What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

We won't know for sure until the Canadians decide they should have a military.

This tells me that at least some Americans are not able to consider a world in which there isn't something like what the United States used to be.

[Tonitrus]

I find the whole NATO spending/burden sharing discussion to be kind of pointless.  It's a big alliance.  Some members spend a lot on defense; some don't.  Poland and the Baltics spend a lot, because they are at immediate risk from the Big Bad Bear. Spain (as an example) doesn't spend a lot, because they face no immediate threat.  It doesn't make sense to blow up the whole alliance, just to spite Spain for not spending a lot on defense.  I suppose you could kick Spain out, but to what benefit?  As for the US, what exactly would the US be saving by withdrawing from NATO?  From a pure hard calculation of cost-benefit, it seems obvious that the US is better in than out.

That's not to say the US and other high spending members shouldn't go through the exercise of shaming low spenders.  Sure they should.  But keep perspective.

And that is the flaw in Yi's argument.  We either believe that there is a potential threat for NATO, or there isn't.  I don't think anyone disputes that for a long time, most NATO members neglected miltary readiness because there was no perceived threat (a calculus that changed dramatically in the last three years).  And we kept up military readiness because we had lots of other obligations/interests in/outside of NATO...even after the fall of the USSR.

If we really cared that much only about expenditures...we could have just as easily pull out of bases in Europe, and reduce the spending specifically oriented towards Europe, while still also saying "we are fully committed to NATO and Article 5". 

But nope, our current administration has to be stupid for no apparent gain.

[crazy canuck]

I find the whole NATO spending/burden sharing discussion to be kind of pointless.  It's a big alliance.  Some members spend a lot on defense; some don't.  Poland and the Baltics spend a lot, because they are at immediate risk from the Big Bad Bear. Spain (as an example) doesn't spend a lot, because they face no immediate threat.  It doesn't make sense to blow up the whole alliance, just to spite Spain for not spending a lot on defense.  I suppose you could kick Spain out, but to what benefit?  As for the US, what exactly would the US be saving by withdrawing from NATO?  From a pure hard calculation of cost-benefit, it seems obvious that the US is better in than out.

That's not to say the US and other high spending members shouldn't go through the exercise of shaming low spenders.  Sure they should.  But keep perspective.

And that is the flaw in Yi's argument.  We either believe that there is a potential threat for NATO, or there isn't.  I don't think anyone disputes that for a long time, most NATO members neglected miltary readiness because there was no perceived threat (a calculus that changed dramatically in the last three years).  And we kept up military readiness because we had lots of other obligations/interests in/outside of NATO...even after the fall of the USSR.

If we really cared that much only about expenditures...we could have just as easily pull out of bases in Europe, and reduce the spending specifically oriented towards Europe, while still also saying "we are fully committed to NATO and Article 5". 

But nope, our current administration has to be stupid for no apparent gain.

Yes, and the more offensive flaw in his logic is the notion of freeloading. That is a derogatory term used to denote that nothing was given in return.  You called me out for swearing last time. But that is fucking offensive. Said with the greatest of respect on behalf of all members of the Canadian military who have died fighting in wars that were mainly started by or in the interests of the United States of America, with Remembrance Day coming up.

[DGuller]

I find the whole NATO spending/burden sharing discussion to be kind of pointless.  It's a big alliance.  Some members spend a lot on defense; some don't.  Poland and the Baltics spend a lot, because they are at immediate risk from the Big Bad Bear. Spain (as an example) doesn't spend a lot, because they face no immediate threat.  It doesn't make sense to blow up the whole alliance, just to spite Spain for not spending a lot on defense.  I suppose you could kick Spain out, but to what benefit?  As for the US, what exactly would the US be saving by withdrawing from NATO?  From a pure hard calculation of cost-benefit, it seems obvious that the US is better in than out.

That's not to say the US and other high spending members shouldn't go through the exercise of shaming low spenders.  Sure they should.  But keep perspective.

I do think that fairness and benefit are different concepts and should be discussed separately.  I don't think Yi's restaurant analogy is the most fitting one, I think a more fitting analogy is that of an outpost where someone has to keep sentry at all times.  Let's say some people in that outpost really don't feel like doing their sentry duty, because they figure others would do it.

What is the calculus for the non-freeloaders?  It's in their interest to pick up the slack, because they won't benefit from getting slaughtered in their beds.  That said, they're perfectly justified to feel resentful, because everyone avoids getting slaughtered, but they have to pull double duty so that others not getting slaughtered can spend more time getting drunk and playing poker.  Ultimately, the only way the conscientious ones can enforce fairness is to play a game of chicken, which they may not be willing to do.

[Jacob]

This entire post is a straw man.  Fairness, not net benefit.

It's not a strawman. Rather your focus on "fairness" is a red herring.

No one compelled the US to make any of the deals it made. The US was in a position of unmatched strength and power. If the US made deals that were unfair to it, the only ones to blame for that is the American leadership and policy establishment. They must have been idiots to enter into such unfair arrangements, especially since the US were the preeminent power of the day.

Alternately, if the pre-Trump administrations were not just a bunch of idiots allowing the US to be unfairly taken advantage of. In that scenario, there were benefits to the US which you are discounting in your analysis and the arrangements were in fact not "unfair".

[Admiral Yi]

And that is the flaw in Yi's argument.  We either believe that there is a potential threat for NATO, or there isn't.  I don't think anyone disputes that for a long time, most NATO members neglected miltary readiness because there was no perceived threat (a calculus that changed dramatically in the last three years).  And we kept up military readiness because we had lots of other obligations/interests in/outside of NATO...even after the fall of the USSR.

If we really cared that much only about expenditures...we could have just as easily pull out of bases in Europe, and reduce the spending specifically oriented towards Europe, while still also saying "we are fully committed to NATO and Article 5". 

But nope, our current administration has to be stupid for no apparent gain.

That is not a flaw in my argument.  My argument is not that NATO force levels right after the fall of the Berlin Wall were too low.  Russia looked like a crippled state.  I had my hand out waiting for that peace dividend too.  Rather my argument is that the leaders of the member states met up and agreed that the fair and equitable distriubtion of costs of common defense was 2% of GDP.  Every member state agreed.  100% unanimity.  The time for a lively debate about what distribution of costs were fair, or about the sufficiency of armed forces generated by that distribution scheme to deter Russia or beat them in a war, was before the agreement, not after.  Then they repeated the farce a few years later.  So on the one hand it's personal because I feel lied to.  I've been played for a patsy.  From the policy POV it's suboptimal because lower trust reduces the opportunities for mutual cooperation.

[Jacob]

Yes, and the more offensive flaw in his logic is the notion of freeloading. That is a derogatory term used to denote that nothing was given in return.  You called me out for swearing last time. But that is fucking offensive. Said with the greatest of respect on behalf of all members of the Canadian military who have died fighting in wars that were mainly started by or in the interests of the United States of America, with Remembrance Day coming up.

Indeed. Several countries had a death rate per capita quite close to the US' in Afghanistan (and in the case of Georgia, exceeding the US' deaths per capita). To discount that as "freeloading" is pure smug arrogance. Even where the ratios aren't close, those many countries still sacrificed the lives of their people in support of American policy goals.

Similarly, various NATO countries have spied on their own citizens and on other allied governments on behalf of the US. The US have been allowed functionally a veto on all manner of security and economic decisions. American integration with NATO and Europe allowed the US to project power and pursue foreign policy objectives outside of NATO's areas of concern (Greenland basing which is all about protecting the North American mainland, using American bases in Europe to project power into the Middle East and provide material support for Israel, and so on).

Perhaps it's reasonable to argue that the balance wasn't fair - especially if you're in a phase of renegotiating the relationship - but:

• To dismiss the contributions as essentially nothing is both inaccurate and destructive to the relationship.
• It raises the question why the US - from a position of unparalleled domination and power - agreed to enter into exchanges that were allegedly so profoundly unfair.

[Admiral Yi]

They must have been idiots to enter into such unfair arrangements, especially since the US were the preeminent power of the day.

I agree.  They were trying to be high minded and ended up being naive.

[Jacob]

That is not a flaw in my argument.  My argument is not that NATO force levels right after the fall of the Berlin Wall were too low.  Russia looked like a crippled state.  I had my hand out waiting for that peace dividend too.  Rather my argument is that the leaders of the member states met up and agreed that the fair and equitable distriubtion of costs of common defense was 2% of GDP.  Every member state agreed.  100% unanimity.  The time for a lively debate about what distribution of costs were fair, or about the sufficiency of armed forces generated by that distribution scheme to deter Russia or beat them in a war, was before the agreement, not after.  Then they repeated the farce a few years later.  So on the one hand it's personal because I feel lied to.  I've been played for a patsy.  From the policy POV it's suboptimal because lower trust reduces the opportunities for mutual cooperation.

I agree with you that NATO countries failing to meet their 2% military spending obligation was shitty and counterproductive and had the consequences you outline. Being pissed off about this is perfectly reasonable IMO.

That said, most NATO countries have remedied this now and many are on track to spend significantly more than 2%.

[Jacob]

They must have been idiots to enter into such unfair arrangements, especially since the US were the preeminent power of the day.

I agree.  They were trying to be high minded and ended up being naive.

Fair enough then.

I don't. I think they had more insight into the benefits of American hegemony than you do, and considered it a price well worth paying, considering the benefits to the US. But even if you're right and they were idiots, the current state of affairs is primarily the result of American policy priorities (whether the people developing and implementing them were idiots or not).

As for whether the benefits of American hegemony were worth the price the US paid for structuring and implementing the Pax Americana, we're probably better off to leave that as an agreement to disagree.

[The Minsky Moment]

How is it that the US should shame certain members and the discussion is pointless both be true at the same time?

It's pointless because there isn't much to argue about what should be done and because the stakes are low.  Not to pick on Spain but they are a useful example because they are one of the larger countries that doesn't spend much on the military post-Franco.  Unless something goes horribly wrong, it's very unlikely Spain will ever spend a lot on its military because it is a democracy, and because the voters won't give over 3 percent of their GDP to spend on the military when there is no direct security risk to Spain that could justify such spending. That's just a basic reality that won't change unless democracy is overthrown in Spain or the Russians reach the Pyrenees or the Umayyad Caliphate makes a massive comeback.  So there really is no option but to figure out a way to accommodate to that situation without sending the wrong message to others.

[The Minsky Moment]

I do think that fairness

What does fairness have to do with international relations?  I'm sure there a lot of countries out there who don't think it's fair that the US can unilaterally shut down access to international payments at whim.  Well, tough shit, that's the way it is.

Is it fair that Poland pays over 4% of GDP to defense and Spain less than 2?  I don't know, fair to who?  If Spain fielded another infantry brigade and bought a cruiser, would that change Poland's military spending?  No it would not.

[Admiral Yi]

But even if you're right and they were idiots, the current state of affairs is primarily the result of American policy priorities (whether the people developing and implementing them were idiots or not).

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is primarily the result of American policy priorities?  Chinese occupation of the South China Sea is a result American policy priorities?  European rearmament in response to Ukraine is a result of American policy priorities?  Your comment is inexplicable to me.

[DGuller]

I do think that fairness

What does fairness have to do with international relations?  I'm sure there a lot of countries out there who don't think it's fair that the US can unilaterally shut down access to international payments at whim.  Well, tough shit, that's the way it is.

Is it fair that Poland pays over 4% of GDP to defense and Spain less than 2?  I don't know, fair to who?  If Spain fielded another infantry brigade and bought a cruiser, would that change Poland's military spending?  No it would not.

Fairness, like favors, is a currency in relationships.  The further you go on the take side of "give and take", the less willing people are to cut you a break because they value being on your good side.

[Admiral Yi]

It's pointless because there isn't much to argue about what should be done and because the stakes are low.  Not to pick on Spain but they are a useful example because they are one of the larger countries that doesn't spend much on the military post-Franco.  Unless something goes horribly wrong, it's very unlikely Spain will ever spend a lot on its military because it is a democracy, and because the voters won't give over 3 percent of their GDP to spend on the military when there is no direct security risk to Spain that could justify such spending. That's just a basic reality that won't change unless democracy is overthrown in Spain or the Russians reach the Pyrenees or the Umayyad Caliphate makes a massive comeback.  So there really is no option but to figure out a way to accommodate to that situation without sending the wrong message to others.

That's only half the cognitive dissonance.  If all that is true, why should the US keep nagging?