That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. — Mr Bee

I think this is probably coming from his VP.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised.

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them. — frank

I suppose, if the tariffs were high enough, then the imports would be canceled, which would be bad for the exporter (compare with sanctions).
The importers aren't likely to swallow the tariffs, they increase the cost of goods for the population.
So, instead of the tariff stuff, how about pressuring capitalists to increasingly bring production/manufacturing home (and perhaps take a wage cut)?
Well, that might decrease support among the capitalists, less $s for campaigning, fewer votes, ... (worse self-image for The Clown).
Capitalism isn't patriotism, it's about maximizing profits, cheaper labor (lower wages) + less environmental regulations + less health and safety protection + ...

Yep, what I don't get is why we don't let them join the Eurozone. They deserve to have the euro as the primary currency. What can you do with Polish złoty? Nothing. As well as the Czech Republic, they still have their own currency (korunas).

So, the EU should give these countries the opportunity of joining the Euro-zone finally.

On the other hand, I only hope that France and Germany will be more fond and considerate of Mediterranean countries. That would be neat.

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad. — Mr Bee

Because, as you said, he and his voters don't know what tariffs and trade wars do, we are going to see a lot of damage. It's quite inevitable. Just look at the reasons given to the 25% tariffs.

Nothing will change the minds of Trump voters about this. It's like trying to talk in 2016 to Britons that Brexit won't work, that it will create huge problems for the economy, no real benefits will counter it's bad effects and btw the migration to the UK will continue, the EU migrants will just be replace with Third World migrants.

You think any Brexit supporter would have believed you? Of course not!

And the same is here true. Trump won't change. He will choose into his cabinet sycophants and totally obedient yes-men, whoever they are. There won't be any "grown ups" in this administration towing a normal US policy, it really will be at the whims of Trump. Congress simply will not put up with the most bizarre ideas, hence executive orders and foreign policy will be the

Europe has to understand the Trump is a bully for whom appeasement is weakness. He has already made up his mind of Europe and Europeans. Only a Victor Orban will do, everybody else are simply annoying Europeans that one has to be tough with... in the end they will bend over backwards and do flips as the US wants.

The consisent approach to this for Europe is to set it's own goals and stay there. Don't react to Trump's bickering. If Trump makes outrageous demands, just say no and wait for four years. Trying to negotiate as one would with a normal person doesn't work. If Europe gives in, then Trump will just ask for more. Best thing is market European objectives as huge concessions that we have made to the US thanks to Trump. That's enough for Trump.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised. — Banno

This is a rational choice, yet knowing the EU, no country alone can be a real leader... except the US if it would see alliances important (which it won't see in two months). Poland had the Visegrád Group, which was established by Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia (still), Lech Walesa of Poland and the prime minister of Hungary Antall in Visegrad, Hungary. Well, now unfortunately that won't work as Hungary is now pro-Russian (and quite hostile towards Ukraine).

Poland is seen as a possibility for leadership, as here (the American) Foreing Policy writes in the summer of this year:

A third model of leadership is emerging in Poland, where a new government has combined strong rhetoric with vast resources. Five years ago, then-European Council President Donald Tusk linked the future of Ukraine with the future of Europe in a speech at the Ukrainian Rada. Since becoming Polish prime minister last year, he has been very clear about Europe needing to adopt a prewar posture as it prepares for further attempts by the Kremlin to reestablish its former empire. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has been similarly clear in arguing for Europe’s long-term rearmament. He also warned Russia that it “is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around.”

But it will take time still when Poland will be strong, even if their armament program is huge.

During the 1930's the countries between Germany and Soviet Union tried to do some defense cooperation, but that amounted to very little. In the Nordic countries when this came up, Finland saw the existential threat to be the Soviet Union, Denmark to be Germany and Sweden and Norway didn't think that anybody was threatening them.

I think the best way would be simply to form a "group" from NATO countries that would be willing to take seriously the assistance to Ukraine, perhaps UK-Poland leading with the Baltic and Nordic States. Now as all Nordic countries are in NATO, this would be totally possible. I would assume that the UK would like to be taken seriously as it has a difficulty having a new relationship with the EU. It's always difficult to start a relationship when your marked as the other one's "ex". Yet the UK is in NATO and when it's only in NATO, it will want to be an active member.

And notice that Trump won't naturally take the lead in NATO. The old orange man will just repeat his line that NATO members aren't doing their share and that time has moved past the organization and thus doesn't want to do anything with it. Anyway, he will spend his all his time bullying and quarreling about his tariffs that he so dearly loves.

This is a little discussion moderated by the Brookings Institution about EU defense:



It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. As time goes by, I would guess that the EU will work on ties with China and look in their direction for a diplomatic base. Maybe play China and the US off each other.

It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. — frank

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars.

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. Iran hasn't declared being at war with the US, even if the US is the Great Satan. Hamas hasn't declared being at war with the US. But Putin has. This won't end in Ukraine.

Usually Eastern Europeans have clarity on the Russian intensions and objectives. One clear and thoughtful document is from Warsaw based think tank Center for Eastern Studies (OSW), and it is worth listening to.



It shows what the West is clearly lacking. Determination to counter Putin and his reconquista.

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars. — ssu

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No?

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. — ssu

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state?

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No? — frank

What else would someone say? And it's not like China is putting sanctions or limits on Russia because statements like that. China isn't going to go all North Korea, naturally, as it still views that it has to have ties with Europe. It's support of Russia has already alienated European countries.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state? — frank

Nope and It doesn't happen like that.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, NATO and the EU. You see, Russia gains it's objectives is NATO collapses. Then it has military superiority against European states. Do not think that this game is played only by actual conflict with Russia tanks rolling to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What it's aims are for example for my country, Finland, have been said quite clearly: Finland should be as "Finlandized" as it was let's say in the 1970's with Russians having a dominant say in the internal politics of Finland. And it of course "understanding" Russian foreign policy.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, — ssu

He doesn't need to put any effort into that.

He doesn't need to put any effort into that. — frank

Trump will do that for him? :chin:

Actually, the Kremlin surely hopes this happens. An intense trade war might do the trick.

Or it might not. Let's remember what was written about Trump's trade wars in the first Trump administration:

(Brookings, 2020) As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump built his argument for the presidency around his claimed acumen as a dealmaker. As the 2020 election draws nearer, President Trump and his surrogates are doubling down on that assertion, including by calling attention to what he has deemed “the biggest deal ever seen”: the “phase one” trade deal with China. The agreement reportedly includes a Chinese commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods above 2017 levels by the end of 2021.

Six months after the deal was inked, the costs and benefits of this agreement are coming into clearer focus. Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” the ultimate results of the phase one trade deal between China and the United States — and the trade war that preceded it — have significantly hurt the American economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the trade war was meant to resolve. The effects of the trade war go beyond economics, though. Trump’s prioritization on the trade deal and de-prioritization of all other dimensions of the relationship produced a more permissive environment for China to advance its interests abroad and oppress its own people at home, secure in the knowledge that American responses would be muted by a president who was reluctant to risk losing the deal.

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America