Ringo
Gold Member
After Churchill's famous Fulton speech, the so-called collective West became the main strategic player in the political life of the planet. The confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
The Cold War.
When the USSR collapsed and the Cold War ended, there was talk of dissolving NATO.
What's it for now?
There's no longer a standoff. But not only was NATO not disbanded, a number of former Warsaw Pact countries were included. Eastward expansion.
If you search youtube for old discussions on this topic, you can find a number of Henry Kissinger interviews.
Here is his argument from the 90's. Fire insurance should not be bought after the fire, but in advance.
Russia is not a threat now, in the 90s, so NATO is not against Russia. It's just insurance.
And very cheap insurance, since Russia is weak now, and there will be no retaliation.
In short, NATO was not disbanded, but Europe itself did something original, it de facto withdrew from NATO financially and militarily.
European countries spent much less on NATO than the quotas established by the treaty, 2-3 times less.
And European countries reduced their armies. And they reduced the output of military weapons.
For example, in 2024, Germany produced as many as 18 new tanks.
Moreover, the U.S. kept insisting on reducing Europe's gas and oil dependence on Russia, and Europe didn't give a damn.
It's cheaper in Russia.
So Europe was de facto acting strategically against NATO.
Finally, because of the asymmetrical tariffs, there has been a steady increase in the U.S.-European trade deficit.
According to Trump, Europe was profiting at the expense of the US
In short, it was a strange situation.
Europe on paper remained in NATO, the purpose of which was the defense of Europe.
It was part of the West.
But Europe demanded that the U.S. pay for it.
And for several decades, the U.S. had been paying for it.
But today the situation has changed. For the U.S., the main geopolitical adversary is China.
For which, unlike the USSR, Europe is not a field of potential hostilities.
And Europe, without armies and without a military industry, cannot even theoretically help the U.S. in its main confrontation
Europe has become a periphery that pulls money and loads with problems.
From the situation described above, we can assume that the Trump administration has concluded that the alliance with Western Europe over the past 30 years has been strategically misguided for the US.
This conclusion is difficult for many of us to accept psychologically, because for us the West means an alliance of democratic forces.
And for the world, the end of such an alliance is a catastrophe for our fundamental values.
But there are no values in geopolitics, only interests.
Thus, in the new situation, when Trump is sitting in Washington, there is virtually no collective West. It exists in people's heads, in the media, but not in the offices of strategists. Europe and the U.S. have no common geopolitical interests.
All the more so because the overall financial situation for the U.S. is dire.
Debt payments already exceed the military budget.
The trade deficit is huge and the U.S. is sinking into debt.
These are all facts from which, as I understand it, Trump has concluded that he is ending the alliance with Europe.
About the end of American financial investment in European problems.
From his point of view, US involvement in European politics brings no benefits, only costs.
But unlike Western Europe, Russia could be a very useful strategic ally for the U.S. in the context of the fight against China. This is probably Trump's fantasy that he is driven by.
Russia, unlike Europe, shares a border with China.
If (Trump's dream) the US and RF were to enter into a military pact, China would be surrounded on all sides.
A military ally from the RF is wonderful, as economically Russia is no competitor for the US.
Finally, China is no friend to anyone, including RF.
And China has a clear interest in extending its economic influence to the Far East and Siberia, for example.
And Russia has no way to counter this except through an alliance with the US or Europe.
In short, Russia and China are not allies, but, so to speak, geopolitical fellow travelers.
Against the backdrop of their common opposition to the United States.
So, in theory, the US could try to play the Russian card, and use the Kremlin to remain the leading power in the world.
.
It is also obvious that the Kremlin is far from naive, and they are counting on the possibility of a long term hitch with Xi Jin Ping, but they don't believe that the agreement with Trump will not be a fiction in 4 years.
So the Czar is not running into Trump's arms, by virtue of their temporariness.
Besides, what is Trump proposing?
To make peace with the US.
And Europe doesn't want to make peace.
And this awakened Europe still needs to be confronted.
So for the Kremlin, Trump's proposals are a small fish.
Now, more on the Russian direction.
Is it possible today to openly say that U.S. policy toward Russia has been wrong for the past three decades?
It is categorically not advisable to do so - they'll be imprisoned .
Society today is not ripe for independent reflection. Well, to hell with society.
In the previous paragraph, I already wrote about NATO's eastward advance, and quoted Kissinger's words. It's not against Russia, it's insurance.
But it is interesting to see on youtube a video of Gorbachev speaking in America in 1997.
Gorbachev was outraged.
- I ask them, is this your new strategy? - Gorbachev says. - They say no. Then what is it for? Where will it lead to? What, are we going to start playing cards against each other now?
That was the Gorbachev narrative.
I once read that one of the Polynesian tribes has no understanding that making love leads to procreation.
They don't know about it. It's really not obvious.
After all, there's a long nine months between the night of lovemaking and the birth of a child.
Who remembers what happened there?
The public also has no understanding of strategic moves in foreign policy.
Few realize that the inclusion of a number of Eastern European countries in NATO could lead to war in 30 years .
Not only the public, but also the politicians themselves.
After all, what was the situation then.
Suddenly, all of a sudden, a unipolar world was thrust upon the United States .
No strong strategic enemies.
Budget surplus.
Do what you want.
Spend trillions to hang Saddam Hussein.
You want to put Romania in NATO.
No one's stopping you. Russia is weak.
China's in poverty.
And now? It's different. China is slowly winning.
And trade deficits with everyone.
And industry is moving to Asia.
And debt is rising. The end of the empire.
In fact, another 5-10 years of such trends and it will be the end. In short, something has to be done.
If you take the analysis above as a basis, a lot of what Trump is trying to do makes sense.
It's unclear how well it will all work, but it's clear what's driving his actions.
We need to stabilize the budget, cut spending on the state apparatus and on grants.
We need to impose tariffs so industry can come back and there won't be a deficit.
We need to spit on Europe.
And start bypassing China.
How likely is it that this plan will come to fruition?
I don't know.
But it seems to me that Trump is the one, who has a small chance.
Everything he does is met with bayonets and there is internal resistance.
What will happen as a result of the tariffs?
Industry won't start coming back until about four years from now.
Before that, there will be inflation and recession.
And a Democrat will be elected...
What will happen in Europe?
It seems to me that Europe has not yet decided what it needs to do.
It's between the US and China, and economically, Europe has not been an ally of the US for a long time.
And China is cheaper .
It has resisted America for a long time and spent nothing on weapons, and all of a sudden it needs to invest a huge amount of money.
The main thing is that I think Europe will start to break up.
Different countries have different strategic interests there.
England and France are happy to invest a trillion or two in their military industries.
Russia's neighbors (Finland, Poland, Ukraine and Turkey) are a different bloc. Their interest is to merge their armies into one bloc. And to order weapons from Turkey, not France. Turkey is much cheaper.
There are also countries in the center of Europe. Germany. It has never wanted to build an army, and it has always wanted to trade with the Kremlin. It's the third interest group in Europe.
How these three groups will come to a common denominator is unclear.
But Trump has little interest in these options, for him the main direction is the сhinese .
Here's if the EU and US agreed on a common tariff system on trade with China, remove tariffs on US products, and invest in the US economy, that might help keep the collective West together
If Europe and the US have a common geopolitical adversary, rather than different ones.
And, I haven't done the math, but the money spent by Europe on this option would be quite comparable to what it is going to spend on weapons. But no one is discussing this option at all for some reason.
On the whole, in the late 90s, American foreign policy was wrong in almost all directions.
Back then, the US position in the world was uniquely strong, and politicians squandered it all recklessly.
All of the current problems could have been avoided...
The Cold War.
When the USSR collapsed and the Cold War ended, there was talk of dissolving NATO.
What's it for now?
There's no longer a standoff. But not only was NATO not disbanded, a number of former Warsaw Pact countries were included. Eastward expansion.
If you search youtube for old discussions on this topic, you can find a number of Henry Kissinger interviews.
Here is his argument from the 90's. Fire insurance should not be bought after the fire, but in advance.
Russia is not a threat now, in the 90s, so NATO is not against Russia. It's just insurance.
And very cheap insurance, since Russia is weak now, and there will be no retaliation.
In short, NATO was not disbanded, but Europe itself did something original, it de facto withdrew from NATO financially and militarily.
European countries spent much less on NATO than the quotas established by the treaty, 2-3 times less.
And European countries reduced their armies. And they reduced the output of military weapons.
For example, in 2024, Germany produced as many as 18 new tanks.
Moreover, the U.S. kept insisting on reducing Europe's gas and oil dependence on Russia, and Europe didn't give a damn.
It's cheaper in Russia.
So Europe was de facto acting strategically against NATO.
Finally, because of the asymmetrical tariffs, there has been a steady increase in the U.S.-European trade deficit.
According to Trump, Europe was profiting at the expense of the US
In short, it was a strange situation.
Europe on paper remained in NATO, the purpose of which was the defense of Europe.
It was part of the West.
But Europe demanded that the U.S. pay for it.
And for several decades, the U.S. had been paying for it.
But today the situation has changed. For the U.S., the main geopolitical adversary is China.
For which, unlike the USSR, Europe is not a field of potential hostilities.
And Europe, without armies and without a military industry, cannot even theoretically help the U.S. in its main confrontation
Europe has become a periphery that pulls money and loads with problems.
From the situation described above, we can assume that the Trump administration has concluded that the alliance with Western Europe over the past 30 years has been strategically misguided for the US.
This conclusion is difficult for many of us to accept psychologically, because for us the West means an alliance of democratic forces.
And for the world, the end of such an alliance is a catastrophe for our fundamental values.
But there are no values in geopolitics, only interests.
Thus, in the new situation, when Trump is sitting in Washington, there is virtually no collective West. It exists in people's heads, in the media, but not in the offices of strategists. Europe and the U.S. have no common geopolitical interests.
All the more so because the overall financial situation for the U.S. is dire.
Debt payments already exceed the military budget.
The trade deficit is huge and the U.S. is sinking into debt.
These are all facts from which, as I understand it, Trump has concluded that he is ending the alliance with Europe.
About the end of American financial investment in European problems.
From his point of view, US involvement in European politics brings no benefits, only costs.
But unlike Western Europe, Russia could be a very useful strategic ally for the U.S. in the context of the fight against China. This is probably Trump's fantasy that he is driven by.
Russia, unlike Europe, shares a border with China.
If (Trump's dream) the US and RF were to enter into a military pact, China would be surrounded on all sides.
A military ally from the RF is wonderful, as economically Russia is no competitor for the US.
Finally, China is no friend to anyone, including RF.
And China has a clear interest in extending its economic influence to the Far East and Siberia, for example.
And Russia has no way to counter this except through an alliance with the US or Europe.
In short, Russia and China are not allies, but, so to speak, geopolitical fellow travelers.
Against the backdrop of their common opposition to the United States.
So, in theory, the US could try to play the Russian card, and use the Kremlin to remain the leading power in the world.
.
It is also obvious that the Kremlin is far from naive, and they are counting on the possibility of a long term hitch with Xi Jin Ping, but they don't believe that the agreement with Trump will not be a fiction in 4 years.
So the Czar is not running into Trump's arms, by virtue of their temporariness.
Besides, what is Trump proposing?
To make peace with the US.
And Europe doesn't want to make peace.
And this awakened Europe still needs to be confronted.
So for the Kremlin, Trump's proposals are a small fish.
Now, more on the Russian direction.
Is it possible today to openly say that U.S. policy toward Russia has been wrong for the past three decades?
It is categorically not advisable to do so - they'll be imprisoned .
Society today is not ripe for independent reflection. Well, to hell with society.
In the previous paragraph, I already wrote about NATO's eastward advance, and quoted Kissinger's words. It's not against Russia, it's insurance.
But it is interesting to see on youtube a video of Gorbachev speaking in America in 1997.
Gorbachev was outraged.
- I ask them, is this your new strategy? - Gorbachev says. - They say no. Then what is it for? Where will it lead to? What, are we going to start playing cards against each other now?
That was the Gorbachev narrative.
I once read that one of the Polynesian tribes has no understanding that making love leads to procreation.
They don't know about it. It's really not obvious.
After all, there's a long nine months between the night of lovemaking and the birth of a child.
Who remembers what happened there?
The public also has no understanding of strategic moves in foreign policy.
Few realize that the inclusion of a number of Eastern European countries in NATO could lead to war in 30 years .
Not only the public, but also the politicians themselves.
After all, what was the situation then.
Suddenly, all of a sudden, a unipolar world was thrust upon the United States .
No strong strategic enemies.
Budget surplus.
Do what you want.
Spend trillions to hang Saddam Hussein.
You want to put Romania in NATO.
No one's stopping you. Russia is weak.
China's in poverty.
And now? It's different. China is slowly winning.
And trade deficits with everyone.
And industry is moving to Asia.
And debt is rising. The end of the empire.
In fact, another 5-10 years of such trends and it will be the end. In short, something has to be done.
If you take the analysis above as a basis, a lot of what Trump is trying to do makes sense.
It's unclear how well it will all work, but it's clear what's driving his actions.
We need to stabilize the budget, cut spending on the state apparatus and on grants.
We need to impose tariffs so industry can come back and there won't be a deficit.
We need to spit on Europe.
And start bypassing China.
How likely is it that this plan will come to fruition?
I don't know.
But it seems to me that Trump is the one, who has a small chance.
Everything he does is met with bayonets and there is internal resistance.
What will happen as a result of the tariffs?
Industry won't start coming back until about four years from now.
Before that, there will be inflation and recession.
And a Democrat will be elected...
What will happen in Europe?
It seems to me that Europe has not yet decided what it needs to do.
It's between the US and China, and economically, Europe has not been an ally of the US for a long time.
And China is cheaper .
It has resisted America for a long time and spent nothing on weapons, and all of a sudden it needs to invest a huge amount of money.
The main thing is that I think Europe will start to break up.
Different countries have different strategic interests there.
England and France are happy to invest a trillion or two in their military industries.
Russia's neighbors (Finland, Poland, Ukraine and Turkey) are a different bloc. Their interest is to merge their armies into one bloc. And to order weapons from Turkey, not France. Turkey is much cheaper.
There are also countries in the center of Europe. Germany. It has never wanted to build an army, and it has always wanted to trade with the Kremlin. It's the third interest group in Europe.
How these three groups will come to a common denominator is unclear.
But Trump has little interest in these options, for him the main direction is the сhinese .
Here's if the EU and US agreed on a common tariff system on trade with China, remove tariffs on US products, and invest in the US economy, that might help keep the collective West together
If Europe and the US have a common geopolitical adversary, rather than different ones.
And, I haven't done the math, but the money spent by Europe on this option would be quite comparable to what it is going to spend on weapons. But no one is discussing this option at all for some reason.
On the whole, in the late 90s, American foreign policy was wrong in almost all directions.
Back then, the US position in the world was uniquely strong, and politicians squandered it all recklessly.
All of the current problems could have been avoided...
