3 ms·

Again, the simplest model of the world that explains all of Trump’s actions is: he’s a foreign asset.

ggm 2y ago
It's convergence of belief, evidence and outcome. You can have all three, or only one. It's not necessarily by intent or design, although it certainly seems to be both. Denying the outcome benefits Russia more than anyone else appears contrary to evidence. I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits the USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money" About why, or how Trump has come to enact these outcomes I cannot speak, but they don't seem to be benign for longterm US political/strategic goals. It's like a retreat to an older isolationist world view combined with a "fuck the liberals" mentality. I used to believe in the power of the military industrial complex and its beltway lobby. I begin to doubt it, because almost all of the US aide to Ukraine was spent inside the US materiel production industry. Which is also the truly bizarre thing: he's cutting almost Keynsian pump priming domestic spend. It's massively bad for jobs.
- inverted_flag 2y ago
  > I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits thr USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money The optimistic explanation I’ve heard from the more enlightened MAGAs is that this is an attempt to “toughen Europe up”: get them to spend more on their defense and run ops without the US so that the US can focus on preparing for the war with China while Europe handles Russia. I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman.
  - ggm 2y ago
    Thanks. I kind of get it. It reads like post-hoc reasoning (by them I hasten to add) but it's a good outcome if you aren't a pacifist. If you are a pacifist, rearmament at scale across Europe is frightening. I'm not a pacifist. My parents were in the blitz. I'm pretty sure this won't end well for Europe if they stand down. I also appreciate I am very old, and a long way away from the trouble spots so I have left behind immediate consequences of other people incurring risk burdens. But still: Europe needs to rearm, and cannot depend on US strategic inputs for the next 4 years and probably more. I am unsure repudiating information sharing or NATO is a good idea but I could understand European and British and Canadian and ANZAC and ASEAN partners reassessing information sharing right now. US complaints about lack of commitment to funding NATO go back decades. It's not a solely Trumpist position.
  - atmavatar 2y ago
    Were this about handing off Ukraine support to Europe, it would have involved talks with European leaders, and US support would have been withdrawn at some future date so Europe can pick up the slack beforehand, ideally slowly phasing it out. Instead, Trump stopped it immediately and without warning. I suppose it could be a tantrum over Zelensky's failure to provide dirt on Biden for the 2020 election as much as it could be about trying to ingratiate himself to Putin, though.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman. It's 100% cope.
  - sebazzz 2y ago
    Then look at the other things, that weaken the US both internally and externally. Leaving the WHO, removing all soft power with USAID, spreading Russian propaganda points. If it talks like a duck, squawks like a duck…
  - af78 2y ago
    Then why sabotage the help European nations give to Ukraine? One example: https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrainian-f-16s-but-there-is-a-way-out-891472/ https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrai... The US did not give a single fighter aircraft to Ukraine, not even under Biden. These come from inventories of EU states.

ggm 2y ago

It's convergence of belief, evidence and outcome. You can have all three, or only one. It's not necessarily by intent or design, although it certainly seems to be both. Denying the outcome benefits Russia more than anyone else appears contrary to evidence. I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits the USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money" About why, or how Trump has come to enact these outcomes I cannot speak, but they don't seem to be benign for longterm US political/strategic goals. It's like a retreat to an older isolationist world view combined with a "fuck the liberals" mentality. I used to believe in the power of the military industrial complex and its beltway lobby. I begin to doubt it, because almost all of the US aide to Ukraine was spent inside the US materiel production industry. Which is also the truly bizarre thing: he's cutting almost Keynsian pump priming domestic spend. It's massively bad for jobs.

inverted_flag 2y ago
> I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits thr USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money The optimistic explanation I’ve heard from the more enlightened MAGAs is that this is an attempt to “toughen Europe up”: get them to spend more on their defense and run ops without the US so that the US can focus on preparing for the war with China while Europe handles Russia. I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman.
- ggm 2y ago
  Thanks. I kind of get it. It reads like post-hoc reasoning (by them I hasten to add) but it's a good outcome if you aren't a pacifist. If you are a pacifist, rearmament at scale across Europe is frightening. I'm not a pacifist. My parents were in the blitz. I'm pretty sure this won't end well for Europe if they stand down. I also appreciate I am very old, and a long way away from the trouble spots so I have left behind immediate consequences of other people incurring risk burdens. But still: Europe needs to rearm, and cannot depend on US strategic inputs for the next 4 years and probably more. I am unsure repudiating information sharing or NATO is a good idea but I could understand European and British and Canadian and ANZAC and ASEAN partners reassessing information sharing right now. US complaints about lack of commitment to funding NATO go back decades. It's not a solely Trumpist position.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  Were this about handing off Ukraine support to Europe, it would have involved talks with European leaders, and US support would have been withdrawn at some future date so Europe can pick up the slack beforehand, ideally slowly phasing it out. Instead, Trump stopped it immediately and without warning. I suppose it could be a tantrum over Zelensky's failure to provide dirt on Biden for the 2020 election as much as it could be about trying to ingratiate himself to Putin, though.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman. It's 100% cope.
- sebazzz 2y ago
  Then look at the other things, that weaken the US both internally and externally. Leaving the WHO, removing all soft power with USAID, spreading Russian propaganda points. If it talks like a duck, squawks like a duck…
- af78 2y ago
  Then why sabotage the help European nations give to Ukraine? One example: https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrainian-f-16s-but-there-is-a-way-out-891472/ https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrai... The US did not give a single fighter aircraft to Ukraine, not even under Biden. These come from inventories of EU states.