Headline should read, “American allies worry the US is growing less dependable, because of Republican House insurrectionists”
No, the headline correctly expresses the sentiments of foreign leaders about american stability, regardless of the outcome of our elections.
That’s a major part, but the key problem IMO is that the USA has shown multiple times that a change in president can be enough to shatter existing promises and expectations. Even if we got the most progressive, effective president in the history of our nation, anything they accomplished could be undone by a single change of admin.
That’s a major part, but the key problem IMO is that the USA has shown multiple times that a change in
presidentleadership can be enough to shatter existing promises and expectations.FTFY
The US is fighting to even pay it’s own debts because of the political grabass going on in the Legislative branch and who knows now what the Judicial branch is going to throw up to change. The President is just the most visible change.
Valid point, thank you for the correction.
It’s mostly just that one time. Usually foreign policy continues from where it left off much to the chagrin of the voting base who wants it all to change overnight. And this is because of the reason you stated, you don’t want to break promises to other countries or everyone will thing the US is unreliable and that’s bad for the US. Sure foreign policy can be turned and start slowly moving on a different path, but that has to happen over time.
Trump is the real outlier. He simply doesn’t understand foreign policy, thinks of everything as a money deal. His incredibly corruption on foreign policy led to him being impeached the first time. Causing rifts within NATO. Legitimizing North Korea by having a summit. Gushing over how great various authoritarians are. Ended anything Obama did out of spite. Cancelled Obama’s deal with Iran, which looked like a prelude to war because that’s what it would be if the US had competent foreign policy.
In the first months of Trump’s Presidency when he was putting out aggressive statements about certain countries (usually on Twitter) countries would put their militaries on alert. After awhile no one bothered. The US simply didn’t have a leader anyone took seriously.
This is the reason for Biden’s statement that “America is back.” But unfortunately the US Congress is blocking funding that’s needed for Ukraine, which would normally be a no-brainer in terms of foreign policy interests of the US. Usually something like that would go through with as a bipartisan thing with little to no negotiation necessary. Because it’s in the best interests of the US to fund Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, an adversary of the US. But it’s blocked, because the GOP willing to sabotage the US in their effort to sabotage Biden.
So a Biden second term will mean the US isn’t saying insane things anymore, but really can’t be relied upon as it used to.
A Trump second term? Chaos. Not even sure the US can survive another Trump term, let alone be relied on for anything.
If you think that’s the only foreign policy issue America has, you might be wasting your money on that subscription to “The Atlantic”
You think they can count on Geriatric Joe? Even if Trump doesn’t win the American government is a ship without a captain.
I’d take “gErIaTRic jOe” over “Traitorous Xenophobic Trump”
“Traitorous Xenophobic rapist Trump”
My mistake lol
You act like Trump isn’t also old as fuck and sundowning. Dude babbles and slurs his speech in ways he didn’t when he was 60. Watch a video of Trump being interviewed by Letterman or Leno or whomever from a couple decades ago. He’s never been smart or eloquent but he wasn’t incoherent and angry (like dementia patients often get).
I really don’t get how people think Biden is senile but Trump isn’t. Pundits are debating whether Biden’s age is a bigger issue than Trump’s indictments and it’s like, “Trump is lost and babbling in court! The judges keep having to tell him to shut the fuck up!”
As someone not from the US… hell yes Old Joe is reliable as fuck. It’s the Congress that’s willing to sabotage US interests to sabotage Biden that’s the problem. And a lot of that stems from Trump.
A Trump presidency means having a captain steering the ship directly at an iceberg. A Biden Presidency means having a guy that’s almost as old as the sea itself trying to keep the ship going while Trump and his lackeys are drilling holes into the hull.
Old Joe literally got a court to say that he can’t be charged because he’s a dementing old man.
3 days ago:
The special counsel’s report said that it would be difficult to convict the president of improper handling of files because “at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.
“It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him - by then a former president well into his 80s of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Mr Hur’s report also said Mr Biden’s memory seemed to have “significant limitations” during interviews. He could not recall when he was vice-president (from 2009-2017), or “even within several years, when his son Beau died” (2015), the investigation said.
Someone should talk to the Kurds in Iraq. We have been undependable for a long long time
Good honestly. The world needs to stop using America as a cure-all solution.
Weapons are evil, oil is bad, neo liberalism is terrorism and capitalism is slavery. Knock it all off
Weapons are evil, oil is bad, neo liberalism is terrorism and capitalism is slavery. Knock it all off
And you are 14. I presume. Or really badly educated, or just plain naive and suckered in with lots of slogans, perhaps?
Capitalism has issues, bad issues. It also is the most successful system of all and is the reason the West towers over the rest. Is capitalism slavery? Don’t be stupid. Without capitalism you wouldn’t have your mobile phone that you use to bitch about capitalism. You NEED limited and controlled capitalism, like it or not. Use it to fund a huge social system for everyone, awesome.
Oil is bad? Without oil you wouldn’t be alive, the world average lifespan would be closer to half of what it is today. Do you really believe your vegan salad just magically appeared out of thin air on your plate? Oil has gone into transport, energy production, lubricants, and god knows what more to get you safely your food, your medicine, your water, your energy, your heat, your life. Is oil a big problem with CO2? Absolutely. Should we have started a transition away from oil use decades ago? Absolutely. Is it a problem? Yes, we need to fix this, rather yesterday than tomorrow. Is oil bad in on itself? Don’t be stupid.
Weapons are evil? Weapons are tools, first of all. Lethal tools, sure, but so is just about all farm equipment.wars are bad? Of course they are. Should we throw all weapons with the trash? Sure! Just one question though… What is your plan when Putin, who didn’t throw his weapons with the trash, comes rolling your ass over in a tank to rape and murder your loved ones? You know, just asking since that is what he’s doing right now in the Ukraine. He’s also not the only one, Winnie Pooh also would love to play some land grab and opponent murder. There is a reason we have weapons, you know. Loads of powerful dictators out there that would love to enslave us all
So grow up. If you are 14, that’s what you’ll do and you’ll see that your opinions change the more you learn, mostly, hopefully, to more moderate and well reasoned views. If you are 24 then dear god man, start reading books, start reading some history.
Literal Dunning-Kruger in real time wow.
Bro you really believe what you’re saying and do not understand the connection between the state of the world and the Industrial Military Complex, the school-to-prison pipeline, the Pharmaceutical Industry you’re out of your own mind.
Why is the term banana republic even a thing?
Who is Allen Dulles?
How do you even justify a system that literally only exists through blood money? What the fuck
I can smell your neckbeard and fedora from here
You made too many mistakes in word “communism”.
…huh?
To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It’s not in our, or anyone else’s really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn’t tend to work out all that well.
We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We’ll only run into problems if this whole “spheres of influence” thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.
You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That’s a multipolar world we can work with.
In principle I agree, but the other poles are fucking with “us” though. Let’s define “us” as the NATO-aligned countries.
India is offing political dissidents in Canada and the US (that’s an honorable mention, since the US assassins were caught). China is setting up “police stations” in Western countries to intimidate ex-pats, not to mention the ongoing industrial espionage thing. Russia and North Korea seem to be conducting regular cyber attacks against NATO members (including civilian targets). And we’ve resigned ourselves to constant misinformation campaigns (+ election meddling) from Russia, China, and Iran.
If other poles follow the same gentleman’s agreement, that works out. But I’m not sure how “we” can take the high road when other countries aren’t.
To play devils advocate - the “gentlemans agreement” you speak of isn’t perfect. The US was caught spying on Germany. I’m pretty sure the US & UK are only such tight allies because of shared intelligence gathering.
Also the US has shown twice (WWI & II) that allies are expendable until America is threatened directly.
the “gentlemans agreement” you speak of isn’t perfect
That’s what I’m trying to illustrate. The post that I’m replying to suggests that a multipolar world is fine, “we” should stay out of the other poles’ spheres of influence, and that there’s a hard distinction between economic, philosophical, and military jockeying. I don’t think that’s the case. The gentleman’s agreement that I’m referring to would be between poles.
You bring up a great example how “we” fuck our allies even when we have a gentleman’s agreement with them. Which is a great point.
Fuckery is going to happen: we need to keep our friends close, and we need to build our international agreements in a way that keeps us safe. Assuming other governments will adhere to rules-based order with siloed areas of competition is unlikely to succeed.
Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they’re still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.
Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.
The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump’s trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic “chokepoints” than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.
An important thing to remember is we can’t control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.
In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to “test the waters”, so to speak, they’re not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.
edit: Didn’t expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?
In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties.
Like what? Canada was (apparently) tipped off about the assassination by big bro to the South. In response, the Canadian government shot it’s mouth off naming India as the attacker.
IndiaModi promptly punished Canada economically for the audacity of bitching. That’s it.Countries, like people, aren’t rational actors. They are punitive, emotional, and will try to get away with whatever they can. (As a Canadian, I can name a long litany of illiberalism my country has committed)
Don’t get me wrong - I love the idea of a multipolar world, where international order is decided solely in the marketplace of ideas. But every pole in this multipolar world is a dick. They are actively trying to destabilize each other economically, politically, and militarily.
Which is why diplomatic tools should be attempted first, then escalation to economic tools. Military deterrence is too big a jump, currently.
trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses
This paints information warfare as a nothing burger that is distinct from a physical assault. It really isn’t. Russia (allegedly) took down parts of the Ukraine grid for a few hours during their ongoing assault against the country. Saudi refineries have been taken offline. Stuxnet did significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program.
Misinformation is arguably worse, since it can significantly damage social cohesion in victim countries. I don’t think we have a very good handle on the role of foreign actors in the rise of populism in the past decade, but you can bet your polling booth it’s nonzero.
Do we really need to talk about economic espionage like it’s nbd? Imagine Taiwan without fabs. Or Canada without Nortel (oh wait, you don’t need to). So much of our economic growth is driven directly through innovation, and national power/prosperity comes from that growth. It’s a big deal.
I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.
I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.
It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.
Well said
No need to worry that it might happen. It’s been happening for the last 20 years. It’s a constant slow grind to the bottom.
Evey four years we decide whether we’ll be a serious country, or play in the mud. The fact that this argument seriously happens would diminish my faith in the US too.
I say would, because I live and and as such already have none.
This is true, certainly in the UK and we’re so dim (by a slim margin) that we voted FOR Brexit. (I voted remain)
Weird. I was just thinking this earlier whilst out walking. Can the US’ word of friendship/help/support ever be trusted? Has it ever? Soon as it gets a little bit real for the population calls for undisturbed isolation come out and the US reneges on their word.
There’s nothing unusual about that. America has a long history of fucking it’s allies until the last minute (e.g. WWI & II).
the unusual bit was thinking about it then finding an article in my feed
Our Allies should rightly be concerned. The US has become more and more isolationist. The last major free trade treaty was under the TPP under Obama and both Hillary and Trump stated they would not support its passing.
The US is now energy independent and a net exporter. The US is also in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history which will bring much of our industrial plant back to North America.
In ten or fifteen years there will be no need for the US to get involved and keep sea lanes open like we are in the Red Sea. We can maintain a presence in the few areas that we deem critical.
My two sons will be of military age soon I would not support active involvement in any war that would risk their lives for Europe, Middle Eastern or other far flung countries when there is no real threat to mainland US. Supply military and financial aid, sure, but no boots on the ground. We don’t need to fight other peoples wars for them.
TPP was a horrible treaty. The entire process was basically Hollywood and a few other corporate entities writing out their dream laws that were too horrible to actually pass any legislative body. But once it was in a treaty, they could hound Congress to pass said laws to “meet international obligations”.
TPP was horrible, many, many give aways to the entertainment and medical industries. But my point still stands, there have been no regional free trade agreements attempted since TPP.
We’ve only negotiated bi lateral agreements with individual governments on narrow issues.
Ironically, it was a horrible treaty for everyone except the US. Trump nixing it was yet another own-goal. After the US pulled out, the remaining signatories reworked the TPP into the CPTPP by removing those “dream laws” and passing the rest of it without the US.
My two sons will be of military age soon I would not support active involvement in any war that would risk their lives for Europe, Middle Eastern or other far flung countries when there is no real threat to mainland US.
What the fuck…
Like, I get it. I’m from a red state, my public education is not the best.
But where did you grow up that they didn’t even cover WW2 in school?
We ignore countries invading other countries, and we lose our allies while countries like Russia grow stronger.
They’ll never stop. Even if Russia “restored the USSR” they’re not going to just sit back and relax once that happens.
“Sparing” your two sons from a war that’s not going to even have a draft is dooming your grandchildren to living thru ww3 where there will be a draft again and even civilian survivors will (if incredibly lucky and wealthy)live through nuclear Armageddon.
Proxy wars are the only way we’ve avoided more nuclear bombs, and if one side stops fighting the other is just going to speed up.
But where did you grow up that they didn’t even cover WW2 in school?
Buddy, the US was supplying the Nazis (well bothd sides) as a “neutral country” up until Pearl Arbor. A whole two years after the start of the war.
…
So you think we should do the same now?
The other person is arguing for inaction, I’m saying it’ll get worse if we ignore it like in ww2 and try to stay neutral…
And you tell me we tried to stay neutral in ww2 like it’s some kind of “got ya”?
Your reading comprehension needs work. I made no such comment. I simply pointed out that your premises was historically false.
Sweet jesus, talk about reading a headline and not the whole srticle. Go back and see what they were supplying and in what quantities to each side.
If you want to send your sons and/or enlist yourself to fight in other countries conflicts be my guest. Ukraine is taking foreign fighters you could sign up and serve to protect your global order tomorrow.
Russia has proven incompetent at modern warfare. The Europeans can figure out how to defend against them on their own.
Once we have reshored our industrial base in a decade there is no reason to support the global order as it stands. Let Europe or China try and maintain the sea ways and keep peace in areas like Africa and the Middle East if they need those resources so bad. Honestly, it would be better for the worlds environment if they couldn’t continue ravaging the land and burning fossil fuels.
As stated before I have no problem with providing material support. But I have no interest in involving American troops if there are no direct threats to our homeland.
Mate the Russians don’t have to be competent, they just to zerg their way in. Like they are successfully doing now in Ukraine since the Ukrainian army has to put strict quotas on ammo usage.
I was enlisted around 20 years ago in the middle of Afghan/Iraq madness and was going around American bases to “protect them from terrorists” and I’d happily do it again since it means my family won’t have to be subject of nuclear Armageddon
Well thank you for your service, but don’t expect me and mine to protect them and theirs.
Supply military and financial aid, sure, but no boots on the ground.
The US is failing to do even that minimal level of assistance in this case. No American troops are helping Ukraine fight, it’s all been training and supplies. That’s all that’s been requested by them. And that’s what the Republicans are blocking.
Yep, those are extreme isolationists/Putin stooges.
This used to be the militant wing of the Republican Party. Just more evidence that the US doesn’t want to get involved in foreign military adventures after 20years in the desert.
The problem is isolationism often leads to situations we can’t ignore, as with the world wars. We were isolationists before then, and we benefited greatly from our international involvement ever since. We are the richest country in the history of the world largely thanks to our geography and international involvement. The dollar is the world’s fiat currency. We prefer not to fight wars for other people, rather we usually just fund and arm groups that share our interests.
If we withdraw back into our shell, we lose the privileged place we have in the world.
I’d argue that the US greatly benefited from isolationism during the world wars, since all the main destruction happened in Europe/Asia.
This meant that after joining the war late and being in the winning side, they were perfectly poised to inject themselves as a global trade leader. Ironically isolationism brought about the globalist policy today.
Yes, being late to the party did benefit the US, but only because we stopped being isolationist.
The US is also in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history which will bring much of our industrial plant back to North America.
What’s this now?
See article for details but there is a huge surge in construction of factories and manufacturing in North America.
Mostly due to decoupling from China, not only because they’ve proven to be terrible economic partners but because their population is imploding.
We also found that we can automate a lot of manufacturing since Covid. A textile factory used to need hundreds of workers. With modern mills you need maybe a handful to maintain the machinery while it produces almost finished garments. You can now locate your factory near consumers and avoid long transport.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
With a divided electorate and gridlock in Congress, the next American president could easily become consumed by manifold challenges at home — before even beginning to address flashpoints around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East.
In campaign speeches, Trump remains skeptical of organizations such as NATO, often lamenting the billions the U.S. spends on the military alliance whose support has been critical to Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.
Politics at University College London, said that whoever wins the presidential race, the direction of travel will be the same – toward a multipolar planet in which the United States is no longer “the indisputable world superpower.”
Germany is the second-largest donor of military aid to Kyiv, behind the U.S., but Scholz recently told Die Zeit that the country couldn’t fill any gap on its own if “the U.S.A. ceased to be a supporter.”
China, where leaders’ initial warmth toward Trump soured into tit-for-tat tariffs and rising tensions, little changed under Biden, who continued his predecessor’s tough stance toward the United States’ strategic rival.
Associated Press writers Jiwon Song in Seoul, South Korea, Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, Nomaan Merchant in Washington, and Jill Colvin and Michelle Price in New York contributed to this story.
The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Don’t be the world’s police. Do be the world’s police. Make up your mind.
We just want Team America World Police to stop fucking the pussies and only fuck the assholes of the world.
Haven’t thought of that movie in years jfc lol
Look around… There’s just assholes shitting on dicks and pussies.
Be the police that stops a robbery or rape. Don’t be the police that plants evidence to justify illegal raid, then murders the drag dealer to steal his money while selling guns to gangsters specializing in killing kids.
American allies should go worry about building their own economies, infrastructure and militaries so that they stop depending on the US for every single thing that goes wrong and start pulling their own weight.
Looking at you Europe.
Didn’t anyone tell the rest of the world that as long as Republicans are slightly worse no one is allowed to criticize Biden?!
Like, how dare they expect us to have any kind of standard than “not named trump”?
Don’t they know the entire population of America is two geriatric white assholes whose wealth and power have completely separated them from what the average Americans life is like for longer than the average American has been alive!
/S
/S
getting some mixed messages here
