I don't know that there's anything "wrong", per se, but I know that I don't at all rate the "photo-op" as highly as you (and admittedly, many others) do. As I was told (rightly) by someone who posts here, the world is different now. It used to be that we could sort of operate in a vacuum, and our allies would glad hand us, and the Soviet Union would rattle their swords, then crush us in hockey. . Now there is a new world order, in the form of the China-Russia-US/NATO-ish triumvirate. If we continue to play games with photo-ops, we're going to win the battle and lose the war. China doesn't give fuck one about photo-ops. I personally do not at all think that Trump gave away the farm in exchange for "nothing". He got a commitment that now the NORKs (and China) have to contend with. He "gave" a photo-op. The exercises are a form of posturing. Kim knows what we have and what we can do. Now he's being tempted by the riches of the west, and China knows that.
I'm presuming that 'someone' was me, and you summarise my posts accurately, but I'd like to add to them a little here by way of addressing a couple of ideas expressed in this thread.
Firstly, to save having to find ways to cobble together a coherent overview of my points for context, I'll just post here what I wrote elsewhere for anyone interested. Post 1 (it was in reply to something Stadler wrote):
"^^ That's not my reading of the last page at all, I don't think anyone was suggesting "Trump decided we'd all be best wearing dark grey jumpsuits and we're going to line the northern and southern borders with nuclear warheads". Personally, I think Trump handled the personality side of the meeting amazingly well. Kim Jong-un is probably a very difficult person to bond with, because he simply doesn't know how this side of international politics works (notice how every time Trump offered his hand, Kim would take it but then immediately smile at the camera and not at Trump, because he had his thoughts on how this would play back home, while Trump was always trying to get his eye contact and giving him non-aggressive pats on the shoulder or back to relax him). Showing Kim 'The Beast' (the limo) will have been Trump's idea, and it was a good one. Always being the first to offer his hand will have been Trump's idea, and it was a good one. Trying to put the kid (which, let's face it, is what he is) at ease in what for him will have been an unknown situation will have been Trump's idea, and it was a good one. I wrote on the last page - Trump is probably a very good and instinctive reader of people. You have to be, given his former line of work. He will know when to raise the tension and when to decrease it. When to trash someone and when to schmooze them. But I don't think it's unwarranted for me to express extreme cynicism at what I see as the hypocrisy of the rationale in ripping up the ironclad and impeccably-vetted Iran agreement while celebrating such a vague North Korea agreement. This isn't bashing Trump. This is expressing scepticism. If I were in the satire business I'd be setting up a twitter account to warn America of impending Tomahawk strikes on the 'People Starving Animal Kim' (re: the 'Gas Killing Animal' Assad) and telling America you "shouldn't be friends with him" (as Trump did to Russia over Assad). All my working life I have worked towards the goal of making people understand this point: do you see now that geopolitics is not a Disney cartoon? That America can't criticise Russia for its strategic friendships with Iran and Syria while suddenly finding it convenient to fellate a genocidal despot like Kim Jong-un on Twitter"
Post 2 (in reply to someone else who replied to post 1):
"By 'impeccably-vetted' I meant that literally everyone from the UN to the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran had been following its end of the agreement to the letter. An agreement almost entirely created by America. Yet now America (against the strenuous advice of literally every country and organisation on the planet except peace-loving Israel and Saudi Arabia...who, by the way, made their first grab for a port town in Yemen yesterday) has decided to tear up that agreement. Very well. It's dishonest and hypocritical, but whatever, that's par for the course. But why has the USA torn it up? Because Iran is a "rogue state" who can't be trusted to not build nukes further down the line (turns out you're right, last month after Trump's announcement they started enriching uranium again with Russia's help. Well done, I guess). Massive economic pressure is, apparently, the way to go. Which ignores a point I have made in the past, that sanctions only work in a very particular set of circumstances, yet they have now become the default tactic of US foreign policy. Russia and its allies have Iran's back at all times, as they had Syria's. Sanctions will not remove that regime, and so what is the aim here? What is Trump's goal? That's a serious question, I'm not looking for a testy argument (I admit to not being informed on this subject, I know only what I read on simple websites), you likely know more than I do about the American thinking behind this. What aim does the USA have (I say again, removing the regime will not happen, so what else is the aim?), and how does it plan to achieve it?
I guess what I'm looking for is someone in the current White House administration to explain to me why ripping up the Iran agreement (without having a coherent Plan B) is a logical move, while making concessions to North Korea and trying to get pally with Kim Jong-un based on "gut instinct" and "trust" (Trump's own words) makes sense. There's no consistent strategy on display here. One day your president is walking away from agreements because rogue states "can't be trusted", and the next day he's withdrawing the American military from the Korean Peninsula because he "trusts" Kim to be true to his word (that word being, according to DPRK side, that Kim's nukes aren't going anywhere, despite what Pompeo keeps saying). It is dangerous (to you, the USA) to be this incoherent and inconsistent in your strategy"
And post 3 (a reply to the same person. The first sentence is his, and what I'm replying to):
"I reject wholesale this rebuttal that in order to undo a bad deal, something must replace it"
I could agree with this if such a deal were only between two parties, but these things never are. The USA abandoning its leadership of the Iran deal doesn't mean it all goes to hell, it just means someone else steps in. As has been seen. America walked away from the deal and sanctioned European companies from doing business with Iran. What happened next? Those companies simply upped their trade with a grateful Russia (Peugeot, Airbus, Total and Volkswagen all signed new deals with Russia following Trump's order that they stop business in Iran). This American obsession with 'sanctioning' is simply mindless in my opinion, there is no political logic to it. Back to the issue of having a Plan B: there are many reasons America lost in Syria but one of them is that there was no coherent plan for what you planned to do once Assad was gone. And such a plan was necessary in order to get the relevant factions within Syria on your side. America is no longer the unchallenged global hegemon, you have competitors again. You can't keep on leaving vacuums like this, and walking away from alliances. There are other powers ready to step in now. That's what I meant by the danger of inconsistency and incoherence. On the day of the G7, Putin pointedly went to Beijing to celebrate Xi's birthday with him and have some big lavish shots of their bromance beamed around the world, the message being: there's an alternative to the USA now, world. Come deal with us.
Time will show. I am not qualified to write about whether the agreement was good or bad, and it's not even my point. It's about an unclear geoplitical strategy from the US. Nobody has any idea what on earth you're going to decide to do on a week to week basis, and I think that's dangerous to you"
Ok, so the main point within all that is that relations between states are constructed along strategic lines ("We do not have friends. We have only interests" - Churchill is reported to have said that), and I may be wrong but it seems to me from what I read and hear that a number of Americans actually believe that the reason America is, how shall I put this, 'involved in the business of other countries' is to "solve their problems" or "stop human rights abuses". This is nonsense (amazing how so many "human rights abuses" and "terrorists" seem to appear in places that have strategic ports and airbases and not those land-locked central African fundamentalist states that are of no geopolitical importance whatsoever). America rents parking space for its military. Only that. It couldn't give two fucks what any other country does to its citizens (see Qatar and Saudi Arabia as two prominent examples of American hypocrisy). There are 4 criteria given for being the world's super power. Several countries fulfill 3 of those criteria (Russia, France, the UK, and now China), but only 1 country meets the 4th and most important one: the ability to put your military at any point in the world at a moment's notice. Only the USA can do that, and this is why the USA is the super power. So when people ask "Why are we in this or that country?", the answer is: because you
have to be, if you want to maintain your position as the most powerful country in the world. Your unmatched wealth (source of your power) is based upon your foreign policy (yes you have amazing technological innovation, but good luck selling it around the world without the unopposable influence you have to command countries what to buy and sell and who to do business with). Your power is founded on the fact that you are everywhere in this world. It is not because you are kind-hearted souls who care about 'helping' others, that's just fatuous jingoistic horseshit your government sells to simple people. The money your government puts into 'developing nations' is strategic. 700 US troops were sent to Norway (Norway, for Christ's sake!) earlier this week not because of any 'human rights abuses' or 'fears of Russian invasion' (700 troops would prevent that?) but to maintain a presence and an influence in that particular theatre.
So back to the gist of those posts of mine that I pasted: there is a loose concept in geopolitics called 'enemy deprivation syndrome' (the condition of becoming weak and complacent because of the lack of a serious rival), and it is generally considered by us that the US now suffers from it. Since around 1991 America has had no real competitor on the global stage, allowing it to do pretty much whatever it wanted, and over time, their 'skills' (not exactly the right word, but it'll have to serve) have degraded. And in my opinion it is true, because I see it myself, almost every day across the border there in Ukraine, and how easily Crimea has been taken back, or another example, in Syria, where you have been beaten with surprisingly little effort. You've become very rusty over the last 25 years, while new powers have been emerging (primarily China). All you ever seem to know how to do now is impose 'sanctions'. I repeat what I wrote in an above post: this American obsession with automatically reverting to sanctions is mindless. Every single time your senate imposes another round of sanctions on (for example) Prigozhin (the guy behind the so-called 'Kremlin-bot' group - I think he's on his 4th raft of sanctions from you guys now) the dude laughs his ass off. Every time you order (for example) German companies to cease trading with Russia, we simply go to China and India. You ordered Total to cease trading with Iran; they signed a deal with Russia 6 days later. We honestly don't get it. It's a foolish tactic except in a very particular set of circumstances, yet it has become the default tactic of American foreign policy.
And so to Iran/North Korea, and the question of coherence and consistency. This is no longer a world where the USA can abandon leadership of agreements that America itself insisted upon. 20 years ago you could. Now, you once again have powerful competitors ready to step in and fill the void you're leaving; countries which have spent the last decade preparing for this, while you (in my opinion) became complacent. In my opinion you are willingly abandoning your position as leader of a set of alliances that are in large part the very reason you became the super power in the first place. Too many of your people do not know the most fundamental things about how America became the global super power and what conditions are necessary for maintaining that position. It seems to me you don't teach this in your schools, but you should, because then the moment Donald Trump (only for example, I'm not ragging on him personally) starting prattling on about 'America First' and 'withdrawing from other countries', everyone in the room ought to have said: "Wait a second, that bullshit about how we're giving charity to the world is good for propaganda purposes, but let's be serious here: that's not actually what we're doing, and it would be madness to come away from the Korean Peninsula, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, etc". In short: my experience is that your government has always spoken at a silly level to its people, presenting itself as the good guy in a Disney movie, but now they are speaking at a stupid level to each other, and to other states, and that's a sign of degradation in my opinion.
This ended up rambling and I'm not happy with how clear I've been (I've tried to be mindful that most people here don't know me; these general ideas have been discussed by myself, Stadler, Barto and a few others here for many years on another forum, and they're used to my sometimes combative 'anti-American' style and know not to take it personally), but whatever, I'll leave it up. And as I wrote earlier: the next time your Commander-In-Chief decides to play sanctimonious nuclear brinkmanship on twitter with Russia over its "friendship" with the "Gas Killing Animal" Assad, I will be sure to post pictures of that same Commander schmoozing the 'People Starving Animal' Kim and fellating him on twitter. In the interests of consistency and a disdain for galling hypocrisy.
Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting (Read 113489 times)
