El Presidente Trump

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been watching those who were "only" supporting trump because they claimed they feared war with Russia slowly evolve into a position nowhere they feel an automatic need to defend any and every criticism of him. I do wonder what there thoughts are on the dangerous path he so sending US/Chinese relations towards at this point though? Agitating for war unless he changed tact by the standards they have laid out, surely?

You could also wonder why people so concerned with Russia's movements in its near abroad are ok with with the Chinese Taiwan situation.

Trump is bound to come into conflict with china sooner or later as he's going to try and get some factories back. And that means a possible trade war. There won't be an actual war.

More worrisome is his potential defence pick. Seems like an anti-Iran fanatic.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

China realistically isn't in any position to have a war with the USA.

The "senior official" being quoted as suggesting that China would cut diplomatic ties is actually a university academic in China and not a government official of any type. It's a lot of hyperbole and misattributed quotes.

If China got aggressive with the United States it would be walking away from one of its two largest markets by a long shot and would probably trigger NATO, losing access to the EU market, similarly enormous.

Then it would also spook companies manufacturing there and inward investors.

Basically, China isn't going to go to war with anyone unless it's feeling economically suicidal.

Agreed with that, but they can be Unhelpful. European politicians are tending to treat Trump with kid gloves because god knows what he might do next and he's an unknown quantity. China has no need to treat Trump with kid gloves, just avoid outright war or, for preference, a trade war. But they can and will use his isolationist policy to cement trade control over the Asian markets, and not let him away with any nonsense that they can use to point out the follies of democracy to their own people and the rest of Asia. Taiwan, you really want to cosy up to the US under this guy? Come back to the red motherland before something horrible and democratic happens to you :P. That sort of thing. Presumably couched in Diplomacy.

Sand wrote: »

Well, Japan went to war with the US, the British Empire and the rest of the globe knowing it was economically suicidal but feeling war offered the only option to become truly independent.

The British have quite recently walked away from its own largest market by a long shot, again economically suicidal but done for nationalist reasons.

Russia's adventures in Ukraine and Crimea were economically suicidal, but they still did it for nationalist/aggressive reasons.

...

You make a good and moderately alarming point about just how lacking in basic common sense the world has been lately. Hopefully that particular currently-western insanity hasn't spread to China yet, although if they see the EU and America as weak enough.. And the survival of the European Union is by no means assured. Yes, I know this delights some people, but consider a world with the balance of power sitting between a potential Russia/China alliance on one side and a schizophrenic America and crumbling Europe on the other.

That's not a situation that Europeans should be celebrating.

Billy86 wrote: »

See, that's what a lot people would think as they would be aware that any single nation going to war with the US would basically be suicidal. However, a lot of people who preferred Trump claimed to do so because of fears of a Russian/US war, so this would not apply to them. By their own standards, they must be worried about the potential for war with China having just increased.

Of course what countries might do is undertake other forms of war with the US, like an information war, which Russia has done and is thoroughly winning.

We were worried that the US would cause or provoke that war not that the Russians would.

HellSquirrel wrote: »

You make a good and moderately alarming point about just how lacking in basic common sense the world has been lately. Hopefully that particular currently-western insanity hasn't spread to China yet, although if they see the EU and America as weak enough.. And the survival of the European Union is by no means assured. Yes, I know this delights some people, but consider a world with the balance of power sitting between a potential Russia/China alliance on one side and a schizophrenic America and crumbling Europe on the other.

That's not a situation that Europeans should be celebrating.

Europe could row in with the Russians.

Sand wrote: »

Well, Japan went to war with the US, the British Empire and the rest of the globe knowing it was economically suicidal but feeling war offered the only option to become truly independent.

The British have quite recently walked away from its own largest market by a long shot, again economically suicidal but done for nationalist reasons.

Russia's adventures in Ukraine and Crimea were economically suicidal, but they still did it for nationalist/aggressive reasons.

I don't think anyone should underestimate just how nuts the Chinese are about Taiwan. There is huge popular and nationalist support in China for unification with Taiwan. The current status quo is maintained by China feeling its inevitable for Taiwan to fall fully under their control so they can afford to be patient. Should it become apparent that the trend is halting or even reversing then the logic of calmly waiting for unification becomes weaker.

Trump is sending two messages currently - First he will engage with Taiwan. Secondly he will not automatically defend Taiwan or any other US ally. Its not hard to see the Chinese being inspired by Putins adventures in Crimea and similarly testing Taiwan if they think the US wont react to defend Taiwan.

The huge difference is China is basically China Inc. I see it operating far more like a huge company than a country. It has no democratic processes and it's effectively run by an executive board.

You're not going to get a populist leader, or a hard man like Putin emerging as there's no political advantage to it. It's also not about a single personality leading an imperial court like Japan, rather it's a corporate-style relatively faceless board of directors running the place.

They're all about stability and quashing decent basically. Hence, the horrific human rights record coupled with a decent standard of living if you play ball.
You're really looking at what has morphed into some kind of genuinely Orwellian, non-democratic, corporate society with a limited set of personal freedoms - that are limited severely if you step out of line with the mission statement.

It's a very strange system and has relatively few precedents, but I not really seeing it being likely to suddenly decide to go to war with one of its two largest customers (by a very large margin), certainly not without a total change of regime and personalities at the top of the system.

Trump would really want to push it very, very far to trigger a response. I would suspect they're more likely to just ignore him or possibly try to contain him somewhat with economics and just sit it out until someone more stable comes into office when the term runs out.

He would really need to actually provoke them pretty aggressively to cause any major reaction. They will definitely make plenty of diplomatic quips and do the odd show of force in the pacific though to prove they're not going to be pushed around though.

--

The big concern I would have with Trump is he may cause major problems somewhere where there is a hot headed regime in place like North Korea and cause overspill of a conflict into South Korea and even China. Or, he may put his foot in it in the middle east. He's already causing raised eyebrows in India over those Pakistan comments.

The other big one is that Putin is a hot head and isn't very much unlike Trump. If those two ever come to blows, we are screwed.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Many Europeans hate the EU too. Don't worry about that, look at the elections this weekend.

Out of sheer curiosity, what country -are- you from? I'm curious as to what country's greater good would be on your mind. I have trouble reckoning European, since you seem quite sure about how the destruction of the European alliance is a really awesome thing in a world where the superpowers aren't exactly friendly and there's an expansionist one on the doorstep. I could be wrong though.

Yourself isit wrote: »

The EU isn't a military alliance in any case so the case is moot.

Er, it's not really. As things stand at the moment, what effect do you reckon the EU's collapse would have on NATO? Especially when Trump has already made noises indicating he mightn't support NATO allies (I suspect he'd row back on that if something happened, but it's a bad message to send out).

And even if you reckon (as some do) that individual countries will be stronger alone, I think most people would agree that in the short term (personally, I think medium and long term too, but we'll stay with short-term for now), each country that withdraws will be weak for a period as it adjusts. If the EU broke up, especially in an only semi-controlled manner, yes, Europe would be very vulnerable and would have little recourse for telling Russia to feck off.

It's not just a case of pure military issue. Countries don't survive on military alone. Destroy* the trade base and the economic base and you can whistle for military deterrence.

*Even if temporarily while the yuge replacement is being set in place :P

Yourself isit wrote: »

You've written a lot there to agree that the European union is not a military alliance.

As for claims that the economy of Europe will collapse after the break up of the European Union, the reason for instability now is the very economical problems caused by it.

Of course, because I do agree. Although apparently the EU had recently set up a military command, which I hadn't heard about and until about..ooh, a month ago, would have been rather dubious about. The EU was never -supposed- to be a military alliance, although it did develop beyond its original remit and, while I don't entirely see how else they could have gone about it, may well be contributing to its current unpopularity.

No, my point is that if the EU was to collapse - yes, the economies of Europe would suffer dramatically, even if just in the short term. Unfortunately, now is really not a great short-term to be looking into with such a prospect.

Although I have to disagree with your last point. While, as I mentioned too, the EU has contributed to its own issues, it was the concurrence of a whole lot of different things that has lead to the current political instability of the world. The EU being too federal makes little difference to the state of the Middle East, for example, which leads right on to the humanitarian disaster that is the Syrian refugee crisis. I don't think the EU were involved in electing Trump, an isolationist, shallow-thinking windbag with no political ability or experience. The recession started in the United States, although it was ably aided by Germany once they started to crumble financially. A lot of countries had been up to the same mischief, but again, that wasn't really to do with the EU, it was the banking sectors in each country.

The sweeping social changes that have come to the end of a left-wing period and is rocketing back towards far right wing were a whole mix of things, including the world wars fading into distant memory, the rise of technology that made obsolete the industries of entire regions, and response to the political climate.

The EU makes for a good buttmonkey at the moment, but it would be very short-sighted to assume it's only a corrupt monolith eating itself.

The election was only today I believe so figured that news was strangely early... makes a bit more sense now.

https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/805458884513136640