Republican isolationism & a perfect storm of troubles

[mindlight]

A perfect storm of troubles is brewing and an unprecedented collaboration of Western rivals.

1) IRAN - backs the trade war being waged by the Houthis against trade going through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.
It also backs Hamas whose contribution to the "Resistance" to Western hegemony is to destroy their reputation with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Hezbollah appears absent from any strategic plan at the moment, though watch this space.

2) CHINA - The election of a pro-sovereignty candidate in Taiwan could mean that war with China has now become more rather than less likely.

3) RUSSIA - Russian dreams of restoring imperial or soviet boundaries hinge on victory in Ukraine. The war has become one of attrition and remains crucially dependent on American support.

This is time for wise, strong leaders who persist in doing what is right and crucially require the following:

1) A commitment to support Ukraine.
2) Keeping trade flowing past Yemen and in the straits of Hormuz
3) Security guarantees to Taiwan
4) A moderated support with Israel that allows them to destroy Hamas while minimizing the humanitarian cost of that
5) A continued commitment of the USA to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Once countries like Japan do not believe America would defend them they are more likely to develop their nuclear weapons and a general proliferation of possession and risk is more likely.

The biggest threat to world peace and security right now is Republican isolationism. If Trump wins in 2024 that is most likely to lead to:

1) Ukrainian defeat and the advance of Russia to the Carpathians
2) American indifference to an invasion of Taiwan
3) The end of NATO and a big increase in world instability. More wars and greater economic instability.

 

[Laodicean60]

You know your request is a tall order for the USA and Americans as a whole.

Keeping trade flowing past Yemen and in the straits of Hormuz

Yes the USA and UK are doing it now and the rest?

A continued commitment of the USA to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty

What has NATO done to beef up its defense or is it USA's problem only? The hated Trump told NATO to provide more GDP to defense maybe because he saw the possible outcome of our meddling in 2014, in Ukraine. The left and the right need to take their blinders off.

 

[mindlight]

You know your request is a tall order for the USA and Americans as a whole.

Yes the USA and UK are doing it now and the rest?

What has NATO done to beef up its defense or is it USA's problem only? The hated Trump told NATO to provide more GDP to defense maybe because he saw the possible outcome of our meddling in 2014, in Ukraine. The left and the right need to take their blinders off.

Why is this a tall order? Republicans could select Haley as their primary candidate or indeed Biden may just have to beat Trump again.

Right now US and the UK are broadly acting right - it is the future I am worried about.

There is a seachange going on in the rest of NATO and indeed USA's wider network of allies. Spending is rising. Germany especially has seen a considerable increase in capability under the current defense secretary Pistorius in just the last year and maybe more importantly mentality. It is obvious to most nations that an army is there to fight for its country. This has not been obvious to many Germans for a great many years but is now changing. The fear here is that all this progress will be thrown away by Trump.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Germany’s new defence-policy guidelines

The new guidelines are clear, ambitious and will encourage a much-needed mental shift for the armed forces – and for the political class and the public – that sets warfighting as the central task of the Bundeswehr.

www.iiss.org

https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2023/DOJ2023_Digest_EN.pdf

 

[Laodicean60]

Why is this a tall order?

Just think about it! We don't have a magic money tree in the USA, wars cost citizens money. Not only that but LIVES! Do you realize we lost two navy seals around the Somalia area?

it is the future I am worried about.

As I said before the future we created as a whole.

Germany’s new defence-policy guidelines

Seems our NATO partner has been riding the coattails of the Americans. Trump demanded Nato to spend at least 2%, in 2018, on the military and now it's an emergency.

Germany - ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) 2012-2022 | Statista

The ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) in Germany increased by 0.1 percentage points (+7.52 percent) in 2022 in comparison to the previous year.

www.statista.com

 

[Gene2memE]

Seems our NATO partner has been riding the coattails of the Americans. Trump demanded Nato to spend at least 2%, in 2018, on the military and now it's an emergency.

That's not a Trump thing, that's a NATO thing. As of 2006 part of nation's commitment to NATO is that military spending makes up 2% of GDP.

Trump, despite his very voluble statements, managed to do very little when it came to prodding defense spending from non-US countries. Pre-COVID I used to attend some aerospace & defense related conferences. A friend - who is an executive at a European defense conglomerate - commented that Mr Trump's "inelegant toddler stomping" and threatening to take his ball and go home in 2017/2018 did more harm than good. To the point where some acquisition deals for US defense equipment were shelved because of concerns about the US rescinding approvals.

The first big change came in 2014, when the Obama administration got European NATO members (and Canada) to commit to a 10 year aspiration to raise defense spending to 2% (i.e. by 2024) in exchange for the US eliminating a number of blocks on technology export limitations. The second came in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and Europe realised that it needed to re-arm AND provide support for Ukraine.

Here's NATO's own analysis of defense spending in the alliance for 2014 to 2023:

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf

And here's an analysis of what happened at the Wales meeting in 2014 to prompt the 2% commitment:

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_252_Techau_NATO_Final.pdf

 

[mindlight]

Just think about it! We don't have a magic money tree in the USA, wars cost citizens money. Not only that but LIVES! Do you realize we lost two navy seals around the Somalia area?

As I said before the future we created as a whole.

Seems our NATO partner has been riding the coattails of the Americans. Trump demanded Nato to spend at least 2%, in 2018, on the military and now it's an emergency.

Germany - ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) 2012-2022 | Statista

The ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) in Germany increased by 0.1 percentage points (+7.52 percent) in 2022 in comparison to the previous year.

www.statista.com

View attachment 341377

It is more cost-effective for the USA to have allies than not to have allies. Allies represent a force magnifier, extra bases and the reduced costs of deploying to various theatres.

Those seals probably died fighting pirates that threatened trade in that area. America needs this trade to run smoothly as much as the rest of the world. There are also NATO warships deployed in the same area which again represent a force magnifier and also add legitimacy to America's presence there. The British and Australians also lose soldiers in such actions.

The historical decisions that got us to this point are less relevant than how we move forward. We are better off together than apart.

I am as disappointed as you are with German commitment to its national defense over the last decade but things are changing and big budget increases and basic restocking of key supplies like ammunition is beginning to occur. It is a measure of how deep the problem is that it is taking so much to turn it around. As long as Ukraine war lasts the tide will keep turning. Even peace should not disrupt the new evaluation that the military should at the very least be able to defend Germany's borders from all potential threats and more than that should be able to assist weaker allies.

Those numbers do not properly reflect the deeper changes in mentality and preparedness. More is now being spent on new equipment for instance and serious thought is devoted to major practical issues like ammunition stocks.

 

[mindlight]

That's not a Trump thing, that's a NATO thing. As of 2006 part of nation's commitment to NATO is that military spending makes up 2% of GDP.

Trump, despite his very voluble statements, managed to do very little when it came to prodding defense spending from non-US countries. Pre-COVID I used to attend some aerospace & defense related conferences. A friend - who is an executive at a European defense conglomerate - commented that Mr Trump's "inelegant toddler stomping" and threatening to take his ball and go home in 2017/2018 did more harm than good. To the point where some acquisition deals for US defense equipment were shelved because of concerns about the US rescinding approvals.

The first big change came in 2014, when the Obama administration got European NATO members (and Canada) to commit to a 10 year aspiration to raise defense spending to 2% (i.e. by 2024) in exchange for the US eliminating a number of blocks on technology export limitations. The second came in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and Europe realised that it needed to re-arm AND provide support for Ukraine.

Here's NATO's own analysis of defense spending in the alliance for 2014 to 2023:

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf

And here's an analysis of what happened at the Wales meeting in 2014 to prompt the 2% commitment:

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_252_Techau_NATO_Final.pdf

It seems that in Germany there was already a commitment to raising expenditures but it was being ineptly handled and without any real view of warfighting in practice. What Trump did was put European backs up and make them more determined to pursue their interests despite all the noise of American protests. So the strategic vulnerability to Russian energy supplies was accentuated, German businessmen accelerated their blind rush into Chinese markets increasing Germany's dependency on that trade, and a certain arrogance developed in the EU elite that Europe could simply ignore American warnings. At the time Merkel revelled in her new status as Queen of the free world while the EU regarded Trump as unfit to govern his own country let alone the free world.

It took a real crisis and the resurgence of an obvious threat to wake Germany and Europe out of their blind stupor but it is happening now. Trump's bullying style contributed to the blindness that existed here before the war reinforcing the peaceniks and the fools rather than those who were serious about European defense. A new presidency threatens to end NATO and abandon Taiwan and Ukraine. That would be a world that the EU would be alone in and unprepared for.

 

[Laodicean60]

It is more cost-effective for the USA to have allies than not to have allies.

I agree and I hope you didn't get the impression that we don't need allies. Time will tell of the cost.

As long as Ukraine war lasts the tide will keep turning.

I hope Ukraine wins quickly because a war of attrition is what Putin wants. Over time the West will be fatigued by the spending and Ukraine will lose support especially if the fight is like the last two years. Also, the global economy is slowing and it might bring the US with it, then it'll be a big sacrifice for our government and the people once we are in a recession.

Trump's bullying style contributed to the blindness that existed here before the war

We blind ourselves no matter what someone does and that's part of tribalism or emotions. It's my choice to listen to people whether I like their views or not.
I won't watch Trump because of his mannerisms. I don't care for arrogant people but his acting as a New York tough boy may have scared Putin enough to stay away from Ukraine. And democrats were afraid of him too you know the red button. Who knows?

 

[Gene2memE]

I agree and I hope you didn't get the impression that we don't need allies. Time will tell of the cost.

I hope Ukraine wins quickly because a war of attrition is what Putin wants.

I also hope Ukraine wins quickly, but I don't think a war of attrition is what Putin wants, I think it's what Ukraine has forced him into.

Over time the West will be fatigued by the spending

Sure, but Russia is going to be fatigued even more.

Russia is actively losing men and equipment on the battlefield, along with Ukrainian sabotage groups and "smoking accidents" doing damage to the country's infrastructure.

The West is sending a combination of new production ammunition, old war stocks and (largely) demobilised equipment. Most of the money being spent on equipment by Western nations is being re-invested within their own borders (for instance, about 75-80% of the nominal dollar value of US military aid to Ukraine gets spent inside the US).

The biggest burden on the West, financially speaking, is from humanitarian aid.

and Ukraine will lose support especially if the fight is like the last two years.

Doubtful. There are a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements that will keep up a flow of armaments to Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Here's a recent analysis of Ukrain's defense partnerships and its move to indigenous production:

Institute for the Study of War

Ukraine is dramatically expanding its defense industrial capacity to develop the ability over time to satisfy its military requirements with significantly reduced foreign military assistance. Ukraine is pursuing three primary lines of effort to achieve

www.understandingwar.org

I'm not arguing that Ukraine doesn't need Western support, but it's apparent that Ukraine is determined to move towards self-sufficiency in terms of at least some of its military requirements.

Also, the global economy is slowing and it might bring the US with it, then it'll be a big sacrifice for our government and the people once we are in a recession.

Kinda.

Global economic growth was about 2.7 to 3.2% in 2023 (depending on the measuring and the measurer). Global economic growth is forecast to be in the range of 2.5% to 3.1% in 2024 and then somewhere between 2.7% to 3.5% in 2025.

US growth is forecast at about 1.6% to 2% in 2024, growing to 1.8% to 2.4% in 2025.

Unless there's a big shift in global finances - like a China-Taiwan war or a huge upset in oil or financial markets - recession in the US is HIGHLY unlikely in 2024 or 2025.

I won't watch Trump because of his mannerisms. I don't care for arrogant people but his acting as a New York tough boy may have scared Putin enough to stay away from Ukraine.

I lean more to the view that Putin stayed away from Ukraine while Trump was president because he was largely getting what he wanted out of him. The combination of Zelenskyy and Biden being elected and Ukraine making formal constitutional steps towards EU and NATO membership upset that. Putin saw that his window to keep Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence was being closed (and fast), so he acted rashly and launched the invasion.

 

[mindlight]

I agree and I hope you didn't get the impression that we don't need allies. Time will tell of the cost.

I hope Ukraine wins quickly because a war of attrition is what Putin wants. Over time the West will be fatigued by the spending and Ukraine will lose support especially if the fight is like the last two years. Also, the global economy is slowing and it might bring the US with it, then it'll be a big sacrifice for our government and the people once we are in a recession.

We blind ourselves no matter what someone does and that's part of tribalism or emotions. It's my choice to listen to people whether I like their views or not.
I won't watch Trump because of his mannerisms. I don't care for arrogant people but his acting as a New York tough boy may have scared Putin enough to stay away from Ukraine. And democrats were afraid of him too you know the red button. Who knows?

We seem to agree that the USA needs its allies.

Sometimes the crazy man gets things done or scares the bejeebers out of the other guy so that he makes concessions. Is that Trump's selling point? The stakes seem a little high for crazy when the price would be a thermo-nuclear war.

I have mixed feelings about who benefits from a protracted war of attrition. On the one hand, this is waking Europe up and restoring a sense of reality to the inept European strategic planners of the last generation. The longer this goes on the stronger Europe's potential voice is here. Of course, fossil fuel prices are heightened by the war and would go down after it ends but it seems like a healthy exercise to take some pain now to start the move to a green revolution also. Neither a stronger Europe nor a green revolution favors Russia at all. So in terms of Europe's long-term credibility and vision, it seems it benefits from a little economic pain now which becomes an incentive to make deep-seated and necessary cultural changes.

Against that is the appalling loss of life on both sides, the devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and the complete waste of resources. Also, the long-term strategic worry here is that a weakened and alienated Russia is being driven into the arms of China thus empowering a new Russian-Chinese axis of tyranny.

 

[mindlight]

I also hope Ukraine wins quickly, but I don't think a war of attrition is what Putin wants, I think it's what Ukraine has forced him into.



Sure, but Russia is going to be fatigued even more.

Russia is actively losing men and equipment on the battlefield, along with Ukrainian sabotage groups and "smoking accidents" doing damage to the country's infrastructure.

The West is sending a combination of new production ammunition, old war stocks and (largely) demobilised equipment. Most of the money being spent on equipment by Western nations is being re-invested within their own borders (for instance, about 75-80% of the nominal dollar value of US military aid to Ukraine gets spent inside the US).

The biggest burden on the West, financially speaking, is from humanitarian aid.



Doubtful. There are a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements that will keep up a flow of armaments to Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Here's a recent analysis of Ukrain's defense partnerships and its move to indigenous production:

Institute for the Study of War

Ukraine is dramatically expanding its defense industrial capacity to develop the ability over time to satisfy its military requirements with significantly reduced foreign military assistance. Ukraine is pursuing three primary lines of effort to achieve

www.understandingwar.org

I'm not arguing that Ukraine doesn't need Western support, but it's apparent that Ukraine is determined to move towards self-sufficiency in terms of at least some of its military requirements.



Kinda.

Global economic growth was about 2.7 to 3.2% in 2023 (depending on the measuring and the measurer). Global economic growth is forecast to be in the range of 2.5% to 3.1% in 2024 and then somewhere between 2.7% to 3.5% in 2025.

US growth is forecast at about 1.6% to 2% in 2024, growing to 1.8% to 2.4% in 2025.

Unless there's a big shift in global finances - like a China-Taiwan war or a huge upset in oil or financial markets - recession in the US is HIGHLY unlikely in 2024 or 2025.



I lean more to the view that Putin stayed away from Ukraine while Trump was president because he was largely getting what he wanted out of him. The combination of Zelenskyy and Biden being elected and Ukraine making formal constitutional steps towards EU and NATO membership upset that. Putin saw that his window to keep Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence was being closed (and fast), so he acted rashly and launched the invasion.

This war is a demographic disaster for Russia already struggling to fill its empty spaces with new life.

The biggest financial shifts here are in terms of the commodity trading paths which are no longer directly to Europe. The loss of advanced chip technology in Russia and China. In an increasingly corrupt and opaque Russian financial system, one would suspect that the voodoo economics of the late Soviet Union would take over. The authorities can hide the underlying numbers for decades and pretend all is ok, but in effect, stagnation rather than prosperity is the new name of the game. The US is struggling with high debt and Trump massively inflated those numbers when he was in office and would most likely do so again given that his promises do not match any realistic expectation about American growth. This war is not good for the economy and ending it would lead to growth.

I do not believe that Ukraine has the numbers to win this as they would like with a total recovery of territory. But I cannot see how either they or the Russians back down right now to make concessions. Trump is claiming that he could make a deal to end the war but I believe that all he would do is end America's role in it by withdrawing support, other countries are still committed despite him. Things would be immeasurably harder for Ukraine without the US but they are fighting for their freedoms and are unlikely to fold having made so many sacrifices thus far. So in effect, Trump is more likely to simply prolong the war and its cost for everybody.

 

[Laodicean60]

Sometimes the crazy man gets things done or scares the bejeebers out of the other guy so that he makes concessions. Is that Trump's selling point?

Maybe but I don't know.

The stakes seem a little high for crazy when the price would be a thermo-nuclear war.

This is always in the back of my mind. Let's say Ukraine wins, are they going to stop at their border? Do you think the West will stop until Putin is annihilated?

I have mixed feelings about who benefits from a protracted war of attrition.

I've posted a video somewheres about the war of attrition by Peter Zehan and it makes sense for Russia to wait it out. In the US we have a divide for this war and so does Germany. Germany voted down sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine. I watch the actions of my allies I'm not sure about the F16 that was promised by Poland.

seems like a healthy exercise to take some pain now to start the move to a green revolution also.

I believe in tech but you have to transition and not do it all at once. Your country is going through a lot of pain because of the Green Revolution, and from the outside looking in a lot of needless pain. You have to supplement your green with cleaner energy sources like Nuclear. Do you realize that most of the natural resources that the revolution needs come from Russia and China?

Against that is the appalling loss of life on both sides, the devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and the complete waste of resources. Also, the long-term strategic worry here is that a weakened and alienated Russia is being driven into the arms of China thus empowering a new Russian-Chinese axis of tyranny.

Again the West caused this by meddling in in the elections in 2014 and continued threats that Ukraine would become a NATO country. Russia has been warning us for several years now. We had a good global economy until this happened and the West actions have caused a split. Countries who were once so-called "friends" are joining the BRICS nation to get away from the heavy hand of the West. The cost of lives just to keep our puppet.

 

[Laodicean60]

An interview with defense analyst Marina Miron on DW News outlines a realistic view of what's going on in Ukraine at 5:33 seconds of the video. Some of the points have been discussed on these forums.

 

[mindlight]

Maybe but I don't know.

This is always in the back of my mind. Let's say Ukraine wins, are they going to stop at their border? Do you think the West will stop until Putin is annihilated?

I've posted a video somewheres about the war of attrition by Peter Zehan and it makes sense for Russia to wait it out. In the US we have a divide for this war and so does Germany. Germany voted down sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine. I watch the actions of my allies I'm not sure about the F16 that was promised by Poland.

I believe in tech but you have to transition and not do it all at once. Your country is going through a lot of pain because of the Green Revolution, and from the outside looking in a lot of needless pain. You have to supplement your green with cleaner energy sources like Nuclear. Do you realize that most of the natural resources that the revolution needs come from Russia and China?

Again the West caused this by meddling in in the elections in 2014 and continued threats that Ukraine would become a NATO country. Russia has been warning us for several years now. We had a good global economy until this happened and the West actions have caused a split. Countries who were once so-called "friends" are joining the BRICS nation to get away from the heavy hand of the West. The cost of lives just to keep our puppet.

If the Ukraine did manage to force Russia back to the 2013 borders it might still not be over as long as Putin is around. He does not have the same hankering after closure that characterized Western project managers and businessmen. He thinks long terms and plays as if every victory or defeat is just a prelude to his next open-ended play. He is playing chess not checkers. It is time that politicians across the Western world relearned the game.

Regarding the 2014 election, the Ukrainian people themselves suspected the result was fraudulent and that their president was in cahoots with Putin. This is what drove Maidan rather than the USA. Russian propaganda has been very effective on this point.

If Trump loses in 2024 Putin may realize he is not going to win this round and then come to some agreement. That agreement would not just be with the USA but also with an increasingly determined Europe and of course Ukraine. If Trump wins, the war will go on much longer and cost much more but it will not end because of a backroom deal with Putin, he does not have that clout.

I think the Crimea, the Donbas, and the land bridge to the Crimea are probably going to be the cost of peace but it may take years before this is agreed on. Maybe the death of Putin will be the key moment, or the 2024 election result in the USA, who knows?

 

[mindlight]

An interview with defense analyst Marina Miron on DW News outlines a realistic view of what's going on in Ukraine at 5:33 seconds of the video. Some of the points have been discussed on these forums.

Control of the skies is unlikely though the production of one million drones a year would make things very dangerous for the Russians. The Russians do not have complete freedom of movement over Ukrainian skies though.

This is a war of attrition now that comes down to who wants it more. Ukraine does not look like being worn down by this but plans to simply keep fighting. Putin has created an open sore that bleeds both Russian and Ukrainian blood.

I agree with Marina that a triumphant Russia is unlikely to attack NATO, but Moldavia and Belorussia could be absorbed for example