Trump: loose cannon or wily negotiator?
Commenter “Hubert” states my own thoughts on the matter quite well when he writes:
Now comes news that Trump is threatening Putin with more sanctions to get him to the negotiating table. Unlike mkent, I suspect there is method to Trump’s behavior. There better be, because mkent is correct when he says that Trump is disrupting the entire postwar and post-Cold War security system. I think it badly needed to be disrupted, but this is turning into a queasy-making rollercoaster ride. Dangerous times; high stakes.
The question is whether Trump actually is a loose cannon or whether there is method to his madness – and if the latter, whether that method will work.
Is Trump talking about leaving NATO? Ending America’s nuclear protection entirely for Europe? Withdrawing all troops from Europe? If so, I haven’t seen it. What I do see is that Trump is aiming to have Europe participate more in its own defense. The idea is that we are spread too thin. As Hubert also writes:
I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).” That’s ridiculous and unsustainable. Mkent referred on the other thread to Tusk talking about maybe developing a Polish nuclear deterrent, like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that some of the Europeans are getting serious about their own defense. As for mkent’s fear that proliferation will inevitably lead to WWIII and nukes flying all over the world, I would point to India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers that hate each other’s guts but have somehow managed to avoid going to all-out war. Strategist Bernard Brodie rightly called nuclear weapons “the absolute weapon” in his 1946 book of the same name. By that token, they’re the ultimate deterrent.
This is one of a host of reasons why I’m glad I’m not president. I could not even begin to make decisions of that magnitude.
However, change is inherently frightening because all change can backfire. 9/11 sparked a big change here, because I don’t think that without it George W. Bush would have started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 changed the trajectory of his entire presidency in terms of foreign policy. And during Obama’s presidency, foreign policy changed a great deal also, and I’m hard-pressed to find that any of it was for the better; same for Biden and company. All of those events made it clear that US foreign policy could change on a dime between one president and another.
Western European leaders can’t stand Trump. But they felt the same way during his first term. They laughed at him when he warned them they were too dependent on Russian energy sources – a warning which turned out to be very prescient indeed. But Western Europeans already had a great deal of resentment and contempt for the US even prior to Trump. Remember that cowboy George W. Bush in 2001?:
George W. Bush is highly unpopular with the publics of the major nations of Western Europe. By wide margins, people in Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy all disapprove of his handling of international policy, and the American president does not inspire much more confidence in these countries than does Russian President Vladimir Putin.
More than seven-in-ten of those in each country say Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S. interests, and most think he understands less about Europe than other American presidents. In that regard, Bush’s foreign policy approval rating runs 40-60 percentage points below former President Bill Clinton’s, when judged in retrospect.
These are the principal findings of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center …
And Reagan in 1981:
A remark by President Reagan that he could envision a nuclear war limited to Europe has unleashed a political storm among Europeans that U.S. and allied officials sought yesterday to bring under control.
Also in 1982:
President Reagan will meet presidents, prime ministers, a pope and a queen during his trip to Europe for the NATO summit, but will also be exposed to thousands of angry Europeans who despise him — and some who may try to kill him.
In Paris, the president’s first stop on his 10-day, 4-nation tour beginning Wednesday, grand boulevards and winding alleyways alike are lined with posters showing a combat commando gripping a submachine gun and saying ‘the terrorist Reagan must be welcomed with hatred, raised fists and loaded arms.’
Bombs exploded last week at the Rome office of Pan American airlines and an insurance company with U.S. links. The communist group that claimed responsibility for the blast said, ‘This is our greeting to the hangman Reagan.’
The president’s personal safety has been most directly threatened in West Germany, cradle of the European peace movement that views Reagan as a warmongering nuclear cowboy.
We survived that. Hopefully we’ll survive this.
But I’ve never been keen on roller coaster rides. Trump’s unpredictability is both a strength and a weakness. But if he threatens too many times and his bluff is called and he doesn’t follow through, he loses the power engendered by his threats. Plus, he can get into a macho-threat contest with some people and win, but Putin couldn’t care less, IMHO.
However, Trump has pulled many rabbits out of many hats before – so sit tight during the bumpy ride.
ADDENDUM:
I just noticed these:
Ultimately all such radical change has to be ratified, institutionalized and regularized or else they will fail. This must happen through elections and captured in institutional reform. But that is some months away. Meanwhile it's a nailbiting ride.
— wretchardthecat (@wretchardthecat) March 7, 2025
The cultural shifts that have been going on for the last decades could equally be characterized as a Revolution without the Terror and what is happening is counter-revolution.
— Red_Rabbit ? (?) (@Red_Rabbit_001) March 9, 2025
It’s hard to trust and at times even believe what Trump says. His stream of consciousness rambling combined with denials are enough to drive the most patient person insane. However, in the case of Ukraine I believe he is sincere in wanting to at least put a stop to the fighting. Some of what he says publicly are probably feint positions akin to rope-a-dope tactical maneuvers. I want to believe he has some master strategy including fall back positions. And as I’ve said here before, it’s very possible that peace by itself in Ukraine is not what he wants. Maybe he’s using it to achieve other more important objectives.
Friends and fighting men of the Danaans, henchmen of Ares,
be men now, dear friends, remember your furious valour.
Do we think there are others who stand behind us to help us?
Have we some stronger wall that can rescue men from perdition?
We have no city built strong with towers lying near us, within which
we could defend ourselves and hold off this host that matches us.
We hold position in this plain of the close-armoured Trojans,
bent back against the sea, and far from the land of our fathers.
Salvation’s light is in our hands’ work, not the mercy of battle. (15.733-741)
Australia has about 26.6 million people.
A total military, active and reserve of 89,000
The US has about 330,000,000 million people.
Total active and reserve military ( not counting civilian DOD) of 2,100,000.
On a rough per capita basis, if Australia had the same population as the US at 330 million, it’s military size extrapolated from its current size would only be about 1.1 Million men. Slightly more than half of the US military.
Most of our allies are undermanned compared to the US.
We have a hole card that no other nation has. Our fleet of nuclear subs. They have the capability of destroying most of any enemy’s cities/defense capabilities even if the enemy strikes CONUS first. It’s a major deterrent that hardly anyone talks about these days. Trump is willing to be more out there because he knows all our adversaries know/understand this.
There are two ways to deter Russia. One way is by using our military power. But to what end? Destroy Russia and what then? Occupy the country? Rebuild it ala Germany and Japan? Or let it rot ala Afghanistan and Iraq? No good choices.
The other way is economically. This can be done. Russia has an economy based on oil and gas exports. Force the price of oil and gas down and their income goes with it. Block their ability to use the international banking settlements system and they will be in dire straits rather quickly. Unlike Obama/Biden, Trump is willing to consider these economic tools and Putin knows it.
Will Putin go nuclear? That’s the fear, and many quake in their boots when he rattles his nukes. My opinion is no, because he knows about our second-strike capability. And he faces the combined nuclear power of France, Greta Britain, and the USA.
Would China join Russia? Maybe. They might also decide to sit back and stay unscathed while the other powers destroy themselves.
Anyway, al nuclear armed countries
know that nuclear war is basically the end of civilization as we have known it. That’s why none have even though seriously about using it.
Given Western European’s hate for Reagan, Bush and Trump… why continue to place Americans at grave potential risk by offering protection to such a collection of ingrates?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEEh0GF_C8
Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy four years.
The markets hate uncertainty, and it seems that day after trading day, it goes down. On the other hand, yesterday’s trading had a big morning sell-off, followed by a complete reversal, and ended slightly up. And overall, the declines are nowhere near as big as 2007 and 2008. Yet.
________
I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).
The population of Europe was a trivia question my team tried to answer recently. I was thinking of the 450M number. The trivia answer and Wikipedia has it at 745M. Which definition of “Europe” is used in each I wonder?
I think he maybe did it as a kind of show, so he could pretend there was a real negotiation going on when really everything has basically been settled already in Putin’s favor: no Nato in Ukraine, Russia keeps the four oblasts?
Not sure about the connection between what Trump says and what he does.
Whatever the Ukraine outcome, the optics are going to be important Putin. Hope Trump knows that.
Europe re America is similar to Democrats re DJT: Nothing the second do will ever satisfy the first.
Geoffrey Britain:
Try shouting at clouds.
Russia calls them The Decadent West. Groffrey does that give you a warm glow about Putin? But don’t get to comfy, you are part of The Decadent West too.
Sorry to have to break it to you old man.
Geoffrey is going to start the 13 minutes to Armageddon panic again. Now, it is the French nuclear umbrella over Europe, since the dreaded NATO nuclear threat to Russia is questionable under President Trump. Before it was potential French cruise missiles that could reach precious Moscow in 13 minutes, if launched from that den of perfidy, Ukraine.
Should US nuclear targeting be reassigned to Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys? After all they are ungreatful and pose the real threat?
TommyJay:
As far as I know, Russia west of the Urals has long been considered part of Europe. But even if you take the Russian part away from that 745 figure, you still don’t get down to 450. So it’s a puzzlement.
Geoffrey Britain:
The traditional answer has been “because we are protecting them from being taken over by something far more dangerous to us and probably to the entire world.”
It’s not sheer unselfish altrusim.
The 450 million figure is almost certainly the population of the European Union.
For those who don’t click links:
The EU is almost but not quite overlapping with NATO. The most prominent European exceptions would be Austria and Ireland (in the EU, not in NATO) and the United Kingdom, Norway, and Turkey (in NATO, not in the EU).
Any of the other stats I’ve ever given here on Europe vs Russia are based on the EU: for example, the EU economy is $29 trillion vs Russia’s $7.1 trillion. A few countries are in neither, like Switzerland.
Trump: loose cannon or wily negotiator?
Trump: Wile E. Coyote or Wile E. Negotiator.
Sorry. That’s just the way my mind works.
I have no idea what is going on. The pro Ukraine accounts are running around with their hair on fire, and the pro Russian accounts are the usual bunch of false victories which culminate in nothing much. There isn’t a reliable view through the political fog. I wish I could trust Trump on this, but I can’t say that I do. He might get trapped in the LBJ domain error — what works in politics/business might not work in war. And Zelenskyy didn’t help himself, what was he thinking? Anyway, it would be nice if Trump, or Waltz, or Rubio, or Hegseth would tell us a bit about what is going on…
Oh, well, I look at the mountains and think that they will still be there long after I am gone and the war is over. There is some peace in that.
Could be much worse, could be Kamalla.
I think Russia is about spent and I wonder how much of their nuke arsenal is Potemkin. Even if the EU massively increases spending it will take 5-10 years to be seen. After five years Poland has received how many of their puny F-35 order? Two or some such?
How about Controlled Cannon.
Poland is massively building its Military. It does take time.
That said, I have the impression the Trump wants to replace Zelenskyy. I think that would be a big mistake, shades of JFK and Diem.
Wouldn’t be prudent at all.
What Chuck said (@10:14 pm)
(Unless one is inclined to believe the Global Corrupt Media, whose sole purpose, it seems to me, has been—and continues to be—to serve up ferocious anti-Trump hatred, demonization and hysteria, 24/7.)
They haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory over the past umpteen years, but believe ’em if ye wish.
Count me out.
The die was cast for the breakup of the post-WWII American Global Order long ago. As Peter Zeihan likes to put it, we Americans bribed up an alliance to fight the USSR. The Global Order was a defense policy for us, not an economic one as it was for the rest of the world. When the USSR fell, the AGO fell into a sort of zombie state. Way too many people had invested their lives and net worth in continuing it for it to go away quickly or quietly. GHWB and Clinton tried to reanimate it as a way to more fully integrate China and other states into the world community. That worked to a degree but the End of History theory that everybody in the world was going to become some flavor of WEIRD and practice war no more literally crashed and burned on 9/11/2001. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts showed that we would need to maintain a Cold War size military indefinitely, something that the End of History theory said we wouldn’t need to do, because nobody else in the world was going to step up to help maintain the peace unless they were directly threatened. Even then, Ukraine is proving that even direct threats don’t lessen the reliance of other nations, especially in Europe, on US involvement.