5 ms·

I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up: This is a tragedy for the free world, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy for the United Sta

I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up: This is a tragedy for the free world, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. [President Donald] Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, because he will not defend you, he will impose more tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories, while supporting the dictators who invade you. I’ve thought for a while now that the U.S. has spent a long time building up subjective resources in goodwill, trust, reliability, etc. (you can certainly bicker about the details here). But with Trump, they’re cashing in on all of that. They’re selling the laptops and office chairs (sometimes quite literally) as a business strategy. I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest. My concern is that the consequences of the current strategy are too far into the future to act as a sufficient deterrent. It’ll feel like it actually works for a time. But then eventually everyone hates you and adapts to exclude you.

glitchc 2y ago
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. US prosperity is rooted in its overwhelming military might. People dare not take it on for fear of reprisal. Those who occasionally try are quickly reminded through reciprocal action. US companies benefit greatly from secure operations and relatively laissez-faire domestic economic policies to grow into world behemoths. Don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that your safety and security are tied to some "Kumbaya good feeling" that random strangers have towards you. The stick may be silent most of the time, but everyone knows it's there.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  It's both. The stick being silent only works if people believe you won't randomly start swinging it if they cooperate, and people trusting you not to swing wouldn't matter if you didn't have a stick.
- tim333 2y ago
  Meh. I think that's backwards. The US has a strong military because of its economic success. Same with China. Get rich first then buy guns.
  - glitchc 2y ago
    Making money is just one step. Buying weapons is the second, and making your own is the next major leap. Many countries get to the second step, but a select few get to the third. Buying doesn't guarantee safety, after all the supplier can cut you off from critical ammo and support at any time (that's what's happening right?) It's a conscious choice for a country to specialize in weapons manufacturing, and the US, well it's the best at it. Does it come for free? Definitely not, it comes at a huge cost. We can't have so many other things because we do this. But we do buy freedom with it. Peace-loving Americans have to do some real soul-searching: Would their success and comfort be possible without those weapons? Would they still have their freedoms? The first thing tyrants do is take away weapons from the public, lest their enemies rise up against them in armed insurrection. Which of the two parties is more likely to do so?
fosk 2y ago
[flagged]
- rocqua 2y ago
  Does the US have total control? They sure have wide influence, but influence is different from control. The power to take something diminishes when you use it.
  - fosk 2y ago
    Yes. When the rubber meets the road, they have total control because what is anybody going to do about it?
    - martin_a 2y ago
      What are you going to do to keep the American tech sector up? Point guns at people so they post on Instagram?
      - fosk 2y ago
        We are talking about geopolitical and financial power, not Instagram.
        martin_a 2y ago
        That power has been given because there was trust that the US would not fuck you over. That agreement seems to have been canceled by the US, therefore that power can be removed, too.
        fosk 2y ago
        The EU didn’t give power to the US. The US took it after the European states got decimated after WWII. Power is not given, it’s taken.
        2y ago
jpadkins 2y ago
[flagged]
- bigyabai 2y ago
  > What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine? Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons > The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. Which was negotiated as part of a package to prevent nuclear proliferation being required to provide security assurances. America's treatment of Ukraine will be remembered when diplomatic disarmament is proposed to North Korea and Iran.
  - jpadkins 2y ago
    Thank you. That memo is not a treaty, ratified by our Senate. Second, Russia clearly broke the agreement. Third it only states that the US is obligated to provide assistance if a threat or act of aggression where nuclear weapons are used. As long as Russia does not use nuclear weapons (or threatens them!), we have no obligation in this agreement. Also it does not specify assistance. Clearly the US has already assisted Ukraine in defending from the invasion from Russia. And clearly the US people are tired of assisting them. We have no alliance with Ukraine.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      I'm not saying the US is bound by international law to follow this verbatim. I am saying that our stance here is exactly the motivation required to promote nuclear proliferation to any country that demands others respect their borders. Iran and North Korea now have no diplomatic path to nuclear disarmament. America has no credible homeland ICBM defense, either, so we're playing a very dangerous game.
    - deeviant 2y ago
      Current US Administration: How dare request security guarantees and point out Russia breaks their word more often then not! Average US Administration supporter: The US didn't give Ukraine security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum, how dumb of Ukraine to give up a trillion dollars of Nuclear weapons for literally nothing! Also, it was Russia that broke their word, not us! Also, Russia has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, repeatedly. By claiming Ukrainian soil as theirs, then claiming they would defend "their" land, aka, Ukraine, with nukes. Even going so far as to use ballistic missiles that are only useful as nuclear weapon carriers due to their cost and low accuracy on normal bombardment of Ukraine's cities to create doubt on the Ukraine side whether the next Russian salvo against their cities and civilian population, will be a nuclear one.
keybored 2y ago
Nothing like a bully POTUS to bring out all the rose-colored glasses praising the US for something that it never was. Set in the context of a representative of neocolonial France speaking about “the free world”. I don’t understand the causality. Trump reaches a new low and the slogans about the benevolent past reaches a new, even more naive high. > I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest. For how many years has the US been not-at-war?
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  I think Trump actually demonstrates just how wrong this perspective is. The U.S. cooperated with Canada to build cars together for generations. It’s a source of a lot of economic prosperity for both countries. And now the U.S. is threatening Canada with annexation while trying to destroy the current auto industry. I know there would be bickering about the details because everyone has their own mood on how warmongering the U.S. is, and to whom. But whatever you want to qualify the past as, the present is considerably and undeniably different in contrast. I guess maybe to Russians this would actually be backwards given the U.S. has always been aggressive towards them and now America and Russia are quickly becoming BFFs.
  - keybored 2y ago
    > I think Trump actually demonstrates just how wrong this perspective is. It does not. I did not argue that America is not worse than before. I was clearly arguing against your premise that America has been wielding their military might with “cooperation over conquest”. It was a straightforward question too. > The U.S. cooperated with Canada to build cars together for generations. It’s a source of a lot of economic prosperity for both countries. And now the U.S. is threatening Canada with annexation while trying to destroy the current auto industry. By the wars I was clearly referring to places like Latin America and the Middle East. Again, what’s the usual state of the US? At war, or at peace? I know it hurts when it happens to you. Or your first-world friends. But that’s high school clique logic.[1] We’re talking about the country as a whole here, not just how it acts towards its former friends. > I know there would be bickering about the details because everyone has their own mood on how warmongering the U.S. is, and to whom. But whatever you want to qualify the past as, the present is considerably and undeniably different in contrast. Yes you preempted your statement with “bickering”. Too bad for you though that my question directly counters your claim. How war-mongering of peaceful a nation is on the world stage is not a question of vibes and feels. Or how you subjectively view them based on how they treat “you”. It’s an objective question. No bickering needed.

glitchc 2y ago

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. US prosperity is rooted in its overwhelming military might. People dare not take it on for fear of reprisal. Those who occasionally try are quickly reminded through reciprocal action. US companies benefit greatly from secure operations and relatively laissez-faire domestic economic policies to grow into world behemoths. Don't kid yourself for one second into thinking that your safety and security are tied to some "Kumbaya good feeling" that random strangers have towards you. The stick may be silent most of the time, but everyone knows it's there.

rincebrain 2y ago
It's both. The stick being silent only works if people believe you won't randomly start swinging it if they cooperate, and people trusting you not to swing wouldn't matter if you didn't have a stick.
tim333 2y ago
Meh. I think that's backwards. The US has a strong military because of its economic success. Same with China. Get rich first then buy guns.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Making money is just one step. Buying weapons is the second, and making your own is the next major leap. Many countries get to the second step, but a select few get to the third. Buying doesn't guarantee safety, after all the supplier can cut you off from critical ammo and support at any time (that's what's happening right?) It's a conscious choice for a country to specialize in weapons manufacturing, and the US, well it's the best at it. Does it come for free? Definitely not, it comes at a huge cost. We can't have so many other things because we do this. But we do buy freedom with it. Peace-loving Americans have to do some real soul-searching: Would their success and comfort be possible without those weapons? Would they still have their freedoms? The first thing tyrants do is take away weapons from the public, lest their enemies rise up against them in armed insurrection. Which of the two parties is more likely to do so?

fosk 2y ago

[flagged]

rocqua 2y ago
Does the US have total control? They sure have wide influence, but influence is different from control. The power to take something diminishes when you use it.
- fosk 2y ago
  Yes. When the rubber meets the road, they have total control because what is anybody going to do about it?
  - martin_a 2y ago
    What are you going to do to keep the American tech sector up? Point guns at people so they post on Instagram?
    - fosk 2y ago
      We are talking about geopolitical and financial power, not Instagram.
      - martin_a 2y ago
        That power has been given because there was trust that the US would not fuck you over. That agreement seems to have been canceled by the US, therefore that power can be removed, too.
        fosk 2y ago
        The EU didn’t give power to the US. The US took it after the European states got decimated after WWII. Power is not given, it’s taken.
        2y ago

jpadkins 2y ago

[flagged]

bigyabai 2y ago
> What alliance did the US sign with Ukraine? Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons > The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. Which was negotiated as part of a package to prevent nuclear proliferation being required to provide security assurances. America's treatment of Ukraine will be remembered when diplomatic disarmament is proposed to North Korea and Iran.
- jpadkins 2y ago
  Thank you. That memo is not a treaty, ratified by our Senate. Second, Russia clearly broke the agreement. Third it only states that the US is obligated to provide assistance if a threat or act of aggression where nuclear weapons are used. As long as Russia does not use nuclear weapons (or threatens them!), we have no obligation in this agreement. Also it does not specify assistance. Clearly the US has already assisted Ukraine in defending from the invasion from Russia. And clearly the US people are tired of assisting them. We have no alliance with Ukraine.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    I'm not saying the US is bound by international law to follow this verbatim. I am saying that our stance here is exactly the motivation required to promote nuclear proliferation to any country that demands others respect their borders. Iran and North Korea now have no diplomatic path to nuclear disarmament. America has no credible homeland ICBM defense, either, so we're playing a very dangerous game.
  - deeviant 2y ago
    Current US Administration: How dare request security guarantees and point out Russia breaks their word more often then not! Average US Administration supporter: The US didn't give Ukraine security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum, how dumb of Ukraine to give up a trillion dollars of Nuclear weapons for literally nothing! Also, it was Russia that broke their word, not us! Also, Russia has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, repeatedly. By claiming Ukrainian soil as theirs, then claiming they would defend "their" land, aka, Ukraine, with nukes. Even going so far as to use ballistic missiles that are only useful as nuclear weapon carriers due to their cost and low accuracy on normal bombardment of Ukraine's cities to create doubt on the Ukraine side whether the next Russian salvo against their cities and civilian population, will be a nuclear one.

keybored 2y ago

Nothing like a bully POTUS to bring out all the rose-colored glasses praising the US for something that it never was. Set in the context of a representative of neocolonial France speaking about “the free world”. I don’t understand the causality. Trump reaches a new low and the slogans about the benevolent past reaches a new, even more naive high. > I think there’s a fatal misconception among many Americans about where their prosperity comes from. They’re not special or exceptionally capable by any means. It comes from wielding tremendous economic and military power gently, preferring cooperation over conquest. For how many years has the US been not-at-war?

Waterluvian 2y ago
I think Trump actually demonstrates just how wrong this perspective is. The U.S. cooperated with Canada to build cars together for generations. It’s a source of a lot of economic prosperity for both countries. And now the U.S. is threatening Canada with annexation while trying to destroy the current auto industry. I know there would be bickering about the details because everyone has their own mood on how warmongering the U.S. is, and to whom. But whatever you want to qualify the past as, the present is considerably and undeniably different in contrast. I guess maybe to Russians this would actually be backwards given the U.S. has always been aggressive towards them and now America and Russia are quickly becoming BFFs.
- keybored 2y ago
  > I think Trump actually demonstrates just how wrong this perspective is. It does not. I did not argue that America is not worse than before. I was clearly arguing against your premise that America has been wielding their military might with “cooperation over conquest”. It was a straightforward question too. > The U.S. cooperated with Canada to build cars together for generations. It’s a source of a lot of economic prosperity for both countries. And now the U.S. is threatening Canada with annexation while trying to destroy the current auto industry. By the wars I was clearly referring to places like Latin America and the Middle East. Again, what’s the usual state of the US? At war, or at peace? I know it hurts when it happens to you. Or your first-world friends. But that’s high school clique logic.[1] We’re talking about the country as a whole here, not just how it acts towards its former friends. > I know there would be bickering about the details because everyone has their own mood on how warmongering the U.S. is, and to whom. But whatever you want to qualify the past as, the present is considerably and undeniably different in contrast. Yes you preempted your statement with “bickering”. Too bad for you though that my question directly counters your claim. How war-mongering of peaceful a nation is on the world stage is not a question of vibes and feels. Or how you subjectively view them based on how they treat “you”. It’s an objective question. No bickering needed.