That doesn't even register on the same scale of all the cooked up shit your government gets up to.

Also, weren't they gang members?

Of course that's what you are talking about. All you have are politicians' words about their commitments to xyz. There's no indication whatsoever that they plan or are even capable of keeping those commitments.

If we get down to the actual actions taken, nothing irreversible happened to US-European relations, and commitments to defense spending are only relevant if they stick for the long run, which I can virtually guarantee won't happen unless Russia invades a NATO country, which it won't for obvious reasons.

You're taking all of the lip service too seriously, and you're being sold hot air.

It might very well change, but my point is that whatever politicians say about it is not much of an indication.

Your whole argument that European countries are lazy and just expect the US to carry the can all the time is false. It was a legacy of the post war settlement. — Punshhh

It is a legacy of the post-war settlement, and that doesn't change just because some politicians said some words.

In fact, I can think of few things that carry less weight than the words of western politicians.

You're ascribing too much value to the words of politicians - those of Trump and those of European leaders.

Their words mean nothing.

Here's what factually happened so far under Trump:
- Trump said some things
- Trump imposed some tariffs
- Trump attempted to broker peace in Ukraine

None of this is irreversible, and one might even call it fairly insignificant.

People losing thier heads over some words the Orange Doofus said are dummies, and fundamentally misunderstand what geopolitics is about.

The AfD is not even remotely fascist or nazi.

It's a libertarian party, which is the diametrical opposite of the type of authoritarian far-right movements.

If you're going to make these underhanded suggestions, at least have the common decency to figure out what the people you're accusing believe:




The problem in Europe has long been the establishment itself, which is the party that shows the actual signs of authoritarianism, by ceding ever more power to the corrupt, untransparant, undemocratic cesspool that is Brussels, by cracking down on dissenting voices under the guise of 'misinformation', by calling everything to the right of themselves 'extreme right', etc.


People apparently have such a naive conception of how politics works, that they're unable to see how the establishment slaps labels of fascism and nazism on anything that challenges its power.

Europe has now been weaned off the U.S. teat. It won’t be going back in this generation. — Punshhh

That conclusion is rather premature.

It will depend on a lot of factors, the most important of which is whether Trumpism will continue after Trump's presidency.

If it doesn't, I can assure you Europe's Transatlantic clique will be back for more of Uncle Sam's grease. Things will return to 'business as usual' in the blink of an eye, just like they did after Trump's first presidency.

So, all I need to justify my ownership of my home is a "sense of property?" I just claim it's mine and, I guess, maintain possession of it against any who disagree with me, and that makes it so? — T Clark

I never said any of that. I merely pointed out that people's sense of ownership is fundamentally human and far precedes government arbitration.

As I noted earlier, you grossly underestimate people's ability to get by without governments micromanaging their every transaction, while grossly overestimating governments' ability to provide fitting solutions to complex problems.

If you think that what you wrote sounds ridiculous, consider that that's exactly how governments operate. It has a sense of what belongs to whom, and uses a big stick to enforce that view.

Do you think there is any possibility that the nature of our economic system will change to allow small businesses and the average Joe to be in charge. Short of a total collapse of civilization. Given that it will never happen, it is reasonable to use government regulation to create a more balanced system. — T Clark

Sure. SMEs used to be the backbone of the Dutch economy, until the Dutch government got ever more involved, bestowed ever more privileges on large multinationals like Shell, ASML, Tata Steel, Philips, Unilever etc.

The Dutch economy used to punch far above its weight class, and that's how we used to finance our elaborate socialist policies.


Also, it should be clear from what I said that I am not categorically against government intervention. But I do recognize it as the double-edged sword that it is.

[...] business as it is currently practiced can not exist without government regulation. — T Clark

Corporations aren't the only form of business.

A person selling their chicken's eggs to their neighbors is a business. No government interjection necessary.

Who would organize the market if not the government? — T Clark

A state/government creates a basic framework of laws within which the market functions. It's not strictly necessary, but it's a modern reality.

Other than that, it should be left to the free market except when the free market clearly fails for reasons directly attributable to the free market, and assuming a government intervention is the most fitting solution.

I wasn't directly calling for more regulation, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using regulation to aid business while resisting doing the same for workers, customers, and people in general. — T Clark

I don't think that's a matter of hypocrisy. It's a problem of the people have no lobbying power while big businesses do.

That will virtually always remain the case, which is why I would focus on reducing the government's ability to bestow privileges, thus making it senseless to lobby, and lowering the bar for SMEs - big businesses' natural enemy - to indirectly put the power back into the hands of the average Joe.

Ownership of all property is ultimately traceable back to government action - either grants, sales, leases, or legal recognition. Whether we like it or not, God does not establish property rights, governments do. — T Clark

If you're talking in a legal sense, that's rather obvious. Governments make the laws, which they then enforce through their monopoly on violence. (In that sense they are not so different from the feudal lords of old)

But a sense of property is a fundamental human trait that can already be observed in toddlers. No government necessary. Of course, governments can play a constructive role in resolving disputes.


What strikes me as rather odd is this distrust and underestimation of the average person, that apparently they need government supervision to do anything. I think it's typical of a state-centric view of mankind.

However, mankind throughout the ages got around just fine without governments micromanaging every facet of their lives. The 'nanny state' really is much more modern than people think. Even the Soviet Union didn't achieve the level of micromanagement that modern states do.

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas.

Platitudes about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre deliberately pretend otherwise, in order to get the so-called 'foot in the door'.

I believe that in the context of a civilized debate any idea should be able to be shared without legal repercussions, no matter how strongly I might disagree with those ideas.

Earlier in this thread I wrote that, at base, this does not need to be about taking responsibility for other's lives, it can just be about not benefitting from the suffering of others. I had never thought of it explicitly in those terms before. This issue has not been addressed in previous responses. I'd like to hear what both of you have to say. — T Clark

I think any reasonable person would, on some basic level, be against exploitation. I certainly am, and there is nothing in the classical liberal position that should suggest otherwise.

However, when one gets to the particulars of what constitutes exploitation and/or benefitting from the suffering of others, the subject often becomes a lot more murky. And in order to stage an effective government intervention, a general agreement that 'exploitation is bad' is not enough.

Here's my simplistic understanding of history. In the US Constitution, the government was set up restrict the power of large institutions which control social and economic life - the church and the government itself. Since then, I guess as a result of the industrial revolution, another institutional player has entered the field - business and especially corporations. That very powerful institution has a vast amount of power over our lives which our society is not set up to limit. That kind of limit is needed. Where can that come from if not government? — T Clark

Corporations are state-authorized, public entities - they exist by virtue of the state. If we need the government to protect us from the power of corporations, they should probably just stop creating them.

That aside, government intervention should be a last resort, and first and foremost the market should be organized in such a way that it lowers the bar of entry.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the natural enemy of large businesses, because there is no way a gigantic multinational can compete with you buying eggs from your local neighbor. This is why natural monopolies are essentially impossible.

Rules and regulations (which governments love) are the natural enemy of SMEs, however. And that's where big business and government find each other. Big business wants to raise the bar of entry for the competition, and governments want more control and more tax revenue.

So to echo your question: if businesses and corporations accumulate undue power and privileges, where can that power come from if not from government?

Is that the answer? I don't have to pay a living wage because I can count on families to fill in the gaps. That's incredibly cynical. — T Clark

I don't see what's cynical about it.

In fact, if people have their families to fall back on, there's a much greater chance that they won't have to accept an unreasonably low salary in the first place. Their families and social networks may help them bridge the gap between finding jobs for reasonable pay, or help them find better ones.

Furthermore, it's not like the problem of low wages is easy for solve. If simply raising the minimum wage was the clear-cut solution, then I wouldn't complain. But again, that money has to come from somewhere, the market will react, and the final results will not be what one had hoped for.

This is how government intervention often fails: it cuts off one of the hydra's heads, and several more grow back. Government then, in its unyielding belief that more rules and more intervention has to be the solution, keeps cutting off heads until the market eventually becomes completely and utterly broken.

Thanks for the kind words. :blush:

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature? — Outlander

I think institutions are inherently flawed, because they are ran by humans who are inherently flawed.

As a general rule of thumb, the bigger institutions become, the more flawed they become, because there is more distance between the institution, the people it's supposed to help and the problems it's supposed to solve. They also tend to grow more bureaucratic and less transparent.

Yet many people look at governments the exact opposite way: the bigger they are, the more power they have and thus the more problems they can supposedly solve.

Personally, I am a fan of decentralized institutions, thus putting more power in the hands of local governments.

Unfortunately, power tends to consolidate and move in the opposite direction - towards centralization and control.

But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. — Outlander

I agree, and there are many situations imaginable where forcing people to behave in certain ways is necessary.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that this comes at a cost as well. Contrary to what argues, I believe that forcing people to behave in certain ways takes away their individual responsibility and moral agency.

Too much of this and you end up with a 'nanny state' which tries to micromanage every facet of individual life - a category which I think European countries, including my own, are getting dangerously close to.

With every law that is implemented the question should be asked whether the solution really is to put more power in the hands of the government. The government, after all, is not comprised of superior moral beings, but the same normal, fallible people as those who would forego placing 'slippery when wet' signs.

_____________________________________________________________________________

As I see it, it's not a question of expressing concern for humanity, it's about taking responsibility for their welfare. To lighten that a bit, it's at least about not benefitting from their misery. — T Clark

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility.

Taxes have to come from somewhere - and that includes the lower income strata. The idea that there is a huge pile of money lying around that governments can freely dip into without it being missed, is magical thinking.

In the Netherlands, normal people end up paying like 50% of our income in taxes, and still there is poverty, homelessness, misery, still our social programs are shitty, etc.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and governments are rarely able to create real solutions to human problems.

If government is not the solution, tell me what is. — T Clark

Individuals creating social bonds and taking individual responsibility.

Government cannot replace this, try as they might.

Do you really think these institutions are capable of meeting the needs of people with no decent healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, etc. — T Clark

Oh, definitely and without a doubt.

I would much rather rely on a friend or family member for any of those things. And they're much more likely to provide actual help, because it is based on a personal relationship.

In the Netherlands all of these things are closely managed by the government, and it fails to provide on all four counts, forcing people to fall back on their social networks anyway.

That's where shedding 50% of your income to the government gets you.

I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you? — T Clark

This is a very uncharitable view, and I think it is also false.

In my experience, libertarians and classical liberals (I consider myself the latter) care just as much about their fellow man as anyone else. They simply disagree on how that care should be expressed.

Turning charity and humanism into a state-mandated process is objectionable for various reasons. The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. The other is that it replaces the personal process and turns it into an anonymous one - the giver no longer feels like they did a good thing, and the recipient no longer feels they were given anything other than what they were entitled to in the first place. If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all.

What institution other than government can protect regular people living and working in the society from business, corporations, oligarchs, and, yes, government itself? — T Clark

The (extended) family has fulfilled this role throughout the ages, and I believe it should have a much bigger role in modern society.

In general, I believe people should be encouraged to create and maintain social networks that they can fall back on. Social bonds between people cannot be replaced by a government surrogate.

Do you have some representative examples of heavily regulated industries that are monopolistic and lightly regulated industries that are not? — T Clark

I doubt you'll find a lightly-regulated industry that can in any way be said to be monopolistic.
As for heavily-regulated ones that are either monopolistic or completely broken: housing, energy, pharmaceuticals, airflight, insurance, foodstuffs, etc.

I could probably think of a couple more, but since I'm speaking from the perspective of my country (the Netherlands) and you of yours, I'm not sure how productive this will be for our discussion.

One of the foundations of conservative and libertarian political ideology is that the less regulation of commerce the better. On the other hand, the great majority of government regulation is put in place to benefit business and property owners. Large scale businesses such as banking, finance, communications, agriculture, and publishing could not exist without the Federal Reserve, SEC, FCC, FDA, and Copyright Office. And this doesn't include the most fundamental of all government regulations - property rights.

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Large businesses have always used their lobbying power to gain special privileges, which is one of the primary mechanisms through which market regulation tends to favor them.

This is why market regulation often misses its mark: the big businesses it is meant to target have ways to circumvent, bend and change the rules, while the small businesses that are instrumental in counteracting the power of large businesses are disadvantaged.

Not only is this why regulation generally fails to curb the power of big businesses, but one of the reasons why big businesses themselves may promote market regulation; to heighten the bar for new competition.

Without fault, you will find the areas of the market with the most regulations to be the most monopolistic, and most broken.

Do note that it takes a powerful government to hold any power worth lobbying for in the first place.

Someone who is intellectually crafty enough can construe arguments for pretty much any position, as Singer proves.

Since definitive philosophical arguments have yet to be found, determining what is true or false is, ultimately, a matter of intuitive discernment.

And intuitively, Singer is a moron.

There is no deep state. — frank

Of course there is. The US is corrupt down to the bone. The "deep state" is, for example, whoever is paying off your politicians to start and market wars that nobody asked for.

If lobbies have the power to push the United States to war with entire regions of the world (eg. the US response to 9/11), then how does that not fit the idea of an elite class that has gigantic political influence that circumvents and/or manipulates the democratic process?

If people criticise your teet-weening point on Russia, it's "no, it's a long game". — Benkei

If you reduce my argument as such, there should be no problem with me reducing your argument to "The White House is stupid".

Well, Benkei, experts seem to disagree. And I think it is vastly more likely that you are wrong, than the White House being stupid.

Maybe you should contact the NOS and give them your take.

I've not seen a working hypothesis from you and how what is happening now supports getting to your theorised end goals. — Benkei

I've given you plenty of suggestions. You're just refusing to read them, apparently.

Read: I disagree with what others say, here's something that does agree with my view. — Benkei

I don't feel one way or the other about the article. But it's clear to me that the situation is scarcely as cut and dry as you pretended.

Your argumentation means nothing to me if at the end of the day all you're doing is calling the White House stupid.

Who do I trust? Benkei, who thinks the governing body of the world's most powerful nation is stupid, or the people who put in an effort to understand what's actually going on?

Trump neemt enorm risico met handelsoorlog, maar kan die wel winnen

(translation: Trump takes huge risk with trade war, but is able to win it)

Trumps escalerende handelsoorlog in vijf scenario’s: impact op de Nederlandse economie (en breder)

(translation: Trump's escalating trade war in five scenarios: impact on the Dutch economy (and broader))


Oh boy... TPF looking mighty silly once again. Ya'll gotta stop basing your opinions on regurgitating below-average media slop.

Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" [...] — Benkei

On the contrary, I am actively hypothesizing possible reasons for the things we see, while the rest of the forum cannot seem to produce anything beyond "it's stupid".

In the military there is a common axiom that says you must always be prepared for at least two scenarios: the enemy's most likely course of action, and the enemy's most dangerous course of action.

And this translates well into conducting geopolitics.

Imagine where Ukraine would be, had they taken into consideration what the United States' most dangerous course of action could be.

Instead they assumed surface-level appearances told the whole story, and now they are being hung out to dry while their country is being wrecked - something which people have said would happen years in advance, and this forum would undoubtedly dismiss as "reading too much into it".

Nothing the US has done in the past week suggests the existence of a grand geopolitical master plan. — Benkei

I wasn't suggesting as much. But only a fool would assume there isn't one.

Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? — Christoffer

We've already been here once before, hysteria and all. No idea why this time it would be fundamentally different.

The anti-Trump trumpeteers have a vested interest in spreading alarmism and framing every mouse fart as the end of days. That's the main thing we're seeing happen. What, if anything, corresponds to truth remains entirely to be seen.

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise. — Mr Bee

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it.

In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? — Mr Bee

It could very well be.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.

As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island.

The days of a US-led global order are simply behind us, and even the hawkish US foreign policy elite will have to contend with that reality. Therefore radical shifts in US foreign policy are to be expected.

Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China. — Mr Bee

Not now, but if Trump achieves normalization with Russia and we are 10 years down the line, who is to say?

Russia and China used to have very serious differences which disallowed them from forming a unified bloc against the West during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the Russians put a lot of effort in aligning themselves to the West, clearly preferring the West over China.

So again, it's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Not to mention, the international system is very unpredictable at the moment, and it's impossible to tell how countries' relations will develop if another great crisis hits; a conflict in the Pacific, for example.

Perhaps good ties with Russia won't split the alliance, but it might keep the Russians from taking China's side militarily.

↪Tzeentch
This fixation with Russia seems a bit outdated. She really is a basket case, a pariah state and run by a tinpot dictator. She is going to become an irrelevance. It was only the money Putin was getting for oil and gas that gave them the ability to start this war. That income stream is largely gone now (apart from what she can trade with China) and what money is left will be poured into this crazy war in which the working age men of Russia are being sacrificed en masse for a vanity project of their tin pot dictator.

The real geopolitics is between the U.S., China and Europe. Which is now being won hands down by China, while the U.S. keeps repeated shooting herself in the foot and Europe is now stepping more onto the world stage. The pragmatism of Europe will balance well with the pragmatism of China and could potentially introduce some stability. Countries like the U.S. and India are too gung-ho at this stage which will push the EU and China closer together. — Punshhh

This is a bit short-sighted.

Geopolitics is all about the long-term, and thus about potential. Looking at the world as it is right now and assuming it will always be that way is not geopolitics.

Europe has the population and GDP to rival the US and China, but right now it is not even a great power, mainly due to their own ineptitude and voluntary vassalage to the United States. The post-Cold War European structure is so categorically defunct that it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all.

War in Europe seems an impossibility today, but if European nations fail to unite it's a virtual guarantee over the long run. The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured.

Russia on the other hand is a great power, albeit the smallest of the three by quite a distance. Russia is the largest country on earth, rich in natural resources and is located on one of the most geopolitically important stretches of land on the planet:

(Mackinder, Heartland Theory)


Russia is, and will be for the foreseeable future, in prime position to connect and/or unite (parts of) the 'World Island', which is the most important geographical area on the planet due to the concentration of population and natural resources.

America's principal strategy to maintain primacy has been to keep the World Island divided.


Obviously, Russia took a big hit from the Cold War, but despite its post-Cold War weakness, it managed to stay relevant because it retained its geopolitical knowhow. It plays a weak hand, but it plays it well.

Europe came out of the Cold War strong, but threw any and all geopolitical knowhow out of the window and made itself completely irrelevant in geopolitical terms. The European Union is a joke internationally, and while nations like France, Great Britain and Germany maintained some composure, none of them seem to realize that on their own they're completely irrelevant as well.

Because Europe lacks the geopolitical insight and political structure to fight for its own interests, the only question is who gets to exploit it. Currently, that is still the United States.


All of this is to say, the China-Russia alliance is by far the most important geopolitical development of the post-Cold War geopolitical structure.

Without Russia on its side, China has no guarantee it will maintain access to foreign markets in the case of a conflict with the United States, which will undoubtedly involve a general naval blockade.

Iran and Central-Asia are important for the same reason, and Pakistan and Bangladesh are critical links in connecting China and India overland. It is no coincidence that the United States has been deeply involved in this region since the end of World War 2.

I find the presupposition that it is realistic to ween Russia from the Chinese teet a pipe dream. — Benkei

People probably thought the same thing about splitting the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. But I do agree that under today's circumstances I don't find it likely.

Over the long-term, US strategy will be with virtual certainty to try and use Russia to balance both Europe and China. It's a question of when that option becomes feasible again.

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity. — ssu

I agree under current circumstances it seems far-fetched, but geopolitics is a game of the long-term, and it's strictly business.

Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap.

That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo.

Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided.

I don't see how anything you just wrote answers my three main questions: threats to leaving NATO, starting trade wars and stop support from Ukraine. — Benkei

Influence isn't free, and NATO and project Ukraine cost resources to maintain; resources the US can no longer spare.

What the "trade war" is about, it is too early to tell. It could be mainly about decoupling US and Chinese markets, to avoid having to take that pain when real conflicts start appearing. It may be about something else, like the US wanting to become less dependent on foreign markets altogether, foreseeing perhaps global turmoil.

There also appears to be an inconsistency where the Blob is about US primacy and yet they are giving it up. — Benkei

The articles are somewhat older, from a time where primacy may still have been considered a feasible outcome. Modern developments have put that illusion to rest. Primacy is still the endgoal, mind you, but the US has lost it and will need to reclaim it.

It's over, therefore burn all your bridges? — Benkei

I don't think the US is definitively burning bridges. Trump said some words - that's it.

But to the extent that they are, they're burning bridges which are no longer useful - cutting off those parts of the US empire that will not be instrumental going into the future.

Threatening to leave NATO certainly will increase EU spending on military equipment. We'll just not be spending it on US material. Starting trade wars immediately affects both economic performance of the US but also its ability to produce military equipment due to its reliance on rare earth metals. Ukraine support is and was a fraction of what the EU provides and they can certainly stop such economic aid altogether but it doesn't make sense to alienate allies while doing so or to stop intelligence sharing. I mean, if the US would just say, we think China is the bigger threat and the EU needs to resolve Ukraine that's a different story than trying to blackmail Ukraine in surrender and giving a way half of the country to Russia and calling it "peace". — Benkei

If the Americans have to give up Europe to get Russia back on their side (something which the Russians were very interested in prior to 2014), they will. They need Russia to counterbalance China.

That is one bridge the Americans may have definitively burned, though. I think that's what recent diplomatic efforts are meant to find out.

Where have you read this and when was it that the US had ties with Russia with the goal to counterbalance China? I'm not familiar with it and nothing turns up searching for it. — Benkei

Yes, what I meant to say was that they used China to counterbalance the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Right now it would be the other way around - using Russia to counterbalance China.

Meanwhile, even if you want to improve ties with Russia, it's not clear why that needs to be at the expensive of NATO or existing alliances. — Benkei

The Europeans are committed to Ukraine, it seems, and have been resisting an ugly peace from being signed in favor of extending the war. So the reason is quite is obvious.

If the Europeans voluntarily start kowtowing before Washington again, then surely there is no reason to cut them off. But if they get uppity...

Apparently you consider certain things self evident but there are different and much smarter ways to go about it then what has happened now, [...] — Benkei

Let's hear it!

How would it work? What is the underlying grand plan that they allow Trump to threaten to leave NATO (alienating allies), start trade wars (alienating allies) and throwing Ukraine under the bus (alienating allies)? At what point is this going to turn in favour of the US primacy doctrine? — Benkei

The days of US primacy are obviously definitively over. The system has become multipolar and the US is having to shift its strategy accordingly.

The US empire is wildly overextended, leaving it no room to divert its resources towards China which is the only peer competitor in the system, and thus the most important.

In other words, the US is already in the process of cutting its losses to create a situation from which it can counteract China sustainably. It is weighing which interests to keep afloat, and which to cut off.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. That's why Trump is trying to cut a deal with Iran - Israel cannot win a war on its own, and the US is too weak to bail it out. etc.

My main point here being: this easily fits into the changing global security and power structure, and thus there is little indication that 'the Blob' has lost control.

Most of the hysteria focuses around the idea that 'real damage' is being done. That's the image the media likes to project. But in reality markets will recover and Trump's rhetoric means nothing over the long-term, as Trump 1 already showed.

For those who still fail to see what the true face of the United States looks like:




It has nothing to do with Trump.

With or without him, the United States is morally bankrupt, utterly and completely. It doesn't need supposed threats of Trumpian fascism to turn into a mass murder machine. It already is one - has been for decades.

I used the term "deep state" to convey a broad idea, which I had assumed you would get the gist of. It is used colloquially even by academics, though obviously it is not an academic term, which is why I put it in parentheses.

The articles outline my broader view of what comprises 'Washington', and how it functions. (After all, that's what you asked a source for!) E.g., the president's influence is limited, and long-term US foreign policy ('grand strategy') is largely determined by a political elite class that functions along completely different lines than the democratic process.

What Porter and Friedman are describing is more akin to an emerging property of structure, shared ideology and behaviour, then an elite, deep state or cabal, or whatever term you want to give to it. Even if the end result is named the "foreign policy elite", it's incorrect to understand it in other terms than structural. — Benkei

It's you who tries to warp that into talk of cabals, because probably the idea that states function along other lines than the democratic deeply conflicts with your worldview, and the way you cope is by writing me off as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

I've already given you the quotes in which both articles describe in detail what the elite class is comprised of, and it is clearly not strictly structural (though obviously, a considerable part is structural), by virtue of the simple fact that parts of the foreign policy elite have public panel discussions in which they openly discuss their ideas, the well-known power of lobbies, etc. - even single lobbies, for example AIPAC.

While the Blob may constrain the execution of some of Trump's plans, they aren't in control, given the sheer idiocy of policy in the past months. — Benkei

That much remains to be seen.

Only focusing on the short-term makes one miss the bigger picture, and if the various Trump threads attest to anything it's TPF's complete obsession with Trump's daily ramblings, or whatever Trump's political opponents vomit out at the same frequency.

In terms of geopolitics, a few months is insignificant. Even a single presidency is insignificant, as Trump 1 proves; back then people were exhibiting the same mass hysteria and nothing ended up happening.

But that too is clearly at odds with the Blob, since it undermines trust in the US and therefore its economic primacy. — Benkei

The US dumpstered its international credibility under Biden, due to its complicity in the Gaza genocide and its cynical dealings in Ukraine - both accumulations of decades of questionable US involvement. The only part of the world that continues to pretend the US maintains any credibility is the West itself, whose ties to the US are completely different in nature and not based on credibility at all.

As I have suggested before, Trump is being used, inadvertently or no, as a lightning rod to project all of America's problems on. When Trump is gone, "America is saved!" and the deeper causes for America's problems (which undoubtedly involve 'the Blob') will remain unexamined.

Moreover, unpopular but necessary actions, such as throwing Ukraine under the bus and re-establishing normal relations with Russia, can conveniently be blamed on 'madman Trump'.

I'll believe it's all the result of wanton incompetence when the American empire is definitively resting on the garbage heap of history.

My sense is that the West is no longer characterized by liberalism, but rather social constructivism.

Liberalism is a fig leaf used by the elite classes, who see Man as essentially an automaton that can be made to do or believe anything given the right inputs, and it is up to them to structure society in such a way that it produces the "ideal" outcome.

This ideal is communist (authoritarian egalitarian) in nature, which is why liberalism is attacked equally as often. Whenever individuals use their liberty to make decisions that do not correspond with the desired outcome, freedoms must be curtailed, "responsibilities must be taken!", etc.

Egalitarianism is being sold as liberalism - if everybody is equal, everybody is "free".

If you want to poke a hornet's nest in any western academic circle, you need only to criticize communism, and it betrays the elite's true colors.

Social constructivism is the means, communism the endpoint.

To the political elite, communism is seen as an efficient way of exercising total control over a large, ethnically diverse population. (Incidentally, that's why the Soviet Union and China adopted it as an alternative to fascism.) To the controlled masses, communism is a religion that sanctifies weakness and the victim - moral dickwaving (aka "liberal" virtue-signaling) the opium that has mobilized the useful idiots since time immemorial.

My main point is, most problems that people attribute to liberalism stem from a formerly liberal society that is currently being steered by communist ideals.

Who is "Washington"? What evidence do you have for it? — Benkei

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". — Tzeentch

The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others. — Tzeentch

This is what you asked evidence for, and that's what I gave. The sources provide a direct answer to your question, as I have underlined.

It's fine if you disagree, but you can disagree without all the phoney shit where you have to pretend there isn't an academic basis for the ideas I'm proposing, and without strawmans about cabals and what not.

If you're categorically uninterested in my line of thought, why be so disingenuous as to ask for sources, and then proceed to give me this cunty attitude when I go through the effort of finding quotes for you? I even literally asked you whether you were genuinely interested.

Man, didn't know you were such an asshole.

A few posts ago 'the Blob' was a "rabbit hole" that "made your eyes glaze over". Now you seem to agree that its existence is not controversial, but you downplay its importance.

I also never used words like "cabal" or claimed that Trump was being "managed." Those are assertions you made up yourself.

Here are quotes that support my previous assertions (1. continuous hawkish, primacy-based foreign policy, 2. bipartisan support among the elites):

Debate over grand strategy is nearly absent in US politics. Relative military power, over time, generated bipartisan support for primacy, a grand strategy that sees global US military dominance as the basis for US security. The elite consensus in favor of primacy saps political demand for critical analysis of it or consideration of alternative grand strategies. — Friedman & Logan

The democratic explanation for primacy’s dominance also lacks support. According to a 2014 Chicago Council on Global Affairs study, the public is far less enthusiastic about taking an “active” role in global affairs and global leadership than elites.That divide holds across partisan lines. There is a substantial gap between elites identifying as Democrat, Republican, or Independent and the public for each group. Similarly, elites are more supportive of using force to defend allies and long-term US military bases and more likely to agree that those garrisons produce stability.Various studies show that the public is historically less hawkish on issues of war and defense spending than elites. — Friedman & Logan

The Blob emerged from World War II, as the United States’ rising power generated a demand for security expertise. U.S. government officials turned to a group of experts who formed into a cohesive, influential class. Their commitment to primacy became an article of faith. As a grand strategy, primacy warrants scrutiny. It demands significant upfront investments, implicates national security in developments far and wide, and makes the United States prone to the frequent use of force. Yet the Blob’s achievement was to erect primacy as the seemingly natural framework of U.S. diplomacy. — Porter

The foreign policy establishment is not monolithic. Its members dispute issues below the grand strategic level, such as human rights, the extent of multilateral cooperation, democracy promotion, and specific interventions. Until the 1960s, it was mostly a patrician, predominantly white, Protestant class that internalized values nurtured “in prep schools, at college clubs, in the boardrooms of Wall Street, and at dinner parties.” It then incorporated nonwhites, women, first-generation immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics, to form a more heterogeneous class of coastal internationalists, oriented around the Ivy League. Still, this cross-section of internationalist elites is united by a consensus. They want the United States to remain engaged in upholding world order. They are primacists. They fear U.S. retreat from overseas responsibilities and warn that abandonment would lead to the return of rival power blocs, economic stagnation, and catastrophe. They have established primacy as the only viable, legitimate grand strategy, and as an ingrained set of ideas, while installing themselves as insiders, positioned to steer the state. — Porter

Both articles discuss also several presidencies, including Trump 1, as a showcase for how the Blob limits the power of US presidents, as I also argued.

It's rather sad you still seem hellbent on invalidating my views when the articles state literally what I've been saying here. That's why I've stopped bothering to share sources - people here aren't able to deal with information that conflicts with their own views and it's just not worth my time and effort.

I had hoped, after all your grandstanding about the quality of discussion and locking of a thread, you might've approach things differently, but alas.

They do. Both articles seek to explain the continuity of a hawkish, primacy-oriented US foreign policy, despite the wishes of US presidents like Trump and Obama, and despite the wishes of the general public.

Both articles point towards a foreign policy elite that spans both sides of the aisle. A 'deep state', if you will. Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer, etc. - they'll all say the same thing.

Who or what exactly comprises this 'deep state' is a more murky topic, but not necessarily all that relevant.

The bottomline is that the manoeuvre room of a US president is limited, and large swings in policy are unlikely to originate from the US president and his administration alone.

It's a bit ironic really that when something happens that you cannot rationally explain, it must be because they are stupid. Does it ever occur that you might be the one who is not seeing the full picture? A bit like how Ukraine did not see the full picture prior to jumping into bed with Uncle Sam.

By calling it a rabbit hole you're basically just betraying your own ignorance. This isn't really controversial, as I said. Have at it:

Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment (Porter, 2018)

Why Washington Doesn't Debate Grand Strategy (Friedman & Logan, 2016)

You can download the PDF to the full article.

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". If you're genuinely interested I can provide some sources, but considering your tone I doubt that you are.

The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others.

Calling the people at the top dummies is a little naive, in my opinion. It's much more likely that you simply don't understand what's going on, because the political elite have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed.

You're shifting the frame from economics to political realism, fine. — Benkei

This is the geopolitical power struggle of the modern age. Everything about this is political first, and various other things second, whether we like it or not.

Even enemies trade. — Benkei

Yes, and it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that trading with enemies is potentially dangerous and the calculus becomes more complex than supply and demand.

If you’re serious about "rivalry" as the defining framework, then you need to think in strategic terms, not just emotional ones. — Benkei

I'm not sure what emotional terms I would be talking in. I assume as a bottomline that whatever American politicians say are narratives meant to disguise the actual policy and sell it to the American people. I'm interested in figuring out what the actual policy is, and what it is meant to achieve.

It was part of a strategy to integrate China into the rules-based order, stabilize global supply chains and secure cheap goods and capital inflows that benefited US consumers, corporations and investors. You can call that “feeding the beast” if you like, but it also fueled decades of low inflation and higher real incomes in the US (and the West). — Benkei

Sure, and there was a time that such perspectives made sense. Now times have changed, and it's not like a Machiavellian to get hung up on past friendships.

If you want to unwind that relationship now, fine - but udnerstand the costs. This approach does not just cut off your enemy. It's cutting off your own economy from the financial and logistical circuits it has been built around for decades. Doing that without understanding how capital flows and trade balances interact is not realism. It’s just self-harm with a flag on it.

Strategic rivalry doesn't mean throwing out your central position in the global economy. It means using it intelligently. Right now, China still needs dollar access, still needs external demand and still holds US Treasury debt. That’s leverage. You don't use that leverage by blowing up your own system.

If your argument is that the US needs a more self-reliant economy and less exposure to adversarial regimes, I agree. But dressing up a dumb tariff war as strategic realism just replaces one illusion with another. — Benkei

This isn't so much about what I want, rather it's about how I believe great powers look at global affairs.

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod.

What follows in no way, shape or form addresses my comment and just reiterates economic nonsense. Countries with surpluses do not profit relatively more. It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. If my posts aren't clear enough for you I'd be happy to give you a reading list to clear up these economic misunderstandings. — Benkei

You're not getting my perspective at all.

They shouldn't be likened to buyers and sellers, but to economic and geopolitical rivals; enemies.

The United States has been facilitating China's export-oriented economy for decades, and China has benefitted greatly. You might call that a 'win-win', whereas a political realist might call that 'feeding the beast'.