6 ms·

So if Trump is against China, and China aligns with Russia, will Trump then support Ukraine? Interesting (and choppy) times ahead.

duxup 2y ago
Trump didn’t do anything with regards to China the first time around. I think there’s reason to doubt he is opposed to China in any significant way.
- lysace 2y ago
  He did impose tariffs on imports from China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr... China–United States trade war An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft.
  - duxup 2y ago
    That reads like token efforts and then he just moved on ... quit on the whole thing.
    - lysace 2y ago
      By late 2019, the United States had imposed approximately US$350 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, while China had imposed approximately US$100 billion on US exports. Then the Biden admin happened. The Joe Biden administration kept the tariffs in place and added additional levies on Chinese goods such as electric vehicles and solar panels. In 2024, the Trump presidential campaign proposed a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. It will be interesting to see what happens. 60% all at once would be too disruptive, I think.
      - duxup 2y ago
        Trade conflicts all seem like a test of wills. But if you're not testing, you're not doing anything.
      - throwawaymaths 2y ago
        Well Biden put Catherine Tai in as the chief trade negotiator, who has been hard on China. Tariffs were expanded. And the de minimis exemption was rescinded in august. So hardly "nothing further".
        lysace 2y ago
        Sorry - just edited away the "nothing further" part as it was incorrect - a minute before reading your comment.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        No worries! Thanks for the correction
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Let's not forget pulling out of the TPP, which likely empowered China. https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunder https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-...
- underseacables 2y ago
  In his first administration he engaged directly with North Korea which has been widely regarded as a Chinese puppet state. The last thing China wants, in my opinion, is a united and free Korea.
  - duxup 2y ago
    He engaged with North Korea almost as an admirer and their leadership is close to China / Russia. I'm not sure that means much as far as China goes....
  - dole 2y ago
    Although China's been taking over the SCS, I haven't seen many open hostilities between South Korea and China covered in western news media, almost like SK ignores China's activities for the most part. I don't think there's any chance of a reunified Korea under the Kim dynasty or within 10 years. edit: forgot to shoutout above's username
    - fakedang 2y ago
      Considering a significant bunch of Korean companies have production facilities in China, I'd say the relationship is more amiable than say the Japan-China one. Both were aligned in protesting the release of Fukushima water into the ocean for example.
n4r9 2y ago
Even if China doesn't explicitly align with Russia, I believe there are strategic reasons why the US would want a favourable outcome for Ukraine. I outlined a few points in a post a couple of weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42059787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42059787 I'm no international relations hawk though, so I'm keen to hear opposing viewpoints.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I used to support Ukraine winning the war at any cost (them losing and that result being recognized implies that warmongering is acceptable). However, that war is now in its third year with no end in sight. Our (the west's) response to warmongering has been to trickle just enough resources and monies to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that they win. The "donated" resources of course need to be replenished, the military industrial complex is quite literally making a killing. At this point the question of declaring a firm stand against warmongering is lost. It's three years and going, warmongering as it turns out is fine. I hate that. My tax dollars are going towards endlessly and needlessly extending human suffering for the benefit of the military industrial complex. I hate that. So I say, enough of this bullshit. Unless we suddenly send in so much support that Ukraine decisively wins very quickly, I don't want to see a single cent more of my tax dollars going towards this. My taxes are not blood money and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Yep, I'm mostly in agreement with you and am also hoping that the West does enable a sudden decisive victory. The best option would have been to nip it in the bud. Instead, Russia were given the space to landmine swathes of land, modernise their military tactics, and build an alliance with Iran and North Korea. And as you say the wrong kinds of people are winning here. The only thing is, what happens next if the West pulls out? Ukraine's military collapses, Russia moves in on Kyiv, Putin gains another Belarus-like satellite state, and at least considers encroaching on Estonia, Finland etc... . It's more than just the principle of whether warmongering is acceptable - a lot of people will suffer as a consequence and possibly for decades to come. We have to be really careful to consider which is worse in the long-term.
petesergeant 2y ago
Trump is pro Trump-looking-strong, and that's about it. Interesting times ahead for sure, but trying to predict Trump's future positions is a mug's game. I suspect regarding Ukraine, someone will give him a plan that they tell him is fair ($10 says Russia keeps Crimea but virtually nowhere else and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO), and he'll manage to get both sides to sign it by threatening them.
- Epa095 2y ago
  I will be absolutely flabbergasted if he manages that deal. I think Ukraine will have to give up significantly more than Crimea unfortunately:-/
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    Perhaps. His key leverage here is that he’s chaotic, a lunatic, and will be the CiC, and who the fuck knows what he’ll do if he doesn’t get his way? Enforce a no-fly zone? Flood the country with weaponary? Abandon Ukraine for Russian oil? Leave NATO? Provide explicit nuclear umbrella to the Poles and tell them to have at the erbfeind if they want to? About the only thing you can rely on is that he’ll do whatever he and his equally loony and chaotic advisors think will make him look good in the short term, based on feels, backed by the might of the American military. Given all that, is Putin really going to defy him when presented with a deal that Putin has any chance at of spinning as a win at home? Putin's singular leverage is threatening nuclear war, but that only works if you can convince your opponent you're more unhinged than they are, and Putin loses that particular metric to Trump every time.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
[flagged]
- tediousgraffit1 2y ago
  This line of reasoning keeps popping up and something about it bothers me - why go to war when you can get what you want in other, cheaper ways? It seems likely the correlation is real but so far no one has adduced any reasons to assume the causation actually goes the way they assume.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    If you note that what Russia wants is Ukrainian territory (first Crimea in 2014 and then a land connection to Crimea in 2022), that was guaranteed to involve some amount of war. That will give you everything you need to infer the correct direction of causation.
    - tediousgraffit1 2y ago
      Why do you think Russia wants territory? Why did they suddenly develop an appetite for territory in 2014?
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        They have wanted it since the fall of the Soviet Union and access to the Black Sea has immense strategic value to them. They only had geopolitical (and local political) cover to get it in 2014 and 2022.
        tediousgraffit1 2y ago
        So not because ukraine rejected them in 2013? To be explicit, I still have seen no evidence for the premise that '_some_ amount of war' was inevitable. Belarus would seem to be an obvious counterexample.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
The whole Trump/Russia conspiracy theory was all fake anyway - the Steele dossier which is the basis of the whole thing was fabricated and is unsourced. I expect him to be relatively hawkish on Ukraine because losing in Ukraine makes the US look weak, although Ukraine is currently losing the war relatively badly so I expect some territory to be ceded to Russia.
- IAmGraydon 2y ago
  This. The amount of downvoting on these comments is proof of the amount of influence propaganda can have on the population. A large number of people here appear to still be convinced that Trump and Russia are working together.

duxup 2y ago

Trump didn’t do anything with regards to China the first time around. I think there’s reason to doubt he is opposed to China in any significant way.

lysace 2y ago
He did impose tariffs on imports from China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr... China–United States trade war An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft.
- duxup 2y ago
  That reads like token efforts and then he just moved on ... quit on the whole thing.
  - lysace 2y ago
    By late 2019, the United States had imposed approximately US$350 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, while China had imposed approximately US$100 billion on US exports. Then the Biden admin happened. The Joe Biden administration kept the tariffs in place and added additional levies on Chinese goods such as electric vehicles and solar panels. In 2024, the Trump presidential campaign proposed a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. It will be interesting to see what happens. 60% all at once would be too disruptive, I think.
    - duxup 2y ago
      Trade conflicts all seem like a test of wills. But if you're not testing, you're not doing anything.
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      Well Biden put Catherine Tai in as the chief trade negotiator, who has been hard on China. Tariffs were expanded. And the de minimis exemption was rescinded in august. So hardly "nothing further".
      - lysace 2y ago
        Sorry - just edited away the "nothing further" part as it was incorrect - a minute before reading your comment.
        throwawaymaths 2y ago
        No worries! Thanks for the correction
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Let's not forget pulling out of the TPP, which likely empowered China. https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunder https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-...
underseacables 2y ago
In his first administration he engaged directly with North Korea which has been widely regarded as a Chinese puppet state. The last thing China wants, in my opinion, is a united and free Korea.
- duxup 2y ago
  He engaged with North Korea almost as an admirer and their leadership is close to China / Russia. I'm not sure that means much as far as China goes....
- dole 2y ago
  Although China's been taking over the SCS, I haven't seen many open hostilities between South Korea and China covered in western news media, almost like SK ignores China's activities for the most part. I don't think there's any chance of a reunified Korea under the Kim dynasty or within 10 years. edit: forgot to shoutout above's username
  - fakedang 2y ago
    Considering a significant bunch of Korean companies have production facilities in China, I'd say the relationship is more amiable than say the Japan-China one. Both were aligned in protesting the release of Fukushima water into the ocean for example.

n4r9 2y ago

Even if China doesn't explicitly align with Russia, I believe there are strategic reasons why the US would want a favourable outcome for Ukraine. I outlined a few points in a post a couple of weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42059787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42059787 I'm no international relations hawk though, so I'm keen to hear opposing viewpoints.

Dalewyn 2y ago
I used to support Ukraine winning the war at any cost (them losing and that result being recognized implies that warmongering is acceptable). However, that war is now in its third year with no end in sight. Our (the west's) response to warmongering has been to trickle just enough resources and monies to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that they win. The "donated" resources of course need to be replenished, the military industrial complex is quite literally making a killing. At this point the question of declaring a firm stand against warmongering is lost. It's three years and going, warmongering as it turns out is fine. I hate that. My tax dollars are going towards endlessly and needlessly extending human suffering for the benefit of the military industrial complex. I hate that. So I say, enough of this bullshit. Unless we suddenly send in so much support that Ukraine decisively wins very quickly, I don't want to see a single cent more of my tax dollars going towards this. My taxes are not blood money and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.
- n4r9 2y ago
  Yep, I'm mostly in agreement with you and am also hoping that the West does enable a sudden decisive victory. The best option would have been to nip it in the bud. Instead, Russia were given the space to landmine swathes of land, modernise their military tactics, and build an alliance with Iran and North Korea. And as you say the wrong kinds of people are winning here. The only thing is, what happens next if the West pulls out? Ukraine's military collapses, Russia moves in on Kyiv, Putin gains another Belarus-like satellite state, and at least considers encroaching on Estonia, Finland etc... . It's more than just the principle of whether warmongering is acceptable - a lot of people will suffer as a consequence and possibly for decades to come. We have to be really careful to consider which is worse in the long-term.

petesergeant 2y ago

Trump is pro Trump-looking-strong, and that's about it. Interesting times ahead for sure, but trying to predict Trump's future positions is a mug's game. I suspect regarding Ukraine, someone will give him a plan that they tell him is fair ($10 says Russia keeps Crimea but virtually nowhere else and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO), and he'll manage to get both sides to sign it by threatening them.

Epa095 2y ago
I will be absolutely flabbergasted if he manages that deal. I think Ukraine will have to give up significantly more than Crimea unfortunately:-/
- petesergeant 2y ago
  Perhaps. His key leverage here is that he’s chaotic, a lunatic, and will be the CiC, and who the fuck knows what he’ll do if he doesn’t get his way? Enforce a no-fly zone? Flood the country with weaponary? Abandon Ukraine for Russian oil? Leave NATO? Provide explicit nuclear umbrella to the Poles and tell them to have at the erbfeind if they want to? About the only thing you can rely on is that he’ll do whatever he and his equally loony and chaotic advisors think will make him look good in the short term, based on feels, backed by the might of the American military. Given all that, is Putin really going to defy him when presented with a deal that Putin has any chance at of spinning as a win at home? Putin's singular leverage is threatening nuclear war, but that only works if you can convince your opponent you're more unhinged than they are, and Putin loses that particular metric to Trump every time.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

[flagged]

tediousgraffit1 2y ago
This line of reasoning keeps popping up and something about it bothers me - why go to war when you can get what you want in other, cheaper ways? It seems likely the correlation is real but so far no one has adduced any reasons to assume the causation actually goes the way they assume.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  If you note that what Russia wants is Ukrainian territory (first Crimea in 2014 and then a land connection to Crimea in 2022), that was guaranteed to involve some amount of war. That will give you everything you need to infer the correct direction of causation.
  - tediousgraffit1 2y ago
    Why do you think Russia wants territory? Why did they suddenly develop an appetite for territory in 2014?
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      They have wanted it since the fall of the Soviet Union and access to the Black Sea has immense strategic value to them. They only had geopolitical (and local political) cover to get it in 2014 and 2022.
      - tediousgraffit1 2y ago
        So not because ukraine rejected them in 2013? To be explicit, I still have seen no evidence for the premise that '_some_ amount of war' was inevitable. Belarus would seem to be an obvious counterexample.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

The whole Trump/Russia conspiracy theory was all fake anyway - the Steele dossier which is the basis of the whole thing was fabricated and is unsourced. I expect him to be relatively hawkish on Ukraine because losing in Ukraine makes the US look weak, although Ukraine is currently losing the war relatively badly so I expect some territory to be ceded to Russia.

IAmGraydon 2y ago
This. The amount of downvoting on these comments is proof of the amount of influence propaganda can have on the population. A large number of people here appear to still be convinced that Trump and Russia are working together.