Posted on 12/05/2025 2:59:42 PM PST by delta7
"My fellow Americans:
..........." ( unable to copy paste the entire document).
“reestablishing strategic stability with Russia” pg 26, caught my attention....it’s going to be an interesting year....sounds like Trade and Commerce reestablished with Russia...Go Trump!”
Certainly what MAGA wants, as opposed to others who demand World War 3.
It says nothing about reestablishing commerce with Russia.
Trump is so thirsty of a Nobel Prize it would not shock to see him make a deal that Europe isn’t going to accept and that Russia would not adhere to.
In fact, I am surprised at how little this strategy mentions Russia. Much more time and effort seems to be spent on our own hemisphere.
This paragraph seems central to Trump's actions since inauguration. Panama, Greenland, Canada, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina, Honduras and more. He want's the USA to control the western hemisphere. Previous presidents have allowed China to establish far too much influence there. He is pushing Europe to take responsibility for their own defense. Our priorities will shift to the west and the Pacific.
“Trump is so thirsty of a Nobel Prize...”
What is your TDS stage, third, fourth?
You can always leave this country if Trump causes you so much pain.
For the ill informed, do remember, Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural resources ( $$$75 trillion plus) at very affordable prices.....the West needs much of what Russia has.....Trump knows what is good for America, senile Joes Ukie war is not.
“Trump Wants More Trade With Russia But Less With Everyone Else,....”
What is your TDS stage, third, fourth?
d/l the PDF
drop it in here:
this nice tool is something that AI reformats text (such as YouTube transcripts) 2500 words at a time.
“For the ill informed, do remember, Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural resources ( $$$75 trillion plus) at very affordable prices..”
Yet, they have to steal toilets from Ukraine!
Read the whole thing.
I am so happy that the SMART people are now in charge.
Blah….Blah…..Blah……You bitch about everything Trump.
I certainly don't mind the attention on our own hemisphere.
For 80 years the US led "order" (basically that of deterring entities trying to change borders by force) has prevented truly major conflict. We think there have been lots of conflicts, but, by any real / objective historical measure, this "order" has been very successful. The relative(!) peace has also allowed us to flourish, and the condition of the people all over the world to generally improve. In our case we have tacked on staggering systemic inefficiencies domestically: It's interesting to consider where we'd be with better domestic policies. But, alas, the fault of democracies, that democratic government can only last so long as the populace does not realize it can raid the Treasury, is coming back to haunt us. In any event, deviating too far from how we have been setting the playing field is VERY dicey stuff indeed.
An obvious worry that this document pretty well presumes, without saying so directly, is a failure of deterrence and major conflict with China. I'd hope we could tone them down a little by being, in partnership with Canada, a reliable energy supplier. China is often driven by what I think could be called "resource hunger" in several areas. On the other hand, the Chinese do not think like us.
China's increased swing to more authoritarianism is not discussed. That's really a big deal, because of the negatives it drives!
The author(s) seem to be paying no attention to the likely response of various bad actors, world wide, if Ukraine gets a bad deal. This goes far beyond concerns about Russia.
Nothing is mentioned about the water catastrophe building in Iran. If things play out the way they seem to be, we could be looking at 50 million or more refugees. Talk about a destabilizing factor!
The document also seems to avoid almost entirely, except for Europe, cultural and societal forces as sources of instability and conflict, while focusing very heavily on what I will loosely group together as "global commerce". I'm not so sure that focus on trade will please some FReepers, but, I'm gonna leave that dog lie. My worry is about the exclusion: 55% of the world's population does NOT live in so-called "full" or "flawed" democracies" (which includes "democratic constitutional republics" like the USA). Most of the world does NOT politically think and live ANYTHING like us, and those cultural / societal differences can often overrun the economic benefits of peace. Certainly that is true of the radical Muslims.
In any event, the Strategy ends up arguing we shouldn't hector actors like Saudi Arabia about rights violations, democracy, and such - I tend to agree - and then lays it on the Euros thick and heavy. It's one thing to point out "Hey guys, you really should rethink your economies", but when it comes to migration, that IS their business. And if we can get along with Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim country), is it necessarily a strategic disaster if France goes Muslim? France is already largely lost to secularism.
As an aside I would note that repressive (to us) governance in Europe has generally been the norm for most of Europe's history, varying from country to country, of course. "Mono" culturalism until recently has hidden some of that, but, even so, what were the Pilgrims fleeing from, eh?
Also noted regarding European defense matters is this little tidbit "This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons.
My 1st question would be "Does that include Turkey?", my second would be "How does defense production capacity compare?", my 3rd would be "How much does Russia's strategic depth matter?", my 4th would be "How much does Russia's access to other areas through choke points matter?", my 5th would be "Can Europe's population successfully resist Russian propaganda?", my 6th (related) would be "Will Euro citizens be 'tough and supportive' in a conflict?", and my 7th would be "Without major US logistics support, can Europe make good use of that "hard power" advantage?"
The paper talks about freedom and so forth as valuable ideals. Well then, what about Ukraine's?
The strategy also exhorts for what would have to be a heavily armed Europe taking charge of its own security without the US as big dog to knock heads if need be. Wait a sec, guys and gals, how is Russia going to view this? They are already howling about the Euros being a bunch of warmongers.
Of more concern, and I know some of y'all don't believe me, but I think this arm-up could easily go too far. History says that in the long run, you could not ask for a worse scenario than losing that strong US element. At least I'll almost (almost) certainly be long dead and buried when it really blows up.
Always try to look for the silver lining...
Stop being an embarrassment
One thing I left out of my long post is the repeated discussion by US allies, and some others, that the weakening US role / “global order” means that in order to be secure from nuclear blackmail, they may themselves need to acquire nukes. Remember that interview with MBS (Saudi Arabia) when he said (paraphrasal) “If Iran gets nuclear weapons, we must get nuclear weapons.”?
Obviously Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea could build nukes, I would guess Saudi would buy them from the Pakistanis. Quite a few other countries could with a bit longer time build modest yield Little Boy type bombs; they are not that hard to build.
This is a freaking nightmare: Under most circumstances I’d trust most of these countries with nukes, but, every additional country raises the risk of miscalculation, etc.
Because nothing says leadership like insulting dick jokes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.