Daniel Drezner: Japan and Korea are consolidating as our allies against an increasing aggressive China; France is actively arming and supplying Ukraine; Finland and Sweden have strengthened NATO; Germany is increasingly solid in opposition to Putin.
Even if Trump were elected, we have powerful allies ready to protect an ordered world against Russian and Chinese incursion, with or without us.
Kinda goes along with Sir Isaac Newton: Where there is an action, there is an equal and opposing reaction.
Rob H: Rather than debate, I will take points of agreement.
The Chief of Staff of the French Army has committed to sending 60,000 troops to Ukraine, if requested on short notice, and within 6 months, another 60,000 troops.
Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House had held up our own aid to Ukraine for about six months.
NATO has expanded its strategic territory considerably with the addition of Finland and Sweden.
Finland is particularly motivated for obvious reasons of history.
The West's buffer is strong in view of now a strategic wall against Russia of Eastern Scandinavia, the Baltic States, and the former Warsaw Pact.
Poland has elected a pro-EU government and its history with Russia encourages Poland to be strong.
I think increasingly Japan and Korea and Europe -- including the former Warsaw Pact -- excluding Hungary and Turkey -- are increasingly strong and united.
Germany has historical reasons that strongly urge caution in military expansion, and Germany quite understandably seeks the united consent of the EU.
I think it is increasingly irrelevant which candidate is elected President, because the EU, United Kingdom, Japan and Korea recognize their own self interests, independent of us.
"In interviews, State Department officials in Washington, who requested anonymity so they could speak candidly, acknowledged that efforts to “reassure” European allies are largely futile now."
I'm puzzled why they think reassurance should even be their core job. Even if they were to presume a Biden, they should be encouraging a healthy effort and lift by the allies. Trying to *ask* for a lift and self-help at the same time that you reassure sort of undermines the self-help message. We're not their mommy or daddy.
Our message to these other democracies should be: "Get hard."
"“There’s not really anything we can do,” one U.S. official told me. European leaders “are smart, thoughtful people. The secretary isn’t going to get them in a room and say, ‘Hey, guys, it’s going to be okay, the election is a lock.’ That’s not something he can promise.”"
Well, this kind of promise can't and shouldn't be made. It does not mean a lack of interest in future cooperation, but our politics are transparent, we can't con the world about our own internal divisions, so don't try. Encourage resilience.
I think the background issue here is that there are enormous strategic benefits for the USA in being the leader of "the free world" (define that how you will). There is a great deal of magnification of power and influence if the USA can rely on its allies to follow the leadership of the USA.
To some extent various US allies have already begun the "get hard" process, and that process will only accelerate if the US is seen as an unreliable ally. This is arguably a good thing. As a European, I think that we ought to pay more attention to our own defense and our own interests.
But there is a potential downside for the USA. To the extent that its allies "get hard" and are better able to defend their own interests, they are likely equally to be less willing to support the interests of the USA when those interests do not directly align with the interests of such allies.
We watched Rick Steve’s D-Day show last night. The US Army created landing areas for the troops that funneled tons of supplies to our soldiers. Biden’s Army couldn’t handle more than one shipment and it all ended up in Hamas’s hands before it broke up and crashed on the beach. Oh well, at least they’ve got their pronouns straight.
Using a person’s preferred pronouns simply means calling people as they want to be called. It’s nothing more than courtesy.
The fact that you introduced this trans-phobic nonsense here tells me a lot about you. It’s got nothing to do with the topic under discussion, so I assume you spend a lot of time thinking about this. I don’t know what type of counseling to recommend for you to alleviate your distress. But, do seek help.
> ‘We can’t just flip a coin every four years and hope that Michigan voters will vote in the right direction,’ Benjamin Haddad, a member of France’s National Assembly, said at an event earlier this year.”
It's very funny hearing this from a parliamentarian where every five years there is a run-off between someone whose favorability barely breaks 20% and a candidate from the far-right whose vote share monotonically increases.
It seems highly unlikely to me that Trump will win. Early polls are meaningless. And I think that polls in general are increasingly uncorrelated with actual voting. It’s all just noise.
I can confirm that, here in Romania, the sentiment from young-to-old is basically as you described (although Romanians--traditionally Russia-haters with the best of 'em--seem alarmingly pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine these days). I'm asked a couple times a month if I think there's any chance Biden will win. I tell them I think he still has some solid underlying factors in his favor, and I see it as a coin flip. THAT seems to reassure them.
My memory is failing. Were the same elites so traumatized by 2016 also sure that Trump would win in 2020? Seems as if the answer must be "yes" if your PTSD theory is viable.
"the shock of 2016 has generated PTSD among the pundit class" This is (was) bizarre. How could so many "experts" misread what was right in front of their face?
Adding to the miasma, but not the Gaza/Israel detour, is the question why significant corporate figures (primarily finance (?)) are now supporting Trump. You could look at it as a hedge against a Trump victory: if he wins and you don’t support him, you’re likely to be a figure of retribution while if Biden wins, you’re not; Or, they’re afraid of second Biden financial regulation. The two aren’t mutually exclusive and it’s otherwise hard to figure why these corporate figures who aren’t concerned about the future of democracy would otherwise care. Which is pretty cynical of me.
"you’re likely to be a figure of retribution while if Biden wins, you’re not" Maybe because there's not much more they can do to the lowly Trump supporter.
Daniel Drezner: Japan and Korea are consolidating as our allies against an increasing aggressive China; France is actively arming and supplying Ukraine; Finland and Sweden have strengthened NATO; Germany is increasingly solid in opposition to Putin.
Even if Trump were elected, we have powerful allies ready to protect an ordered world against Russian and Chinese incursion, with or without us.
Kinda goes along with Sir Isaac Newton: Where there is an action, there is an equal and opposing reaction.
Trump’s silver lining. His existence has encouraged Europe to take more responsibility for their own security.
See comment comment from 11 minutes ago, most of them, save France and Britain, are rather "naked" in some areas higher in the escalatory ladder.
Rob H: Rather than debate, I will take points of agreement.
The Chief of Staff of the French Army has committed to sending 60,000 troops to Ukraine, if requested on short notice, and within 6 months, another 60,000 troops.
Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House had held up our own aid to Ukraine for about six months.
NATO has expanded its strategic territory considerably with the addition of Finland and Sweden.
Finland is particularly motivated for obvious reasons of history.
The West's buffer is strong in view of now a strategic wall against Russia of Eastern Scandinavia, the Baltic States, and the former Warsaw Pact.
Poland has elected a pro-EU government and its history with Russia encourages Poland to be strong.
I think increasingly Japan and Korea and Europe -- including the former Warsaw Pact -- excluding Hungary and Turkey -- are increasingly strong and united.
Germany has historical reasons that strongly urge caution in military expansion, and Germany quite understandably seeks the united consent of the EU.
I think it is increasingly irrelevant which candidate is elected President, because the EU, United Kingdom, Japan and Korea recognize their own self interests, independent of us.
"In interviews, State Department officials in Washington, who requested anonymity so they could speak candidly, acknowledged that efforts to “reassure” European allies are largely futile now."
I'm puzzled why they think reassurance should even be their core job. Even if they were to presume a Biden, they should be encouraging a healthy effort and lift by the allies. Trying to *ask* for a lift and self-help at the same time that you reassure sort of undermines the self-help message. We're not their mommy or daddy.
Our message to these other democracies should be: "Get hard."
"“There’s not really anything we can do,” one U.S. official told me. European leaders “are smart, thoughtful people. The secretary isn’t going to get them in a room and say, ‘Hey, guys, it’s going to be okay, the election is a lock.’ That’s not something he can promise.”"
Well, this kind of promise can't and shouldn't be made. It does not mean a lack of interest in future cooperation, but our politics are transparent, we can't con the world about our own internal divisions, so don't try. Encourage resilience.
I think the background issue here is that there are enormous strategic benefits for the USA in being the leader of "the free world" (define that how you will). There is a great deal of magnification of power and influence if the USA can rely on its allies to follow the leadership of the USA.
To some extent various US allies have already begun the "get hard" process, and that process will only accelerate if the US is seen as an unreliable ally. This is arguably a good thing. As a European, I think that we ought to pay more attention to our own defense and our own interests.
But there is a potential downside for the USA. To the extent that its allies "get hard" and are better able to defend their own interests, they are likely equally to be less willing to support the interests of the USA when those interests do not directly align with the interests of such allies.
The Biden,Blinken and Sullivan foreign policy has sunk on top of the disastrous Gaza bridge Biden wasted.
We watched Rick Steve’s D-Day show last night. The US Army created landing areas for the troops that funneled tons of supplies to our soldiers. Biden’s Army couldn’t handle more than one shipment and it all ended up in Hamas’s hands before it broke up and crashed on the beach. Oh well, at least they’ve got their pronouns straight.
Of course, that’s why it was built. To aid Hamas, as they aid Iran!
Using a person’s preferred pronouns simply means calling people as they want to be called. It’s nothing more than courtesy.
The fact that you introduced this trans-phobic nonsense here tells me a lot about you. It’s got nothing to do with the topic under discussion, so I assume you spend a lot of time thinking about this. I don’t know what type of counseling to recommend for you to alleviate your distress. But, do seek help.
> ‘We can’t just flip a coin every four years and hope that Michigan voters will vote in the right direction,’ Benjamin Haddad, a member of France’s National Assembly, said at an event earlier this year.”
It's very funny hearing this from a parliamentarian where every five years there is a run-off between someone whose favorability barely breaks 20% and a candidate from the far-right whose vote share monotonically increases.
It seems highly unlikely to me that Trump will win. Early polls are meaningless. And I think that polls in general are increasingly uncorrelated with actual voting. It’s all just noise.
Hard-working Drezner's World Staff,
I wonder if you've read this Foreign Affairs piece tucked behind their paywall, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-world-can-deal-trump?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=twofa&utm_campaign=How%20Hamas%20Ends&utm_content=20240607&utm_term=FA%20This%20Week%20-%20112017, and, if so, you have any particular thoughts about it?
I can confirm that, here in Romania, the sentiment from young-to-old is basically as you described (although Romanians--traditionally Russia-haters with the best of 'em--seem alarmingly pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine these days). I'm asked a couple times a month if I think there's any chance Biden will win. I tell them I think he still has some solid underlying factors in his favor, and I see it as a coin flip. THAT seems to reassure them.
My memory is failing. Were the same elites so traumatized by 2016 also sure that Trump would win in 2020? Seems as if the answer must be "yes" if your PTSD theory is viable.
"the shock of 2016 has generated PTSD among the pundit class" This is (was) bizarre. How could so many "experts" misread what was right in front of their face?
Adding to the miasma, but not the Gaza/Israel detour, is the question why significant corporate figures (primarily finance (?)) are now supporting Trump. You could look at it as a hedge against a Trump victory: if he wins and you don’t support him, you’re likely to be a figure of retribution while if Biden wins, you’re not; Or, they’re afraid of second Biden financial regulation. The two aren’t mutually exclusive and it’s otherwise hard to figure why these corporate figures who aren’t concerned about the future of democracy would otherwise care. Which is pretty cynical of me.
"you’re likely to be a figure of retribution while if Biden wins, you’re not" Maybe because there's not much more they can do to the lowly Trump supporter.