I am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
The stated objectives for this administration was to be understood as: Weaken USD. Cheaper oil. Weaken NATO.
This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.
> you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together
There is no un-breaking this egg. Only the most deluded people in the world don't realize that there is no trust to be exchanged, for many generations at least.
The most universal bad outcome is that many people had predicted, we are now living in a new age of accelerated nuclear proliferation thanks to the loss of Pax Americana.
There are ways in which the Trump admin is aiding Ukraine right now that cannot fit the narrative though.
If Putin controlled Trump outright, Ukraine would not be using US intel to more effectively strike Russian oil infrastructure. Trump blocked this intelligence sharing for a little bit during the initial "Peace talks" but now we are back to helping the find routes for weapons that won't be intercepted.
That is in line with Trump being sympathetic to Putin's narrative, but not in line with Trump following Putin's orders.
That infrastructure is critical for Russian state budget, something that is very strained, and for maintaining cheap energy internally to keep the populace apathetic.
Putin would also not have wanted the US to waltz into Venezuela unopposed. Makes Russia look very weak to have an ally who they supply with military aide be so comprehensively owned.
Unfortunately, Trump just idolizes Putin for being a powerful and oppressive dictator, because he likes power and wants that for himself. He has no moral qualms with the immoral things done by Putin. He loves the fake "Manly" persona. He's jealous of how effective Putin propaganda is.
It can still fit the narrative. There's a game theory to blackmail; if Putin publishes (hypothetical) kompromat then he loses his leverage. So as long as Trump remains less hostile to Russia than the alternative, he can do what he wants.
Also, support for Ukraine is very popular in the US, and Trump is clearly concerned about his image. Also about a potential revolt in the GOP. Cracks are showing already.
The simplest conclusion is that Trump has a narcissistic disorder and everything he does is related to that. All of his actions are well explained by this.
Of course, he can be a Russian asset to some extend at the same time.
It's truly vile how he treats the office and the democratic values he's meant to uphold and defend.
Why is he not impeached? Where is the American people?
He treats you with such contempt that he isn't above using the office for fraud and scams. He has done more to harm the US than Putin could have ever dreamed possible. Where is the American people? Hello?
Impeachment doesn't mean what (I believe) you think it does. There were previous presidents of the US who got impeached and remained in the position as well. This part is not novel (the only novel part is that he managed to get impeached twice).
Removing Trump from office would require votes from some Republican Party members in Congress, and so far not enough are willing to vote for it.
He's been impeached twice, in his first term when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment happens. But removing a president requires trial and conviction in the Senate, and enough Republicans there voted against conviction. Several presidents have been impeached; none have been convicted.
> Where is the American people?
My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance over a segment of the population. They can say anything and that segment will believe them and support it.
If the US makes it out of this in one piece, the Republican Party will likely be ended, at least for a very long time. This is now existential for them and they know it. That’s why they’re all going along with it.
> My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance
I understand what your saying but I believe it's too much of an excuse. Every single person has a degree of personal responsibility to be at least somewhat informed on the state and happenings of your nation. A democracy simply cannot function otherwise.
I completely agree about responsibility. At the same time, we can't close our eyes, on principle, to the fact that people can be influenced or we will paralyze ourselves about a critical problem.
I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.
Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.
Ironically, this kind of mindset is exactly the one that Putin encouraged within Russia because it makes political pluralism impossible. If no matter who wins, 40% of the population is convinced the opposition is inherently wicked and intentionally trying to destroy the country as an agent of foreign (either literally or culturally) interest...
...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.
Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.
Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.
Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.
You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.
> The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
Who fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.
The strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.
The entire world smells Putin-y and has for a while. His influence is everywhere, and I believe much is the sickly state the world is in currently is due to him.
IMHO: The goal of the political movement (we really need a name for it after so many years in so many countries) is to replace the existing world order with a new one with them on top.
The movement seems to include right-wing (semi-)authoritarians such as Trump and the GOP, Netanyahu, Putin, bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), lesser powers, and many American business interests including in SV.
Leading Trump advisor Stephen Miller expressed one core position, which is that power rules the world - rather than human rights and votes, which is the fundamental of American tradition and law, and the current world order.
So yes, policies like Venezuala and Greenland, as well as immigration policy, anti-science positions, pro-disinformation actions, etc. are intended for a broader political outcome, but it's much broader than NATO. They are playing for the whole thing.
I'm surprised that more people on HN aren't very familiar with their strategy and goals.
Speculating a cabal of authoritarians planning to change the world order is strictly in tinfoil hat territory.
It is much more boring than that. Democracy is an unstable way of ruling societies and generating value out of people. Keeping it healthy requires not only elections but lots of "undemocratic" powerful institutions with unelected well-educated people in it (courts, agencies, foundations, bureaucrats). Those institutions need to have actual power to coerce. The goal of the democracy should be generating quite a bit people who will hold those positions.
Managing economics such that there aren't any too big organizations that can significantly affect individuals' independent decision making is also required. That's the antitrust laws and unions for ya.
When educational, scientific and social organs are undermined, the public becomes more susceptible to strongman figures that provide easy solutions to the degradation. When economy is mismanaged undereducated people are easily swayed, more educated people are easily coerced.
It is statistical common human behavior to support autocrats, especially under stress. Autocrats themselves have a strong inherent understanding of power and great skills/intuition to detect the weakest. If you encoutered bullies in your life, you may have observed how their brain and the cult of personality works. It is fascinating that they can pick out the weak so easily.
Like the bullies, the autocrats understand each other since they understand themselves. Our crappy happenstance is not a result of a strategy but the systematic behavior of bullies and, bullied and oppressed people.
The Republicans pick on Venezuela and Europe and Canada since they know that those societies are weak and they are separated. They know from years of backstabbing experience that if they play the game right, they will get to enjoy one more praise, one more success, one more sadistic dopamine rush. They will get to enjoy eating one separated bison from the herd at a time. They know that attacking a strong bully like themselves will be hard and it will probably hurt. They won't get the same feeling of accomplishment.
Without attacking the system itself, it is really hard to win against it. There needs to be strong external factors for established autocratic regimes to collapse by letting them be. Attackers need to be smart and nimble and more importantly systematic. Moreover the lines of defense are not uniform. There are many smaller bullies even in the weak. They have lots of economic incentives to keep their small serfdoms.
It's not speculation; they openly talk about replacing the world order and there is plenty of evidence. What exactly they want, and who participates to what degree, is less well-defined.
