Would US foreign policy be the same if Trump left office for some reason?

As a conservative who has strongly supported the last seventy years of foreign policy shaped by the "leader of the Free World" doctrine—established from FDR through to George W. Bush—I believe America's status as a superpower and as leader of the free world will significantly diminish within 15 years. While the United States will remain the world's most powerful nation, its influence across the globe is likely to decrease.

American strength as a superpower has not always depended solely on military might, but also on the vast alliances cultivated since the end of World War II. The Trump doctrine has encouraged our closest allies—Europe, NATO, and NATO Plus countries—to take greater responsibility for their own defense capabilities. Today, Canada is increasing its defense spending to become less reliant on the U.S., and Europe is similarly investing billions, with plans to continue doing so until they no longer depend on American support for security. Likewise, NATO Plus countries such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea are expected to follow suit, building stronger partnerships with Europe and other NATO Plus nations while decreasing their reliance on the United States.

The MAGA ideology suggests that the less Europe and NATO rely on the US, the more financial resources America has for itself. While this may be accurate, it's equally true that reduced reliance by Europe and the NATO alliance on the USA also means diminished influence over them.

I don't think NATO or NATO Plus countries will form stronger alliances with Russia or China; instead, they are likely to build closer ties among themselves, independent of the US. While they won't antagonize the US, they may be less concerned with America's stance on global issues.

Ultimately, it is possible that the situation may resemble the Monroe Doctrine as envisioned by President Trump, with the United States remaining the most powerful and dominant country in the Americas. However, other regions may increasingly look to Europe for leadership. While I do not anticipate this shift occurring within the next five to seven years, it is plausible that global leadership could transition toward Europe rather than America over the next fifteen years.

It depends who fills the position. Presumably Vance, who I think would have less appetite for intervening in other countries.

Stephen Miller? Heute die Welt, Morgens das Sonnensystem!

essentialsaltes said:

Stephen Miller? Heute die Welt, Morgens das Sonnensystem!

Click to expand...

Not sure if a Russian Jew would know German, nor be flattered by your swipe.

Die Anspielungen auf Hitler sind ein Zeichen von Schwäche oder Hass

Always in His Presence said:

Die Anspielungen auf Hitler sind ein Zeichen von Schwäche oder Hass

Click to expand...

Der Ausdruck fnord stammt von den Illuminaten, nicht von den Nazis.

Vanellus said:

More weapons, including more countries having nuclear weapons, might not make the world a safer place - though individual countries may well be right to think getting nuclear capability makes them safer from countries like the US, China and Russia.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why, following World War II, U.S. foreign policy aimed to persuade European nations to depend on the United States for their security. The U.S. sought to prevent the rise of another powerful country like Germany in Europe. Instead of encouraging Europeans to participate in an arms race or build up extensive military forces, America urged them to rely on U.S. protection.

As a result, the United States spent significant resources on its own security as well as on the defense of NATO countries. This strategy has been effective for both Europe and the U.S. over the past 70 years. By not having to worry about threats from other European countries, the U.S. could concentrate on countering the USSR and other global powers outside Europe.

Due to recent US policy changes, Europe must develop its own defense. While this may seem beneficial for the US in the short term, it could create long-term threats from Europe.

What's done might continue, but i think about 90% of the crazy ideas would be scuttled.

Vanellus said:

I was just wondering how much of what is happening right now is down solely to Trump, or would it continue pretty much the same if he ceased to be President.

Click to expand...

Where Trump goes, so goes the cult.

Always in His Presence said:

Not sure if a Russian Jew would know German, nor be flattered by your swipe.

Die Anspielungen auf Hitler sind ein Zeichen von Schwäche oder Hass

Click to expand...

If they were "real" Jews instead of just faking it to be able to leave Russia for Israel, then they would know Yiddish and be able to figure it out quite easily. Yiddish has been referred to as gutter german for a very long time.

Fantine said:

What's done might continue, but i think about 90% of the crazy ideas would be scuttled.

Click to expand...

Domestic policies can be reinstated, as most are implemented through executive orders. The Department of War will revert to the Department of Defense, and the Trump Kennedy Center will return to being the Kennedy Center. Democratic party may choose to dismantle any recently constructed ballrooms and restore the facility to its previous state. The Gulf of America will again be recognized as the Gulf of Mexico. Even if Greenland has become a U.S. territory, it could be returned to Denmark on January 20, 2029.

However, the urgency among European, NATO, and NATO Plus countries to reduce reliance on the US and build independent alliances cannot be reversed easily. Developing such international alliances can take 50-70 years, and once these nations shift their focus, it rarely changes.

Europe has recognized it cannot rely on the US for security, a view unlikely to change soon. If Europe becomes strong enough to defend itself, it is unlikely to return to dependence on the US.

Similarly, China's decision to purchase most of its soybeans from Brazil is unlikely to revert to the US, just as Canada now prefers exporting its product to Europe instead of the US.

Vanellus said:

Given what has happened in Venezuela, it wouldn't be a surprise if President Lula of Brazil restarted their nuclear weapons programme.

Click to expand...

That would of course justify airstrikes.

The whole issue is moot, anyway. If I remember my Sunday School lessons correctly, only Christ can defeat Trump and what happensto the US government after that won't matter.

Vance would care more because he would want re-elected. Trmp is more money motivated. Vance is an idealist. Vance to is kind of wishy washy, more abstract. It would be totally different. I doubt vance coyld handle the criticism. He would work with Congress more.

Richard T said:

Vance would care more because he would want re-elected. Trmp is more money motivated. Vance is an idealist. Vance to is kind of wishy washy, more abstract. It would be totally different. I doubt vance coyld handle the criticism. He would work with Congress more.

Click to expand...

He might be more pliable in the hands of Miller and Hegseth and less likely to screw things up by babbling and boasting. On the other hand, he is a Roman Catholic, which might give him some backbone. He's been cozying up to the Seven Mountains crowd; maybe the Pope should have a talk with him.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Similarly, China's decision to purchase most of its soybeans from Brazil is unlikely to revert to the US, just as Canada now prefers exporting its product to Europe instead of the US.

Click to expand...

It's all part of the plan, he didn't become the best businessman, tactician, deal maker, TV personality, and leader the Universe has ever known by being some spoiled, narcissistic, stupid rich kid.

Vanellus said:

Given what has happened in Venezuela, it wouldn't be a surprise if President Lula of Brazil restarted their nuclear weapons programme.

Click to expand...

If that happens, there won't be a unified alliance supporting the US in pressuring Brazil. Our European allies are currently more concerned about Greenland than what might happen in Brazil.

Richard T said:

Vance would care more because he would want re-elected.

Click to expand...

If Vance were to become president before 2027, he would be eligible for only one more term; after the midpoint, he could run twice more.

Richard T said:

Trmp is more money motivated. Vance is an idealist. Vance to is kind of wishy washy, more abstract. It would be totally different. I doubt vance coyld handle the criticism. He would work with Congress more.

Click to expand...

Vance does not seem to have any center, but bends in the wind. Congress will likely take out their frustrations with Trump on him, but the tech bros will probably find him easier to work with than Trump was.

Argentina got the soybean contracts as well as $20B.