I think Trump might come to the aid of the British, but not the EU. Trump sees the EU as weak and unworthy of respect. — frank

The real fight is about influence. Russian tanks won't be physically occupying West European Capitals. (Theoretically they could go "as peacekeepers" or something hilarious like that to the Baltic States, but even that is unprobable as it might be so that NATO wouldn't chicken out). But Russians can reach their objectives of breaking the Atlantic tie and to severely weaken NATO. That is the real goal of Russia here.

And they can succeed because if Trump really sees that the biggest enemy is the deepstate in the US, that "makes forever wars" and Putin says that he is now fighting the US. Aren't then the objectives totally in line here with the same objectives?

In my view, the populist idea is simply learning the wrong lessons from past conflicts: that sometimes it actually is worth wile to intervene even if Smedley Butler's old ideas are sometimes true, when the war goals are bizarre and a simple reaction to the people's demand for revenge.

But Russians can reach their objectives of breaking the Atlantic tie and to severely weaken NATO. That is the real goal of Russia here. — ssu

I guess Russia-EU relations will return to normal now that Trump is taking office. Gas and oil will begin to flow again? The US will lose whatever influence it ever had over Europe. Europeans hate America anyway, so that's probably a good thing for everyone.

And they can succeed because if Trump really sees that the biggest enemy is the deepstate in the US, that "makes forever wars" and Putin says that he is now fighting the US. Aren't then the objectives totally in line here with the same objectives? — ssu

Trump's attack on the "deep state" is just about securing his control over the government. He doesn't share the ideological sentiments of his supporters. Putin's fight against the US is over, I think. Trump and Putin are pals.

In my view, the populist idea is simply learning the wrong lessons from past conflicts: that sometimes it actually is worth wile to intervene even if Smedley Butler's old ideas are sometimes true, when the war goals are bizarre and a simple reaction to the people's demand for revenge. — ssu

I think we're entering a new global era. The US will continue to shrink off of the world stage. China will continue to grow and learn. All eyes will turn eastward.

Yes, I think we Europeans might be genuinely worried about Trump leaving NATO - much like how a fat private fears PT. Yet, PT is the only way to whip said private back into shape. — Tzeentch

Or then just leave the service. Let somebody else do the job that is better capable. Just go to your job at McDonalds or the supermarket. They have no problem of their employees being fat and the PT done on breaks (if there's any PT) are quite easy and meant for everyone.

Have all Europe accept Finlandization and Russia will be no problem.

Now would be the best time, since there is no concrete threat to Europe yet. — Tzeentch

Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat.

About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. — Tzeentch

You mean there's a stronger alliance around? Russia and North Korea are an alliance, but when it comes to let's say Iran, It doesn't feel like China and North Korea or Russia are allies in the manner of attack on one is an attack on all. China, even if supporting Russia, has officially stayed neutral in the Ukrainian conflict and hasn't liked the nuclear sabre rattling of Russia.

Personally, I think Europe has dropped down on Uncle Sam's priority list, in favor of the Five-Eyes Alliance, Japan and South-Korea. These countries have a far clearer overlap with US strategic goals and challenges. — Tzeentch

Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.

But let's just think of how "clear" these goals and challenges are:

- First, there's nothing like the NATO in the Far East. SEATO failed, the countries didn't see eye to eye and the US simply gave up. These countries do train to operate jointly at the level as NATO countries do. They usually hold exercises occasionaly with the US, but not with each other. What is the American solution? AUKUS. Which actually isn't anything new at all as the countries have already defense pacts with each other. How well South-Korea and Japan are doing together? Not so good as Germany and France.

- Which of these Far Eastern allies have the capabilities of the UK or France? None, even if Japan has a big navy. It's one thing to prepare for domestic security and defending in one's own territory, another thing to train for out of the area operations. NATO can do that, Far Asian allies of the US aren't capable of that.

- Which of these Far Eastern countries are rearming to meet the Chinese threat? Nothing like the rearmament in Europe is happening in the Far East, except China.

Hence the real question is, how many would be willing to fight alongside the US if Taiwan would be invaded? Totally different from the question of how many NATO countries would fight if Poland was attacked. Especially when the US policy is "Strategic Ambiguity".

Hence if the US intervenes in a Chinese retaking of Taiwan, likely the American President will scream for the NATO losers to join in.

I guess Russia-EU relations will return to normal now that Trump is taking office. Gas and oil will begin to flow again? The US will lose whatever influence it ever had over Europe. Europeans hate America anyway, so that's probably a good thing for everyone. — frank

No, they won't and no, it's not a good thing for everyone. Democratic values like a justice state are worth defending. And so are things like the UN Charter. If we abandon those ideals of Enlightenment that have given us the present, it won't be better. First of all, Russia will not stop. Finlandization isn't nice. Russia is not a country that will say "Fine, we got what we wanted and now we'll leave you alone." Nope, once they have power, they will then start to meddle in our own domestic politics. The government has then to go after people that have made critique of Russia and Putin and supported the "Nazis" of Ukraine. That's the next step in "Finlandization" if Russia wins. It's an Empire, who just loves to be important.

Yet only a total failure will launch "Finlandization of Europe". But that would mean that Trump and his crew really turn out to be surrender monkeys and force the Ukrainians to sign a surrender deal. Let's be honest: Trump gave the Taleban the key to military victory with the Doha Peace deal, so there is the fear of that. When Trump has declared that he would end the war in 24 hours, then perhaps there's the wanting for a quick peace arrangement. And it's easy to choose just which party is more vulnerable at pressure. European states are looking at who would take the leading role, if a country like Poland would lead a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine. But let's remember that this is still the lame duck period of Biden now.

Trump's attack on the "deep state" is just about securing his control over the government. He doesn't share the ideological sentiments of his supporters. Putin's fight against the US is over, I think. Trump and Putin are pals. — frank

For the populist/conspiracy theorist, it's not about ending "deep state" and strengthening the democratic institutions, it's basically having their control over the deep state, because they are the good guys. Would Trump start eradicating the Patriot Act? Of course not! When he's in charge, those kind of acts are just good. And I fear that many Trump followers think this way too.

I think we're entering a new global era. The US will continue to shrink off of the world stage. China will continue to grow and learn. All eyes will turn eastward. — frank

In my view, the likely outcome is that the US will continue to shrink off (voluntarily, actually) and NOTHING will replace it. China isn't going to replace the US. It has only a few allies and then trade ties. We won't start to learn Chinese, English will stay as the universal language for at least a Century, if not two. China doesn't have that ideological ambition that drove the West to conquer the World. They are too satisfied about themselves. Besides, the country faces large problems with it's population growth and likely is too confident about centally controlled economy it has.

It's not going a collapse like during the Bronze Age or something, it likely is a withering away and simply more actors on the global stage, just like more countries have launched satellites into space, not just the two Superpowers as in the 1960's. For example Hungary is sending (few hundred) troops to Chad, not as part of some international mission, but as a bilateral agreement with the Chadian government. Like Russian Africa Corps in the Sahel. I guess that Orban has been bitten by the Imperialism bug.

Russian Africa Corps (ex Wagner) African fighter. Likely in the Sahel region.


When the US loses war in this way, it does have an effect on the US. I've always said that then we just have to enjoy the decadence. Not a bad time to live, actually.

Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat. — ssu

What I meant is that Russia is currently occupied in Ukraine and won't conceivably threaten to invade NATO for the foreseeable future.

In 20 years that situation might be different, and at that point the US pivot to Asia will have proceeded even further.

Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.

But let's just think of how "clear" these goals and challenges are:

- First, there's nothing like the NATO in the Far East. SEATO failed, the countries didn't see eye to eye and the US simply gave up. These countries do train to operate jointly at the level as NATO countries do. They usually hold exercises occasionaly with the US, but not with each other. What is the American solution? AUKUS. Which actually isn't anything new at all as the countries have already defense pacts with each other. How well South-Korea and Japan are doing together? Not so good as Germany and France.

- Which of these Far Eastern allies have the capabilities of the UK or France? None, even if Japan has a big navy. It's one thing to prepare for domestic security and defending in one's own territory, another thing to train for out of the area operations. NATO can do that, Far Asian allies of the US aren't capable of that.

- Which of these Far Eastern countries are rearming to meet the Chinese threat? Nothing like the rearmament in Europe is happening in the Far East, except China.

Hence the real question is, how many would be willing to fight alongside the US if Taiwan would be invaded? Totally different from the question of how many NATO countries would fight if Poland was attacked. Especially when the US policy is "Strategic Ambiguity".

Hence if the US intervenes in a Chinese retaking of Taiwan, likely the American President will scream for the NATO losers to join in. — ssu

The principal difference is that China is a peer competitor and Russia is not.

War in the Pacific is very easily imaginable, whereas war between Europe and Russia is not logical at all.

If a peace is reached in Ukraine, relations will probably gravitate back to the pre-2008 status quo.

East-Asia however is critically imbalanced, with the US sphere of influence smushed up against China in an attempt to contain it, and to dangle a sword of Damocles over its maritime trade and with it its entire economy.

That's simply a situation the Chinese will not accept going into the future.

The only question is how long before the Chinese start throwing their weight around, and indications are that it may still take some time before the Chinese start taking military action. The political and economic war is already well underway, though.

Americans can (correctly) argue that they haven't been defeated on the battlefield in fixed battle. But the truth is that they have lost wars, there is no credible denial about this. That Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today, just shows how the Global War on Terror was lost. Just like the fact that there is no South Vietnam anymore.

I think America underestimated the tactical advantages of their enemy fighting on home turf, with all-or-nothing mentality, and with gorilla-terror tactics; and, as you mentioned, the perception from the US public also plays a huge role.

the Americans left their past ally on it's own because of the unpopularity of the war (perceived or real), with the result that Afghanistan collapsed even quicker than South Vietnam

Not to mention, Biden left billions of dollars of military-grade resources in Afghanistan for the Taliban :roll: . It can’t get anymore embarrassing for the US than that.

The war in Ukraine is talked as a "forever war" that ought to be quickly halted. Marco Rubio, the incoming secretary of state, sees the war as stalemate that has to be ended and we all know Trump's campaign promise to end the war immediately

I think the US people generally don’t want to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on foreign wars when they have so many problems at home that could be fixed with that money. I do not support sending any aid to Israel nor Ukraine: we need to fix our country first.

For Trump to say that he's in good relation with both Zelensky and Putin is very difficult to understand.

Trump says he is in good standing with everyone—he likes to embellish.

Yet when people have the wrongful idea that the conflict is a forever war (that happened because of NATO enlargement) and thus has to be ended with US withdrawal,

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the US doesn’t actually have any military presence in Ukraine: all we have been doing is funding them. Let them fund their own battles—they aren’t a part of NATO.

The inability for Americans to see how this weakens their own alliance is quite telling.

The US doesn’t have a formal alliance with Ukraine. I would completely agree with you if they were a part of NATO. If Russia hits a NATO country, then they are going to get their shit rocked. Russia can’t even take over Ukraine: imagine what would happen if the US got truly involved.

Always a pleasure to get your insights, thanks. BTW, Wall St is not liking the fact that Biden told Ukraine to strike inside Russia. Stocks are tumbling.

I think America underestimated the tactical advantages of their enemy fighting on home turf, with all-or-nothing mentality, and with gorilla-terror tactics; and, as you mentioned, the perception from the US public also plays a huge role. — Bob Ross

To put it simply: Only American soldiers sent to a war on another continent see and feel the war. Many in civilian life in Continental US don't even know about the conflict. In the country the war is fought, usually nobody can distance themselves from the war. For these people, the conflict can surely be marketed as an existential struggle. In the US, the Foreign Policy establishment has to try to conflate everything to be an "existential struggle", which makes Americans very, very skeptical. So skeptical that they can indeed believe that all wars are just forever wars concocted by the Deep state for war profiteering of the military industrial complex.

Not to mention, Biden left billions of dollars of military-grade resources in Afghanistan for the Taliban :roll: It can’t get anymore embarrassing for the US than that. — Bob Ross

It was a double whammy. Trump made a lousy peace deal, Biden went along with it and made it even worse. I feel for the Afghan war vets: they were really betrayed.

I think the US people generally don’t want to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on foreign wars when they have so many problems at home that could be fixed with that money. I do not support sending any aid to Israel nor Ukraine: we need to fix our country first. — Bob Ross

Some thoughts: If military spending is cut, the money simply isn't put somewhere else. Likely you simply take less debt. For example the Global War on Terror was financed basically by taking more debt. You didn't see large tax increases then. Secondly, you are already paying at these interest rates (which are low) more in debt service than in defense spending. The historian Niall Ferguson has said once this happens, no country in the entire span of human history has continued to be the Great Power it was before.

This year, the debt service is higher than defense spending. Something just few years earlier was thought to happen in 2033.


And notice actually from the Soviet example: if you stop defense spending when defense has created a lot of jobs, then the economy goes south. Or in the case of the Soviet Union, simply collapses.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the US doesn’t actually have any military presence in Ukraine: all we have been doing is funding them. Let them fund their own battles—they aren’t a part of NATO. - The US doesn’t have a formal alliance with Ukraine. I would completely agree with you if they were a part of NATO. If Russia hits a NATO country, then they are going to get their shit rocked. — Bob Ross

Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?
Nope. (Actually, SEATO gave protection to South Vietnam, but the country wasn't a treaty member)
Was Kuwait a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Was the Republic of Afghanistan a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Is Israel a treaty ally of the US?
Nope! (It's an one way street with Israel. The agreements: Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994), all make it so that Israel doesn't have to lift a finger to help the US, but the US will surely help Israel when it is in trouble, or redrawing it's borders. Because thanks to AIPAC and the Evangelists... defending that Judeo-Christian heritage is enough!

Yes, unlike Putin is saying now, the US isn't fighting in Ukraine. It's just supporting the Ukrainians. Yet that there isn't that alliance with Ukraine doesn't make this assistance unimportant.

Just think what happens if the US stops the aid and declares: tough luck, too bad! Well, this will have many effects. Russia has just shown that it can do whatever it wants and if the US opposes it, the US will just bitch for a while and then loose interest and thus it can be defeated.

This will make a crack on NATO, which even if all it's cacophony with so many sovereign states in the alliance, has been on Ukraine quite firm and together. (Even if you have Hungary and Turkey). Everyone told that they were supporting Ukraine, but in the end... no.

Well, the little countries that are replaceable (like mine) will get the memo. Sure, they might act is nothing serious has happened... but the know in their heart just how much are the guarantees actually worth.

Don't think that Europeans aren't taking Trump seriously. They genuinely believe that Trump and his gang could take the US out of NATO. It's a genuine possibility that could happen

Legislation was put in place so that it would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to leave, and that's frankly not going to happen. He has some options for trying to get around that, but it wouldn't be that easy, and he would need elements on his side who aren't likely to go along easily.

He's much more likely to simply make America a much poorer partner in the alliance for the duration of his term rather than expend the political capital to leave. Plus, he isn't exactly great at follow through.

About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. It certainly is big and has potential, but Europe is currently without teeth. It is also situated on the other side of the globe from where the next real 'Cold War' is going to take place (the Pacific).

:up:

Right, and those allies have also been more on board with ratcheting up their own defense spending. The benefits vis-á-vis technology transfer have also tended to be better, e.g. Japanese technology being a key part of some of the cutting edge (back the ) features of the F-22. Partnerships with Europe are often rather duplicative, driving up costs to keep European defense industries going.

Certainly, European states have an interest in keeping their defense industries afloat. The US does the same sort of thing, creating its own light tank for the Pacific instead of buying the, by all accounts stellar, new Japanese option (which is of course overpriced, but it's overpriced because they aren't making many).

Also, these states, like Israel, are putting a premium on missile defense (given China has gone hard on the "missile spam" doctrine and missiles are Iran's main way to directly attack Israel) and you get a lot of synergy projects there. Europe certainly invests in these, but it's not likely to be the same sort of top priority given Russia's demonstrated ability to make missiles and their quality. Countermeasures against nuclear delivery systems are nice to have, but really only in China and the US' price range, and even if the US backs way out of Europe it's not like it's not going to want to stop housing its interception umbrella there because you need them along the periphery to have multiple methods of shooting down an ICBM, and you can't keep the fleet elements in the right places at all times.

Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?
Nope. — ssu

US involvement in Vietnam was due to appeals from the French. The French told the US government that trade routes for rubber went through Vietnam, so that if it became communist, those routes would be cut off. The US originally fought in Vietnam with their ships disguised as French vessels. Crazy, but true.

Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight
^{— Nolan D McCaskill · POLITICO · Nov 15, 2016}

Others have commented similarly to Obama. (Reasonable or not?)

The problem I have described in the past though, is that I fear that the US ^{(and the UK?)} will use European militarization as a means to create more tension between Europe and Russia. — Tzeentch

The Kremlin already has and continues to. Posturing, regressing, undemocratization, land grabbing, bombing, Russification, ...

Seems like plain hostile acts: — Jun 21, 2024

So the EU should start its own military alliance separate from the US. — Benkei

I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe. — T Clark

Anyway, the Kremlin circle will "take offense" from whatever can then be used to further whatever they'd like to see, whatever they have in mind for their (chess)board. Thinking that's what others want is more than a little naïve. As mentioned a few times (e.g. here), you might ask the Baltics, the Moldovans, the Swedes, the Finns, ..., the Ukrainians, the Georgians, ...

how to not "provoke" the Kremlin (and North Korea) — Mar 21, 2024

can all defense be narrated as offense, can all defensive measures be cast as threats? — Apr 8, 2024

Now creating that deterrence will simply get some people to think that your you're war-hungry. Well, I'm not. — ssu

Perhaps similar to , I'm guessing most aren't. There are things to do, kids to get to school, farms to tend, parties to have, books to read, renovations to complete, love interests to pursue, philosophical idealisms to discuss, suppers to cook, places to go, ...

What should Europeans do?

appeasing Putin will not end well. — Banno

Deterrence stops Putin. Appeasement won't. — ssu

Anyway, the Kremlin circle will "take offense" from whatever can then be used to further whatever they'd like to see, whatever they have in mind for their (chess)board. Thinking that's what others want is more than a little naïve. As mentioned a few times (e.g. here), you might ask the Baltics, the Moldovans, the Swedes, the Finns, ..., the Ukrainians, the Georgians, ... — jorndoe

There's a difference between "take offence from" and "be provoked by."

From a point of view strictly focused on American national security, what 'the Baltics, the Moldovans, the Swedes, the Finns, ..., the Ukrainians, the Georgians, ..." want is not the primary factor. The interests of the US and these countries are not necessarily the same.

Yeah. As the much cliched quote goes, war is politics by other means. What can be done through war, can also preferably be done through political negotiation - for the most part.

There are a few neocons here and there. That's life.

It's a condemnation of the species that after so many pointless, savage wars we still continue to wage them...

On a Bird's-Eye View, the numerous wars waged by countries throughout history, killing numerous people, destroying, seems kind of ridiculous. Along that train of thought, deadly conflict comes through as absurd, should never be.

When zooming in we also have to differentiate defense and offense, weigh justification, whatever it all is. Often enough we can find both bad and well-meaning actors (and whatever else/between) — actors all gone a hundred years after.

I don't think defense is absurd, though they say that the best defense is a good offense. Can all defense be narrated as offense, can all defensive measures be cast as threats?^(2024Apr8) Say, if democracy is threatened, then I'd expect a response.

Anyway, it seems like a simple, universal answer to lean on is hard to come by. We're talking homo sapiens after all. Sometimes it just takes those few...

Legislation was put in place so that it would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to leave, and that's frankly not going to happen. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually I didn't know that, thanks for informing me! That takes care of that.

The interests of the US and these countries are not necessarily the same. — T Clark

The interest for the US is to stay as a Superpower. Whatever Trump thinks, it's the alliances that make the US the sole Superpower.

On a Bird's-Eye View, the numerous wars waged by countries throughout history, killing numerous people, destroying, seems kind of ridiculous. Along that train of thought, deadly conflict comes through as absurd, should never be. — jorndoe

Indeed. War can be seen as ridiculous. The "isolationist" idea of not getting involved in any conflicts, but perhaps still retain a defensive force, seems rational. Yet, and unfortunately, this idea is simply naive and can have unintended consequences.

Let's assume the US as the Superpower and it's alliance gets behind the idea of isolationism. The result is that their actions dramatically lower the threshold of states to engage in wars. For example, why wouldn't Venezuela simply annex Guyana or half of it (the Essequibo territority), if nobody would lift a finger about it? Why wouldn't Peru and Equador go back to having border wars? Or Columbia finally getting that American contraption of Panama back to itself? And I took just possible conflicts in the American Continent as an example here.



There is a logic to why the idea of Westphalian sovereingty should be upheld, just as the UN charter. Both higher the cost of starting a war of annexation politically and economically. We really will go back as a civilization, when these ideas are thought to be irrelevant and we simply accept that annexations are OK to happen (or they aren't a problem for us). Classic imperialism will come back on a wider scale as there will be many more actors playing the "Great game".

As I've said, the idea that the US behind every conflict there is, makes people then to make a disastrous mistake in believing that a) the World would be a more peaceful place without US involvement or that b) it doesn't matter to America how much conflict there is in the World.

The simple fact is that if Central and South America would be economically prosperous and growing economies, why would there be an incentive for migration from those countries to the US? And if more countries in the American Continent simply collapse, what do you think that will result in the situation in the borders or coast of the US? Same thing is true for the EU. How Africa and the Middle East develop does have an effect on how many refugees try get into Europe.

The outcome we have already seen. A conflict that killed over 5 million people in Africa that had many of the Continents states involved with, is still totally absent from our knowledge as it didn't involve the US. There are several conflicts going around today that we aren't talking about, because the US and the West have taken no interest in them. Should we take interest? Interest, yes, military intervention, perhaps not. But the issue would to prevent the conflicts to happen in the first place. Rapidly economically growing countries where trade flourishes aren't usually starting wars or collapsing into civil wars.

The interest for the US is to stay as a Superpower. — ssu

There are a lot of people here who think that's true, but it's not. The US is relatively isolated from the rest of the world. We have a huge economy and vast amounts of natural resources. If we wanted, we could go it on our own. I'm not suggesting we should, but I don't think our superpower status is as good for us as you seem to. We're going to have to get used to a world where power is distributed more evenly.

I agree. I think Biden was from the generation that saw US prominence as an imperative, but we're moving toward the phase where we realize there's no percentage in trying to secure global order. Let it all go to hell. Why should we stick out big fat noses into it?

The US is relatively isolated from the rest of the world. We have a huge economy and vast amounts of natural resources. If we wanted, we could go it on our own. — T Clark

Sorry to say it, but this is quite delusional. Perhaps you didn't mean "going it on our own" to meaning being totally self sufficient in everything, but let's think about it.

What if all trade between the World and the US would immediately stop and the government would try to move everything to be self reliant:

- the US imports well over 3,8 trillion last year.
- 15% of all your overall food supply that Americans now consume is imported, so that would not be there.
- Major imports are 1) machinery, 2) vehicles and automobiles, 3) minerals, fuel and oil 4) pharmaceuticals
- US is dependent on outside production of rare earths, lithium, kobalt, platinum and nobium. The vast majority of the global mining of these minerals are outside the US in other countries.
- These would severely affect US manufacturing as the whole system of manufacturing is based on international trade and supply routes. The 100% American produced is quite dubious, when you take everything needed into account.
- When you would totally deny imports would very likely lead to similar bans on your exports, which constitutes 3,0 trillion last year.
- As the GDP is something like 29,17 trillion, stopping both imports and exports (6,8 trillion) would immediately mean a loss of -23% of GDP.
- Many millions of workers and professionals would lose their jobs as the export/import sector would cease to exist.
- As there is no trade with you, the dollar would immediately lose it's value as the reserve currency.
- All countries would frantically start altering their trade away from the US, which would at first bring a severe downturn to the global economy, but sooner or later the global economy would recover from the "disappearance" of the US from international trade.
- For investors the US wouldn't at all be a safe haven. Such lunatic economic policies would surely alter the idea of the US being a trustworthy place to invest.

To truly "go on your own" would have similar consequences of having a limited nuclear war. Yeah, it wouldn't kill every American (in fact an all out nuclear war with Russia wouldn't do that either). But the outcome would be an absolute disaster. Losing one fifth of your GDP in a year (which has never happened in US history) would have absolutely devastating consequences for your wealth, for employment and likely for the political stability of the country.

And if you argue that then you could redirect all the unemployed to "home grown" industries, that's not how it works. The economic shock would have aftershocks for a long time and in the end you would be far more poorer than now. To build up new manufacturing takes time and the fact would still be that you would have severely crippled your economy and it wouldn't recover to the level which you enjoyed earlier.

And btw, some countries have tried this, actually. Usually it has resulted the country if it earlier exported agricultural products, then to have famine. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia implemented a strict policy of self-reliance.The Khmer Rouge evacuated totally the capital and rationalized the evacuation as a matter of self-reliance. End result, by some estimates, between 500,000 and 1.5 million of the lives lost between 1975 and 1979 were due to Khmer Rouge–induced famine.

As much as we criticize globalization, a collapse of globalization has absolutely dire consequences. The Bronze Age Collapse was the first collapse of globalization. Another collapse of globalization happened when Antiquity turned into the Dark Ages.

It's totally different to have for example the capability to feed your population in a time of war if the trade routes are cut. You can have this backup, but to go for what the Khmer Rouge tried to get is sheer lunacy, a very dangerous idea. The positive aspects of global trade should be remembered.

Perhaps you didn't mean "going it on our own" to meaning being totally self sufficient in everything, — ssu

You’re right, I didn’t.

As much as we criticize globalization, a collapse of globalization has absolutely dire consequences. The Bronze Age Collapse was the first collapse of globalization. Another collapse of globalization happened when Antiquity turned into the Dark Ages. — ssu

One of my favorite topics. The second collapse was Rome. Per Eric Cline, natural disasters including drought and earthquakes appear to have contributed to the Bronze age collapse. The other factors were warfare, and internal social upheaval that may have been the result of class struggle (but we don't really know). Cline believes it was a 'perfect storm' of events. With climate change set to increase stress in the world, we very well may be headed for another collapse.

we're moving toward the phase where we realize there's no percentage in trying to secure global order. Let it all go to hell. Why should we stick out big fat noses into it? — frank

I’m not sure this is true. There are still a lot of people out there who want to maintain our current status. I also don’t think there are many people who want to let it go all to hell. I don’t either.

Per Eric Cline, natural disasters including drought and earthquakes appear to have contributed to the Bronze age collapse. The other factors were warfare, and internal social upheaval that may have been the result of class struggle (but we don't really know). Cline believes it was a 'perfect storm' of events. With climate change set to increase stress in the world, we very well may be headed for another collapse. — frank

Simply to have Bronze you had to have trade as tin and copper wasn't found in the same place under one Empire. And then these ancient were basically top down command economies, which were very fragile compared to us.

Yet let's think about just how fragile our World is today. We just experienced a large pandemic that killed at least seven million world wide and about 1,2 million in the US. It was few years ago. Did the society collapse? No. How quickly did we recover? Very quickly. In our cynicism and gloom we often forget just how remarkable our societies are today.

Hence Einstein's famous quote of the next war after WW3 being fought with sticks and stones should really be given more thought. Is it really that after WW3 we literally are fighting with sticks and stones? Hardly. Let's think about if the worst happens and Russia, China and the US have a nuclear war. What happens to New Zealand or Argentina? Their cities won't be destroyed, they won't face radiactive fallout, they have agricultural production to make them self-sufficient. They naturally face a huge ecconomic depression as a large part of the global trade ceases to exist for a while. But will they forget engineering skills or the written language? No, libraries and universities in both countries will exist and so will the division of labor. Many parts in the US would survive intact too, even if large parts would become a nuclear wasteland. The World of Mad Max is an imaginary one and doesn't really portray anything else than what sells to us in movies.

In Antique times the fall was so great, that highly specialized labor had no demand anymore as the system collapsed. Technologies were forgotten. I always refer to this, but I still find it remarkable: from it's height in population, over 1 million people, Rome got to a similar population only in the 1950's. Such a large city was only sustainable during Antiquity with basically North Africa producing also food to Rome and "every road leading to Rome". Once the Vandals had North Africa, farewell large Rome.

You’re right, I didn’t. — T Clark

Then what kind of "going on your own" you meant?

The bigger they get, the harder they fall.

Then what kind of "going on your own" you meant? — ssu

Let's see - Drop out of NATO. Quit the UN. Pull out all our overseas military. Drop Israel like a hot potato. No more money for Ukraine. Tell Taiwan to take a hike. Pull Disney Worlds out of France, China, and Japan.

Oh noooo! Not EuroDisney! It cannot be!!!

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Popeye bombing France:


Ah, it's so lovable when you desperately want to be a huge Canada: an important country, kinda.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Popeye bombing France: — ssu

As if the war and the Holocaust weren't bad enough, now it's copyright infringement!

Notice who did that? Vichy-France. Showed btw the anti-semitism quite well there also.

But were they bad for an isolationist? Europe's troubles were Europe's troubles. Wars and Holocausts and stuff... on the European Continent. Oh yes, der Führer declared war on you, so even pro-German Charles Lindbergh went to participate in the war and flew P-38 Lightning in the Pacific. But I guess the photo ops with Herman Göring and medals from Germany didn't fly so well afterwards.

(Göring presented Lindbergh with the Service Cross of the German Eagle for his services to world aviation. And also a nice sword as it seems... or just showing it off to a friend.)


But I'm sure Charles Lindbergh would be now rooting for Trump. After all, Lindbergh headed the "America First" committee, and spoke loudly against the war and promoted the isolationist stance as can be seen from a speech by him in 1941:

We have weakened ourselves for many months, and still worse, we have divided our own people by this dabbling in Europe’s wars. While we should have been concentrating on American defense we have been forced to argue over foreign quarrels. We must turn our eyes and our faith back to our own country before it is too late. And when we do this, a different vista opens before us. Practically every difficulty we would face in invading Europe becomes an asset to us in defending America. Our enemy, and not we, would then have the problem of transporting millions of troops across the ocean and landing them on a hostile shore. They, and not we, would have to furnish the convoys to transport guns and trucks and munitions and fuel across three thousand miles of water. Our battleships and submarines would then be fighting close to their home bases. We would then do the bombing from the air and the torpedoing at sea. And if any part of an enemy convoy should ever pass our Navy and our air force, they would still be faced with the guns of our coast artillery and behind them the divisions of our Army.

The United States is better situated from a military standpoint than any other nation in the world. Even in our present condition of unpreparedness no foreign power is in a position to invade us today. If we concentrate on our own defenses and build the strength that this nation should maintain, no foreign army will every attempt to land on American shores.

War is not inevitable for this country. Such a claim is defeatism in the true sense. No one can make us fight abroad unless we ourselves are willing to do so. No one will attempt to fight us here if we arm ourselves as a great nation should be armed. Over a hundred million people in this nation are opposed to entering the war. If the principles of democracy mean anything at all, that is reason enough for us to stay out. If we are forced into a war against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of our people, we will have proved democracy such a failure at home that there will be little use of fighting for it abroad.

The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people. During the last several years I have traveled over this country from one end to the other. I have talked to many hundreds of men and women, and I have letters from tens of thousands more, who feel the same way as you and I.

Most of these people have no influence or power. Most of them have no means of expressing their convictions, except by their vote which has always been against this war. They are the citizens who have had to work too hard at their daily jobs to organize political meetings. Hitherto, they have relied upon their vote to express their feelings; but now they find that it is hardly remembered except in the oratory of a political campaign. These people–the majority of hardworking American citizens, are with us. They are the true strength of our country. And they are beginning to realize, as you and I, that there are times when we must sacrifice our normal interests in life in order to insure the safety and the welfare of our nation. (Charles Lindbergh, address delivered at the America First Committee meeting in New York City, April 23, 1941.)

So few months from that speech the US was in a war.