Trump's contradictionary foreign policy

Trump claims an "America first" policy, but would his foreign policy really benefit the USA?

On the grand scale of things, Trump foreign policy broadly seems to aim for:
Being friends with Russia
confrontation with China
confrontation with the EU

It all starts with China... Trump has taken strong positions regarding Taiwan and the south china sea. Clearly he does not view China as a friend. But at the same time, trump has abandoned the trans-pacific partnership. TPP would have tied the pacific countries into tight economic dependence of the USA. Let's remember what power is: to make someone act in a way that they would otherwise not. If a large portion of your wealth is dependent on trade with the USA, the USA has power over you, simple as that. TPP would have increased trade with pacific countries and USA, thus increasing US economic power, thus making those countries align themselves with the USA. But now the opposite will happen: china will extent ther influence. You already see this with the philippines. So why is trump confronting China, while also strengthening China's economic position?

Then Russia, with which trump seeks to be friends. But Russia will never trade China for the USA. China has been a reliable partner far longer than the USA has, and they already have close cooperation. Russia knows that after next election USA might revert back to democrat control, so any 'friendship' with the USA would only last for as long trump lasts. If trump plans to get Russia's help against China, he will be very sorry. It will never happen. befriending China's friends just makes China stronger..

and finally, the EU. They used to be allies with the USA, but now trump supports the break up of the EU, so clearly there is mutual animosity. back to china: to use military means against china would be too costly, but economic means are an option. or rather, they perhaps used to be. The EU certainly isn't going to join trump against China. And neither is russia. and neither will the pacific countries, since there's no tpp. It's seems as if the USA is out getting new enemies, while helping them, and crippling itself.

The USA has, for as long as it has been a superpower, extended its influence via international organisations, alliances, and free trade. And there was a reason for that. But trump will throw away literally decades of american efforts. The result will be an isolated and weak america. Good luck getting Russia to abandon china. And good luck defeating china economically while they still trade with russia and europe. maybe a lot of you are focusing on the smaller things, like defeating ISIS.. but think about the USA's position as a superpower. Trump manages to literally p!ss off every ally you have, and drive them towards your geopolitical rivals. There could be no greater blessing to either Moscow or Beijing than a trump presidency. Trump withdraws, and seeks confrontation, and alienates his allies, all at the same time. Trump's foreign policy is, to quote the man himself, a big fat mistake, and one can wonder if the US will ever recover from it.

 

Trump is doing the right thing. Why be enemies with Russia if you don't have to? Russia is anti globalist, as is the US. We need to unite with Russia and destroy the terrorists. We have those goals in common. The European Union has flooded itself with terrorists and seeks globalism. That's their choice and they suffer for it.

 

because russia, china, and the EU does not exist in vacuum. how are you going to successfully challenge china if they have russia and the eu? Russia will never take your side against china, dont you realise that?

 

Your side wanting to US to spend trillions more on the 70+ year old Cold War against the long extinct USSR's Warsaw pact lost. You don't get to have the USA go to war with Russia. You don't get to have the super rich, neocons, war industry, and defense contractions raking in more hundreds of billions and trillions of OUR money for defense against an enemy that hasn't even existed for more than 2 decades.

Sweden has the money to import and care for huge numbers of Muslims, while at the same time generous social programs for your people. Pay for your own defense. Build up your own military. Pay your own way.

So what if YOU don't like us. Doesn't mean jack to us. Sweden poises no threat to us and Sweden is so trivial militarily and economically we have no reason to care what you and your country thinks of the USA.

The EU does NOT act collectively as a military force and has no military force. It acts per country. Therefore the EU is AGAINST our interests in terms of military matters. Since the EU is an economic competitor, its break up is to our economic advantage.

Russia is not the enemy of the USA, has NEVER been the enemy of the USA, there has NEVER been a war between Russia and the USA, and Russia and the USA have been military allies in the past.

So as for your claiming the USA has to kiss every country's ass? No, but I could see maybe why Sweden has to. Then again, within 3 generations Sweden will mostly have yielded to the Empire of Islam due to a huge militant Muslim minority - and in under a century your country will be another mere state of the Empire of Islam - a minor one at that. That was YOUR country's choice.

 

An economic and military alliance between Russia and the USA would produce in extraordinary super power. Combined ISIS could be obliterated and combined the expansionism of the Empire of Islam could be checked. The EU has already surrendered to the Empire of Islam. Victors get to plunder, including having your women. The rules of war - and surrender.

The EU is doomed. Mainland Western Europe has - at the most - 3 generations before your culture is forever gone - and growing chaos along the way.

China and Russia are not suited to being allies. Never were. They both know it, always have. The USA has ways to both connect to Russia and China, but in very different ways. Europe has become a freak show, an absurdity of self destructive Euro liberals engaged in cultural suicide - past the point of return. Foreign policy should look way into the future even beyond one's own lifetime. The future relationships the USA must have is with Russia, China, India, South American - not the EU. Western Europe will be Islamic countries.

 

in case you didnt notice (and of course you didnt) the main point of the OP revolved around china...

do some basic research before you start you stupid rants... sweden is not in nato.

and secondly i never even mentioned sweden, because this is not about sweden. try to stick to the topic...

yes, i guess all the previous presidents who've pushed for eu integration had no clue about american interests.. its so stupid... literally for the entire time the usa has been a superpower, their policies have always been the complete opposite of trump's.. trump fits in with the pre-ww2 usa, and look where that got you...

clueless aa usual, but the point of the op is that russia will NEVER be your real friend. you can go ask any russian if they would rather have usa than china... and they would laugh

 

You do realize that Russia-China are also antagonistic powers in Eurasia? Both of these nations are geographically the kings of their regions which overlap in significant ways. Both of them would like to court the US to ally with them in a major geographic shift. The US military power did not decline any with Trump's election, and thus the US is still a major world power.

So it's very possible for the US to have Russia shift over to our side, regarding certain issues if we're pro-Russian on other issues as well(the same exists vice-versa as well.) My whole geopolitical strategy was on taking advantage of the Russian-Chinese feud you seem to be ignoring. In fact, you probably wouldn't be ignoring it if we chose the Chinese side, which in turn would give us the advantage of remaining allies with the European Union.

 

so cute and sad, that you believe you can ally with russia.. Why would Russia choose the USA over China? China is on their border, so friendly relations is a necessity. China buys russian goods. China is fastest growing and biggest economy. China and Russia have historical ties and have close cooperation. China and Russia's interests are aligned in that they both seek to overthrow american hegemony and introduce a multipolar world where they each have their spheres of influence. USA is historical opponent to Russia and to china. Trump is president now, but democrats will likely win back the potus after four years, so any cooperation with the USA will be shortlived. It's not a solid basis for an alliance.

Seriously, what do you imagine that the USA could offer Russia that China cannot outmatch? Fighting ISIS? jesus christ, ISIS isn't a real threat to anybody.. If Russia or the USA really wanted to eliminate ISIS, they could do it in weeks. ISIS isn't around because they're tough, but because the conflict is multi-sided so any side taking out ISIS would aid their enemies. Point being, fighting ISIS isn't a big deal, never was. Not for russia atleast. You know, the main reason they are even in syria in the first place is to show the world they are a strong player again. Has little to do with either isis or love for assad. It's just a stage. And who's putin playing for? his home audience, the russian people. but also, for the former soviet states, which he tries to lure into closer cooperation with russia.

but such things of course fly right over your head... clueless nationalists who imagine a US-russian alliance...

What russian-chinese feud? The worst possible nightmare for Russia would be a hostile China. China is set to become the world's strongest country, and russia is already dependent on china, and their foreign policy goals are mostly aligned. The USA is not a dependable ally for russia. in fours years the USA might shift policies again as fast as trump did. for that reason, no one wants to be allies with the USA. Put yourself in russian shoes: would you rather choose a growing power on your borders, or an erratic former enemy on the other side of the globe? Fact is, that russian national interests are still in eastern europe, and as long as the USA is present there, Russia will be a foe of USA. If the USA withdraws, that entails surrendering the region to Russia, and once that happens the USA will not be foes of Russia, but niehter will they be friends. They will just be irrelevant to russia.

 

So are we to fight for Eastern Europe, for an uncertain amount of time? For me personally, speaking not for others but I said this before: I want Russia and Europe to be on good terms. And the reason for the outreach to what is called Eurasian/East Nations, is because we/I feel as though the alliance with the EU has overstayed its welcome. You got us into two world wars, but hell NO to a third. The neo-cons might be willing to commit, but I'm not willing to commit.

If I have to "surrender the region" to save American lives, then so be it. But if anything propels me towards a US-Chinese relationship, it's that the Chinese own a good percentage of our debt. And if I can make inroads on a Chinese-Japanese peace, that would strengthen our ties even further. And then if I have to god forbid commit to the Europeans then I will. But if I make a foreign policy commitment to the Europeans, it must be met in turn: Europe must first engage in peaceful dialogue, exhausting all possible options before military.

 

This forum is an alternative universe to the real world. Americans (Trump supporters) believing they can fool the Russians in this friend nonsense.

When Nato is on their borders. Washington still trying to remove assad. The american actions haven't changed, but they are convinved a few Trump Speeches negates everything. It is all fantasy.

 

this is clueless and nonsensical on so many levels. i will not waste time with this until you show atleast a basic understanding of history..

you are already confronting china. they will be your enemies. and you will not be supported by either russia or europe against china, so good luck with that.

indeed. and if trump gives russia what they want i europe and the middle east, there is still no reason for them to be friends. all that has happened is that usa lost power and gave it to russia.

 

It's not nonsensical. Americans never wanted to enter either WWI or WWII. And in both cases, we were attacked. in WWI by Germany and WWII by Japan. Generally speaking, the wars evolved and ended up involving us but by no means did we want to get in. The same thing here, I don't give TWO craps about what happens to Crimea. I could care even less about Ukraine and about Europe. What I care about, is the safety of the United States.

Since the Western Alliance no longer secures peace in the region, or even for the US itself. I'm ready to pick my bags and go, even as you insist that the country needs you and that we lose power without you. So why are you the ones begging?

 

yeah, you were attacked, so it doesn't have much to do with either the EU (which didn't exist, nor did any kind of united europe) or any alliance (because the USA wasn't allied to anyone at that time) now does it? So what the hell are you going on about? You don't know anything about history.. i've done this before and it just ends up me having to repeat obvious facts to you, because you live in some mythical lalaland with alternative facts.

furthermore, a basic analysis of both world wars tells you that 1) they start over things which are by themselves irrelevant to the USA (serbia, poland, sudetenland, etc) and 2) they end up involving the USA eventually and 3) both world wars could have been much less costly if the USA had been involved in the beginning, rather than letting their inevitable enemies grow stronger.

following that basic analysis, your stance is the opposite. What you are advocating is literally the exact same mentality that got the USA involved in the two world wars, which allowed Germany to grow more powerful. Hitler could've been stopped very easily back in the 30's. American isolationism made sure Hitler was given time to grow. It was this basic insight which laid the foundation for american foreign policy post ww2: Never again would the USA let potential enemies grow unchecked as they did with germany. The USA now knew that what happens in the world will concern them, eventually. Therefore, an active foreign policy was the answer.

of course, none of this ever occured to you... But it did occur to every US president post-ww2, and the USA has been a super power for as long as it has followed this policy.. And there has not been any major wars.. But yeah let's throw it all away,, decades of american efforts..

 

He doesn't care about being enemies with anyone else. Hence the hypocrisy mentioned in the OP.

 

Trump has no foreign policy. He is a reactionary who measures his success by the reactions he can illicit from people. He is a dopamine junky and taunting folks is how he gets his hit. The only consistency the world can expect from him is that he will oppose whoever offends his ego the most on any given day and that opposition will manifest itself in the way that he finds is the most immediate and obnoxious at the same time.

 

Have none of you people who are claiming Russia and China are antagonistic ever heard of the SCO?

 

Indigenous Western Europeans don't care to have children anymore, so it stands to reason they only care about the immediate present and then who will pay for their retirements. The future for their grandchildren is irrelevant. For this they are bringing in young ME Muslim men figuring this will be who works and pays taxes to cover them.

In inviting genetic and cultural migration from an adversarial culture who have ingrained anti-secular values for over 1500 years has doomed mainland Western Europe due to birth rates. Accordingly, there is no good long term alliance or future with the EU - which the OP argues should be exclusive.

Essentially, the OP is making the left's bizarre Red Scare pitch that Russia and China are pure evil and are in alliance with each other against the USA and the EU.

In fact the USA and Russia share a common enemy - radical Islam, which not limited to ISIS. Russians have suffered from Islamic terrorist attacks for decades before ISIS even existed. The USA and China per se have an economic alliance and locked-in relationship whether anyone likes it or not. Linking our future to the EU would be buying a ticket for the Titanic.

 

In the least what Obama and Hillary and Kerry proved w/o any shadow of a
doubt is ... That Change was in order.That doing nothing may not be an option.
To reverse what the feckless and often malfeasant Obama Adm. did when
in charge of Foreign Affairs may be Exactly what is needed.

 

How does America bending over and taking it from other countries benefit the US? How about we actually negotiate for a change....mmmkay?

 

Indigenous Western Europeans don't care to have children anymore, so it stands to reason they only care about the immediate present and then who will pay for their retirements. The future for their grandchildren is irrelevant. For this they are bringing in young ME Muslim men figuring this will be who works and pays taxes to cover them.

In inviting genetic and cultural migration from an adversarial culture who have ingrained anti-secular values for over 1500 years has doomed mainland Western Europe due to birth rates. Accordingly, there is no good long term alliance or future with the EU - which the OP argues should be exclusive.

Essentially, the OP is making the left's bizarre Red Scare pitch that Russia and China are pure evil and are in alliance with each other against the USA and the EU.

In fact the USA and Russia share a common enemy - radical Islam, which not limited to ISIS. Russians have suffered from Islamic terrorist attacks for decades before ISIS even existed. The USA and China per se have an economic alliance and locked-in relationship whether anyone likes it or not. Linking our future to the EU would be buying a ticket for the Titanic.

 

If you follow the messages of the foreign OPer it is quickly seen there is no rational debate given his claim that ISIS is a threat to no one and the view that ISIS is the only aspect of imperialist 100% intolerant anti-secular expansive Islam.

To have replacement workers and young people do to Swedes no longer caring to have children themselves they have insured by simple birth-rate math that their culture and secular society is coming to an end to be replaced with a fully intolerant anti-secular Islam society of Islam government, laws and rights.

While the USA also is being altered by Latino migrant and prodigy growth, it is not at such extreme rates nor are Latino cultural values adverse to secular laws, secular government and secular based rights. So while the USA is evolving and in ways many people do not like, Western Europe and most of the EU is evolving towards the extinction of their culture from secular to a theocratic Islam society. In the interim will be the inherent internal chaos that comes with this.

The reasons to make our interactions primarily with China and Russia is because it is our best interests to do so. China will continue to grow as a mega world super power and there are many clear benefits to good relations between the USA and Russia to the obvious benefit of both. If the USA and Russia both wish to remain dominate world powers we both have no option but to do so.

The glorious days of white Europe are rapidly becoming as relevant as the great Mayan Empire. While Mayans still exist in a sense in some of the Latino population and in the region, the Mayan Empire and country is forever extinct, which is the fate of Western Europe. It is a simple matter of the inherently adversarial nature of Islam and birth rate math.

 

Why are you polluting my thread if you don't even bother to read my posts?... I didn't say that. I said that if the USA wants to confront china -and trump is doing that atm- doing so without the support of the EU is futile.

no, you bloody genius, I am not. I'm just stating three clearly observable facts: Trump wants to be friends with russia, and enemies with china and EU. Look at his actions and words, this is very clear. And from that I draw conclusions. Namely, that the USA will not have much leverage over china without the EU, and, that russia will not favour USA over China, therefore, Trump's foreign policy is bad.

is it too complicated for you to follow, perhaps?

I am stunned by your thorough analysis

isis isn't a big threat.. ask any serious knowledgeable person (ie not you). I told you, if anyone wanted to get rid of ISIS it's very easy. But no one wants to get rid of ISIS yet, because it would help their foes. If turkey gets rid of isis, kurds will get stronger. if usa kills isis, assad and thus iran will get more power. ISIS remains for that reason only. Iran, turkey, or saudi arabia, and of course russia or the USA, could single-handly wipe out ISIS... if they wanted to. But it's hopeless to think you would ever understand the basics of geopolitics..

 

I am more than acutely aware of US/World history my friend and I'm aware of our failed foreign policy since WW2. So instead of some big bad power growing as a result of the US not stepping in(and arguably, we didn't have the military prowess for the conflict until the mid-40's when we got in.), through our "international efforts" since, we have developed multiple gurella powers which became small-scale conflicts and have now finally evolved into one big one in Syria and the sightly smaller one known as Ukraine.

As I said, I hold the Proxy State policy, to have been worse than the policy of neutrality. What kept the world at peace, was not necessarily US military involvement, but two separate factors.

1) First and foremost, the European/Asian war theaters died out, in large part because of the security we had given to these continents. As far as the Asian Bloc is concerned, Japan has remained a fierce ally and has never departed from its post-WW2 stance. And the smaller Asian countries are mostly developing and peaceful nations. It's China stirring up the waters there, which is honestly more complicated for us than the Russian situation.

Then through the Marshal Plan, through NATO, etc, we had given the same security to Europe. And it was that security, NOT us arms that was a crucial factor for peace.

2) Whether real or imagined, the US military alliances and readiness to use that power, did in fact create a cold war like stalemate for a few decades. But as I said, while there was a cold war between the large nations, we had fighting factions for smaller nations/tribal groups, which would become major powers down the line.

What has disturbed our peace, is that those smaller powers became the menace of the world. A far greater menace than an authoritarian government could ever hope to be. Because their goal is nothing less than the total systematic breakdown of human civilization as we in the West have come to know it. And it cannot be combated through the normal means of the military, as Iraq has shown.

What also disturbed our peace is the EU's economic powerplay for Ukraine. How the Europeans didn't see a Russian Response, is absolutely beyond me. But in effect, in my mind, Europe betrayed the premise of NATO, betrayed the premise of the treaties by courting Ukraine economically. It led to the division of Ukraine as a country, the overthrow of their government and now a civil war on the Ukrainian/Russian borders.

So Europe expects the 'big brother' USA to resolve it again, and using the premise of 'intervening to prevent a bigger mess' to justify it. Sorry, but our intervention in Iraq, in Libya and now in Syria has given a firm, resolute answer that the "analysis" of the past 50 years of foreign policy is mistaken, and we're actually saving the world by being neutral.

Maybe, just maybe US Neutrality forces the Europeans to negotiate. Maybe, just maybe you come to peace with the Russians. Or you two could go at it in a suicidal Eurasian war not seen since WW2. Either way, it only serves our interests to stay out.

 

Are you referring to the time when the USA emerged as a super power, during which american influence grew dramatically world wide, and during which major wars were avoided? Hard to call that a failure... what wierd measure are you using??

obviously it takes some time to get the military up, but you could just as easily have armed up in e.g. 1935 as in 1942. And bear in mind, germany was very weak in the beginning. Actually, when germany invaded poland, france alone could have defeated germany if they had invaded. So no, your argument doesn't hold. Containing germany while it was weak would have been very easy given the resources of the allies.. all it took was some determination, of which they had none...

I note that you're completely clueless about the american role in this. And I think I've told you this before. It wasn't just the EU that meddled in Ukraine.. USA did too. If you think the USA is somehow "innocent" in this, you know nothing. You need to get it into your head already that this isn't a case of europe doing something and then calling the USA in. The USA had an active part from the start.

also, the EU is not in NATO. And secondly, even if it was, there is nothing at all in NATO which forbids "courting other countries economically" or whatever you want to call it. That's just pure nonsense that you just made up.

You know that the Russians don't really mind the EU per se, and vice versa? Germany, france, italy... they have no problems with russia. they actually want to return to normal relations. What russia is bothered about is NATO.. about troop deployments, about missile shields. And guess who's behind all that? The USA.

again, you seem completely ignorant of the role of the USA. The main opponent of russia isn't the EU.. it's the USA. Why are you talking about this as if the USA didn't have a huge and active role in it??? There are eastern european countries which dislike russia.. but they are not the whole of the EU. only a small part. You need you understand this.

 

Don't forget Iran. He also wants to confront Iran.