We've also lifted the veil on the myth that we were a unstoppable military power. We look silly saying, day after day, that the war is over, they're powerless, etc while the same channel shows that's not true.
The folks least impressed right now are China and Russia, who must surely see a new system of regional powers operating in their own spheres, not a single global power which is apparently a historical fiction.
The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
The US is relatively weak without its allies. NATO was the real superpower in the west. The current regime got too big for their britches and tried to go it alone.
Stock prices are reflection of what speculators expect to happen. So the depleted munitions thanks to Ukraine and the drive to get some independence from an unreliable Trump regime makes this unsurprising.
It depends whether you believe the paper strength or actual strength. On paper the Russian army was the second most powerful in the world. In practice it's the second most powerful in Ukraine. On paper the US army is the most powerful in the world. In practice they've been brought to a standstill by a third-rate power in the middle east. Before that in Vietnam, Iraq, and by something that's barely a country, Afghanistan. Some years ago I saw a Vietnamese film about the American War in which an NVA officer told his men "kill them and keep killing them until they stop coming". It doesn't matter how many expensive toys you have if the other side is determined to outlast you.
And don't forget who makes up NATO. Would you want to go up against someone like the Finns? Ask any US troops who have trained with them.
"How many Oreshniks do the Finns have?" To modernise Stalin.
I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but Russia is absolutely wrecking The Ukraine and by extension the NATO vassal states in Europe. It's hard for you to comprehend because your propaganda machines are incredibly effective, and your statements and questions show that you're incapable of looking at the other side and the other side is reality.
> The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
Did it get many predictions wrong? That's also pretty important, no?
Bejing doesn't care for results of op, they care for the big picture. Trump is splitting the West in half, which is great for China.
Also every piece of isolationist politics is good for them, because they try to invade Taiwan and the more isolationist the US becomes, the less resistant will there be when they actually try.
For Russia, it's just great the US attacked Iran, because the world needs Oil and now Russian oil is back on the table. The amount of weapons that the US is willed to deliver to the Ukrain on the other hand goes down as well as the political will to continue the support of the defense against Russian imperialism and grab for power.
Everything that weakens NATO in any way is great for Russia, so they are quite happy with Trump threatening the alliance.
I don't think China leadership thinks it needs to invade Taiwan. Competing against an hyper-specialized country is hard, but if they manage to produce chips 90% as good as Taiwan, the later is in for a wild economic ride, which will probably end up as Taiwan as an autonomous Chinese region without firing any guns.
exactly, it's very naive some folks fall for this China invading Taiwan narrative, just look what happened with Hong Kong, it had size of like 30% of Chinese economy (when they took over), which is why they agreed with autonomy, now it's down to like what - 3%? basically irelevant ordinary develoepd CN city, same will happen with Taiwan, people will vote with their wallets in the end especially if the other option is support from US gerontocracy ruled by crazies
people thinking China needs to invade Taiwan are very short-sighted thinking in western 5 year election cycles, which don't work in China, China has all the time in the world to wait unlike these western marketing products for 1-2 terms they call politicians (and I don't write it as some China admiration, just stating the facts their political system works different way whether you like it or not, but I would for sure prefer EU making deals with China instead of US also regarding security, they are more reliable not abusive partner)
Never thought about it, but i see where it is coming from. Even after my own trip to China i still thought China would invade Taiwan sooner or later, because the idea is deeply ingrained in my mind. It is only recently that i thought about it a bit, and even a successful invasion would be at least as bad for China as Tibet invasion was. So maybe their leadership grows complacent and dumb, which may happen, or Taiwan will just rejoin China naturally during a global economic crisis.
Lots of Americans don't get it yet but what we're living through is the end of what was sometimes called the "post-war international order" that began in 1945. America's allies in western Europe have been deliberately alienated and our electorate has shown itself to be too volatile, unpredictable, and frankly dumb to elect a trustworthy government.
Intelligence-sharing from countries once, and still sort of nominally, our allies has been curtailed because no one can trust that information shared with us won't make its way to other countries that do not wish them well. That trust will take decades to rebuild if in fact it can be, and by that time, the world will be a very different place.
The current administration is in the grip of religious fanatics with delusional, apocalyptic views of the world, as is much of the political party they come from. Nobody sensible trusts people like that, nor should they. It will take a generation to remove these people from political power, and it's far from clear that a majority of the electorate even wants to.
Meanwhile, the US is gutting the science and education infrastructure that was rightly the envy of the world and making itself hostile to immigrants from nearly the entire world, when being a draw to the best and brightest served it so well for so long. Again, damage being done in a matter of years will take decades to recover from.
It's not time to pack it in but it is time to recognize that America does not now and will in all likelihood never again hold the place in the world it did from 1945 to 2017. The America that most adults alive now grew up in is gone and the one their children and grandchildren will inhabit will likely be much diminished.
Didn't have to happen but that's where we are and we brought it on ourselves.
Well, what did they expect, electing a demented person to rule them all, and then voluntarily surrendering legislative and judicial power to him too. A deliberate suicide for a country. Bet they showed those libturds who's da boss :) .
> I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover.
Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election (if they hold every one that they currently hold, it requires them to take 20 of the 22 Republican-held seats.)
> I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
I don't think the world is waiting at all, it is just taking time to work out the shape of the big changes, whether its European defense integration to replace the historically-pivotal role of the US, or any of large number of other changes nations are actively and openly working on.
Now, if the present direction of the US changes, some of those efforts may be abandoned or deprioritized, but "could potentially stop work" is not the same thing as "waiting to start".
>Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33
I know, it is very unlikely this will happen. But I was just pointing out what I think needs to happen for the article to be wrong.
And someone in another comment brought up the military. A failing/fascist US with its military is something I really worry about for the world. I think Nov 2026 is the last chance the US has to change path.
The fact that the protagonist in this lament ever thought that the US was even once considered benevolent is risible.
That's the problem with USAian politicians and bureaucrats.
They have no education, no cultural knowledge, and lack the ability and the desire to understand the other side. They always act as if they don't have to OR project their own malicious intentions onto others.
We should give credit to Trump for ripping off the thin mask of US "diplomacy."
So the story is... a publication that opposes the party currently in power, quoting a few people from the side that's presently out of power, saying that their being out of power is really bad, and we may never recover?
How is this different than the whining we get when the roles are reversed?
I realize you folks hate each other, but it would be nice if either of you could talk about something without turning it into a rant about how great, noble and good your side is and how awful the other side is.
To someone neutral (yeah, humor me), the Trump administration has done far more to demolish the reputation of the US than any other administration in my lifetime (OK, maybe Nixon - I don't remember all that much about him firsthand).
But I would also say that Biden, while not as bad as Trump, was worse than anybody since Nixon.
Which of Biden's policies and actions did you find worse than any since Nixon? And where do you rank the Iraq debacle that Bush started? How about selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua?
Remember what we're talking about. It's not about their policies per se, it's about what they do to the US's international reputation.
So what did Biden do? The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan was the biggest thing. But his own frailty didn't help (speech fumbling and falling on stairs). Yeah, I know, his personal frailty shouldn't affect the US's reputation. But I think it did.
I mean, yes, the fact that we were leaving at all is due to Trump. (Either credit or blame, depending on whether you think we should have stayed there.) But the absolute debacle of how we left is on Biden. And it's that debacle that tarnished the reputation of the US.
Admitting it can wain admits the concepts of waxing and waining, which admits the concept of waxing. It could rise again. it depends how bad the other choices become exploiting their new found international reputation.
Also, it was built on useful largesse. I think the beginning of the end to me (I am sure it predates this, but this is when I became more conscious of it) was when the funding of the UN dried up because militant american christianity hates women's reproductive rights. That was a massive flip in posture towards a rational approach to improved health in Africa and for what? For a short term domestic agenda. The UN systematic corruption and money laundering was a huge issue but what motivated the change wasn't "cleaning up the UN" it was putting contraception back in the box.
[edit: "this century" meaning "in the last 25 years" because during the Vietnam era, American reputation was pretty low worldwide. I keep forgetting we're in a new century. The war on sex was President-pro-tem Nancy Reagan era stuff.]
People often prioritize "reputation" over other things, as if it is politically actionable or tangible.
It's not, and it's a projection of peoples' personal feelings onto the actions of a nation-state.
Honestly, it's odd behavior. To identify with a nation-state so strongly to care about it's "reputation" over actual material measures. It's parasocial and indicitave of people treating politics as a consumer form of entertainment, and not something they engage in in their daily lives. As if you were a foreign diplomat, might be the only time "reputation" mattered in the way that people talk about it.
Internationally, reputation is, essentially, your country's track record projected forward in other nations' thinking. It's their expectation value for how you will behave in the future.
People prioritize reputation because that's pretty much all there is to go on. Treaties? Sure, but how likely is the country to keep the terms of it? Agreements? Same question. Place for investments? How good is the rule of law there, and how likely is that to continue? Those are reputation questions; that is, they are questions about future behavior as predicted by past behavior.
66 comments
The folks least impressed right now are China and Russia, who must surely see a new system of regional powers operating in their own spheres, not a single global power which is apparently a historical fiction.
The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
> The only leverage NATO would be able to provide the US today would be political.
Not sure what you are saying. NATO provides critical support for the Iran war by allowing the US having military bases in their countries.
Is this not getting reported in your countries? Colour me surprised.
More will follow as Trump descends into further insanity.
And don't forget who makes up NATO. Would you want to go up against someone like the Finns? Ask any US troops who have trained with them.
I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but Russia is absolutely wrecking The Ukraine and by extension the NATO vassal states in Europe. It's hard for you to comprehend because your propaganda machines are incredibly effective, and your statements and questions show that you're incapable of looking at the other side and the other side is reality.
> The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
Did it get many predictions wrong? That's also pretty important, no?
For Russia, it's just great the US attacked Iran, because the world needs Oil and now Russian oil is back on the table. The amount of weapons that the US is willed to deliver to the Ukrain on the other hand goes down as well as the political will to continue the support of the defense against Russian imperialism and grab for power. Everything that weakens NATO in any way is great for Russia, so they are quite happy with Trump threatening the alliance.
people thinking China needs to invade Taiwan are very short-sighted thinking in western 5 year election cycles, which don't work in China, China has all the time in the world to wait unlike these western marketing products for 1-2 terms they call politicians (and I don't write it as some China admiration, just stating the facts their political system works different way whether you like it or not, but I would for sure prefer EU making deals with China instead of US also regarding security, they are more reliable not abusive partner)
> the world needs Oil and now Russian oil is back on the tabl
Last week, Russia announced that any export of Oil will be stopped immediately
> Trump is splitting the West in half, which is great for China.
What. West.
NATO is as useful as a chocolate teapot. Trump has merely laid bare the truth.
Intelligence-sharing from countries once, and still sort of nominally, our allies has been curtailed because no one can trust that information shared with us won't make its way to other countries that do not wish them well. That trust will take decades to rebuild if in fact it can be, and by that time, the world will be a very different place.
The current administration is in the grip of religious fanatics with delusional, apocalyptic views of the world, as is much of the political party they come from. Nobody sensible trusts people like that, nor should they. It will take a generation to remove these people from political power, and it's far from clear that a majority of the electorate even wants to.
Meanwhile, the US is gutting the science and education infrastructure that was rightly the envy of the world and making itself hostile to immigrants from nearly the entire world, when being a draw to the best and brightest served it so well for so long. Again, damage being done in a matter of years will take decades to recover from.
It's not time to pack it in but it is time to recognize that America does not now and will in all likelihood never again hold the place in the world it did from 1945 to 2017. The America that most adults alive now grew up in is gone and the one their children and grandchildren will inhabit will likely be much diminished.
Didn't have to happen but that's where we are and we brought it on ourselves.
> I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover.
Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election (if they hold every one that they currently hold, it requires them to take 20 of the 22 Republican-held seats.)
> I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
I don't think the world is waiting at all, it is just taking time to work out the shape of the big changes, whether its European defense integration to replace the historically-pivotal role of the US, or any of large number of other changes nations are actively and openly working on.
Now, if the present direction of the US changes, some of those efforts may be abandoned or deprioritized, but "could potentially stop work" is not the same thing as "waiting to start".
>Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33
I know, it is very unlikely this will happen. But I was just pointing out what I think needs to happen for the article to be wrong.
And someone in another comment brought up the military. A failing/fascist US with its military is something I really worry about for the world. I think Nov 2026 is the last chance the US has to change path.
That's the problem with USAian politicians and bureaucrats.
They have no education, no cultural knowledge, and lack the ability and the desire to understand the other side. They always act as if they don't have to OR project their own malicious intentions onto others.
We should give credit to Trump for ripping off the thin mask of US "diplomacy."
How is this different than the whining we get when the roles are reversed?
I realize you folks hate each other, but it would be nice if either of you could talk about something without turning it into a rant about how great, noble and good your side is and how awful the other side is.
But I would also say that Biden, while not as bad as Trump, was worse than anybody since Nixon.
So what did Biden do? The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan was the biggest thing. But his own frailty didn't help (speech fumbling and falling on stairs). Yeah, I know, his personal frailty shouldn't affect the US's reputation. But I think it did.
I mean, yes, the fact that we were leaving at all is due to Trump. (Either credit or blame, depending on whether you think we should have stayed there.) But the absolute debacle of how we left is on Biden. And it's that debacle that tarnished the reputation of the US.
> And it's that debacle that tarnished the reputation of the US.
Worse than any since Nixon?
Also, it was built on useful largesse. I think the beginning of the end to me (I am sure it predates this, but this is when I became more conscious of it) was when the funding of the UN dried up because militant american christianity hates women's reproductive rights. That was a massive flip in posture towards a rational approach to improved health in Africa and for what? For a short term domestic agenda. The UN systematic corruption and money laundering was a huge issue but what motivated the change wasn't "cleaning up the UN" it was putting contraception back in the box.
[edit: "this century" meaning "in the last 25 years" because during the Vietnam era, American reputation was pretty low worldwide. I keep forgetting we're in a new century. The war on sex was President-pro-tem Nancy Reagan era stuff.]
People prioritize reputation because that's pretty much all there is to go on. Treaties? Sure, but how likely is the country to keep the terms of it? Agreements? Same question. Place for investments? How good is the rule of law there, and how likely is that to continue? Those are reputation questions; that is, they are questions about future behavior as predicted by past behavior.