What about the 2nd and 3rd order effects, particularly the economic ones?
Certainly here in the UK no-one has any interest in buying any more US weapons systems, and there is a growing push to get off US tech in a wider sense eg cloud platforms, since no-one trusts the USA with its data anymore, either.
The USD is the world's reserve currency because (a) "petrodollar" and (b) the US was seen as a stable place to park your money eg in US T-bills.
I'm not sure anyone sees the US under Trump as "stable" and all the noise around a crypto sovereign wealth fund has the Doomers saying that this is the start of a USD default.
Even if this is fantasy, it's still swirling around out there in the ether and is part of the risk assessment, even if it's super low risk. And if the USD isn't stable, then (a) comes into play, and it's not like BRICS hasn't been flirting with the idea of an alt-petrodollar for ages. I doubt China would relish their trillions of T-bills being devalued but hey, when you've got a 1,000yr perspective they might want to take the hit in the short term.
The problem that I see with Trump (and tbh a lot of American thinking) is that's it all very zero-sum game and linear. But the world isn't like that. Sure, you might be the 800lb gorilla and used to getting your own way but the world is increasingly "volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous".
Acting like a playground bully and thinking there won't be any pushback or that your immune from any potential consequences is like the before scene in every underdog movie where the bully doesn't see the baseball bat to their knee from behind the dumpster and the next thing they remember is waking up in hospital with their jaw wired shut and tubes up every orifice after they've been beaten half to death. Sure, the US economy dwarfs every other countries' but just because it's large does not mean it's not fragile or vulnerable.
And this is where I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop... The fundamental axiom of finance is that risk must be proportional to reward. And by any stretch the current US actions introduce insane levels of risk so *SOMEONE* has to be expecting insane levels of reward.
Sure, if you start with nothing then there is little downside risk but Trump's backers are, by and large, the wealthiest people in human history. So why would they take such insane risks? Are they really that greedy for more, more, more OR are they hedging against a downside risk ie they think they are in danger of losing it all and this is all a defensive ploy.
If so, what are they so afraid of? Civilisation collapsing due to climate change? What do they know about the pressing existential nature of that risk that would lead them to take such insane risks NOW? What are we missing in this equation to make sense of it all?
Man, I’m struggling to believe that Transaction Trump is worried about nuclear war. Where did this altruism come from? He has a bunker, why does he care about we little folk?
I know better than to believe what I read. But thank you for the article. Trump is crazy like a fox and someone’s useful idiot. (See Heritage Foundation). He isn’t altruistic. He wants Greenland to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic. But he’s friendly with Russia to eliminate nuclear war over Ukraine? I smell something. Could be money, but I don’t know. I’m not evil or devious enough to think this one through. Thoughts? I’ve read most all your stuff since what, 2002? I get N/S migration and water. So we eliminate Russia as a threat and beat them or join them to the minerals and water? That’s a long game to be played out and gamed out by Transactional Trump.
Congratulations for successfully graduating from the Neville Chamberlain school of transactional short-sightedness.
You may have accurately reflected the thinking of DT, a man long known for a 60-second attention span, but to suggest there is strategic merit to this approach is deeply flawed. China’s published planning horizon is 50 years; Putin has demonstrated a 10-20 year horizon; and this article claims strategic merit for a 6-month horizon? That belies the by-line of “someone who thinks about strategic issues deeply and broadly.” In the words of FLOTUS - “BE BETTER.”
Yep. Been there, done that. China’s strategic vision to be a world power by 2050 was laid out in 1987 by Deng Xiaoping’s “Three Reforms” speech, and updated/refined through subsequent 5-year plans, particularly with the increased emphasis on Military Civil Fusion since 2007.
Putin has steadily, patiently consolidated internal authority since 2000, and started strategically testing international norms since 2008 (Invasion of Georgia), repeated in 2014 (annexation of Crimea), and vastly accelerated in 2022 (attacking the rest of Ukraine). Ambiguous responses in each case led to the next escalation.
I was not mocking your paper; I was drawing a factual, highly appropriate analogy to the last time the West acted on a near-term transactional basis, without regard to likely strategic objectives and responses. I would assert that both near-term and mid-20th century history clearly demonstrate the folly of near-term appeasement actions - if the bluff of nuclear war is not called, then when does the appeasement stop? Poland and the Baltics? England? Taiwan? Japan? Australia?The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans no longer provide a safe haven for Americans in North America.
You certainly raise (or at least imply) an interesting and valid question: What is the purpose of American Foreign Policy? Is it a) to protect (and possibly improve) our standard of living at all costs? b) to make the US a protected and uncommitted enclave, no matter the cost to citizens or foreign persons? or c) to use the favored position in which we find ourselves owing to generations of effort by our immigrant forbears to make the world a safer and more prosperous (“better”) place for all we can, both within and outside our National borders.
As far back as the Federalist papers and George Washington’s 110 Rules of Civility, the answer has been clearly and consistently option “c”. Remembering THAT is what has always Made America Great.
My, now who is resorting to insults and assertions of superiority?
I never challenged your logic. I only asserted that it was based on a premise that did not stand up to historical precedence.
You clearly highly prize your ability to generate voluminous texts and copious online musings. I only hope some of them are better founded.
I have chosen to spend the past 40 years actively defending democracy without the need to see my name in the bookstore. Sadly, in the current deconstruction of our democracy, I feel compelled to counter ill-conceived arguments - from both sides. I am not “anti-Trump” (as you suggested); I am pro-democracy, pro-conscientious capitalism, and pro- rule-based world order. If Trump, Musk, and their associated sycophants were to stop their anti-democratic, anti-market, and destabilizing actions, I would have nothing ill to say about them. In fact, some Trump-1 actions were quite stabilizing (increasing European contributions to their own defense, for example). I am waiting for something remotely similar from the current Administration.
Finally, you cast aspersions on my comments by implying that I am basing them solely on my “background.” I dare be to disagree (no doubt from the fear you sense somewhere). Any broad survey of Western policy experts (Foreign Policy, CSIS, CFR, Brookings,Atlantic Council, BFPG, RUSI, Chatham House, IISS… shall I go on?) would find the overwhelming consensus that there is no strategic value to these positions, as measured by a concrete rise in international stability. And sadly, I have seen no reference to your writings in any of their essays…
Taking to its logical conclusion, the only real deterrence left is to go nuclear. If more countries go nuclear, US looses its geopolitical strength. Therefore US looses. So in order to prevent nuclear proliferation and to maintain its perceived top position, US must backstop UKR. Even if it risks nuclear war.
The nuclear bullying and hostage taking wouldn’t come into play? And what about hybrid warfare (little green men)? Better to forestall this nonsense in Ukraine, but I doubt seriously that Trump and his team have the wherewithal to see any of this.
It’s clear US foreign policy is shifting and so are the pundits. Still, habits diehard and we keep calling names and insulting inferior states because, … we’re so superior.
Broadly agree with this take. I think the long term mindset is that Russo-Chinese relations cannot last. There’s too much history and too much tension to lead to long term peace. China is also such a dominant partner that Russia has nearly zero leverage. Resetting with the Americans makes sense from a strategic perspective.
My only quibble is that I think the outlook is a little too realist. America cannot abandon every principle during its restructuring. We need to signal some kind of hard commitment to East Asian and Indo-Pacific allies that rationalizes our change from Europe and provides a very clear framework of benefits. In the end, we can’t really escape the hypocrisy that we reneged on the 1994 negotiations with Ukraine and Russia.
Speaking of the Indo-Pacific, where does India square with this? Biden spent a lot of time beefing that relationship and it’s complicated to say the least. Plenty of shared values and Indian diaspora in the U.S. but they attempted an assassination on North American soil.
I don't agree! sorry, little old me without any FP creds wants to know why you didn't mention the FACT that Putin has ambitions to recreate the old Soviet Union's territory. Starting with Georgi, then Criomea then Donbas then all of Ukraine. He has stated ambitions to go futher like Moldavia etc. and could eventually try to move into Poland or other NATO countries. We went into Iraq around the idea of a nuclear war and look how that turned out. He hasn't used nukes so far and won't due to the MAD idea. Why not mention that in your calculations?
I have mentioned Putin's quest t restore the old Russian empire (not Soviet Union) many times in the past.
I did not think it pertinent to this post, which was about US priorities.
You are right to point it out that his desire still hangs out there as a potential complication, but the realist argument would still proceed, noting that the threatened return to sanctions any additional incursion would trigger will likely stay Putin's hand for the foreseeable future (perhaps not that long in terms of his health).
Additionally, I didn't put this post up for agreement per se. I don't agree with a lot of the logic myself. The point here was to explain Trump thinking and priorities, per a realist's perspective, which, frankly, would stipulate Putin's larger ambitions and just reply that we curb those ambitions best by understanding his fears of NATO encroachment. I, as readers here can readily attest, am ALL FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT.
I make that point all the time (Russia is empire). I also argue that that empire continues to come apart and likely won't exist mid-century.
I understand some people's need to so-label Trump at every possible opportunity.
I could condition my Substack to meet that requirement, but nobody comes here to hear that from me.
They come here to hear actual analysis versus mere opinion.
They come here to hear explanations versus name-calling.
I can definitely become one of the horde that repeats all the charges and convictions each time his name is raised, but that's not what this Substack is for.
There are countless writers who can give you that fix on a daily basis.
What about the 2nd and 3rd order effects, particularly the economic ones?
Certainly here in the UK no-one has any interest in buying any more US weapons systems, and there is a growing push to get off US tech in a wider sense eg cloud platforms, since no-one trusts the USA with its data anymore, either.
The USD is the world's reserve currency because (a) "petrodollar" and (b) the US was seen as a stable place to park your money eg in US T-bills.
I'm not sure anyone sees the US under Trump as "stable" and all the noise around a crypto sovereign wealth fund has the Doomers saying that this is the start of a USD default.
Even if this is fantasy, it's still swirling around out there in the ether and is part of the risk assessment, even if it's super low risk. And if the USD isn't stable, then (a) comes into play, and it's not like BRICS hasn't been flirting with the idea of an alt-petrodollar for ages. I doubt China would relish their trillions of T-bills being devalued but hey, when you've got a 1,000yr perspective they might want to take the hit in the short term.
The problem that I see with Trump (and tbh a lot of American thinking) is that's it all very zero-sum game and linear. But the world isn't like that. Sure, you might be the 800lb gorilla and used to getting your own way but the world is increasingly "volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous".
Acting like a playground bully and thinking there won't be any pushback or that your immune from any potential consequences is like the before scene in every underdog movie where the bully doesn't see the baseball bat to their knee from behind the dumpster and the next thing they remember is waking up in hospital with their jaw wired shut and tubes up every orifice after they've been beaten half to death. Sure, the US economy dwarfs every other countries' but just because it's large does not mean it's not fragile or vulnerable.
And this is where I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop... The fundamental axiom of finance is that risk must be proportional to reward. And by any stretch the current US actions introduce insane levels of risk so *SOMEONE* has to be expecting insane levels of reward.
Sure, if you start with nothing then there is little downside risk but Trump's backers are, by and large, the wealthiest people in human history. So why would they take such insane risks? Are they really that greedy for more, more, more OR are they hedging against a downside risk ie they think they are in danger of losing it all and this is all a defensive ploy.
If so, what are they so afraid of? Civilisation collapsing due to climate change? What do they know about the pressing existential nature of that risk that would lead them to take such insane risks NOW? What are we missing in this equation to make sense of it all?
This article is the rationalisation of bullying.
Not only is Putin culturally, politically unworthy of Ukraine.. but militarily.
So.. even might.. in this case .. is not right.
But aside from that… this article divorces morality from competence and geopolitical values.
The only context it recognises is the big stick.
But not America’s.
Nor American foreign policy imperatives regarding its allies…
Man, I’m struggling to believe that Transaction Trump is worried about nuclear war. Where did this altruism come from? He has a bunker, why does he care about we little folk?
Struggle no more:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nuclear-war-threat-climate-change-fox-news-1909003
Oh.. well then.
I know better than to believe what I read. But thank you for the article. Trump is crazy like a fox and someone’s useful idiot. (See Heritage Foundation). He isn’t altruistic. He wants Greenland to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic. But he’s friendly with Russia to eliminate nuclear war over Ukraine? I smell something. Could be money, but I don’t know. I’m not evil or devious enough to think this one through. Thoughts? I’ve read most all your stuff since what, 2002? I get N/S migration and water. So we eliminate Russia as a threat and beat them or join them to the minerals and water? That’s a long game to be played out and gamed out by Transactional Trump.
Congratulations for successfully graduating from the Neville Chamberlain school of transactional short-sightedness.
You may have accurately reflected the thinking of DT, a man long known for a 60-second attention span, but to suggest there is strategic merit to this approach is deeply flawed. China’s published planning horizon is 50 years; Putin has demonstrated a 10-20 year horizon; and this article claims strategic merit for a 6-month horizon? That belies the by-line of “someone who thinks about strategic issues deeply and broadly.” In the words of FLOTUS - “BE BETTER.”
Yep. Been there, done that. China’s strategic vision to be a world power by 2050 was laid out in 1987 by Deng Xiaoping’s “Three Reforms” speech, and updated/refined through subsequent 5-year plans, particularly with the increased emphasis on Military Civil Fusion since 2007.
Putin has steadily, patiently consolidated internal authority since 2000, and started strategically testing international norms since 2008 (Invasion of Georgia), repeated in 2014 (annexation of Crimea), and vastly accelerated in 2022 (attacking the rest of Ukraine). Ambiguous responses in each case led to the next escalation.
I was not mocking your paper; I was drawing a factual, highly appropriate analogy to the last time the West acted on a near-term transactional basis, without regard to likely strategic objectives and responses. I would assert that both near-term and mid-20th century history clearly demonstrate the folly of near-term appeasement actions - if the bluff of nuclear war is not called, then when does the appeasement stop? Poland and the Baltics? England? Taiwan? Japan? Australia?The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans no longer provide a safe haven for Americans in North America.
You certainly raise (or at least imply) an interesting and valid question: What is the purpose of American Foreign Policy? Is it a) to protect (and possibly improve) our standard of living at all costs? b) to make the US a protected and uncommitted enclave, no matter the cost to citizens or foreign persons? or c) to use the favored position in which we find ourselves owing to generations of effort by our immigrant forbears to make the world a safer and more prosperous (“better”) place for all we can, both within and outside our National borders.
As far back as the Federalist papers and George Washington’s 110 Rules of Civility, the answer has been clearly and consistently option “c”. Remembering THAT is what has always Made America Great.
Your tendency to asset your logic as fact is definitely frustrating.
Fear drives that sort of arrogance.
You want to tell me I am completely wrong in my logic but you can't get beyond that statement with anything approaching proof..
Then again, you have "background," so you are entitled to such statements.
Please point me to your writings online, your bio, etc.
Because I feel like I am arguing with a chatbot here.
Your substack has no posts and aggregates anti-trump stuff.
Beyond that, my audience is plenty smart and overwhelmingly professionals in this business.
My, now who is resorting to insults and assertions of superiority?
I never challenged your logic. I only asserted that it was based on a premise that did not stand up to historical precedence.
You clearly highly prize your ability to generate voluminous texts and copious online musings. I only hope some of them are better founded.
I have chosen to spend the past 40 years actively defending democracy without the need to see my name in the bookstore. Sadly, in the current deconstruction of our democracy, I feel compelled to counter ill-conceived arguments - from both sides. I am not “anti-Trump” (as you suggested); I am pro-democracy, pro-conscientious capitalism, and pro- rule-based world order. If Trump, Musk, and their associated sycophants were to stop their anti-democratic, anti-market, and destabilizing actions, I would have nothing ill to say about them. In fact, some Trump-1 actions were quite stabilizing (increasing European contributions to their own defense, for example). I am waiting for something remotely similar from the current Administration.
Finally, you cast aspersions on my comments by implying that I am basing them solely on my “background.” I dare be to disagree (no doubt from the fear you sense somewhere). Any broad survey of Western policy experts (Foreign Policy, CSIS, CFR, Brookings,Atlantic Council, BFPG, RUSI, Chatham House, IISS… shall I go on?) would find the overwhelming consensus that there is no strategic value to these positions, as measured by a concrete rise in international stability. And sadly, I have seen no reference to your writings in any of their essays…
That you for your mockery. Always helpful.
Spend some time in China and/or Russia, as I have, and maybe you won't drink their Kool-Aid so fast.
Taking to its logical conclusion, the only real deterrence left is to go nuclear. If more countries go nuclear, US looses its geopolitical strength. Therefore US looses. So in order to prevent nuclear proliferation and to maintain its perceived top position, US must backstop UKR. Even if it risks nuclear war.
So, accept the strategic argument for bailing on Ukraine. Same argument and result for Latvia, Lithuania…and Poland?
All three are NATO members, so no.
The nuclear bullying and hostage taking wouldn’t come into play? And what about hybrid warfare (little green men)? Better to forestall this nonsense in Ukraine, but I doubt seriously that Trump and his team have the wherewithal to see any of this.
Doesn't care, so doesn't see.
It’s clear US foreign policy is shifting and so are the pundits. Still, habits diehard and we keep calling names and insulting inferior states because, … we’re so superior.
Broadly agree with this take. I think the long term mindset is that Russo-Chinese relations cannot last. There’s too much history and too much tension to lead to long term peace. China is also such a dominant partner that Russia has nearly zero leverage. Resetting with the Americans makes sense from a strategic perspective.
My only quibble is that I think the outlook is a little too realist. America cannot abandon every principle during its restructuring. We need to signal some kind of hard commitment to East Asian and Indo-Pacific allies that rationalizes our change from Europe and provides a very clear framework of benefits. In the end, we can’t really escape the hypocrisy that we reneged on the 1994 negotiations with Ukraine and Russia.
Speaking of the Indo-Pacific, where does India square with this? Biden spent a lot of time beefing that relationship and it’s complicated to say the least. Plenty of shared values and Indian diaspora in the U.S. but they attempted an assassination on North American soil.
Sorry, did you say ‘Trump’ and ‘strategy’ in the same sentence?
Flooding the zone with shit is the only thing I can see and that’s a political tactic.
Then that's the only thing you can see.
Context free essay.
Also, assuming press reports were accurate, Iran assassination squads were hunting candidate Trump. So Trump will settle the score, Mafia style.
Remember W. wanting to avenge supposed attempt/plot on H.W. in the case of Iraq.
You lay out the policy and supporting arguments far more clearly I fear than we could expect the current occupant of the Oval Office to do
That’s my job.
I don't agree! sorry, little old me without any FP creds wants to know why you didn't mention the FACT that Putin has ambitions to recreate the old Soviet Union's territory. Starting with Georgi, then Criomea then Donbas then all of Ukraine. He has stated ambitions to go futher like Moldavia etc. and could eventually try to move into Poland or other NATO countries. We went into Iraq around the idea of a nuclear war and look how that turned out. He hasn't used nukes so far and won't due to the MAD idea. Why not mention that in your calculations?
Tom Langmaack concerned citizen
I have mentioned Putin's quest t restore the old Russian empire (not Soviet Union) many times in the past.
I did not think it pertinent to this post, which was about US priorities.
You are right to point it out that his desire still hangs out there as a potential complication, but the realist argument would still proceed, noting that the threatened return to sanctions any additional incursion would trigger will likely stay Putin's hand for the foreseeable future (perhaps not that long in terms of his health).
Thanks for the comment.
Additionally, I didn't put this post up for agreement per se. I don't agree with a lot of the logic myself. The point here was to explain Trump thinking and priorities, per a realist's perspective, which, frankly, would stipulate Putin's larger ambitions and just reply that we curb those ambitions best by understanding his fears of NATO encroachment. I, as readers here can readily attest, am ALL FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT.
Russia is an empire.
As it stands.
Without adding other states.
The credit you are giving a rapist traitor is staggering.
I make that point all the time (Russia is empire). I also argue that that empire continues to come apart and likely won't exist mid-century.
I understand some people's need to so-label Trump at every possible opportunity.
I could condition my Substack to meet that requirement, but nobody comes here to hear that from me.
They come here to hear actual analysis versus mere opinion.
They come here to hear explanations versus name-calling.
I can definitely become one of the horde that repeats all the charges and convictions each time his name is raised, but that's not what this Substack is for.
There are countless writers who can give you that fix on a daily basis.
I will continue to disappoint on that score.
Thank you for replying. Just saw. Didn’t know where to look for a reply. I think you’re saying you were giving a realist view of Trump think.
As far as Ukraine, you said it’s not important. Is that too, your interpretation of Trump and not yours? I believe that’s what you said.
With Trump apparently looking to lift sanctions and bring Putin back to the G7, do you think sanctions can still be a deterrent?
Not really. Putin's grab has been de facto blessed now by China, India and the US, leaving only the EU opposing. Game, set, match in diplomatic terms.