Consequences of isolationism.

[gipper]

You have no clue about what I support or don't. In fact, I'm not even American.

But go ahead. Tell me more about myself.

If you want to simply rant and rave I would suggest a phsychologist. They get paid for it.

Lol. I have no clue, yet you support nonstop wars and interventions that murder millions and destroy nations.

Think!

 

[Correll]

Ok before you continue I said I would do this.

So my first remark is this.

What you just did is a non-sequitor. Instead of trying to argue about the consequences of isolationism you try to bring the argument to a perceived slight of Trump and MAGA.

It's also a false dichotomy. One can "talk shit" and at the same time find alliences important.

So right off the bat your argument contains 2 fallacies.

Except in your post, you list a series of supposed negative aspects of the "isolationism" that you claim.

And number one, was American INSULTING people and expecting no consequnces.


For me to counter that, and point out that Trump and maga has been subject to insults from Europe for quite some time,

is not a non sequitor, it is pointing out that you are slamming Trump and maga for one set of behavior, while giving Europe a pass for the same behavior.


And your argument, YOUR argument was that Trump and maga are doing this, and thus not respecting the importance of our alliances.


If that applies to us, when Trump insults someone, then would it not make sense to apply it both ways?


My point is that you expect America to be... Europes *****. To take abuse and like it.

 

[kyzr]

You might not realize it but you are making my points for me.
I'm aware of what he said. The difference is that I think of the implications of what it means. While you think Rutte is cheerleading the US. This because you can't conceive of a reality that has anything but your American perspective. You read, "America has NATO by it's shorthairs, hurray."

You either have a nuclear umbrella, or you don't. You can't bluff it. Think about it wrt Putin's new Oreshnik...

I, (and I assure you all those in power NOT American) read, "America has NATO by it's shorthairs. That's not a situation you want to be in when America is not a reliable partner. So we need to take steps to reverse that."
It's supreme arrogance to believe that the power you posses is impossible to remedy given sufficient time and incentive.

So how much time and money would you "in power guys" estimate it would take to develop a "nuclear umbrella"?

If you sanction us your economy suffers.
The same arrogance different context. Your GDP is just as dependent on non-Americans paying for American goods as the other way around. The difference is that the US is already dominant, meaning that a change in the status quo is a net-loss.

So you think you can cut off your nose to spite your face? Damn the torpedoes? When we have a 5% GDP growth?

I do consider GDP, but unlike you, I don't think having a high GDP is something that you can maintain when you have a consumer market consisting of the citizens of a single nation. Or that you can bully the citizens of other nations while maintaining them as consumers indefinitely.

For many decades the US put up with unfair trade practices (unfair tariffs), no longer.

 

[cnm]

You must not have heard Mark Rutte yesterday...

NATO's Mark Rutte says Europe is incapable of defending itself without US military support

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte emphasised on Monday the critical dependence of Europe on US military support for its defence capabilities. Speaking at the European Parliament, he stated that, in order to achieve self-sufficiency in defence, European nations would need to significantly...

www.europeaninterest.eu

You apparently don't appreciate the importance of GDP. The US economy is central to global prosperity. If you get sanctioned your fragile economy suffers. BRICs is an interesting case study, how are those countries doing lately?

View attachment 1211719

........2024_____________ -1,200
........2025_____________ -780 thru October, but the deficit is trending much smaller due to tariffs

Rutte's only tactic has been to praise the toddler out of tantrums. No change.

I can't imagine a less useful splatter of Arabic numerals.

 

[cnm]

For many decades the US put up with unfair trade practices (unfair tariffs), no longer.

Sure. In a system it designed that made it the wealthiest economy.

It will be good to not depend on such whiners.

 

[cnm]

So how much time and money would you "in power guys" estimate it would take to develop a "nuclear umbrella"?

You mean a nuclear water gun? France has some and Britain has a pretend lease on some from the US.

 

[forkup]

Except in your post, you list a series of supposed negative aspects of the "isolationism" that you claim.

And number one, was American INSULTING people and expecting no consequnces.


For me to counter that, and point out that Trump and maga has been subject to insults from Europe for quite some time,

is not a non sequitor, it is pointing out that you are slamming Trump and maga for one set of behavior, while giving Europe a pass for the same behavior.


And your argument, YOUR argument was that Trump and maga are doing this, and thus not respecting the importance of our alliances.


If that applies to us, when Trump insults someone, then would it not make sense to apply it both ways?


My point is that you expect America to be... Europes *****. To take abuse and like it.

You’re still conflating two very different things, and that’s the core problem.
Yes, I mentioned insults, but not as a question of etiquette or hurt feelings. I mentioned them as signals, coming from the dominant power in an alliance, and paired with concrete policy choices: tariffs, treaty skepticism, withdrawal threats, and open hostility toward multilateral frameworks.
That context matters.

A US president insulting allies while simultaneously signaling unreliability carries vastly more strategic weight than European politicians or media criticizing Trump. (providing you can actually produce examples that are even remotely to the scale like for instance, I don't know... give us your territory or face tariffs), something you can't. Those are not symmetrical actors, and pretending they are is analytically lazy.

More importantly, even if Europe were being hypocritical, that wouldn’t refute my argument. Pointing out hypocrisy does not change the consequences of American isolationist signaling. States don’t realign because someone was “mean.” They realign because incentives, risk calculations, and dependency structures change.

Which brings us back to the actual topic:
when the US frames alliances as transactional, conditional, and disposable, other actors respond rationally by reducing exposure and building alternatives. That isn’t Europe “expecting America to be its *****.” That’s basic geopolitical risk management.

You keep trying to pull this discussion into a grievance frame about respect, humiliation, and who insults whom. I’m talking about outcomes. Trade blocs forming. Hedging behavior. Structural shifts that don’t reverse easily.

If you want to argue that those consequences won’t materialize, or that the US can absorb them without loss, argue that.
But if the response is just “Europe talks shit too,” then you’re not engaging with the claim, you’re changing the subject.


What you're doing is the exact thing you said you don't do, namely try to derail OP's, using the exact tactic that I flagged as most commenly used by people who do it.

The most common in my experience are appeals to hypocrisy, almost invariably coupled with false analogies

What does that tell you?

 

[Correll]

You’re still conflating two very different things, and that’s the core problem.
Yes, I mentioned insults, but not as a question of etiquette or hurt feelings. I mentioned them as signals, coming from the dominant power in an alliance, and paired with concrete policy choices: tariffs, treaty skepticism, withdrawal threats, and open hostility toward multilateral frameworks.
That context matters.

I agree context matters.

Context such as economic nationalism on the part of the EU versus, our trade, or then failing to meet spending targets so that they carry their weight in the alliance. Over GENERATIONS, before today.

A US president insulting allies while simultaneously signaling unreliability carries vastly more strategic weight than European politicians or media criticizing Trump. (providing you can actually produce examples that are even remotely to the scale like for instance, I don't know... give us your territory or face tariffs), something you can't. Those are not symmetrical actors, and pretending they are is analytically lazy.

Trump trying to make peace in the Ukraine while the chorus of anti-trumpers in eruope are heckling.

More importantly, even if Europe were being hypocritical, that wouldn’t refute my argument. Pointing out hypocrisy does not change the consequences of American isolationist signaling. States don’t realign because someone was “mean.” They realign because incentives, risk calculations, and dependency structures change.

On one hand you are arguing taht our relationship NOT be "transactional" then you argue that national alliances ARE based on transactional factors, ie incentives and risk calculations.

If, since the end of the cold war, Europe had been DIPLOMATIC in their relations with us, and NOT insulted Trump or maga, or America, I, and tens of millions of other maga, would certainly have been feelings about Europe.

Your argument is giving European governments a pass on failing their DIPLOMACY skill check.

Or more, you are arguing against the very concept of DIPLOMACY.

Which brings us back to the actual topic:
when the US frames alliances as transactional, conditional, and disposable, other actors respond rationally by reducing exposure and building alternatives. That isn’t Europe “expecting America to be its *****.” That’s basic geopolitical risk management.

It is not rational for european leaders to be insulting to a power that they need.

If anything, DEFERRING to that power that they need, would be far more rational. Convince MAGA that an alliance with Europe is to OUR benefit.

Me? I think it is insane, for us to be committed to fight WWIII, over Estonia.

West Germany had the strategic weight that a soviet conquest of that, would have shifted the global balance of power. During the cold war, to me, it made sense to that we were prepared to fight over that.

ESTONIA? No. That's insane.

You keep trying to pull this discussion into a grievance frame about respect, humiliation, and who insults whom. I’m talking about outcomes. Trade blocs forming. Hedging behavior. Structural shifts that don’t reverse easily.

One of those outcomes has been that the American people have borne great costs, both in defense spending and in trade imbalances, that are not worth it, now that the soviet union is gone.

I wanted a rebalancing of costs and alliances since the end of the cold war. IN the context of them being insulting assholes, my patience is... I was going to say wearing thin, but really, already exhausted.

If you want to argue that those consequences won’t materialize, or that the US can absorb them without loss, argue that.
But if the response is just “Europe talks shit too,” then you’re not engaging with the claim, you’re changing the subject.

If we discussing our relationship with europe, I want it explained to me why they are jduged by different standards.

So far, all you have offered on that front is that we are "Dominate".

Having more power, means that you get less respect? Odd, that was not my takeaway from history. Or human nature.

I think that during the cold war, when we really were the grownup and europe was a herd of cats that needed controlling, that we had to bear that burden, for hte good of all.

Now, there is no reason for us to bear that burden. We need to redefine our alliances to be more in relation to the current situation.

What you're doing is the exact thing you said you don't do, namely try to derail OP's, using the exact tactic that I flagged as most commenly used by people who do it.



What does that tell you?

I am not trying to derail it. I am pointing out a basic... mistake in your thinking.

Eruope needs to be more diplomatic with US.

 

[forkup]

I agree context matters.

Context such as economic nationalism on the part of the EU versus, our trade, or then failing to meet spending targets so that they carry their weight in the alliance. Over GENERATIONS, before today.

You’re narrowing ‘context’ to grievances that justify your conclusion, rather than addressing the incentives and consequences I’m describing.

And it does exactly zero in refuting the subject of the OP. The only thing it does is conforming that as far a you're concerned, Europe is right to consider the US as a unreliable partner, and should divest because you don't give a flying **** about doing anything to sustain it.

Trump trying to make peace in the Ukraine while the chorus of anti-trumpers in eruope are heckling.

Another red herring. Instead of trying to answer my challenge to provide an example of Europe insulting Trump or MAGA, you go of on a tangent about Ukraine.

On one hand you are arguing taht our relationship NOT be "transactional"

Find me anything I said in this OP, or any other that suggest that international relationships aren't transactional. I dare you.

In fact, the fact that they are and that the math of the "transaction" is chamging to the point that Europe is finding ways to change it is the point of this OP.

Or more, you are arguing against the very concept of DIPLOMACY.

Not at all, I simply refuse to confuse the practice of diplomacy or lack thereoff with the outcomes of it.

Conversely, ALL you want to do is talk about the practice of diplomacy, or lack thereoff. While not engaging at all with my premise. Which is why I'm saying you are trying to derail the OP.

One of those outcomes has been that the American people have borne great costs, both in defense spending and in trade imbalances, that are not worth it, now that the soviet union is gone.

That's a choice you can make. Just like that choice will have consequences for Europe, forcing choices on their part. Choices that are the subject of the OP.

I am not trying to derail it. I am pointing out a basic... mistake in your thinking.

You are trying to to make an appeal to hypocrisy, by using a false analogy. With a side of red herring and strawmanning thrown in for good measure.

Nothing you say even remotely adresses or tries to deny that the US is going an isolationist course or that that course will and is having consequences.

The only thing you try to do is justify that course and try to blame the shift on Europe.

 

[22lcidw]

The rank & file don't understand global macroeconomics nearly enough to know its significance. This was an opening salvo, and there's much more to come. Our former friends aren't waiting for us to get our shit together any longer. They no longer trust us, and they're right not to.

Whatever your views, it is not like we were seeing great growth and great things happening globally the other so-called way.

 

[Correll]

You’re narrowing ‘context’ to grievances that justify your conclusion, rather than addressing the incentives and consequences I’m describing.

Hey, if nothing I say matters, then you know what? Count us untrustworthy and do with that what you will.

This is not a time for... expecting the US to take one for the team. This is a time of GIVE US WHAT WE WANT.

If it is never our turn, then why are we playing?

And it does exactly zero in refuting the subject of the OP. The only thing it does is conforming that as far a you're concerned, Europe is right to consider the US as a unreliable partner, and should divest because you don't give a flying **** about doing anything to sustain it.

No, it is Europe that doesn't seem to be willing to give a flying **** to do anything do sustain it.

We have borne the bulk of this burden for a long time. It is OUR TURN for some consideration.

Another red herring. Instead of trying to answer my challenge to provide an example of Europe insulting Trump or MAGA, you go of on a tangent about Ukraine.

Oh, you missed that that was in response to your challenge about POLICY? I thought I was clear.

Find me anything I said in this OP, or any other that suggest that international relationships aren't transactional. I dare you.

In fact, the fact that they are and that the math of the "transaction" is chamging to the point that Europe is finding ways to change it is the point of this OP.

You seem to be attacking Trump, at least in part, because he considers the relationship transactional, or becasue Trump is giving the impression to our allies that our relationship is transaction.

That strong, VERY STRONGLY implies that you DON'T want that to be the basis of our alliance.

You don't attack someone for doing something you think is right and proper...

Or do you? Are you attacking Trump for doing what you would do?

Not at all, I simply refuse to confuse the practice of diplomacy or lack thereoff with the outcomes of it.

Conversely, ALL you want to do is talk about the practice of diplomacy, or lack thereoff. While not engaging at all with my premise. Which is why I'm saying you are trying to derail the OP.

If they are not being diplomatic, then they should not expect a diplomatic SUCCESS.

Practice leads to outcomes.

Your attempt to discuss what you want, while ignoring the overall picture, is not reasonable.

And drawing your attention to the behavior of the other side, is not derailing the discussion, it si being serious about the discussion.

That's a choice you can make. Just like that choice will have consequences for Europe, forcing choices on their part. Choices that are the subject of the OP.

You are trying to to make an appeal to hypocrisy, by using a false analogy. With a side of red herring and strawmanning thrown in for good measure.

Nothing you say even remotely adresses or tries to deny that the US is going an isolationist course or that that course will and is having consequences.

The only thing you try to do is justify that course and try to blame the shift on Europe.

YOU'RE the one trying to limit the scope of discussion, so that you can give Europe a pass and put all the onus on Trump.

That is not reasonable.

Also, the more flak people like you give maga, the more you exhaust our already greatly reduced patience.

YOu want good relations with Europe? Maybe start the diplomacy HERE.