your glare on the people who deserve your opprobrium.
Oh my god. 75 years after ww2, Europe might become an adult again.
Zelenskyy’s rapid about face shows exactly what he thinks about the likely effectiveness of the support trumpeted by TTK and the Euros. The man is not stupid.
That’s where the future is indeed heading.
I imagine you would get on the payroll like Fico & Orban & welcome your new Muscovite overlord because, he might be a brutal mass murderer but at least he knows what a woman is, right?
Actually Martin it would be more accurate to say Poland is ardently anti-Russian.
There could be some truth in this even if it’s not the entire picture. I mean, thanks to Trump, Blackrock of all people are buying Panama Canal ports.
Roue de Jour: “Starmer’s government is no more likely to end net zero that it is to end mass immigration.”
Well, he’s cut the foreign aid budget, and pissed off a few of his MPs and party members. Sir Keir S. likes power. Look at how he has pivoted from being a Corbyn supporter. So I think he might well ditch NZ or at least significantly reduce the focus. I don’t think he’s a blazing ideologue on this sort of thing: the foreign aid cuts prove it.
Of course all predictions are hazardous, so we will see.
Ben David: “This post operates on the assumption that the hardcore Left really want to do good.”
See my reply to RDJ above.
Staghounds:
“This is a draft for a Bee article, isn’t it.”
Oh, and now you have gone and hurt my feelings. Seriously, if you have anything valuable to add to this debate, add it. Failing that, fuck off.
the fattomato:
“The notion that all the Western European alliances and political priorities all need re-aligning just because Trump has a second and final four year term is peak Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Well, the Trump crowd, from some of the comments I see on social media and the like, want there to be a realignment. Defenders of Trump say, as I mentioned, that the fellow is doing Europe a favour by threatening to pull the plugs. Many far less noisy folk than DT have been making this point about the need for Europe to step up for years.
Martin: you are very right to note that the EU and other countries simply cannot berate Trump while ignoring things such as the massive purchases of Russian oil and gas. It’s beyond insane. That’s a fair point to make.
Shlomo: “Without Trump the current situation would not have been reached at all.”
I think that is over-egging the pudding. Trump is certainly able to say the unsayable, or suggest it, in ways that more “civilized” political leaders won’t. But consider this: the US now spends more on servicing debt interest than on defence. At some point, particularly if the tariffs etc prove to be as stupid as they appear, the US economic machine will stutter and that could weaken the dollar, and create a vicious downward circle. Prof. Niall Ferguson talks of “Ferguson’s Law” (taken from the Scottish writer, Adam Ferguson, from the 18th C), arguing that when defence spending is outpaced by interest costs, that it tends to presage a pullback in a country’s influence and capacity to influence foreign events. So even without a Trump, the shit was going to hit the fan at some point. What Trump has done is make this fact very stark. He may not realise it, but it is a genuine plus point about him when the history books get written.
Also, you say that the US is moving closer to Russia and China. It is worth asking whether what Trump wants is to detach Russia from China. China has given a great deal of money and resources to Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. I think it is naive of the Trump admin. to think they could prise those two countries far apart, but I may be wrong about that.
In the long run, I think that while the US and Europe will remain fairly closely aligned overall, it is also healthy and the right thing for Europe anyway to get away from being a defence dependent, just as a person should not be a welfare dependent. It breeds a sort of passive-aggressive sense of entitlement. Just look at how European politicians of a certain type have patronised Americans for decades while expecting Uncle Sam to ride to the rescue. That gig is over, and not before time.
I am sure we agree on all of that, by the way!
Most of us are used to the “mainstream media” being dishonest – but the level of dishonesty recently has been extreme.
For example, when Vice President Vance said “some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years” – the media (including the supposedly conservative parts of the media) took out the words “some random country” and replaced these words with “Britain”, “France” or “Britain and France”.
This is fraud – journalistic malpractice.
We now live in a “Western world” where, in some countries, people are sent to prison for telling the truth – but when journalists lie (blatantly lie) there are no consequences for them at all – they do not lose their jobs because they are pushing the dishonest agenda of their masters.
Looking at the terms that I’ve seen, that makes me think more that Blackrock is acting as Trump’s puppet, if anything.
Possibly. Usually BlackRock made politicians their tools. But then Trump is unlike any other western politician at present.
Yes, the UK media are behaving like it was during COVID/BLM riots etc. Wall to wall blustering, scaremongering, dishonesty and fakery.
The notion that all the Western European alliances and political priorities all need re-aligning just because Trump has a second and final four year term is peak Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Correct.
The notion that Western Europe is able to take care of it’s defense (or will be in the foreseeable future) is hilarious.
So, there will be no realignment, it’s not possible, not feasible. Europe is totally helpless and incapable of anything.
Sorry if I was not clear, let me clarify. I presented a theory that I have heard from a couple different places with, as I mentioned, varying degrees of credibility. I said:
To be specific I’d probably put about 25% probability on the theory I put forward being true in any substantive sense, but it is interesting.
I think that most of what has been going on with Trump’s statements on Ukraine and related matters is Trump has been using his bully pulpit to say or imply rather extreme things in order to shift the terms of the public discussion and enhance his own power in negotiations with various parties, including with Ukraine, UK, Europe, NATO, Russia etc.
This is similar to when Trump said “we [USA] will own Gaza” and the whole world screamed “what?? you can’t do that!” The real purpose of saying that was to shift the terms of the public discussion to be more favorable to Trump, and to enhance his power in negotiations with Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Israel, UN, etc.
I think Trump is more clever than most people, especially Europeans, give him credit for. For Trump *everything* is a negotiation.
I am reminded of the excellent observation made by someone back in 2015/2016.
Trump detractors take Trump literally but not seriously.
Trump supporters take Trump seriously but not literally.
When he says “we are going to do X” thats rarely what he means. He means “we are going to do X if we don’t get what we want” etc etc. This is especially true when it comes to international relations.
And I don’t mean that you are necessarily a Trump detractor, but it’s a good pithy quote not worth butchering for small increase in accuracy
“Well, the Trump crowd, from some of the comments I see on social media and the like, want there to be a realignment.”
I want a realignment of the defence of Europe because I consider one of the reasons the UK has been able to adopt all the virtue signalling stances it has over the last 25 years is precisely because the US has been doing the heavy lifting of providing a defence shield to Europe. If Europe (including the UK) are responsible for their own defence then they cannot afford Net Zero, mass immigration, welfare systems that allow millions of working age people to do nothing, social collapse due to the destruction of shared values and history etc etc. Its only because they shelter under the US’s shield that they can afford the above in both cash terms and societal terms. Take the US defence contribution away, and Western Europe faces a choice – go back to how they were in c.1995, hell even 2005, or face being utterly defenceless to anyone who fancies taking over.
Now I’m not sure that Western Europe will take the right path here. In the UK’s case I suspect we are too far gone to come back, even if everyone in power agreed we had to. But I do know that if the US remains the backstop then the liberal establishment Blob will continue with its current path. Only an existential threat might jolt them out of their current mindset.
The thing is I don’t see us voting our way out of our predicament. There’s too many vested interests set against an interloper captain coming in and trying to turn the tanker around against the wishes of the crew. The crew can thwart the orders to the engine room, and 5 years pass where nothing happens much, and then ‘progress’ is resumed in the same original direction. The only way we get back to 2005 is if the Blob suddenly decide, Borg-like, thats where we need to be. And they can do that, regardless of public opinion, because they got us here regardless of public opinion, and can take us back if they so choose.
I don’t know if the US withdrawing its defence guarantee from Europe will be that existential threat that jolts the Blob into changing course, but its the best chance we’ve got, this side of a violent revolution and societal collapse.
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1897298757584388224
“If tariffs are so self-defeating as the “experts” claim, why are all the nations targeted by Trump so quick to retaliate”
The notion that Western Europe is able to take care of it’s defense (or will be in the foreseeable future) is hilarious. So, there will be no realignment, it’s not possible, not feasible. Europe is totally helpless and incapable of anything.
What is your dismissive approach based on? Economics, or political willpower? In economic terms, Europe as a whole is roughly comparable to that of the US in purchasing parity terms; the dollar is falling at the moment (way to go with those tariffs, Mr Trump!) so the idea that Europe cannot muster the resources for defence is based on what, exactly? Europe certainly needs to improve growth – no debate there. But as far as paying for defence, it is an issue of willpower.
It is not as if the US is in a great spot, spending more on debt interest than defence, and with a debt burden that if anything is likely to get worse, considering that Musk is not being allowed to touch entitlements, although he correctly called Social Security a Ponzi scheme the other day. (One of his wiser public pronouncements.)
Shlomo: “If tariffs are so self-defeating as the “experts” claim, why are all the nations targeted by Trump so quick to retaliate”
Because the retaliators are stupid. If country X wants to practice self-harm by taxing imports, it makes no sense for country B to do so in reply and harm itself as well. If A makes its consumers spend more money on steel, or whatever, and increases production and other costs, it has less money to spend on other things. Why should B do the same? Open trade works even if not everyone plays on a “level playing field”. Contrary to what today’s mercantilists argue, things such as subsidies, capital flows etc don’t invalidate the case for removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
Another way of putting it is to say don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Here is another point about the mistakes that mercantilists make.
Trump detractors take Trump literally but not seriously.
Trump supporters take Trump seriously but not literally.
Trump detractors think that he has some core beliefs (nationalism, protectionism, his own greatness as a businessman) that he has broadcast for decades, and other remarks he makes that are meant to cause alarm and anger.
The problem with his not meaning what he says is that it gives him and his supporters an oven-ready excuse every time he says something terrible. Such folk must be exhausted doing this endless covering for him.
For example, I come across a lot of this sort of covering about the notion that Trump is a fan of Putin. His supporters say this is a smear, etc. Well, from where I sit right now t appears that some were right all along that Trump is emotionally drawn to Russia. Prove me wrong.
So the problem is is that he has given foreign leaders so many mixed signals that they are getting exhausted trying to work out what he “really” means. This is a tactic that brings diminishing returns and may now be actually making things worse, even for his own agenda.
Does it ever occur to Trump and his circle that he would do himself, the US, and wider world a favour by giving a genuinely candid interview where he sets out his views on all this, about his tactics and approach to messaging, etc, not least because his defenders would not need to tie themselves in knots seeking to explain, in a rather patronising way that I often see, what he “really” means? Mrs Thatcher, for instance, tended to avoid creating a need to be constantly interpreted all the time.
Maybe it is too late for Trump to change his theatrical, the “greatest show on earth” schtick at this stage in his career, but the likes of JD “Shady” Vance and others might want to give it serious thought, unless they want to be out in the cold in 2028.
Tariffs are a tax. If Trump lowers some other taxes it will compensate for tariffs.
Honestly, I think you misread the situation. I know Trump is Trump, and he’s going to say outrageous things. But, for the most part, they tend to goad the right people into the right sorts of actions. I don’t try to defend him. Mostly I’m cheering.
And, as to whether he should sit down and give away his thinking – I think that would give away one of his main strengths. He WANTS people to not be able to predict him. He WANTS people to wonder. I wish, over the course of my working life, I could have negotiated a third as well as he does.
And just keep repeating to yourself – with Trump, it’s all USA interests, not friends.
Bobby, I don’t want to rain on your parade, but for Trump, his goal is, at most, America as a giant golf club, with him in charge.
Caddyshack is one of my guilty pleasure films.
This article explains why JD Vance rubs some Europeans the way: it’s the fact European military forces haven’t really been successful in recent decades, not since the 1982 Falklands War.
https://unherd.com/author/tom-mctague/