Trump 2.0 official thread

[Lnk111229]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The problem I have with this widely accepted image of Mark Rutte as this figure desperately trying to hold NATO together in the face of profound skepticism from Washington, in large part by telling Trump anything he wants to hear and representing his perspective to other NATO members is just that... I don't buy it.

I'm sure that Trump instinctively despises NATO as an assembly of weak nations sucking on Washington's teat, but there's no sign that he has any real intention of departing the alliance. Presumably, he will have been informed that NATO is an excellent vector for influence over nations that could otherwise theoretically prove troublesome, particularly in concert. The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as leaked to the New York Times was fairly explicit on this point:



The above portion was redacted from the later public release but can be read in context

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Trump's new

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

alludes to this policy and its predictable consequences also:



The "past U.S. policymakers" referred to are those who understood that allied material impotence and allied political submission are two sides of the same coin. More capable allies are more politically independent allies -- and we've seen just how enthusiastic Trump is about those.

So Trump is attempting something of a balancing act here: trying to prompt allies into being less useless, while maintaining their subservience. In practice, the only means of achieving this is by making loud noises about leaving NATO and therefore the Europeans to their own devices. But, conversely, leaving NATO is the one thing that Washington cannot actually do, as it is by far the most straightforward path to the formation of an effective independent European security architecture, which remains an undesirable outcome, if perhaps somewhat less so than previously.

So where does that leave Mark Rutte? One could speculate, but I think it suffices to say that asking Rutte about the virtues of NATO is a little like asking Xi Jinping about the virtues of the CPC. Without NATO, Rutte is out of an undoubtedly very comfortable job.

This remind me about Sir Humphrey with his remark in Yes Minister. It give same energy as Trump. Break It Up From the Inside. But in Rutte case? Who now? Maybe some thing like: Rather be a chicken head than phoenix tail. So go Rutte, we fully support you.

​

 

[Lethe]

This remind me about Sir Humphrey with his remark in Yes Minister. It give same energy as Trump. Break It Up From the Inside. But in Rutte case? Who now? Maybe some thing like: Rather be a chicken head than phoenix tail. So go Rutte, we fully support you.

For those unacquainted, Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are two of the shining lights of British comedy from the 1980s, offering uncomfortable insights into the power of the bureaucracy behind elected ministers. Samples:

I remember watching Yes Minister as a kid and, even when I didn't understand the details of the issues at hand, I loved watching Sir Humphrey run rings around his political masters.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2019418753155625139

 

[Phead128]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The problem I have with this widely accepted image of Mark Rutte as this figure desperately trying to hold NATO together in the face of profound skepticism from Washington, in large part by telling Trump anything he wants to hear and representing his perspective to other NATO members is just that... I don't buy it.

I'm sure that Trump instinctively despises NATO as an assembly of weak nations sucking on Washington's teat, but there's no sign that he has any real intention of departing the alliance. Presumably, he will have been informed that NATO is an excellent vector for influence over nations that could otherwise theoretically prove troublesome, particularly in concert. The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as leaked to the New York Times was fairly explicit on this point:



The above portion was redacted from the later public release but can be read in context

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Trump's new

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

alludes to this policy and its predictable consequences also:



The "past U.S. policymakers" referred to are those who understood that allied material impotence and allied political submission are two sides of the same coin. More capable allies are more politically independent allies -- and we've seen just how enthusiastic Trump is about those.

So Trump is attempting something of a balancing act here: trying to prompt allies into being less useless, while maintaining their subservience. In practice, the only means of achieving this is by making loud noises about leaving NATO and therefore the Europeans to their own devices. But, conversely, leaving NATO is the one thing that Washington cannot actually do, as it is by far the most straightforward path to the formation of an effective independent European security architecture, which remains an undesirable outcome, if perhaps somewhat less so than previously.

So where does that leave Mark Rutte? One could speculate, but I think it suffices to say that asking Rutte about the virtues of NATO is a little like asking Xi Jinping about the virtues of the CPC. Without NATO, Rutte is out of an undoubtedly very comfortable job.

Yes. Alienate NATO allies enough to boost their defense spending and focus on Russia while US pivots ostensibly towards Western hemisphere but the real target is Middle East and lesser extent Asia. US can't afford a multi front war and needs Europe to take now of burden is of European security so US can free resources for elsewhere.