Trump's foreign policy

[Treewatcher]

Could someone who knows about the topic, tell me about trumps and his administrations policies for foreign affairs if he wins? Especially towards Europe, NATO, Ukraine and Russia. Thanks

[allseeker205]

You can look this stuff up on his website. Its kind of vauge but it'll give a general idea of what he claims he wants to do.

[Lyubov]

It’s well documented he does not like NATO, does not support Ukraine and doesn’t care what Russia does. You can expect isolationism from him and a petty big shift in USA / European security relations. I already think the damage has largely been done unless some unknown factor / luck influences the Ukraine war in such a way where it revives things. 

[PurpleTree]

i’m torn on this

growing up my mons generation lefties (in europe) always said the u.s. is playing world police

the u.s. foreign policies, interventions, wars messed many things and places up in latin america, middle east etc they control a lot with the dollar, petro, silicon valley and so on

so i kind of would like to see the u.s become more isolationist and less world police-ish

but right now it does seem we need the u.s. and the west to stand against russia, china etc

anywho

[BlueOak]

Trump's policies depend on his ego and what he last heard someone say to him.

• Political and economic support for Russia
• Economic antagonism toward China
• Occasional Assassinations in Iran/Iraq/Syria when someone whispers the right thing in his ear.
• In the Middle East generally: even more guns to Israel and general bombing of Iranian Allies. On a political level only he'd try to appear to be doing more, not that there is much left to do practically speaking.
• Sadly Business as usual with the Saudis in Yemen no doubt.
• Further cooling of European relations with his backing Russia. Cooling of relations to a lesser extent with NATO generally. Not every country, but many of them behind the scenes.
• Defunding of NATO, he flip flops on everything, but with this you could flip a coin. Which to me leads us closer to WW3, unless Russia is so crippled it can't continue for a few decades. BRICS has sadly made that neutered outcome less likely, by funding and supplying them.
• Africa, No idea, I don't think he knows it exists. Probably the usual meddling all foreign powers do.
• South East Asia and the Pacific Generally, I can't predict this, he seems to want to be seen to be buddies with North Korea. I don't honestly think much would change, he may increase forces in the theater, but that's generally going to be down to China regardless.
• Asia generally ditto above, I don't think he knows much about central Asia or India for example. I don't think he'd improve relations much with his openly fascist and now touching on nazi rhetoric. I don't use those words as hyperbole, that's what he is moving toward in his rhetoric.

Edited September 16 by BlueOak

[Treewatcher]

On 16/09/2024 at 3:05 PM, PurpleTree said:

i’m torn on this

growing up my mons generation lefties (in europe) always said the u.s. is playing world police

the u.s. foreign policies, interventions, wars messed many things and places up in latin america, middle east etc they control a lot with the dollar, petro, silicon valley and so on

so i kind of would like to see the u.s become more isolationist and less world police-ish

but right now it does seem we need the u.s. and the west to stand against russia, china etc

anywho

A police force is better than a mafia force IMO

[Treewatcher]

On 16/09/2024 at 3:41 PM, BlueOak said:

Trump's policies depend on his ego and what he last heard someone say to him.

• Political and economic support for Russia
• Economic antagonism toward China
• Occasional Assassinations in Iran/Iraq/Syria when someone whispers the right thing in his ear.
• In the Middle East generally: even more guns to Israel and general bombing of Iranian Allies. On a political level only he'd try to appear to be doing more, not that there is much left to do practically speaking.
• Sadly Business as usual with the Saudis in Yemen no doubt.
• Further cooling of European relations with his backing Russia. Cooling of relations to a lesser extent with NATO generally. Not every country, but many of them behind the scenes.
• Defunding of NATO, he flip flops on everything, but with this you could flip a coin. Which to me leads us closer to WW3, unless Russia is so crippled it can't continue for a few decades. BRICS has sadly made that neutered outcome less likely, by funding and supplying them.
• Africa, No idea, I don't think he knows it exists. Probably the usual meddling all foreign powers do.
• South East Asia and the Pacific Generally, I can't predict this, he seems to want to be seen to be buddies with North Korea. I don't honestly think much would change, he may increase forces in the theater, but that's generally going to be down to China regardless.
• Asia generally ditto above, I don't think he knows much about central Asia or India for example. I don't think he'd improve relations much with his openly fascist and now touching on nazi rhetoric. I don't use those words as hyperbole, that's what he is moving toward in his rhetoric.

Yeah pretty solid. As for africa, people with interest like elon musk, or elon musk would definitely like the resources from there

[Treewatcher]

My fear is a Victorious Russia vs a Us-less Nato

[Hatfort]

Russia is going to win the war no matter if Trump or Kamala win. The only thing that could prevent it is an escalation to nuclear war, but then we are all dead. Trump's words, if you wanna know, he said he would call Putin and offer him Crimea, in exchange for withdrawing from the rest of the Eastern territories, which is unrealistic, not to say ridiculous. So I guess that is his official position. I'd say he is more likely to stop the financial and arms aid to Ukraine, which is the best for everyone.

In the Middle East, both candidates are supportive of Israel. I'd say Trump is more dangerous to ignite a war with Iran personally, but I think there are so many interests on both sides so this doesn't happen, so I don't think he could do it, even if he wanted it. Yes, there are powers moving the strings behind the presidents that we don't see, like corporations and lobbies. He can screw things badly though, and create a chain of events that leads to this.

Then there's China, a possible conflict with Taiwan, and the Philippines involved too. I think common sense will prevail on this and won't escalate more, no matter if Kamala or Trump is in the White House. Can you imagine China messing in the coastline of California? Then why do people think it's acceptable for the US to mess in the Sea of China?

[PurpleTree]

39 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

I'd say he is more likely to stop the financial and arms aid to Ukraine, which is the best for everyone.

 

I’d say that’s just an opinion. And not a good one.

[El Zapato]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:05 AM, PurpleTree said:

i’m torn on this

growing up my mons generation lefties (in europe) always said the u.s. is playing world police

the u.s. foreign policies, interventions, wars messed many things and places up in latin america, middle east etc they control a lot with the dollar, petro, silicon valley and so on

so i kind of would like to see the u.s become more isolationist and less world police-ish

but right now it does seem we need the u.s. and the west to stand against russia, china etc

anywho

I prefer the West police the world as opposed to Putin and the rest of the cadre of overt authoritarians.  I have grown to understand that many Europeans seem to be jealous of American primary position in world power (in place of them).  But that's ok, really, it is a natural, but somewhat base approach to world harmony. And the U.S. right has made many missteps in their quest to rule the world.  Dictators don't share, but their blind need for power (megalomania) leads them to overlook that nasty little side effect. Example given, The Orange One! I've also learned that those selfsame Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders don't realize that they are not lefties.  They are a subculture of fascist wannabes.

Edited September 18 by El Zapato

[Hatfort]

2 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I’d say that’s just an opinion. And not a good one.

Of course it's my opinion, you took it from my comment. So what? But I'm speaking based on what's happening in the field.

But let me explain further, all this help to Ukraine has deepened it more and more into a hole. An agreement to avoid the war was reached in the beginning, but NATO said no, let's fight and win. It wasn't Russia who backed from it. There have been more chances to negotiate an end since then. The thing is, Russia has been winning slowly but steadily, and the price of the end of the war for his side has risen. The Kursk invasion, apart from being militarily stupid in the whole picture, it's going to cost a lot more to Ukraine. If you chose war instead of negotiations, then you gotta be ready to eat the consequences if you lose.

But go and win the war, if you still think you can, nobody is preventing that from happening, except the other side, I guess. With the miraculous 40-year-old F16s, you got it!

[El Zapato]

@Hatfort The Hegelian Dialectic and as long it remains out of balance these things will happen.  Putin is a prime example of that reality.  He busted one hundred years of protocol to satisfy his paranoid and acquisitive nature.

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Of course it's my opinion, you took it from my comment. So what? But I'm speaking based on what's happening in the field.

But let me explain further, all this help to Ukraine has deepened it more and more into a hole. An agreement to avoid the war was reached in the beginning, but NATO said no, let's fight and win. It wasn't Russia who backed from it. There have been more chances to negotiate an end since then. The thing is, Russia has been winning slowly but steadily, and the price of the end of the war for his side has risen. The Kursk invasion, apart from being militarily stupid in the whole picture, it's going to cost a lot more to Ukraine. If you chose war instead of negotiations, then you gotta be ready to eat the consequences if you lose.

But go and win the war, if you still think you can, nobody is preventing that from happening, except the other side, I guess. With the miraculous 40-year-old F16s, you got it!

nice thanks

[Hatfort]

8 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

nice thanks

I'd say you're welcome, but what's happening is too bad for that.

[PurpleTree]

hatford in the 1940s

ah just let them fight. It’s better for everyone with no interference 

hatford on the middle east

ah just let them fight an let israel do it’s thing, they’ll win anyway so stop supporting the palestinians

hatford on rape just don’t fight back it’ll hurt less and be quicker

 

 

nono just a silly joke

[Hatfort]

2 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

hatford in the 1940s

ah just let them fight. It’s better for everyone with no interference 

hatford on the middle east

ah just let them fight an let israel do it’s thing, they’ll win anyway so stop supporting the palestinians

hatford on rape just don’t fight back it’ll hurt less and be quicker

 

 

nono just a silly joke

I don't know what's the joke, but I haven't said or implied anything like that. That's not my position.

In the 1940s Germany with Hitler tried to conquer the world, plus eradicate Jews, plus other groups such as gypsies, disabled people, gays, and leftists too. The main opposition was the USSR, who put most men on the table and five feet under to fight them. To be honest, there's a case to think that the USA only intervened in Europe when it was clear that Germany would lose, and they wanted a piece of the pie too. Then the two Germanies were created.

In the Middle East, my position is that the USA should have stopped its money and weapon supply to Israel for what has been doing for 11 months, they are dependent on this. Push them to take the two-state solution.

Again in Ukraine, I've been pro-negotiation from the beginning. I could pass the first year because there was a chance Russia would economically collapse and wouldn't win, it was at least uncertain. But time has shown that wasn't the case. Since the failed counteroffensive, continuing this war is a mix of delusion and stupidity, with a high price to pay in lives and territory.

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

I don't know what's the joke, but I haven't said or implied anything like that. That's not my position.

In the 1940s Germany with Hitler tried to conquer the world, plus eradicate Jews, plus other groups such as gypsies, disabled people, gays, and leftists too. The main opposition was the USSR, who put most men on the table and five feet under to fight them. To be honest, there's a case to think that the USA only intervened in Europe when it was clear that Germany would lose, and they wanted a piece of the pie too. Then the two Germanies were created.

In the Middle East, my position is that the USA should have stopped its money and weapon supply to Israel for what has been doing for 11 months, they are dependent on this. Push them to take the two-state solution.

Again in Ukraine, I've been pro-negotiation from the beginning. I could pass the first year because there was a chance Russia would economically collapse and wouldn't win, it was at least uncertain. But time has shown that wasn't the case. Since the failed counteroffensive, continuing this war is a mix of delusion and stupidity, with a high price to pay in lives and territory.

ussr only put up most men because they were attacked, they had no other chance. Not because of sone noble reason or whatever. Just like the ukraine now is attacked. 
if russia wins this russia will bully other neighbours more, it’s a win for authoritarians and fascists around the world. If they lose well thwn they maybe can’t bully their neighbours more 💙

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

ussr only put up most men because they were attacked, they had no other chance. Not because of sone noble reason or whatever. Just like the ukraine now is attacked. 
if russia wins this russia will bully other neighbours more, it’s a win for authoritarians and fascists around the world. If they lose well thwn they maybe can’t bully their neighbours more 💙

Yeah, but they defeated the Nazis.

The second part of your comment is just your opinion, and a wrong one. Russia is not going to conquer other nations. I would only fear for Georgia, if they took the same route as Ukraine, but seems they are not doing that, good for them, Russia won't attack them. The main ones engaging in imperialism are NATO, but for once they are going to lose. Ukrainians are paying the price, they should have remained neutral, which they mostly wanted and their people voted for that position. A cue and foreign agents messing inside, and not abiding with the Minsk accords, receiving NATO weapons and training year by year, and violent hostility towards the Russian-speaking population in the East, has led to this totally avoidable situation.

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Yeah, but they defeated the Nazis.

The second part of your comment is just your opinion, and a wrong one. Russia is not going to conquer other nations. I would only fear for Georgia, if they took the same route as Ukraine, but seems they are not doing that, good for them, Russia won't attack them. The main ones engaging in imperialism are NATO, but for once they are going to lose. Ukrainians are paying the price, they should have remained neutral, which they mostly wanted and their people voted for that position. A cue and foreign agents messing inside, and not abiding with the Minsk accords, receiving NATO weapons and training year by year, and violent hostility towards the Russian-speaking population in the East, has led to this totally avoidable situation.

alright so glad we talked about it

sssseeee ya