JD Vance said that ‘American power comes with certain strings attached’
You must log in or register to comment.
Is the presumptive VP speedrunning boy who cried wolf? If the US is going to pull out of NATO, I doubt it’ll be over pennyante shit like 𝕏itter regulation.
They’re looking for an excuse to blame the victim.
Do we think Vance is stupid enough to not understand that NATO primarily benefits the US? If “Europe” is cut off from the US, they’re going to make deals with China and (to a lesser extent) Russia. Trump obviously doesn’t understand shit, but Vance is the puppet of Peter Thiel, who you’d think would know better.
Inshallah they don’t know better.
Do we think Vance is stupid enough to not understand that NATO primarily benefits the US?
Right, regardless of any broader foreign policy view, Vance should at least understand it in purely cynical terms for bargaining leverage.
But I think blindly grappling toward tariffs and no NATO is part of the instinct for attacking liberalism and neoliberalism in a big hot tangled mess of reactionary instincts rather than an intentional road to a different vision.
Can’t tell if he’s serious but I always get a chuckle when people suggest NATO is some American benevolence.
World Wars ‘hero’ pass revoked.
Go fuck yourselves. Misinformation and money over world peace, fuck you and everyone who thinks this was something you could dismiss for a lying fascist to tank your economy and kill your neighbours while killing people elsewhere.
Are you saying NATO is for or against World Peace? The Global North loves NATO for solidifying Imperialist power, the Global South hates NATO because the Global South is the target of said Imperialism, and NATO solidifies that system of global exploitation.
Quite possibly one of the dumbest uses of nation state clout in human history
DO IT!
Just look at the TPP. The US tried to write the rules and the rest of the partners said, “No.” The US said, “Screw you guys, we’re going home!” and stormed off in a snit assuming the deal would fall apart without them but it didn’t and it ended up being better without the US imperialist bullshit. Then, US farmers realized that they were getting fucked because the US wasn’t part of the deal ([1], [2], [3]) and the US came back demanding to be let in and the US imperialist bullshit restored to the agreement. Once again the partnerd said, “No”.
Let’s let the US leave whatever they want to leave, renegotiate everything without them, then only let them return under the new terms. The world will be a much better place in the end.
EDIT: Trump ordered the US to withdraw from the TPP because the partners wouldn’t be bullied into accepting one-sided andi-competitive, anti-consumer protections for US industry and a dispute resolution process that favoured the US but that the US would ignore when it lost.
Yeah, what Trump voters don’t realize is that the US withdrawing from NATO would mean an end to most of their soft power. You can have the biggest and most modern army in the world, but if you give up your bases all over the world you severely limit your way to project that power.
As opposed to what the propaganda talking points say, the US doesn’t have these bases to protect others out of the kindness of their hearts. It’s to project their military power, to be ready to strike within minutes, no matter where. This is an incredibly powerful position in the world. Giving those up will of course cost them less in short term, but in the long term it’s probably one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes in history, since they will probably not be allowed back once the bases are gone. And the money saved will quickly evaporate in the military budget.
And soft power=economic power. But these guys have shown that they don’t care if the world burns after them. Everything for short term gains. What does the trumpet care about what the world looks like after he’s gone?
This is completely insane revisionist history. The TPP was in fact ripe for ratification, with full support of American ratification from its international partners, but was logjammed in the United States due to a Republican Senate.
The reformed TPP is similar to the original one and only exists to work around the loss of U.S. as a participant. And the U.S. never rejoined. There’s a grain of truth to the thing about farmers, at least, but good gravy, this is otherwise pretty nuts.
You were right. The US never rejoined.
Trump ordered the US to withdraw from the TPP because the partners refused to agree to one sided, anti-competitive, anti-consumer protections for US industry and a one sided, US centric dispute resolution process which the US would ignore when it lost.
The patnership is up and running and functioning as intended and US farmers continue to moan about the fact that they lost access to the TPP market. The Brookings Institute wrote an interesting article about it.
deleted by creator
europe/EU needs to start regulating these twitter bots ASAP
Yay for the American oligarchs
The American bourgeoisie loves NATO, which is why this will likely never happen.
Yay for the American oligarchs
Yay, for Europeans banking everything from security, economy, foreign policy to continuation of transatlantism and therefore making every US problem and shakeup our problem. Not to even speak of the many occasions when US tries to use it’s power over Europe to shank Europe for US’s own gain.
The dissolution of NATO would be fantastic for the Global South to no longer have a military alliance of Imperialists lording over the world, but I doubt Trump would actually follow through with that. This is a nothingburger, the collapse of NATO will not come from twitter drama.
This seems like an insane threat.
The US is the primary beneficiary of NATO. Does he expect all those countries will keep hosting US military bases if NATO drops?Are they actually US bases or are they actually NATO bases?
If the latter, then it’d just be case of “my swipe card doesn’t work anymore”.
It’s a bit confusing to figure out who technically owns the bases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations
As near as I can tell, almost all of them are actually owned by the US. The more important aspect is how it affects the “deal”.
The implied “deal” has always been that the US provides military resources to defend “the West” against the USSR/Russia and, in exchange, the US gets to be the primary voice in determining international policy (ie the famous “rules based international order”). That’s why the US president has traditionally been referred to as, “the leader of the free world.”
That deal has degraded a bit over time as other Western countries recovered from the damage of WWII and started flexing their own power.
Altering the deal so that everyone else pays entirely (or mostly) for its own defense also removes or seriously damages the incentive to follow the US vision of international policy.
From what I’ve seen, Trump has already been considering this anyway. This is an empty threat
Sabre rattling, or legit threat?
Their negotiation position within NATO isn’t absolute, so I think the most likely response is the EU agreeing to look at it, and that Trump is smart and handsome, and then mostly doing whatever they were going to do anyway.
The article is from September, why is it it being posted now?
Raytheon will never allow this.
