Trump 2.0 official thread

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
I do think it makes sense for China, not so much to *expand* into the Pacific, but rather to clear the U.S. *from* the (Western) Pacific and secure military hegemony over the region, in something approximating the position the U.S. has attained in the Western hemisphere.

To do otherwise would condemn China, for the foreseeable future, to constant military tensions and arms racing within its own neighborhood.
Just look at where the US bases in the Western Pacific are. They're in Japan and Philippines. In order for China to push them out, they would have to start a war, invade those countries, win, and probably have to put up permanent occupation forces. This isn't a viable plan; it's pure madness. Maybe if China was weakening year by year, and they'd try to pull something wild off. But right now, China is in an excellent position, and every day that passes strengthens said position.

And it's not as if military tensions and arms races would go away after a war. No, I think that the idea that China would gain from any offensive military action is untrue, and the CMC is fully aware of this. The sad thing is that the American strategists don't seem to get this.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!
lol
There's no way for Zelensky to accept any peace deal where Ukraine loses any territory. Too many people have died, and too much rhetoric has been built up to allow that. Maybe it'd have been different if he had been party to the Alaska talks, but even that's very unlikely. Russia would only accept a deal where they get to keep just about all the territory they control. So in the end, it means that the US now has an excuse to wash their hands of the Ukraine war and let Europe shoulder the entire load. This should probably serve as a warning how reliable the US is as an ally.

What will he be able to do? All of the European leaders are attending the meeting with Zelensky. That is a total rebuke of Trumps attempt at a peace process. We've already seen the Trump regime attempt to bully Zelensky in a public manner. I cannot see that happening again and I don't see the US being able to bully all of the European powers together.
I don't think the US wants to bully Europe (or even Ukraine). They just want to get out of the Ukrainian cesspool. There's also a chance that Trump thinks that this peace initiative would work, but surely he can't be that dumb.
 

AlexYe

Junior Member
Registered Member
Idk whether I should post this here or in the Funnythread
I don't see the US being able to bully all of the European powers together.
Repeat what putins 'security concerns' are to end the war, he will try to use US pressure to get some agreement, he already talked about swapping territories, aka crimea/donbass is gone, then prob some buffer zone.
If europe and co dont agree he will be happy to continue to sell weapons to europe/ukraine but US will effectively 'back out' of the Actual efforts and leave them be to deal with it on their own, Trump/US want out of this I feel like (they will still be happy to sell weapons tho)

I dont see them somehow applying some more pressure on Russia and if they reject it, Russia is content to keep grinding away arent they?
 

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
It's actually impressive how quickly America squandered its unipolar dominance after the USSR bit the dust.
American arrogance cost them their country to sustain their empire.

If the Americans hadn't waged war in the Middle East for 20 years, spending trillions on useless wars, they could have reshaped international geopolitics, rebuilt their infrastructure, created industrial opportunities by leveraging their industry, and created more socioeconomic opportunities for the poorest.

That way, the US wouldn't have an empire to sustain, wouldn't have spent trillions of dollars on wars, and wouldn't have this unpayable debt. They would have been in a much more comfortable position to confront China today, but none of this was taken advantage of because the Americans wanted to maintain their hegemony at any cost. Furthermore, they have a tendency to always overreact militarily. Even without the 9/11 attacks, I believe they would have become bogged down in the Middle East one way or another.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
And to think that they're their best fighters...

I read that as making Putin’s arrival setup look more shambolic than ever.

It was a crude and naked show of strength, but leaves obvious questions that immediately and fundamentally undermines that facade of strength.

If this is a show a strength, why are the Americans parading around the decades old F22 instead of their spanking new F35s? Is it because the F22 is still better than the F35 in air combat?

Also, if this is meant to be a show of strength, why so few F22s? Is it because the fleet are aging badly and planes are increasingly unavailable if not outright no longer airworthy?
 

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
American arrogance cost them their country to sustain their empire.

If the Americans hadn't waged war in the Middle East for 20 years, spending trillions on useless wars, they could have reshaped international geopolitics, rebuilt their infrastructure, created industrial opportunities by leveraging their industry, and created more socioeconomic opportunities for the poorest.

That way, the US wouldn't have an empire to sustain, wouldn't have spent trillions of dollars on wars, and wouldn't have this unpayable debt. They would have been in a much more comfortable position to confront China today, but none of this was taken advantage of because the Americans wanted to maintain their hegemony at any cost. Furthermore, they have a tendency to always overreact militarily. Even without the 9/11 attacks, I believe they would have become bogged down in the Middle East one way or another.
I mean for all the talks about fighting terrorism they sure did help it become stronger then it ever did because despite telling the world you either stand with us or against us, they destabilized Syria and Libya despite Gadaffi and Assad standing with America against terrorism.
 

Africablack

Junior Member
Registered Member
American arrogance cost them their country to sustain their empire.

If the Americans hadn't waged war in the Middle East for 20 years, spending trillions on useless wars, they could have reshaped international geopolitics, rebuilt their infrastructure, created industrial opportunities by leveraging their industry, and created more socioeconomic opportunities for the poorest.

That way, the US wouldn't have an empire to sustain, wouldn't have spent trillions of dollars on wars, and wouldn't have this unpayable debt. They would have been in a much more comfortable position to confront China today, but none of this was taken advantage of because the Americans wanted to maintain their hegemony at any cost. Furthermore, they have a tendency to always overreact militarily. Even without the 9/11 attacks, I believe they would have become bogged down in the Middle East one way or another.
They wouldn't be in a comfortable position to confront China today even if they did all that. Their hegemony is their power and without it they can't do much to China. You can't run the show forever because empires have expiry dates.
 
Top