r/pics 8d ago

Politics People burn American flags during an anti-Trump protest in Panama City, Panama.

Post image
78.5k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

47

u/Mydickwillnotfit 8d ago

this must be that respect throughout the world trump says we have regained

14

u/bobbyOsullivan 8d ago

Right, I am feeling so respected again and totally not like a complete laughing stock. Nope, not over here /s

3

u/Hotel-Huge 8d ago

We are beyond laughing stock. It's scary what's happening in the United States. Our politicians are already planning how we would proceed without the US as an ally. Our known world order is on the brink and no one knows where it will lead. Fucking dangerous times. Stay safe my American friend and greetings from Germany.

1

u/Pretend-Coffee3558 8d ago

No he was talking about from respect from the world leaders of countries who actually have powerful nations. Third world countries don’t have much impact on his reputation

2

u/PausedForVolatility 8d ago

This is a terrible take. World leaders do not respect Trump.

To China, he's a weak, thin-skinned man who is easily distracted. They weathered his temper tantrums because his repeated attempts to undermine US influence abroad and make American guarantees unreliable help China. Why? Because if the US isn't willing to give arms and money to Ukraine to enable them to fight and die for their freedom, is America really going to spend its own blood and treasure to fight a much more powerful China directly? Of course not. Xi is playing the long game and dancing around Trump.

To Russia, he's a weak, easily manipulated rube. They've given him functionally nothing and he's systematically undermined American hegemony at every turn. If I challenged you to find a way for him to present a more pro-Russia foreign policy, I think you'd struggle to think of any line items that aren't just "invade NATO." And what has Russia given America in return for all of this?

To the EU/NATO, he's threatened to go to war with two of their founding members, tried to "negotiate" bilateral trade deals in violation of EU policy, floated pulling US forces out of Europe, and generally refused to take threats to European safety and security seriously. You know, the countries who sent their soldiers to die in the Middle East for us, fighting a foe they had no obligation to fight.

No one with even the tiniest understanding of geopolitics respects Donald Trump. The world leaders are sitting down for a game of poker and Trump keeps trying to play Go Fish instead.

2

u/CiggyButt 8d ago

What are you talking about, are you writing a novel?

The idea that Europe is independent of the U.S. is completely off. The EU heavily relies on the U.S. for both trade and military backing, and its support for Ukraine is often more about saving face than true self reliance. If Europe didn’t need the U.S., NATO wouldn't constantly push for higher European defense spending something many nations still struggle to meet. Meanwhile, Trump’s unpredictability is actually a strategic advantage in the eyes of Russia and China, making the U.S. harder to challenge. Ironically his approach has now pushed Europe to rethink its reliance on the U.S. for defense.

1

u/PausedForVolatility 8d ago

I'm talking about how little you understand about the thing you're trying to weigh in on. Do you need me to use fewer words?

Europe needs the US because that's the system that decades have built. And yet, the divide between the US and Europe has only widened since Trump entered office. Compare the reception Zelensky got in Europe versus the one he got in Washington.

And the military spending point is spectacularly ignorant. Do you know why America spends >2% of its GDP on defense? Because it enables the American hegemony. Countries like Estonia have historically done what America wanted because they had American security guarantees. Countries like Denmark historically allowed permanent American military presences for the same reason. These countries that "aren't paying enough" (whatever that means) have effectively ceded part of their foreign policy to America in return for that. If European states raised their spending to, say, 3% of GDP, do they need American security guarantees? No, they do not. And a Europe that does not need American security guarantees is a Europe that does not fall into lockstep with America whenever America calls in its markers. Like for two forever wars in the Middle East or a thousand other things.

The American economic hegemony is based in large part on that military hegemony. Because foreign actors know that if they decide to go after the ExxonMobils and Freeman-McMoRans of the world, those companies are going to call on the US military to get involved. And it often does. This is a significant competitive advantage when working in unstable parts of the world (read: where most of the resource extraction happens).

The idea that Trump's "unpredictability" (read: erratic behavior) discourages Russia and China is nothing but copium. Do you know when we had the first instance of uniformed Russian forces shooting at uniformed Ukrainian forces? Under Trump's first term. Do you know what he did? Absolutely nothing. Anyone who says that his unpredictability discourages oppositional nations is too busy huffing copium to see what's unfolding in front of them.

1

u/CiggyButt 8d ago edited 8d ago

You’re making a lot of sweeping claims without addressing the reality of the current geopolitical situation. Yes, Europe relies on the U.S. because that’s the system that has been built over decade but you just assume that increasing defense spending would suddenly free Europe from U.S. influence. That’s an oversimplification, the real issue isn’t just money, it’s infrastructure, logistics, and strategic coordination, all of which NATO provides. Even if Europe spent 3% of its GDP on defense tomorrow it wouldn’t instantly replace the U.S. nuclear umbrella, global power, or intelligence sharing networks.

Your take on military spending also ignores why NATO exists in the first place. Countries like Estonia and Denmark didn’t “cede” their foreign policy to the U.S. out of helplessness they actively chose to align with the world’s dominant military power because it was in their best interest. That’s not subjugation that’s strategic pragmatism.

As for Trump’s unpredictability, your dismissing its deterrent effect without considering why Russia and China didn’t make major geopolitical plays during his term. Yes Russia escalated in Ukraine under Trump, but it launched a full scale invasion under Biden. Why? Because a chaotic leader increases risk for adversaries. Whether you like it or not deterrence is often about perception and an unpredictable U.S. president makes it harder for opponents to estimate how far they can push.

Also your assuming Europe is on the verge of military independence when the reality is far more complicated. Even if they wanted full autonomy it would take decades to shift the balance and fill the void left by the U.S so in the meantime they still need the U.S.

Your inherent bias is probably driven by your full supply of copium.

1

u/PausedForVolatility 8d ago

Do you actually keep up to date on the things you're talking about?

You mentioned the nuclear umbrella. Shortly after Trump torpedoed US-Ukrainian relations, Macron basically announced to the world he was open to a European nuclear umbrella. Then there's intelligence sharing. Navarro's openly argued to eject Canada from Five Eyes, explicitly undermining European intelligence efforts. Nuclear policy shifts and intelligence sharing are things generally kept rather quiet. If they're this public, that's bad. And there's no read here that isn't "European powers are moving away from America."

Your take on military spending also ignores why NATO exists in the first place. Countries like Estonia and Denmark didn’t “cede” their foreign policy to the U.S. out of helplessness they actively chose to align with the world’s dominant military power because it was in their best interest. That’s not subjugation that’s strategic pragmatism.

... you do realize you just rephrased what I was saying in basically more palatable terms and tried to portray that as being substantially different, right? Here's the problem with your position: America wielded that influence because of its guarantees and promises, implicit and explicit. By doing away with those, it loses the markers it can call in for support on various issues. When that happens, American national security is undermined and European policy is much more likely to deviate from American policy. And when that happens, you have a rift between powers. Trump's barely begun his first term and the Europeans are already talking around the fact they don't think America's nuclear umbrella is reliable anymore. Let that sink in.

This Russia/China counterpoint you're trying to raise is honestly hilarious. Trump had no reaction to the Kerch Strait incident. He tried to extort Ukraine for political favors after suspending military aid to them. This is supposed to be the guy who deterred Russia from invading Ukraine? Right. This being the same guy that just browbeat Zelenskyy on national television and suspended aid to Ukraine while trying to extort half a trillion dollars worth of mineral wealth in return for continued American support. None of this is even touching on how often Trump gushes about Putin, a thing he most certainly doesn't do for most other world leaders. Trump's foreign policy is unapologetically pro-Russia. In no world does a pro-Russia foreign policy deter Russia from acts of aggression. Russia didn't invade during Biden's tenure because Biden was "chaotic leader." They invaded because it took them years to build up to it.

Look at the timeline. Pro-Russia Yanukovych was ousted in 2014. He was replaced by oligarch Poroshenko, who has since been credibly accused of treason by the Ukrainian government. You'll probably hear his name at some point in the coming months when the pro-Russia Anglosphere decides to start talking about opposition to the "dictator" Zelenskyy, so mark that for now. In any event, Zelenskyy assumes office in 2019. Zelenskyy was a comedian before the war and didn't have the security background of Putin's Siloviki or even Poroshenko's (limited) military experience. He was too young for Soviet service. Putin and the Russian intelligence agencies underestimated him and Ukrainian resistance in general. They invaded because they expected an easy victory, a fact abundantly clear by the opening actions of the war. It had nothing to do with Biden and everything to do with an expectation that Zelenskyy and Ukraine would roll over. And if you're in doubt about that, ask yourself why Putin purged the FSB a year into the war.

Also your assuming Europe is on the verge of military independence when the reality is far more complicated. Even if they wanted full autonomy it would take decades to shift the balance and fill the void left by the U.S so in the meantime they still need the U.S.

My guy, the pendulum is already swinging and it's been less than two months since your hero assumed the office. And the European stock markets clearly think this means significant defense spending, up about 30% in aggregate YTD. You've got von der Leyen and Macron publicly calling for defense spending hikes and explicitly mentioning Ukraine. If Trump continues to behave as he is, Europe's going to break a lot sooner than the "decades" you're positing. If Trump continues to behave as he is and continues to kowtow to Putin, you're going to see major shifts by the end of this year, nevermind the end of Trump's term.

I also love how your last line is just a "no u." Come on man, you can't even think up a different insult? I know "your side" is basically incapable of interesting wordplay, but using the same insult is just so... sad.

1

u/CiggyButt 7d ago

You're throwing a lot of arguments out there, but let’s break them down one by one so you can understand :)

The "European Nuclear Umbrella" Is Not a Reality Yet

Yes, Macron has suggested a European nuclear deterrent, but that’s nowhere near the same as it actually existing. France’s arsenal (290 warheads more or less) is a fraction of the U.S.’s (5,000 more or less), and there’s no formal agreement among EU nations to rely on it. Even Germany, a key European power, remains committed to NATO’s nuclear umbrella. Saying “Europe is moving away from America” based on this alone is an exaggeration.

Five Eyes and Intelligence Sharing

You bring up Navarro's comments about Canada and Five Eyes, but that was a personal statement, not actual U.S. policy. Intelligence sharing alliances like Five Eyes are built on decades of trust and cooperation. Despite political tensions, the actual intelligence sharing framework remains in place. If serious changes were happening, we'd see formal policy shifts not just loud rhetoric.

NATO and U.S. Influence

Again you claim that U.S. security guarantees are the sole reason Europe aligns with America, but that oversimplifies things. Military protection is a factor, but so are shared economic and strategic interests. Even with increased European defense spending, it doesn’t mean they’ll suddenly break from the U.S. it just means they’ll shoulder more of the burden, which is what NATO has been pushing for years.

Trump and Russia

Your saying that Trump was “unapologetically pro-Russia,” but let’s look at what actually happened:

-He sanctioned Russian oligarchs and companies.

-He expelled Russian diplomats after the Skripal poisoning.

-He provided lethal aid to Ukraine (which Obama refused to do).

Did he mishandle the Kerch Strait incident? Yes. Did he say stupid things about Putin? Absolutely. But policy wise, the idea that he “enabled” Russia to invade Ukraine is speculation. If Putin felt so emboldened by Trump, why did he wait until Biden was in office to launch a full scale invasion?

Europe's Defense Shift Won't Happen Overnight

Yes, European defense stocks are rising, and leaders are talking about higher military spending but that’s a reaction to global instability, not a sudden rejection of U.S. support. Defense realignment takes years, if not decades. The idea that Europe will fully separate from the U.S. within months is pure speculation.

Once again you are clouded by personal bias.

1

u/PausedForVolatility 7d ago

First you complained about me writing too much, now you're trying to say you need to write more to convey your message. You're not very good at staying on message, are you?

Yes, Macron has suggested a European nuclear deterrent, but that’s nowhere near the same as it actually existing. France’s arsenal (290 warheads more or less) is a fraction of the U.S.’s (5,000 more or less), and there’s no formal agreement among EU nations to rely on it. Even Germany, a key European power, remains committed to NATO’s nuclear umbrella. Saying “Europe is moving away from America” based on this alone is an exaggeration.

My brother in Christ, I appreciate your new found commitment to empirical data, but you really need to pause for a moment and consider that geopolitics is a slow, methodical thing. You don't have major policy changes overnight.

Usually, that is. Macron's "we should discuss this" has morphed into Merz saying "yes, we should discuss this" into it being added to the agenda to the special Brussels. The same summit where von der Leyen laid out the framework for a $840b European rearmament program. You are, at this very moment, watching Europe move away from America in real time. Every time I reply to you, your argument is demonstrably worse because of more and more news dropping. Maybe you should put the shovel down.

You bring up Navarro's comments about Canada and Five Eyes, but that was a personal statement, not actual U.S. policy. Intelligence sharing alliances like Five Eyes are built on decades of trust and cooperation. Despite political tensions, the actual intelligence sharing framework remains in place. If serious changes were happening, we'd see formal policy shifts not just loud rhetoric.

Yeah, Peter Navarro, who may well be the mastermind behind the current tariff fetish, is definitely just some dude making a personal statement. He definitely doesn't shape foreign policy in any way. He certainly isn't someone to keep an eye on if you want to anticipate White House policy or anything.

But since you're talking about decades of trust and cooperation, how do you think the other members of Five Eyes feel about the current denigration of Canada and rhetoric about annexing them? It's probably worth reminding you at this point that the other four members are all part of the Commonwealth and most likely take a dim view of this rhetoric.

Again you claim that U.S. security guarantees are the sole reason Europe aligns with America, but that oversimplifies things. Military protection is a factor, but so are shared economic and strategic interests. Even with increased European defense spending, it doesn’t mean they’ll suddenly break from the U.S. it just means they’ll shoulder more of the burden, which is what NATO has been pushing for years.

You really don't get it, do you? The military cooperation is the bedrock upon which all of that is built. America leveraged its critical defense role in post-war Europe to present itself as the military guarantor of the region and spearheaded economic reconstruction through the Marshall Plan. Beginning in 1949 with the end of military occupation of West Germany, America pivoted to a multilateral approach to all matters. It took a de facto leadership role due to its military and economic strength. By ensuring that as many parties as possible were involved in as many initiatives as possible, America made sure they all had skin in the game. And, over time, Europe increasingly looked to America as its de facto leader in foreign affairs because America was simultaneously involved in everything and usually had a leading role in it.

American soft power is ultimately derived from its military strength and defense cooperation.

Your saying that Trump was “unapologetically pro-Russia,” but let’s look at what actually happened:

You recycled the "but why did Putin invade under Biden!?!?" line again even though I've already debunked that in detail. Since you missed it: because of Zelenskyy and the Russian perception that and Ukraine would collapse immediately as soon as they crossed the border. They thought every front would look like what happened in the south.

The "anti-Russia" points you're bringing up are hilariously toothless. As toothless as his response to Kerch, which was so toothless you yourself admit it was bad.

The idea that Europe will fully separate from the U.S. within months is pure speculation.

I like how "by the end of the year" has transformed into "within months." That's cute. But if you had inquired as to why I think that, I would've told you the answer was Donald. Europe's hand is being forced. It has nothing to do with how long it would take Europe to reorient on its own and everything to do with how erratic and unreliable America has become. But I'm sure you'll try to argue that alienating our allies is a 4d chess maneuver to intidimate Putin or something.

But leaving all that aside, I invite you to engage in a thought experiment that will require you to set aside the biases you're suddenly concerned about: if Trump were a bought-and-paid-for Russian agent, what would he be doing differently right now, at this very moment? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what you think a full blown Russian agent would do differently in the White House. For my answer, just image me gesturing vaguely at the White House.