4 ms·

This terms like a strategic decision: Trump now has a bargaining chip with Europe/Canada that he can use to pressure them into ganging up on China. Without that

This terms like a strategic decision: Trump now has a bargaining chip with Europe/Canada that he can use to pressure them into ganging up on China. Without that pressure Europe/Canada would not be eager to take on China.

tryptophan 8y ago
Or you know...he could just ask them to cooperate, as they have been our allies for a very long time. No reason to use coercion.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  I was making an assessment of the strategic reasoning, not making a normative judgement. In discussions about Trump people seem to have difficulty separating the two.
lord_ring_111 8y ago
Rdl - anytime u say trump can be remotely right in hn, u get down voted by tyrany of left liberals.
slededit 8y ago
They would have helped regardless because it was in their interests anyways. Especially in the case of Canada the PM's popularity now comes from standing up to the "mean Americans". Where before compromise was possible its a lot harder now that nationalism has been stoked.
- ralfn 8y ago
  Bingo. Also, unlike the US we like stable relationships a lot more than maximizing profitability. The US has now proven to be unreliable and any further deal with the US will not be considered in the long term which clearly doesn't exist. So if it's not immediately in our interest we are unlike to make any deal about anything with the US as it now. No more loyalty. No more trust. Just aggressive animals trying every chance they get to steal each others food. Yuck.
  - burfog 8y ago
    I'm not seeing loyalty from your side. From here, it looks like you are about maximizing profitability at our expense, and the "stable relationship" is an abusive one. Consider NATO. The USA spends 3.6% of the world's largest GDP on military. You agreed to spend only 2% of your smaller GDP, but only 3 countries (UK, Poland, Estonia) bother to do so. Overall the EU is a slacker, with some countries spending less than 1% of their GDP. NATO is really about defending Europe, but the military budget of all of Europe is less than half of the US military budget. Meanwhile, you are imposing your own huge tariffs on US products and flat out banning us from selling you stuff like Swiss cheese. You're even trying to get us to agree to ban making Swiss cheese in our own country, forcing us to import it from Switzerland. I'm guessing you don't see how absurd that is; you have a financial motivation to believe that your rules make sense. You've even screwed up the web, with your silly cookie warnings, and now again with some GDPR thing. You've had a great deal, and you don't want it to end. I get that. It's understandable. The deal was made in the ruins of WWII, to our disadvantage, when Europe was in ruins. You're better now. It's time to have a fair deal for this modern world.
    - ralfn 8y ago
      Europe underspending was a logical response to the ridiculous overspending of the US. And most of that money isn't actually spend on anything that keeps anyone safe. We make more milk than anyone needs and then we subsidize it and throw half of it out. You guys make more tanks than anyone ever needs. You subsizide it and it collects either dust or you sell it to a small town police station for crowd control. The world really didn't need us spending more money on war. Instead we spend our money on education for example. The shortage of highly skilled individuals in the west is filled by Europe. None of this was ever a deal. We just do our part. Do what America lacks. And investing in murder machinery just isn't something our team needed. But that's the thing, right? We are not one team anymore. You have to admit: that is what changed. I don't have an opinion about Swiss cheese.
      - burfog 8y ago
        The underspending is short-term thinking. You see how well that worked out for the Ukraine. Some countries have no choice because they are tiny, like Georgia, and they also suffer greatly. You might not be interested in violent combat, but violent combatants are interested in you. You certainly shouldn't rely on the USA for your protection. We had promised to protect the Ukraine. Even when you do get the promised help, as Poland did from the UK in WWII, it typically comes rather late. By the time help arrives you may be starving, homeless, raped, injured, orphaned, or widowed. Pushing that stuff out of your thoughts does not make the possibility go away.
ralfn 8y ago
European here: that's not how you negotiate with friends. That would show a dangerous lack of cultural understanding. We have long memories and don't care about money as much as Americans do. We will prefer to be proud and poor. This goes beyond Trump. It will take 30 years to repair the trust.

tryptophan 8y ago

Or you know...he could just ask them to cooperate, as they have been our allies for a very long time. No reason to use coercion.

rdlecler1 8y ago
I was making an assessment of the strategic reasoning, not making a normative judgement. In discussions about Trump people seem to have difficulty separating the two.

lord_ring_111 8y ago

Rdl - anytime u say trump can be remotely right in hn, u get down voted by tyrany of left liberals.

slededit 8y ago

They would have helped regardless because it was in their interests anyways. Especially in the case of Canada the PM's popularity now comes from standing up to the "mean Americans". Where before compromise was possible its a lot harder now that nationalism has been stoked.

ralfn 8y ago
Bingo. Also, unlike the US we like stable relationships a lot more than maximizing profitability. The US has now proven to be unreliable and any further deal with the US will not be considered in the long term which clearly doesn't exist. So if it's not immediately in our interest we are unlike to make any deal about anything with the US as it now. No more loyalty. No more trust. Just aggressive animals trying every chance they get to steal each others food. Yuck.
- burfog 8y ago
  I'm not seeing loyalty from your side. From here, it looks like you are about maximizing profitability at our expense, and the "stable relationship" is an abusive one. Consider NATO. The USA spends 3.6% of the world's largest GDP on military. You agreed to spend only 2% of your smaller GDP, but only 3 countries (UK, Poland, Estonia) bother to do so. Overall the EU is a slacker, with some countries spending less than 1% of their GDP. NATO is really about defending Europe, but the military budget of all of Europe is less than half of the US military budget. Meanwhile, you are imposing your own huge tariffs on US products and flat out banning us from selling you stuff like Swiss cheese. You're even trying to get us to agree to ban making Swiss cheese in our own country, forcing us to import it from Switzerland. I'm guessing you don't see how absurd that is; you have a financial motivation to believe that your rules make sense. You've even screwed up the web, with your silly cookie warnings, and now again with some GDPR thing. You've had a great deal, and you don't want it to end. I get that. It's understandable. The deal was made in the ruins of WWII, to our disadvantage, when Europe was in ruins. You're better now. It's time to have a fair deal for this modern world.
  - ralfn 8y ago
    Europe underspending was a logical response to the ridiculous overspending of the US. And most of that money isn't actually spend on anything that keeps anyone safe. We make more milk than anyone needs and then we subsidize it and throw half of it out. You guys make more tanks than anyone ever needs. You subsizide it and it collects either dust or you sell it to a small town police station for crowd control. The world really didn't need us spending more money on war. Instead we spend our money on education for example. The shortage of highly skilled individuals in the west is filled by Europe. None of this was ever a deal. We just do our part. Do what America lacks. And investing in murder machinery just isn't something our team needed. But that's the thing, right? We are not one team anymore. You have to admit: that is what changed. I don't have an opinion about Swiss cheese.
    - burfog 8y ago
      The underspending is short-term thinking. You see how well that worked out for the Ukraine. Some countries have no choice because they are tiny, like Georgia, and they also suffer greatly. You might not be interested in violent combat, but violent combatants are interested in you. You certainly shouldn't rely on the USA for your protection. We had promised to protect the Ukraine. Even when you do get the promised help, as Poland did from the UK in WWII, it typically comes rather late. By the time help arrives you may be starving, homeless, raped, injured, orphaned, or widowed. Pushing that stuff out of your thoughts does not make the possibility go away.

ralfn 8y ago

European here: that's not how you negotiate with friends. That would show a dangerous lack of cultural understanding. We have long memories and don't care about money as much as Americans do. We will prefer to be proud and poor. This goes beyond Trump. It will take 30 years to repair the trust.