It does matter in that it will prompt China and Russia to a lesser extend to reconsider their strategies going forward. It's a kind of crass reminder that we do still live in a world of spheres of influence.

I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.

Since American foreign policy changes every four years, it's probably better to just react to events in the moment and forestall any long term plans (such as scrapping NATO).

Yes, but it is becoming a problem more and more. Not only does it make the US difficult to govern, but it's also destabilising for its allies and the world to have wildly oscillating election cycles every 4 year. Can an empire really stay a democracy longer term?

Yes, but it is becoming a problem more and more. Not only does it make the US difficult to govern, — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think it's making the US difficult to govern. Most Americans are fairly sheep-like in person. They just want to feed their families and, so far, this hasn't been a big problem. At this point, I don't think anybody has a firm understanding of what the Republican party stands for. As an apolitical moderate, I miss the old conservatives. I understood them.

but it's also destabilising for its allies and the world to have wildly oscillating election cycles every 4 year. Can an empire really stay a democracy longer term? — ChatteringMonkey

I think some destabilization was implied by the end of the Cold War. The world has just been cruising on old ideas. Millennials are just now becoming old enough to take power and direct policy. They don't look like hawks to me. I don't think maintaining an empire is on their radar. And if you notice, neither Venezuela nor Greenland are about empire. It's about the stability and defense of things close by. If the US was threatening to take Denmark, that would be empire building. But there's no percentage in taking Denmark.

they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now. — ChatteringMonkey

You have more faith in rational self interest than I do. Even if NATO continues going forward for now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t already being dismantled as an effective force.

I don't think it's making the US difficult to govern. Most Americans are fairly sheep-like in person. They just want to feed their families and, so far, this hasn't been a big problem. At this point, I don't think anybody has a firm understanding of what the Republican party stands for. As an apolitical moderate, I miss the old conservatives. I understood them. — frank

Sure. But isn't that part of the issue though that parties seems to be radicalising each other over time. And congress basically seems to have become mostly ineffective as it can hardly pass any new laws that can really reform where necessary. That does seem to be an issue at a time the world is changing so fast.

I think some destabilization was implied by the end of the Cold War. The world has just been cruising on old ideas. Millennials are just now becoming old enough to take power and direct policy. They don't look like hawks to me. I don't think maintaining an empire is on their radar. And if you notice, neither Venezuela nor Greenland are about empire. It's about the stability and defense of things close by. If the US was threatening to take Denmark, that would be empire building. But there's no percentage in taking Denmark. — frank

The US did still bomb Iran, Nigeria and Yemen outside of its hemisphere just last year. It doesn't seem to want to leave Israel and the middle east (the younger generation does I'm aware). And I don't think it can give up control over the pacific and the Chinese sea because losing Taiwan would mean losing control over most of the chips produced in the world. The Monroe doctrine, focus on America first etc sounds nice in theory, and I'm sure many of the younger generations really would want to prefer that, but it seems to me geo-political realities would still steer the US into a more global direction, certainly as distances have become effectively shorter or irrelevant because of technology.

You have more faith in rational self interest than I do. Even if NATO continues going forward for now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t already being dismantled as an effective force. — T Clark

Steven Miller and Marco Rubio seem to be signaling that a real conflict is certainly not what they want, even if they can't explicitly say so because of negotiation reasons. And most of European leaders certainly would prefer keeping NATO if the US doesn't make it impossible.

It seems to me that aside from the purely political, the organisation does still function reasonably well in practice.

Sure. But isn't that part of the issue though that parties seems to be radicalising each other over time. And congress basically seems to have become mostly ineffective as it can hardly pass any new laws that can really reform where necessary. That does seem to be an issue at a time the world is changing so fast. — ChatteringMonkey

The situation is definitely in flux. How do you see it playing out?

The US did still bomb Iran, Nigeria and Yemen outside of its hemisphere just last year. It doesn't seem to want to leave Israel and the middle east (the younger generation does I'm aware). And I don't think it can give up control over the pacific and the Chinese sea because losing Taiwan would mean losing control over most of the chips produced in the world. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't really see a coherent foreign policy in any of that, though. I really think what's been happening is that Trump gets briefed by various parties, and he renders some opinion. There's no collection of strategists looking at a map, thinking about long-term plans.

There is an initiative led by the government to boost domestic chip manufacturing. It's not like the US doesn't have the ability to make them. Manufacturing has been outsourced because it's cheaper. My guess is that will be navigated by the bottom line. In other words, when it becomes too expensive to maintain ties with Taiwan, the US will make more of its own chips.

The Monroe doctrine, focus on America first etc sounds nice in theory, and I'm sure many of the younger generations really would want to prefer that, but it seems to me geo-political realities would still steer the US into a more global direction, certainly as distances have become effectively shorter or irrelevant because of technology. — ChatteringMonkey

What I'm most tuned into is an abiding isolationism that's been pretty potent since the Iraq disaster. When Trump promised isolation, he was definitely playing to the crowd. When you asked if an empire can remain democratic, I was thinking of Rome. Rome's empire building was the result of armed aristocrats who gained financially from foreign conquest. The US works the opposite way. American aristocrats feel no ties to the US itself. They can just leave and be global entities if they want. So they use the American military, but they don't pay back into the system to reimburse the US government.

In a way, severing ties with the rest of the world would allow the US to recover from this situation. I'm actually thinking out loud, so criticize at will. :grin:

I would make a prediction, but, since I’m always wrong, I won’t.

A recent podcast with Jeffrey Sachs which I would highly recommend watching in full:




And this one too, with John Mearsheimer: