The Trump Doctrine
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Isn't that a pretty massive caveat to be carving out?
Difficult to make a mutually beneficial transaction when one of the parties to that transaction enters it with "You should do this deal to insure something terrible doesn't happen to you".
I think when you enter into any of these types of discussions that there probably shouldn't be an identifiable "doctrine" that could really be pointed to (unless it is anti-something). The doctrine I would like to see is anything that sidelines China foremost and maybe Russia to a certain extent and then go from there. That doctrine may lead to me going softer on a tyrant here while lambasting another there. It may mean that this Democracy over here is not in line with my desires while this authoritarian over there is and therefore I am willing to look the other way on the behavior of the authoritarian while making hay out of the Democracy's abuses in order to cajole them to my line of thought.Isn't that a pretty massive caveat to be carving out?
Difficult to make a mutually beneficial transaction when one of the parties to that transaction enters it with "You should do this deal to insure something terrible doesn't happen to you".
I want the Saudis to play ball with me. So I play some ball with them. My main thing with the autocrats would be "Don't embarrass me." I think the Khashogi thing that Bin Salman pulled off is a case of them embarrassing me. This isn't a public thing but it is one of those, "Bitch, do what you want in your country and keep it quiet and we are good, but do that shit again and I will find one of your numerous relatives that is more discerning in their behavior and you'll have a heart attack" type of discussions.
Most of our relationships are built on threats. Real and implied. That could be because of a threat of what happens if they don't get with the program all the way to me the threat of picking on me means they have to deal with you type of deals (see: NATO).
In Trump's case, you aren't always going to get tangible mutual benefits the way he defines them. So I think looking at this as solely I trade X and you give me an equal amount of Y isn't realistic. Sometimes having an unequal relationship is better for me because it keeps that person from helping you.
Tl/dr: I don't think you can have a one size fits all approach to this, everything is situational.
What trading partners does the US make that caveat to?Isn't that a pretty massive caveat to be carving out?
Difficult to make a mutually beneficial transaction when one of the parties to that transaction enters it with "You should do this deal to insure something terrible doesn't happen to you".
Good thread, @BradStevens.
My initial thought is that this seems so much in keeping with my view of Trump as being so starkly transactional in his outlook of pretty much everything. His foreign policy view seems to revolve around the idea that everybody is more or less the same way -- be it Zelenskyy, Putin, Xi, Trudeau, the Ayatollahs, or anybody else.
I think he's being authentic (by his standards, anyway) when he says that he deplores the idea of military conflict. I also think this goes a long way towards explaining the degree to which he is absolutely despised by the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Michael Hayden, and others of that persuasion. I've never really bought that their visceral reactions to him came from the same place as most of his adversaries. They all have common cause in opposing him -- but it's not for the same reasons. And I don't think it's all just because he's such a rodeo clown, either.
It should come as no surprise that his solution to Russia's aggression against Ukraine involves things like a rare earth minerals contract -- and the prospect of restored economic relations with Putin's Russia.
So...what do I think of this approach? I'm not really sure, to be honest. I can certainly see their argument that it's naive about the interests of the world's bad actors. Not all of them are truly motivated by some kind of payday. Iran, for instance, couldn't care less about it. They want to stay in power -- and their core motivation, best I can tell, is religious. Money is of course going to be enticing to them (as the JCPOA demonstrated), but only as a means to an end. And why would we ever want to help fund those odious ends?
But it's also often been said that the greatest pathway to peace between nations is a trade route. Devise some shared interests. The jury may still out on how well that has worked with China. But, at the end of the day, it's also true that we haven't gone to war with them since Nixon made his way to Beijing.
My initial thought is that this seems so much in keeping with my view of Trump as being so starkly transactional in his outlook of pretty much everything. His foreign policy view seems to revolve around the idea that everybody is more or less the same way -- be it Zelenskyy, Putin, Xi, Trudeau, the Ayatollahs, or anybody else.
I think he's being authentic (by his standards, anyway) when he says that he deplores the idea of military conflict. I also think this goes a long way towards explaining the degree to which he is absolutely despised by the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Michael Hayden, and others of that persuasion. I've never really bought that their visceral reactions to him came from the same place as most of his adversaries. They all have common cause in opposing him -- but it's not for the same reasons. And I don't think it's all just because he's such a rodeo clown, either.
It should come as no surprise that his solution to Russia's aggression against Ukraine involves things like a rare earth minerals contract -- and the prospect of restored economic relations with Putin's Russia.
So...what do I think of this approach? I'm not really sure, to be honest. I can certainly see their argument that it's naive about the interests of the world's bad actors. Not all of them are truly motivated by some kind of payday. Iran, for instance, couldn't care less about it. They want to stay in power -- and their core motivation, best I can tell, is religious. Money is of course going to be enticing to them (as the JCPOA demonstrated), but only as a means to an end. And why would we ever want to help fund those odious ends?
But it's also often been said that the greatest pathway to peace between nations is a trade route. Devise some shared interests. The jury may still out on how well that has worked with China. But, at the end of the day, it's also true that we haven't gone to war with them since Nixon made his way to Beijing.
Prior to 2017, everybody that Donald Trump has ever sat down at a table with was there for one reason. And it was the same reason he was sitting down at that table.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?
I agree with a lot of this.
But isn't it really just a way of saying that, at the end of the day, everybody is just motivated by money and what comes with it? And I mean at the highest stage of their goals. I know that everybody is motivated by money at some level. But I'm not so sure it's always the end -- I think sometimes it's the means to ends that we have no interest in helping them pursue.
A lot of times I think we should just stop buying anything from China. You have to be concerned about spying in everything that is imported. I know they were considering banning TP-Link routers for that reason. I would buy one of those.
Hidden Communication Devices Found in Chinese-Made Inverters Could Put U.S. Electrical Grid at Risk
U.S. experts uncover rogue communication devices inside solar inverters and batteries
www.zmescience.com
I'd be all for that, if it was economically viable. That government is just rotten to the core. Ask Hu Jintao, if you can find him.
That's certainly true. But, let's face it, what isn't spying on us these days?
I had a phone conversation a few weeks ago with one of my financial guys about the prospect of investing in a very niche startup home service business that is growing nationally, but isn't really here yet. I mean, it's a pretty obscure thing.
The next day, he texted me a screenshot from his PC with an advertisement to buy the equipment associated with this business. There is zero chance that was a coincidence. And I doubt that China was involved in it.
Maybe this is all "benign spying", but that doesn't mean it would always be.
I am not sure, but I found it interesting Trump spoke 1st to Italy and Britain on trade deals. I assume they want to control or have a say in the Mediterranean, especially after his Middle East trip. I think breaking up the EU is somewhere on the list.Trump's foreign policy shift, as outlined in his speech in the Middle East, foregoes moral judgments of foreign regimes in favor of trade and deal making. He made a point to contrast his vision with the neocon ideas of planting fledgling democracies into the in the Middle East, with the idea that democracy would radiate outwards, once that region saw a functioning, vibrant democracy. Maybe the neocons got it wrong, and the culture of these nations need to change through trade and access to wealth? (Not that that last sentence is motivating Trump's view--he's more about American interests uber alles, I'd guess).
I see two historical problems with this notion: (1) the US kinda already tried this, dealing with dictators in the hopes of combatting the Soviet Union. The backlash was arguably the Iranian Revolution and 9/11. (2) Many of these nations, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are already very wealthy through their oil money. Yet they've concentrated that wealth in monarchies and still have a problem with fundamentalist Islam.
Trump declares the 'neocon' era over
President Donald Trump has a vision of a "great transformation" in the Middle East. But it's not the transformation that American leaders have talkedreason.com
Understanding Trump: a new doctrine for foreign policy without nuisance
For over a hundred days, every pundit and columnist has tried to decipher Donald Trump’s foreign policy strategy. After sifting through the reports and the presidential social media posts…brusselssignal.eu
EDIT/REQUEST: This is a broad topic of foreign policy and a potential historic shift. It'd be nice if people could discuss that, instead of Trump this/Biden that, Dems/MAGA are stupid evil, etc. Please try to focus on IDEAS and posts, not politicians or posters.
GM is selling driver data to insurers without consumers' knowledge, Texas AG alleges
Lawsuit alleges GM is signing up car owners for its OnStar system without notifying them that data is being sold to insurers.
www.cbsnews.com
Holy fcking hellGM is selling driver data to insurers without consumers' knowledge, Texas AG alleges
Lawsuit alleges GM is signing up car owners for its OnStar system without notifying them that data is being sold to insurers.
You’ve asked me before for examples of when I think a company should be subject to a lawsuit, I’d say this one clears the bar.
A lot more than a rogue bouncer pummeling some dude in a bar, anyway. 😎
Own a GM? Want to be a lead plaintiff?
I'll do it just so I can post the deposition transcript on here.
