What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

FWIW, I have no problems in theory with pissing off some of our foreign friends, partly because I don't think that they've ever really been our friend anyway, more just people who may share some interests with us that we can work together on.  But that doesn't mean we should piss them off just for the sake of doing so (which often seems to be Trump's intent) nor that we should cuddle up to nations hostile to our interests.

What nations do you think are a "foreign friend" but have never really been your friend anyway?

[The Minsky Moment]

NATO is a pretty good example of positive sum bargaining in international affairs.  The members all get more out of it then they put in, and the existence of the organization - and more importantly, what it represents -  generates positive political externalities for its members.  (BTW I'm using NATO here as a proxy for the broader Euro-American Atlantic relationship).  There are some pluses and minuses, there always are. The point is that the pluses are bigger than the minuses for everyone. 

What is not always exactly the same is the net plus for each member as compared to each other.  That is what Trump naturally focuses on given his personality. "Winning" means the US net plus is the biggest.  What that attitude misses is two critical things.  First, the Atlantic relationship is institutional, and steps that undermine the vitality of the institution and thus its ability to keep producing for benefits for all members are  dangerous.  "Rocking the boat" can get you attention, but if the boat tips, the rocker gets wet with everyone else.  Second, the political, diplomatic and economic context that defines the "pluses and minuses" is constantly changing. E.g. if your foreign policy plan depends on effectively sanctioning Iran, then that heightens the need for the US to secure Euro cooperation.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've been saying this for a long time - be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. Sadly, "getting it" is considerably uglier than even I ever expected.

But this wasn't "wished for"

For decades European voters have elected governments that fairly consistently toed the Atlanticist line.  The Guardian editorialists might bleat about American imperialism but Tories and Labor governments all stuck hard to the Special Relationship.  Euro-intellectuals might complain about US hyperpower but their national governments acted otherwise.  Even the French came back to the NATO fold.

[Admiral Yi]

What is not always exactly the same is the net plus for each member as compared to each other.  That is what Trump naturally focuses on given his personality. "Winning" means the US net plus is the biggest.

This is a strange characterization of a situation in which the US is asking its partners to raise defense spending from 1% to 2%, as they have all promised to do, while the US maintains its 4% (5? 6?) level.

[dps]

FWIW, I have no problems in theory with pissing off some of our foreign friends, partly because I don't think that they've ever really been our friend anyway, more just people who may share some interests with us that we can work together on.  But that doesn't mean we should piss them off just for the sake of doing so (which often seems to be Trump's intent) nor that we should cuddle up to nations hostile to our interests.

What nations do you think are a "foreign friend" but have never really been your friend anyway?

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship. 

OTOH, there are some countries that are sometimes considered our friends whose interests don't really align with ours, IMO.  The Isrealis and the Saudis both come quickly to mind.  In general, I don't think that their overall interests truly align with ours.  That's not to say that we have no interests in common that we can't work together on, but we should keep in mind that that have goals that don't match up with ours (which isn't to say those goals are always directly opposed to ours, either).

[Jacob]

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship.

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"?

[Razgovory]

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship.

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"?

There seems to be some sort of feeling amongst Conservatives that those European servicemen who died in Afghanistan fighting at America's behest somehow got the better of us.

[dps]

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”?

A bit cold-blooded, but don't think that's a completely unreasonable POV.  FWIW, I don't think any foreign country should act in concert with us because they consider us their friend, but should do so when their interests align with ours.  It's a two-way street.


There are countries whose interests are going to align with ours in so many important areas, and be opposed to ours in so few areas, that for practical purposes they can be considered our friends.  Canada would certainly fall in that category.

As to Raz's point, I hope that European soldiers who fought with us in Afghanistan (whether they became casualties or not) did so because their governments thought that it was in their best interests to assist us in getting rid of the Taliban and trying to dismantle terrorist organizations, not because their governments thought of us as their friends.  I think it would have been pretty monstrous of their countries to send them to fight and die if it wasn't in their national interests to be on our side there.

[Razgovory]

Some times you do things because it's the right thing to do.  Germany sent troops to fight and die in Afghanistan because the US asked.  Was the Taliban a threat to Germany?  No, not really.  Does Germany really need NATO?  No, not anymore.  Chances of an invasion of Germany are fairly slim.  They went because they were our friends.

[crazy canuck]

FWIW, I have no problems in theory with pissing off some of our foreign friends, partly because I don't think that they've ever really been our friend anyway, more just people who may share some interests with us that we can work together on.  But that doesn't mean we should piss them off just for the sake of doing so (which often seems to be Trump's intent) nor that we should cuddle up to nations hostile to our interests.

What nations do you think are a "foreign friend" but have never really been your friend anyway?

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship. 

That is a good example of the change that is occurring in American thinking. One that we are wise to take note of.

[grumbler]

Most of them, tbh.  But I do want to stress that many countries that have usually been considered our friends do have interests that align with ours, and we can and should co-operate with them on that basis.  It's just that both parties should acknowledge that it's a matter of common interests, not friendship.

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"?

"Countries have no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

This is probably true in the long run, but in the short term you can consider countries whose common interests far outweigh their different interests as friends.

[grumbler]

That is a good example of the change that is occurring in American thinking. One that we are wise to take note of.

This isn't a change, and it isn't an American understanding.  It is the way the world works.  You would be wise to take note of it.

[Eddie Teach]

Some times you do things because it's the right thing to do.  Germany sent troops to fight and die in Afghanistan because the US asked.  Was the Taliban a threat to Germany?  No, not really.  Does Germany really need NATO?  No, not anymore.  Chances of an invasion of Germany are fairly slim.  They went because they were our friends.

Al Qaeda was a threat to Germany and the Taliban were harboring them.

[Razgovory]

Some times you do things because it's the right thing to do.  Germany sent troops to fight and die in Afghanistan because the US asked.  Was the Taliban a threat to Germany?  No, not really.  Does Germany really need NATO?  No, not anymore.  Chances of an invasion of Germany are fairly slim.  They went because they were our friends.

Al Qaeda was a threat to Germany and the Taliban were harboring them.

[Eddie Teach]

I missed the funny part.