HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

>Trump blurted that to the Germans around 2019. The press brushed it off as "highly misleading".

And the Germans literally laughed in his face: https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg

Pretty hard to watch now. The smugness is palpable.

That never sounded good to anybody with good judgement. Russia is largely self sufficient for basic goods (food, energy), meaning that while their economy takes a hit, it’s a financial problem more than an existential crisis. The same can’t be said for Germany, who have systematically destroyed domestic energy production and now are facing an unprecedented economic catastrophe. Not just a financial problem, but a real economic problem of being able to acquire sufficient quantities of the basic inputs to a contemporary first world economy.

Trump famously pointed out the folly of this strategy to a chorus of arrogant snickering from the contingent of German bureaucrats. Not so funny now…

https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg

⬐ bryanlarsen

A predicted drop of 1.4% of GDP is an economic catastrophe?

>now suffering from the Russian invasion of Ukraine

As mantas said, the energy/economic issues Europe faces from the Ukraine War is 100% self-inflicted.

First, Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries have by and large done their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves.

Second, it's entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense.

Consider two moments four years ago:

1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>, article <https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany...>) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong?

2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas. Who was right, Trump or the Germans?

Both incidents got much coverage in the US and European press, with the usual bien-pensants describing them as yet another example of Trumpian foolishness versus the sensible Europeans. Had the sensible Europeans listened to the Trumpian foolishness even four years ago, Europe would now be secure against Russian threats. Germany (and thus Europe) would not now face an existential threat to its economy and industry from 200%-1000% rises in gas bills, that is if there is gas to purchase at all regardless of price. This is the greatest bungling by German and Europeans in 75 years and, again, it is 100% self-inflicted.

(This is now where the same bien-pensants' sycophants now pull out the "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"/"Trump said everything about anything so was bound to get something right"/"Trump also said uncomplimentary things about NATO so should have been arrested as a traitor" canards. And yes, I've seen all three responses, almost word for word, when I point to the above videos.)

Not just ignored.

Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. [German envoys laugh.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe). Among the comedians is Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, now enjoying a quiet retirement back home in Saarland.

(The YouTube comments are hilarious.)

Enough for Trump to call them on it 3 years ago?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

⬐ nradov

Yes and President Obama said essentially the same thing 9 years ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit-idUSBREA2P0...

Why were the Germans too stupid or arrogant to listen?

⬐ jsight

What policies was he referring to there? From what I recall, a big part of the German focus at the time was the shift to renewables, with the goal of reducing dependence on Russian gas imports.

Were those the policies that he wanted them to end? Or was it something else?

⬐ Krasnol

It was missing LNG imports to Germany.

⬐ leonroy

The video is literally Trump in 2018 calling out Germany on their dependence on Russian gas whilst they smirk at him. His words:

> “Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers.”

Even the Washington Post wrote about it at the time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accuse...

⬐ knodi123

> His words: > ... "independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers."

Well, maybe not "his" words. But they are definitely words that came out of his mouth.

⬐ rvz

Tells you how brainless the media was and were just after headline clickbait despite Trump echoing the same warnings that Obama said in 2014.

Now everyone can see how silly Germany is looking after not listening to what both Obama and Trump already saw on their dependency on Russian gas.

I guess Trump had the last laugh on that one.

⬐ TMWNN

Among the comedians on camera is Heiko Maas, the German foreign minister, now enjoying a quiet retirement back home in Saarland.

I somehow doubt that he will have to worry about paying energy bills (or, heck, just getting enough gas/electricity at all regardless of cost) this winter.

⬐ t6jvcereio

Wait, is this the same Trump who said he was getting the USA out of NATO, or is this a different Trump?

⬐ asguy

Why are you bringing up something unrelated as a gotcha for something nobody is commenting about?

This is related to Germany energy policy. Trump brought up the danger of depending on Putin’s Russia to the Germans, and they laughed at him.

They aren’t laughing much now.

What you should be asking is: How was Germany so dumb that Trump saw it, but they didn’t?

⬐ glogla

> What you should be asking is: How was Germany so dumb that Trump saw it, but they didn’t?

They weren't dumb. They were probably ok with helping Putin invade few more countries in Easter Europe - after all, the Germans themselves are quite far and safe, and possibly also care about money more than human lives.

⬐ t6jvcereio

> What you should be asking is: How was Germany so dumb that Trump saw it, but they didn’t?

I would be asking that, if we were talking about someone who's reliably correct. But since we're talking about someone who's held every position and it's opposite on any given subject, I think it's quite obvious what's going on. It's called survivorship bias.

⬐ TMWNN

>I would be asking that, if we were talking about someone who's reliably correct. But since we're talking about someone who's held every position and it's opposite on any given subject, I think it's quite obvious what's going on. It's called survivorship bias.

Put it this way. Trump was right and the Germans were wrong on the biggest German crisis of the past 75 years, one that now poses an existential threat to the German (and thus European) economy and social polity.

Even were Trump wrong and Germany right on everything else, how much would that matter given the scale and, more importantly, 100% self-inflicted nature of this crisis for Germany?

⬐ t6jvcereio

Put it this way. The German leadership is corrupt, their populace are naive green zealots, and Trump is a random number generator. Why is it that of these three facts youre fixated on the last one? There's lot of random number generators out there.

⬐ TMWNN

Ah yes, the "Trump says everything and anything" argument, second only to the "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" perennial. You will be surely able to list the many times in which Trump advocated for

* less German/European NATO spending

* greater German/European dependence on Russian gas

?

Let me repeat:

>Trump was right and the Germans were wrong on the biggest German crisis of the past 75 years

⬐ t6jvcereio

He was saying the USA should leave NATO. In our day and age you should be arrested as traitor for saying that. The man is an idiot.

⬐ TMWNN

>He was saying the USA should leave NATO.

Ah yes, the other line that people pull when questioned on this topic.

First, Trump did not say that the US should leave NATO. He publicly insisted/cajoled/prodded with that signature Trump charm and style that Germany and other NATO members who don't meet the 2% of GDP spending requirement—and showed zero inclination of actually meeting the 2026 deadline (itself pushed back repeatedly after first being set in 2006)—needed to do so.

>In our day and age you should be arrested as traitor for saying that.

Beyond the strange notion that an American should be "arrested as a traitor" for his words, a "traitor" to whom?

Who benefits more from NATO membership, the US or Germany? Who benefits more, the US or Belgium? The US or Norway? The US or Italy?

Would a Russian conquest of all of Ukraine endanger US security? Not really. It is Poland that would have Russian troops on hundreds more miles of its borders. It is Poland and the Baltic states that now face the risk being cut off from the rest of NATO at the Suwalki Gap.

The funny thing is that Poland and the Baltics do meet the 2% spending requirement, and have so for years. It is the likes of the far wealthier Germany, Belgium, Norway, Italy that do not. When you say that a US president should have been "arrested as a traitor" for questioning the value ("obsolete", I believe he said) of a military alliance in which the US funded 69% of total military spending while the wealthiest other members (with the notable exception of the UK) do not, have not, and (until February 2022) would not ever meet the bare minimum expectations set for them, I ask again: A traitor to whom?

>The man is an idiot.

An idiot who was, as I yet again point out, 100% right on the biggest crisis to face Germany in 75 years.

Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>, article <https://pbs.org/newshour/politics/at-nato-trump-says-germany...>) about dependence on Russia four years ago. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong?

Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas. Who was right, Trump or Maas?

Either answer my question, or shut up about the "idiot"/"traitor"/"Orange Man Bad".

⬐ formerkrogemp

I don't think Trump is an authoritative source on anything.

⬐ rnk

Because it's a good, realistic comparison. Pointing out Germany was too dependent on Russia for natural gas - good point. Saying the US would drop out of NATO - not a good strategy for stability. If you wanted to point out a Trump comment that everyone saw as a mistake at the time (but that doesn't add to the conversation), give the examples where he made dangerous suggestions to treat covid. Talking about nato seems fairly relevant.

Tons of people saw Germany was putting itself in a bad position. Every US administration since the initial direction was set said that.

⬐ nradov

President Trump talked about dropping out of NATO specifically because Germany (along with several other European countries) had broken their treaty obligations and had failed to spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. They were essentially getting free protection from the USA, France, and the UK without doing anything in return. And the threat worked! Germany did significantly boost defense spending (although still not quite to the 2% target).

⬐ MagnumOpus

The 2% was and is not a treaty obligation.

⬐ google234123

All NATO countries agreed in 2006 to 2%. It's an indicator of a country’s will to actually contribute to NATO

⬐ nradov

All NATO members agreed to a 2% minimum within the context of the existing treaty.

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

If Germany or any other country is unwilling to meet that treaty obligation then they should simply withdraw from the alliance rather than freeloading on more responsible countries.

⬐ t6jvcereio

They're not unrelated, there's both the exact opposite bet on the same issue: should the west take Russia at face value?

Saying "Germany needs to look after it's energy independence" is synonym with "the west cant trust Russia", and saying "I'm taking the USA out of NATO" is synonym with "the west can trust Russia".

So he just claimed two opposite views and his fan it's pick and choose.

⬐ AnimalMuppet

No, "I'm taking the USA out of NATO" was synonymous with "I'm tired of you free riding on our military - start contributing to your own defense".

I'm very much not a Trump fan, but no, I do not agree with your interpretation of the threat to take the US out of NATO.

⬐ t6jvcereio

> free riding on our military

Small minded.

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a force multiplier. It's not that Europe benefits at the cost of the USA. Both benefit.

⬐ AnimalMuppet

The purpose of NATO is to serve as mutual defense. If it's mutual defense with a bunch of nearly unarmed countries, how "mutual" is it?

(Yes, you could consider having other countries coming to your defense to be multiplying your force. But if they don't have much of a force of their own, how much "multiplying" are they doing?)

⬐ mrep

> "I'm taking the USA out of NATO" is synonym with "the west can trust Russia".

Trump was all over the place so it's hard to know what his exact positions were but he definitely bitched about European countries for not maintaining the NATO spending goal of 2 percent of economic output [0] which seemed to be his main gripe with NATO from what I remember.

One quote from the article: "Mr. Trump appeared especially annoyed, officials in the meeting said, with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and her country’s military spending of 1 percent of its gross domestic product."

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-presiden...

⬐ golemiprague

None

⬐ glogla

Broken clock, twice a day?

⬐ durnygbur

ohh... these smug corrupted smirking faces. Now Ukrainians are paying for your gas, you cunts. The Three Seas Initiative was the way to go at that time, energy policy wise.

⬐ mikeyouse

Enough for Obama to call them on it 4 years before that;

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit/obama-tells...

And many US Government officials and their proxies have been sounding the alarms for years;

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/senior-oba...

And Biden temporarily waived sanctions on the pipeline as a bargaining chip to help prevent the invasion of Ukraine, they were snapped back once Russia invaded;

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-uk...

Nobody in American politics thought it was a good idea, because it clearly wasn't, but the allure of dirt-cheap energy was too much to pass up.

>“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.”

>“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission.

https://archive.ph/KXgC0

and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for

from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p...

and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

⬐ _fizz_buzz_

True that foundation exists, and is heavily criticized by other German environmental organizations in Germany as even this article points out. Also it was founded after the nuclear exit was decided. You are falling for the trap where you know a little bit about a subject but draw the wrong conclusions from it.

Let's name names. Trump, the abovementioned president, at the UN in 2018 warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys laugh <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>, including foreign minister Heiko Maas, today enjoying a quiet retirement back home in Saarland.

⬐ wil421

People love to laugh and hate on him but in this case he has some valid points.

Would those same Germans be laughing at his statement today?

⬐ legitster

The last few presidents have said the same thing - here's Obama in 2014: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit/obama-tells...

Trump also yanked the rug out from under the TPP which effectively locked in our manufacturing relationship with China, so glass houses and all that.

⬐ leereeves

The TPP was widely opposed before Trump stopped it. Then the "everything Trump does is wrong" crowd reversed their position and started claiming the TPP was a good thing.

https://www.rockagainstthetpp.org/

https://www.artistsagainsttpp.org/

https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacif...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-im-against-the-tpp_b_6831...

https://progressive.org/latest/tpp-another-trade-scam/

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-oppo...

⬐ legitster

> The TPP was widely opposed before Trump stopped it.

Agreed. Progressives are equally culpable. Though I never really heard many outlets reverse their opinions. I think people just largely forgot about the TPP.

> Then the "everything Trump does is wrong" crowd

To the contrary, I do not understand the crowd that shows up to a conversation about the time and insists on bringing their broken clock.

⬐ leereeves

There were very good reasons why people opposed the TPP. The devil was in the details.

Even Biden said (in 2019) that he would not rejoin the TPP as it was initially put forward, and would insist that we renegotiate pieces of that.

> insists on bringing their broken clock.

I assume you're suggesting that the "everything Trump does is wrong" crowd doesn't exist? To the contrary, their influence is so great that even Thomas Friedman, a vocal opponent of Trump, felt it necessary to call them out:

"One of the hardest things to accept for all of us who want Donald Trump to be a one-term president is the fact that some things are true even if Donald Trump believes them!"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/opinion/trump-trade-china...

⬐ legitster

I understand that the TPP is politically dead. But hand waving over details on the specific tariffs on suits from Singapore is misdirection. It was fundamentally an agreement to form a trade block against China. If we politically cared more about the details, then we really didn't care about China.

> I assume you're suggesting that the "everything Trump does is wrong" crowd doesn't exist?

I'm not. But I also don't understand the driving need to give a specific politician credit for doing something normal. Someone quoted Trump's opinion, several of us pointed out that it's not particularly novel or unique, and now we are being lectured about how absolutes are wrong?

Are his words somehow divine that his opinions deserve to be discussed?

⬐ leereeves

> Someone quoted Trump's opinion, several of us pointed out that it's not particularly novel or unique, and now we are being lectured about how absolutes are wrong?

I'm not talking about Trump's opinion about Germany's dependence on Russia, which, I agree, is "not particularly novel or unique".

Why did you bring up the TPP, even though it's irrelevant to this conversation? It seems to me that it was purely as a criticism of Trump ("glass houses"), as if no positive statement about Trump could ever be allowed to pass without criticism.

⬐ throwoutway

Hillary was also opposed to TPP so it would have been the same result either way.

⬐ rvz

Now, they are really quiet today and are still struggling to admit their foolishness, since they have now realised years later that they have become Europe's biggest fools, such that it's even more embarrassing to them that it also came directly from Trump, alongside with other points he specifically made at the time which aged like fine wine.

So Germany will indeed learn the hard way, despite ignoring the repeated warnings.

⬐ karmakurtisaani

Is this the same Trump who said he trusts Mr. Putin's word over his own intelligence agencies? Let's not kid ourselves that he had nothing but making himself look good in mind when he said those "warnings".

⬐ yucky

Was he wrong? After all, now we know the role the US played in the coup (sorry, perfectly organic color revolution) in Ukraine in 2014[0], and I don't think our intelligence agencies were vey forthcoming with that information...

And yet by 2016 when he took office it was known we were fucking with their internal politics too[1], using "totally not the CIA" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy[2] and USAID[3].

This is not a new playbook, we have to realize every foreign government knows exactly what we're doing right? We can only pay people to look the other way for so long until a line is crossed. Whelp, apparently we discovered the line.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golos_(election_monitor)

[2] https://mronline.org/2022/03/08/national-endowment-for-democ...

[3] https://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/4/is_usaid_the_new_cia_a...

⬐ rasz

To be fair US was also messing with Poland internal affairs in the 80s.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/18/world/reagan-and-pope-rep...

>President Ronald Reagan signed a secret order in May 1982 that authorized an array of economic, diplomatic and covert measures to _destabilize the Government of Poland_ and begin to break the Soviet Union's dominance of Eastern Europe, Time magazine reported this week.

>The secret order, National Security Decision Directive 32, set in motion aid to the Solidarity movement, more vigorous promotion of human rights, economic pressure and diplomatic isolation of the Communist Government, the article said.

>The report in Time adds many new details, particularly the role of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Roman Catholic Church in opening networks across which telephones, fax machines, printing presses, photocopiers, computers and intelligence information moved to Solidarity.

Thanks to this I can buy bread, washing machine or a car without waiting in a queue, signing up on a list or waiting for a government grand. Meanwhile in a shithole russia: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-tv-segment-family-who... https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/07/18/7358790/

⬐ yucky

This is a different argument though. You're making an argument about which system is better. I'm saying that Putin was telling the truth when he complained about the US interfering in their elections first, and our intelligence agencies were lying when they claimed we don't do the same thing we accused Russia of doing to us.

So when Trump said he believed Putin in that instance, he was correct.

⬐ karmakurtisaani

Trump took Putin's word that Russia did not meddle in the US election.

⬐ lostmsu

Am. Role? You mean US dared to talk to participants in the coup?

And by "fucking with their internal politics" you mean funded a non-profit, that was trying to expose rampant election fraud?

⬐ SideburnsOfDoom

FYI, the account that you are replying to has a long track record of "pushing a certain talking point" on this topic. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

You are not going to persuade them.

Here is the delayed but inevitable result: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32326857

>Half of these idiots have resigned or are close to resignation due to an energy and food crisis that they have single-handedly created by the "free world" the last decade. They will just resign and live of their pensions while the rest of Europe is slipping into poverty.

Such as German foreign minister Heiko Maas, who when Trump at the UN warned four years ago that his country is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia, laughed with other German envoys <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>. He is now enjoying a quiet retirement in Saarland.

⬐ dane-pgp

Unfortunately there's some cold-hearted logic in buying cheap Russian gas for years, even if you know they will use the money to fund their incremental invasion of Ukraine.

As long as the one-off cost of switching to another supplier (or just reopening coal power stations, and re-certifying the nuclear power stations) is less than the accumulated annual cost of buying from more expensive suppliers in a pre-emptive boycott of Russia (who would just sell their gas to somewhere else instead) then ultimately Germany is saving money.

Importantly, (some of) the money that Germany was saving needed to be put into its own military preparedness and stockpiles, so that the foreign policy goal of protecting Ukraine's sovereignty could still be achieved (which would be a cost shared by other nations, including those further away from and thus less dependent on Russian gas).

⬐ Thetawaves

Russia can't just sell the gas to somewhere else. The logistics issues prevent any wide scale utilization to the same level of a massive undersea pipeline.

⬐ Proven

None

⬐ eisstrom

Obama did the same in 2014

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit-idUSBREA2P0...

And the Bush administration tried to prevent Nord Stream I.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russia-s-energy-w...

>Government leaders at every level invested real money, time, and effort in building actual infrastructure.

These are the same leaders who, when Trump at the UN warned four years ago that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia, laughed on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>).

Germany is now facing the consequences of the greatest mistake its leaders have made in 80 years, an existential threat to the German (and thus European) economy and even nation-state. You know this. Yet you instead lecture the USA—home of Tesla—on how ACKSHUALLY it need to build more e-infrastructure. The mind boggles.

Reminds me of the German UN delegates smugly laughing at Trump when he said that dependence on Russian oil is a bad thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

⬐ theplumber

Trump was basically a clown saying different things for different audiences.

He said that we should be more friendly with Russia and that Russia has been trated unfairly. And then said we should buy more gas and oil from the U.S. What do you make of that? Why would you buy LNG from the U.S if Russia is such a great friend and its gas pipes are nearby?

Then went at great lengths to say how Europe is the biggest foe for the United States and not Russia.

Not to mention that fiasco at the Helsinky summit. If you talk a lot of nonsese people stop treating you seriously.

If I remember right he fancied NK leader as well. Just a clown or showmen or whatever you want to call him but definitly a reliable adviser.

Germany has been warned about its dependency on Russian gas by its EU neighbours and past U.S administrations long before that clown. It's just that Germany thought Russia is not completely stupid and made a risky and bad bet. Now it has to pay. It may be for the better because now it can invest in more renewables(i.e has a cleaner slate)

⬐ davrosthedalek

While the strategy to let Russia sit on the table of grown ups did not work out in the end, I think it delayed Putins actions for a few years. I think Ukraine has much better chances than 5 years ago. And without the pandemic, it might have worked longer.

⬐ int_19h

It also gave Russia the opportunity to use Syria as a testing ground.

It's unfortunate that this was the take by EU politicians when everyone's favorite villain, Trump, was telling the EU nations to increase its NATO spending to the 2% guideline and was telling Germany to get off its Russian gas addiction or face the consequences. [1]

Well, Germany (and its politicians: shown laughing at Trump in the video) are now paying the consequences of blindly walking into yet another trade deal with yet another autocratic power. [2]

You'd think playing host to the horrors of WWII would have taught Germany a lesson or two of the consequences of such powers but no, it's business as usual. [3]

The naivety of the EU in global politics would be laughable if it wasn't directly funding the artillery barrages and murder of more than a hundred children now by Russia.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3148374/an...

[3] https://stopgas.org/

⬐ Yoric

I had several paragraphs to try and explain how scary Trump was for the rest of the world. I've deleted them because I don't want to enter an endless debate.

Just know that, for dozens of reasons, in Europe, the Trump administration was seen as irrational and dangerous to his allies. These views were shared by both Progressives and Conservatives, throughout Europe, even to a large extent in the UK. In comparison, Putin was seen as more rational, hence a more measurable danger.

It is now clear that the latter assessment was wrong. Regarding the former, the jury is still out.

⬐ syshum

Both assessments were clearly wrong, Out side of Harse words on twitter I would love to have anyone point to actual policy positions / actions that the Trump Administration took that put the world or the EU in greater danger?

⬐ Yoric

In immediate danger? Absolutely not.

This was an attempt to predict future behavior of Donald Trump based on past/present behavior, taking into account the possibility of Donald Trump remaining president for a second mandate.

If you recall, as seen from Europe, Donald Trump was:

- exhibiting a number of traits typically attributed to fascism (using Umberto Eco's classification, I count a perfect 14/14 for Trump, based on speeches I've seen him deliver);

- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);

- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die (I'm thinking of Kurds, but abandoning Afghanistan is a joint Trump-Biden venture);

- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.

While none of these points definitely meant that Donald Trump was dangerous to the EU, at some point, EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were. They would have been crazy not to.

⬐ syshum

>>- exhibiting a number of traits typically attributed to fascism

Only if you actively misunderstand, or more likely only listen to selected clips by mainstream media

>>- friendly relationships with many authoritarian/dictatorship governments (including Putin's Russia), hostile relationships/threats towards democracies (including most of the EU);

Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Heeding the words of our first president. Clearly he could not just pull out of decades of entangling alliances but he was signalling a desire to reduce our entangling alliances, and increase our trade. I support that, and I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think

>>- a tendency to betray allies and leave them to die

You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.

As to Afghanistan, I lay the blame for that about 80% at the feet of biden and 20% at trump, The pull out could have been done ALOT better, and I think a Trump administration would have done a better job of it.

I 100% support the decision to leave.

>>- generally, a strong tendency to use international relationships as a pedestal to cater to the subset of his supporters that had no clue about international relationships and cheered him whenever he rattled his saber, threatened his allies and started a trade war that absolutely no sense.

I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.

>EU leaders started wondering exactly on which side the US were

The side of the US citizen, first time in a long time the US President stood up for the US Citizen, not global corporations, or globalism

⬐ Yoric

> Only if you actively misunderstand, or more likely only listen to selected clips by mainstream media

I watched entire speeches by Donald Trump. Were they representative? I have no idea. Were they scary? Not all of them. But a sufficient number that I stand by my estimate of a perfect 14/14. I'll let you check on Umberto Eco's scale to see if something is missing.

> Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, *Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none*

(emphasis mine)

Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China. I remember how France was – and, to some extent still is – covered with mud in US media for refusing to take part in the Invasion of Irak (forgot whether it was the first or second), but that was also a symptom of the same. Hence the balancing act with buying some things from Russia that the EU could also have bought from the US.

Selling weapons to Russia and buying gas from them? Didn't turn out so well, we can all agree. The alternative to buying gas from Russia was nuclear power, which would have been much better, but got much maligned after Three Miles Island, Tchernobyl and Fukushima. This will happen, eventually, but too late.

> I can see why the EU would worry about that but not for the reasons you seem to think

I realize that the way I wrote my post could have been clearer. While I can't escape writing some of what I think (in particular, the Umberto Eco scale of fascism), the general idea was to explain what EU leaders think, as far as I understand.

These worries are not personal to me.

On the other hand, yes, what you're pointing out is also true. Life without an alliance with the US is a scary perspective. And the EU has been quite slow to build its own army, relying too much on the fact that it is a nuclear alliance and has a large intersection with NATO.

I believe that, if Putin's invasion hadn't happened, EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army. I hope that the latter will happen nevertheless.

> You believe that started with Trump? That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy at least since WWII, it was not even the first time we fucked over the Kurds.

Maybe? Also, you already pointed out (with different vocabulary) that, under Donald Trump, the US preferred isolationism. Does this mean that we agree that the US is not a reliable ally for Europe, especially under Trump?

> I 100% support the decision to leave.

I actually support that decision. But I think we can agree that leaving could have been done much, much better.

> I disagreed with the Tariffs, however I absolutely supported his desire to increase our manufacturing base in the US, and hold other nations accountable for their abuse of trade policy at the expense of the US which has been going on since at least Bill Clinton if not longer. The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does, and even when we meet the goals often the rest of our "partners" like the EU pants the US as a bully, as evil, as the problem. Frankly we need a president to stand up for the US.

I had a scathing (and, frankly, rather stupid) reply for this.

And then I realized one thing. I find this line of "The US has and continues to be asked to "sacrifice" our prosperity for the good of the world while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what the US does" extremely interesting. Because I've heard this line being repeated over and over:

- in the US, recently, by Trump-style Republicans;

- in the EU, recently, by far right parties;

- in the UK, recently, by the Brexit party (didn't Thatcher use that line, too, some time ago, now that I think of it?);

- but also in the EU, for decades, by socialists and communists of various shades of pink-to-red.

Of course, you need to substitute "good" and "bad" actors when you cross the Atlantic or the Channel. Bad actors (which can be the EU, the US or the UK) abuse "our" (insert whoever you are) good faith while "we" need to sacrifice our prosperity (the exact definition of prosperity may differ slightly between left and right) for the sake of others while other nations refuse to do even a fraction of what "we" do.

It would be interesting to try and see where this discourse originates from.

I suspect that it's largely propaganda, though. Have you ever had a single representative ask anybody to sacrifice prosperity for the good of the world? What I have seen aplenty, on the other hand, are political figures promising to create/return prosperity through $(magical cure of the day).

> The side of the US citizen, first time in a long time the US President stood up for the US Citizen, not global corporations, or globalism

So, if I understand correctly, you're basically agreeing with EU leaders that Trump's US was not a reliable ally? Perhaps not an ally at all?

⬐ syshum

>you check on Umberto Eco's scale

I will freely admit I am not versed on that, however in my very very brief reading of the idea's I think there is a lot of subjectivity in application, and one it seems to me right now one would have to look at Trumps words in the most unfavorable understanding of them to achieve that score, you have to weak man his speeches and rhetoric to get there. You have to come into the speech looking for anything to justify the score.

I would have to research more to say more, but when most people hear fascism they think Nazi's... That is also what the US Media rhetoric was for 4 years. I however see non of that in the Trump presidency, nor do I see any policy positions that were wildly different that other presidents or even Biden today.

In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....

So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism

>> EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army.

Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military

The EU either needs to reform its governance to a Federalist Republic like the US, or it needs to take over NATO like structure for is over arching military.

Attempting a single defense structure under the current European Union structure would never work

>It would be interesting to try and see where this discourse originates from.

Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.

But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living

While making exceptions for other economies for all manner of seemingly rational reasons. However rational they are the end result is the same, the sacrifice of US prosperity

Then of course you have the topic of expecting to be the world police and then called a bully if we take any action, The world wants us there to Stop Russia, but they expect us to do that with out thanks, with out having any input to their actions, their governance, or etc... Hell they want us to thank them for the privilege of being able to send our citizens to die for their nation....

>>So, if I understand correctly, you're basically agreeing with EU leaders that Trump's US was not a reliable ally? Perhaps not an ally at all?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by an "ally". If you mean trade partner and willing to come to the EU defense military if needed provided they at least tried to defend themselves... I think the US under Trump would make a fine ally under that definition

If you mean a EU doorstop, to provide the common defense of the EU, asking or expecting nothing in return, and allowing the EU to ignore our national interests on the world stage while they enjoy the protection we provide... then no Trump would not have made for a good Ally.. and the EU is used to the former, where I would prefer the former

⬐ Yoric

> In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....

I'm not going to defend media. I think that most of them are doing a very bad job, whether they're catering to left-wing bubbles or right-wing bubbles. This seems to be worse in the US than in Europe, but we're getting there, too.

Now, I do not know exactly why you and I focus on different things in political figure's speeches, but you seem to be very much more of a (political) believer than anybody I know. While I always vote, and while I grudgingly respect some candidates, I know that I haven't trusted anyone in a while. In particular, whenever I read the written statements of a candidate (and I pretty much always do before voting) or when I listen to their speeches (less often), I always work at decoding them. I listen to what they say, to what they imply, to who they flatter, to what they don't say, to the promises they make because that is what they intend to do and to those they make simply to sow doubt in the opposition. So far, while I can't claim perfection, my decoding of elected officials has proven fairly accurate.

If you're interested in such an exercise, I suggest reading propaganda from other countries (that helps keeping it dispassionate) and/or older historical periods. It's very interesting. For one thing, it's pretty much the same propaganda, repeated all over space-time, just with some name-changing.

> So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism

That is, of course, your right. But, out of curiosity, how would you detect if a US candidate was actually a fascist? Or, maybe, to keep it more remote and make things a bit less passionate, if an Austrian candidate was actually a fascist?

> Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military

I happen to be in favour of that, so I'm not going to contradict you :)

> Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.

Maybe, but I'm fairly certain that I already heard/read such speeches from the 80s. I don't claim that this is when they started but my personal suspicion is that Reagan/Thatcher both giving such speeches and ramped up globalism and that the reason for which they were adopting such language is the oil shock of the mid-70s, which caused stagflation, hence discontent among the lower- and middle-classes.

> But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living

I've heard Donald Trump make such claims. I actually have no clue where he gets that from. My suspicion as a cynical middle-aged guy is that this is more part of a strategy to cater to specific groups of voters (e.g. everybody whose living is based on coal, directly or indirectly) and build a shared identity as victims of bad actors than actual fact.

It's interesting, because on the same topic, in Europe, with the exception of far-left and far-right, the overall message is closer to "let's create jobs with green industries". And recently, of course, "let's use green industries to reduce our dependency towards Russia without increasing our dependency towards US".

On the other hand, both far-left and far-right use pretty much the same rhetoric as Trump: "stop annoying us with Climate Change, we're doing so much better than everyone else and you're taking away our jobs".

It's really funny to see European communists and US Republicans saying the same things, just with different names.

> Then of course you have the topic of expecting to be the world police and then called a bully if we take any action, The world wants us there to Stop Russia, but they expect us to do that with out thanks, with out having any input to their actions, their governance, or etc... Hell they want us to thank them for the privilege of being able to send our citizens to die for their nation....

Yes, being world police is a complicated position. For better or worse, no country wants to lose its independence, even to the US. European our South-American citizens, for instance, have never been very happy at US election interference on their territories (some of which is now declassified – of course, the KGB/FSB won't declassify their own election interference). Just as African citizens aren't very happy at European (and Chinese?) election interference on their territories, because let's not forget that European countries haven't entirely stopped played world police and that China has started, too.

On the other hand, it's hard to overstate the kind of power granted by being king of the world, or of a region. Grant it to any country, whether a dictatorship or a democracy, and you can be certain that it will use it for its own gains. European countries did, and still do. The US did and still does.

It's not by accident that China is attempting to grab every bit of soft power that the US is letting go.

Trump-style (or Lindbergh-style, etc.) isolationism is about giving up both the responsibility and the power. It is a valid choice, but it is full of consequences, some of which are hard to fathom.

> I guess that would depend on what you mean by an "ally". If you mean trade partner and willing to come to the EU defense military if needed provided they at least tried to defend themselves... I think the US under Trump would make a fine ally under that definition

Maybe. I don't think that EU leaders saw it that way.

One of the many examples of interesting choices in international relationships during the Trump admin was when, during the same week, Trump was:

- demanding that EU countries ramp up their investment in NATO;

- essentially trying to disentangle the US from NATO;

- mocking EU leadership (I think it was Macron at the time?) for attempting to improve European defenses;

- trying to convince some Eastern European countries (I forget which ones) to leave the EU.

The overall message for this was not that of a potential ally. At best, a competitor probing for weaknesses.

⬐ Yoric

> That is, of course, your right. But, out of curiosity, how would you detect if a US candidate was actually a fascist? Or, maybe, to keep it more remote and make things a bit less passionate, if an Austrian candidate was actually a fascist?

Gasp, too late to edit this.

Well, I wanted to emphasize that I do not believe that Trump is a fascist, per se. Unfortunately, it's not as much of an endorsement as it sounds: I also do not believe that all the leaders of the various fascist parties that took over Europe around WWII were necessarily fascists themselves, just as I do not believe that Stalin was particularly communist. I believe some of them were power-hungry sociopaths who saw an opening created by fascists (or communists, for Stalin) and used it to climb to power.

Now, what I do believe is that Donald Trump is employing the entire fascist vocabulary, in an attempt to voluntarily cater to the people who really are fascists (or close enough that the distinction is pointless) among both his voter base, his militants and his election machine. I have no idea how many people this represents but I believe that Donald Trump does. And I believe that using the real fascists in an attempt to reach/keep power is at the very least irresponsible, because it mechanically gives some power to the real fascists, as well as a very real path to ultimate power.

That feels as dangerous as, say, buying gas from the neighboring expansionist dictator.

I also believe that people should keep calling each other fascists/communists (am I being guilty of that?), especially without understanding what it means, but that's another debate.

⬐ emptysongglass

>> Trump foreign policy was returning America to what it should have been all along, Free Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none

> (emphasis mine)

> Interestingly, this is exactly what the EU has been moving towards for the past few decades. Hence the attempt to not be economically dependent from the US. Hence the refusal to take part in the trade war against China.

This fits with my original conclusion that the EU is hopelessly naive when it comes to global politics. Imagine someone with the bright idea to "diversify" so for the sake of diversity they sell half their energy imports to a dictatorship (this is actually what Germany did). It's quite obviously unwise, at least but they do it anyway because of that magic word "diversify".

If I can compare it to my own profession it's like a DevOps guy coming up with the bright idea to go multi-cloud, a tarpit where engineering hours go to die and which most often makes the stack more brittle not less.

Let's move on to Merkel and her magic stroke of genius to sell the EU on more of China, not less. Another bright mind walks in and declares, "with China on our side, we'll never have to worry about those bastards over in the US, protecting our ocean trade with their carrier fleets". Yet China is not a good partner, we know this already from their too-sensitive reproaches to such sovereign nations as Australia.

Every time the EU gets bit. It's as if they don't realize that the foundations of autocracy are poison and any partnership, especially one that puts the junior at risk of coercion, is doomed.

When will they ever learn? When will Germany, a land with personal experience in power-mad dictators learn that the price you pay for throwing your lot in with such company is paid for in blood?

⬐ Yoric

You are right, obviously, but I suspect that you're underestimating the complexity of the situation.

On one end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe allying entirely with Putin's Russia (or with China, or with any other dictatorship). That's obviously bad. You can live like this for a very long time, but that way leads eventual subjugation, through violence or otherwise. That's the choice of countries that join the Silk Road.

On the other end of the spectrum, one may imagine Europe letting the US take all the decisions and being entirely dependent on the US for many critical imports. In other words, becoming a dominion of the US. Certainly better than an invasion, but a far cry from independence.

To illustrate, I have heard it said and repeated that the UK has stopped being independent. That any meaningful choice on British policy is actually taken in Washington. I have no clue whether that is actually true, but let us assume for a second that it is, or may be in the future. If that's the case, this means that voting for anything other than local elections is pointless. That the UK is in a limbo, not a democracy anymore, not really a police state, either.

Again,let me emphasize: I do not claim that this represents reality. I only claim that this something that many countries around the globe fear when they talk about the US. And, let's be frank, many of these countries also fear it when they talk about European countries.

So, if you're a democracy, in Europe or elsewhere, how do you remain independent? Obviously, you want to ally with a strong country (e.g. US) against known predators (e.g. Russia) and suspected predators (e.g. China, Turkey). But you also want to guard against too much dependence on your protector (Russia, China, but also the US and European countries, for instance, have been known to use and abuse leverage for political control). You also want to guard against election interference from the your protector (European countries have been doing this all over Africa, while CIA declassified documents confirm that CIA has been involved in election interference all over Europe since its founding – undoubtedly also true of KGB/FSB, but they don't declassify their documents).

Of course, if you spend too much time looking over your shoulder at your allies because you don't trust them, you risk delivering yourself to your predator.

Remaining independent is a complicated balancing act that most countries, not just Europe, play as well as they can. Germany's recent fumble shows how complicated but not that it's unnecessary.