Could the unreliability of Donald Trump increase the risk of a NATO VS Russia war?

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

Very good video from a very sensible expert. The doubt of allies against Putin creates a security vaccuum that Putin might want to exploit, because of what Trump already has done in the first couple of weeks. What do you think? Are the risks of a large conflict in Europe increasing becuase of Trump?

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

Also this: If the "imperialism" of the US turns malign by trying to reverse a rebuilding of weakening power, it will inevitably decline.

Just look at what happened when the UK tried and so on. I might be wrong, but I really don't think Trump is good in the long-term for the US and the world, even if some people might think that the current signals point to more peace somehow happening.

 

[Publius]

No

 

[Peter Griffin]

Very good video from a very sensible expert. The doubt of allies against Putin creates a security vaccuum that Putin might want to exploit, because of what Trump already has done in the first couple of weeks. What do you think? Are the risks of a large conflict in Europe increasing becuase of Trump?

I think Anders makes a good point and tends to have little to no personal bias on the subject. Although I will say that some of his videos on frontline events are definitely being seen through the eyes of an 'expert' and not someone actually on the frontline. I wish he would do more interviews with Ukrainian soldiers.

 

[Publius]

The old world way of diplomacy and foreign policy has failed. Wars with no end costing trillions! Lazy in doing nothing to actually heading a pronle
Off. And fearful of actually winning a conflict because OmG it might be dangerous. It’s international conflicts and contest of power, it’s ALWAYS dangerous!

Give me an uncouth and foul mouthed colonial over an old world expert any day.
Trump is negotiating and their sphincters are pinched so tight they don’t even recognize it.
It’s funny really, what did Denmark do? They increased their naval commitment to Greenland. Are talking about larger US presence on Greenland and nato has roused from its torpor and mumbled something about defending sea lanes and Greenland from foreign intervention.
Problem Solved!

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

The old world way of diplomacy and foreign policy has failed. Wars with no end costing trillions! Lazy in doing nothing to actually heading a pronle
Off. And fearful of actually winning a conflict because OmG it might be dangerous. It’s international conflicts and contest of power, it’s ALWAYS dangerous!

Give me an uncouth and foul mouthed colonial over an old world expert any day.
Trump is negotiating and their sphincters are pinched so tight they don’t even recognize it.
It’s funny really, what did Denmark do? They increased their naval commitment to Greenland. Are talking about larger US presence on Greenland and nato has roused from its torpor and mumbled something about defending sea lanes and Greenland from foreign intervention.
Problem Solved!

Let's just say that the enemies of the US will be emboldened if the US abandons the old way and start to think in terms of a multipolar world, that makes Putin think he's right about Ukraine and other countries because now the US are doing it. Like what Puck asks in the video, would Trump want to commit troops to a sliver of Finnish lapland being invaded? It really only matters if Putin is convinced he won't.

 

[Publius]

Let's just say that the enemies of the US will be emboldened if the US abandons the old way and start to think in terms of a multipolar world, that makes Putin think he's right about Ukraine and other countries because now the US are doing it. Like what Puck asks in the video, would Trump want to commit troops to a sliver of Finnish lapland being invaded? It really only matters if Putin is convinced he won't.

You can make that assertion and it might contain some elements of truth to it.
But it was an old world nato model of foreign policy who watched and did nothing when Putin seized crimea. Yet while Trump was in office Putin tried nothing further. And as soon as Biden and the old world powers came back to the front. That Putin began his build up and invaded Ukraine proper.

There are real world examples for the old way of doing things flat out failed. Yet you hold on to this phantom assumption that Putin “might” do something bad with trumps foreign policy.
I simply do not understand the willful disbelief of historic events vs speculated or imagined possible unpredictable outcomes.

This is political science do you believe what has worked or do you believe what your told to believe should work?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Trump works from a position of strength, while Biden (and a lot of Obama) were from a position of weakness.

My issue with Trump is that he can overplay his hand. And his recent wins emboldens him to take bigger risks. This is not a Trump thing. Anyone who has success will take a bigger risk next time.

As of now, he's gone after some pretty weak and vulnerable targets. But when he hits against Iran, North Korea, or Russia, this is different. They are either not reliant on the US (Iran, NK), or have the means to retaliate (Russia).

Is Trump an unreliable partner? Yes in the sense that he doesn't like being taken advantage of. So if your definition of "unreliable" is not always there no matter what you do to the US, then yes. Players can not rely on the US to be there under Trump. But how far will the US go? Will they not defend the UK from Russia? Let's be real. Of course it will.

But in the end, getting European countries to better defend themselves apart from the US is a good thing in the long run.

So is war more or less likely under Trump? Well, compared to Biden, certainly history shows that was is less likely. And Harris would have been as weak as Biden, so I would say we are better off with Trump.

Russia is scared of Trump. China probably doesn't know what to do about him and believes the US is far enough away not to really worry about it, though a nice Trade War can change things.

As I said in another thread, the US is not planning to annex Gaza, and the US has said they aren't sending troops there. So the US will hopefully not get into a war in the region. Why would the US want to go into Gaza when the Israelis are better at knowing the place anyway?

So we'll see.

Certainly the world is trying to figure out what to do about Trump.

 

[Publius]

Trump works from a position of strength, while Biden (and a lot of Obama) were from a position of weakness.

My issue with Trump is that he can overplay his hand. And his recent wins emboldens him to take bigger risks. This is not a Trump thing. Anyone who has success will take a bigger risk next time.

As of now, he's gone after some pretty weak and vulnerable targets. But when he hits against Iran, North Korea, or Russia, this is different. They are either not reliant on the US (Iran, NK), or have the means to retaliate (Russia).

Is Trump an unreliable partner? Yes in the sense that he doesn't like being taken advantage of. So if your definition of "unreliable" is not always there no matter what you do to the US, then yes. Players can not rely on the US to be there under Trump. But how far will the US go? Will they not defend the UK from Russia? Let's be real. Of course it will.

But in the end, getting European countries to better defend themselves apart from the US is a good thing in the long run.

So is war more or less likely under Trump? Well, compared to Biden, certainly history shows that was is less likely. And Harris would have been as weak as Biden, so I would say we are better off with Trump.

Russia is scared of Trump. China probably doesn't know what to do about him and believes the US is far enough away not to really worry about it, though a nice Trade War can change things.

As I said in another thread, the US is not planning to annex Gaza, and the US has said they aren't sending troops there. So the US will hopefully not get into a war in the region. Why would the US want to go into Gaza when the Israelis are better at knowing the place anyway?

So we'll see.

Certainly the world is trying to figure out what to do about Trump.

He could and i am surprised by some of his plans. He’s not going to invade or occupy Gaza i agree.
But look at he underlining problem of Gaza. It’s been a terrorist haven as 10/7 has shown. There stilll holding hostages like the plo in the 70’s. Was Palestine a state before Israel? No it was part of Egypt and Jordan. Did those Muslim states give the Palestinians a state. Oh my were going to displace Gazans, that’s genocide. What about he Sunni and western sponsored civil war and the genocide of all those Syrians. What about when Jordan evicted thousands of Palestinians in the seventies because of PLO terrorist activities.
Will it work what he’s proposed in Gaza? I have no idea, but i do know that the old world model of dealing with issues like Russia and like the Palestinian question have categorically failed for decade after decade.

But oh the horror of trying something new something the establishment foreign policy experts have poo pooed as to brash or to unfair.
Did the Arab world unit and go to war when the US moved their embassy to Jerusalem? No they didn’t they yawned.
Trying something new in hotspot locations where nothing has worked or borne fruit in 40 or 50 years is not insanity its common sense.
But if it works a lot of experts will be out of jobs. Like bill crystal and George will.

 

[Publius]

Let's just say that the enemies of the US will be emboldened if the US abandons the old way and start to think in terms of a multipolar world, that makes Putin think he's right about Ukraine and other countries because now the US are doing it. Like what Puck asks in the video, would Trump want to commit troops to a sliver of Finnish lapland being invaded? It really only matters if Putin is convinced he won't.

And again Putin displayed is willingness to become more adventurous during the first Trump term where exactly?
I keep hearing the same thing over and over it risk Russia becoming more adventurous in a multipolar world with a Trump foreign policy. But ignore he actually displayed his willingness to be more adventurous under a Bush Obama Biden foreign policy.
The Righteous foreign policy and actions should be measured by its success at preventing foreign adventurism from adversaries and competitors. Not on its willingness to send troops to war. The purpose of diplomacy after all is to avoid war correct.

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

And again Putin displayed is willingness to become more adventurous during the first Trump term where exactly?
I keep hearing the same thing over and over it risk Russia becoming more adventurous in a multipolar world with a Trump foreign policy. But ignore he actually displayed his willingness to be more adventurous under a Bush Obama Biden foreign policy.
The Righteous foreign policy and actions should be measured by its success at preventing foreign adventurism from adversaries and competitors. Not on its willingness to send troops to war. The purpose of diplomacy after all is to avoid war correct.

I think he did that because with the old administrations it was half-assed measures of support and slaps on the wrist, but if Putin thinks Trump will act on an America first policy simply saying that alllies should fend for themselves he will also be adventurous.

 

[Publius]

I think he did that because with the old administrations it was half-assed measures of support and slaps on the wrist, but if Putin thinks Trump will act on an America first policy simply saying that alllies should fend for themselves he will also be advent

Already said that before. And yet again Trump is not advocating allies should go it on their own. They just need to get their own Defence and economic realities spun up.

Uhg typos apologies

 

[NuclearID]

Could the unreliability of Donald Trump increase the risk of a NATO VS Russia war?

Yes.

 

[Publius]

I think he did that because with the old administrations it was half-assed measures of support and slaps on the wrist, but if Putin thinks Trump will act on an America first policy simply saying that alllies should fend for themselves he will also be adventurous.

Another thing to remember it was Trump Joe was first president to allow lethal aid to go to Ukraine. So again actions do not match perceived of what he might or might not it do.

It’s was also Trump who took the controversial step to forward deploy US bombers to Guam and build up the payload stockpiles on Guam.
So the realities of first term do not support all this apprehension.

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

Another thing to remember it was Trump Joe was first president to allow lethal aid to go to Ukraine. So again actions do not match perceived of what he might or might not it do.

It’s was also Trump who took the controversial step to forward deploy US bombers to Guam and build up the payload stockpiles on Guam.
So the realities of first term do not support all this apprehension.

Might have changed his mind. At least domestically it's clear that Trump 2 is not going to be like Trump 1, and I'm placing most pressure on Putin in this situation, not Trump. There might still be diplomatic ehm, hindrances between the US and Europe regarding security, but if they're solved like last time then it's just Putin himself that might still view it as a good idea to test article 5 because he misreads Trump and thinks he will focus on something else rather than just being weak.