What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

By "the current state of affairs" I meant "the way NATO and the security structure of the Western world is organized, as well as the way the international economy is structured". No other actor has had as much influence on how those were shaped as the US.

Sure.  No other single state has had as much influence on the state of the world as the US.  We're the biggest.  I thought you meant something different.

Can you remind me what conclusions if any were based on this premise so we can go back to fighting?

[The Minsky Moment]

Sounds like Raz doesn't believe that Canada has a navy because he's never seen a Canadian Navy ship. She is from the "show me state after all.

In NYC we know they have a navy because they usually show up for Fleet Week.  Admittedly the Canadian riverine fleet may not be what it used to be.

[HVC]

Was it: America bad?  Cause you've been on that one for 25 years now.

No, actually the opposite. Malthus used to accuse me of being too much of an American fanboi. Sadly that is no longer possible.

When was this?  1988?  You've been very unhappy with us for a very long time.  It gets tiresome.

He's been unhappy long enough to eventually be right unless you happen to think America is moving in the right direction, I suppose.

[Jacob]

That is precisely what Project 2025 plans to do. Would the non-US members here agree that that is still within their understanding of NATO obligations?

Yes, if the US is clearly and unambiguously committed to Article 5 then that's still within my understanding of US NATO obligations, even if it completely withdraws all assets from Europe.

The challenge is how to withdraw those assets while still being seen - by allies and potential adversaries - as being clearly and unambiguously committed. This challenge is compounded by the fact that a non-trivial number of the proponents of plan 2025 talk a lot of shit about Europe, and the current administration does not have a good reputation for keeping their word.

Having assets in place that would make an Article 5 reaction more likely (whether it's in terms of being in harms way, or in terms of being positioned to react quickly) increases that confidence.

So, in principle the answer is yes; in practice it's a little more fraught.

And it is, of course, a massive change in the underlying nature of the relationship... but that's pretty much a given.

[Admiral Yi]

1. To bolster political allies in other NATO countries pushing to raise their country military budgets

Doesn't that mean it's not pointless, dear Liza, dear Liza?

[Jacob]

By "the current state of affairs" I meant "the way NATO and the security structure of the Western world is organized, as well as the way the international economy is structured". No other actor has had as much influence on how those were shaped as the US.

Sure.  No other single state has had as much influence on the state of the world as the US.  We're the biggest.  I thought you meant something different.

Can you remind me what conclusions if any were based on this premise so we can go back to fighting?

 

In conclusion: sure we can reconfigure the relationship if it's no longer fit for purpose, but stop being pissy at your allies for the current state of affair, when we're all lying in the bed you made.

[Admiral Yi]

 

In conclusion: sure we can reconfigure the relationship if it's no longer fit for purpose, but stop being pissy at your allies for the current state of affair, when we're all lying in the bed you made.

But we didn't make the bed.  We had a say in making the bed that was larger than any other single state's say.  My right to be pissy is not impacted.

[The Minsky Moment]

1. To bolster political allies in other NATO countries pushing to raise their country military budgets

Doesn't that mean it's not pointless, dear Liza, dear Liza?

It's pointless for us to argue about it languish style.

[Zoupa]

Is there an alternate method of demonstrating good faith you would like to propose?

Yes. Read posts more carefully and extract context from the discussion. What even made you think that in a discussion about NATO's status, GDP spending of members, that a poster would mean Chinese occupation of the south China sea when talking about the current state of affairs?

[Tonitrus]

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.

I don't believe it was me that called you out for swearing.  I've served with and worked alongside Canadian Forces...if you think I've disrespected them, you are either mistaking me for another poster, or you are very wrong.

*Correction...I did reference your use of invective...but you also seem to think I was disagreeing with your passion on the subject, or that I called you out for thinking that a line of argument I did not make (the reference to Europe as "freeloading"...I think those that believe that are flat out wrong) is illegitimate.  I did not and do not.

[Tonitrus]

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 precisely what Project 2025 plans to do. Would the non-US members here agree that that is still within their understanding of NATO obligations?

Not sure and I wouldn't speak for them.  And since it always needs to made clear...my post was not intended to advocate for that policy...I think it is stupid.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes. Read posts more carefully and extract context from the discussion. What even made you think that in a discussion about NATO's status, GDP spending of members, that a poster would mean Chinese occupation of the south China sea when talking about the current state of affairs?

You deciding what is good faith unilaterally is not what I had in mind when I said system.  We don't have a mutually agreeable method of resolving disputes about good faith.  How would you like to proceed from here?  Shall we get straight to the insults, or would you prefer an intermediate approach?

[Admiral Yi]

It's pointless for us to argue about it languish style.

The effect of me bitching about freeriding is the same as a senior official bitching, the difference is only the scale.

[Zoupa]

Yes. Read posts more carefully and extract context from the discussion. What even made you think that in a discussion about NATO's status, GDP spending of members, that a poster would mean Chinese occupation of the south China sea when talking about the current state of affairs?

You deciding what is good faith unilaterally is not what I had in mind when I said system.  We don't have a mutually agreeable method of resolving disputes about good faith.  How would you like to proceed from here?  Shall we get straight to the insults, or would you prefer an intermediate approach?

It's a shame that you don't even consider what I'm saying. I'm not the first poster to point out this tendency of yours.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a shame that you don't even consider what I'm saying. I'm not the first poster to point out this tendency of yours.

It's a shame you don't even consider the implicit judgement the most elite posters here have rendered about my good faith.  It's a shame you don't consider the possibility of your own biases and vanity clouding your judgement of who is excercising good faith.  It's a shame you haven't come to the understanding that moral authority is a privilege that has to be earned, not a birthright.