These are the actions of a man behind a state that is drowning. With its last breaths aimlessly punching in the air and hitting itself in the face. The cult of personality demands bravado, but Americans have gotten their ass kicked in most confrontations since WW2. Just give it time and give him some cheeseburgers.
Some of this sounds bold to me so I need a little clarification. You're clearly a smart guy so I'm excited I'll be enlightened!
Re: The Trump Administration and China, it seems to me that it's cross-pressured especially since Elon Musk has a giant financial interest in getting along with them and allowing them to invade, say, Taiwan. So is Trump himself genuinely passionate about confronting China? Is Stephen Miller? Maybe Marco Rubio is but he might be the only one.
It still seems plausible to me that Trump and/or Miller know that tribalistically bashing China is useful because it's highly popular domestically. But are they genuinely committed to aggressively confronting China in order to weaken it geopolitically? That's not clear to me at all. A lot of their bleating seems mostly symbolic for low-information U.S. voters.
I could easily be wrong, though! Hopefully you'll inform me about highly insightful anti-China people who genuinely have Trump's ear.
Some other brief points:
- Biden was old and not compelling in a lot of ways. But Noah Smith has shown that he WAS genuinely committed to aggressively confronting China in order to weaken it geopolitically.
- If China is THE major enemy that needs to be confronted, why muddy that message with saber-rattling toward Canada and Mexico?
- I'm curious whether you find yourself more in agreement with Sumner or Noah Smith about how the U.S. should treat China and/or who is better at interpreting the Trump Administration's approach to China. They've had some great back and forths recently!
Oh and I agree more with Scott than Noah here. By a mile. Manufacturing prowess is important but really, it's not a competition. A lot of people seem to think that manufacturing and trade balances are some king of competition they ought to win, like a beauty contest. First off, that is not the case. Secondly, imports from China total about 500 billion US$. Compare that to the 23 trillion US$ GDP. It's just not that dramatically massive.
It is worth noting that 8 years ago Trump started with China in his crusade to isolate the US ... then Mexico with NAFTA was a close second. Panama is about China (preventing Chinese companies from managing the canal, countering BRI). Greenland and Canada are also about China (mineral rights, ports / airports in Greenland coveted by China, polar Silk Road).
Trump's "negotiation" method seems to entirely consist of blackmailing the other party with awful alternative scenarios. So I interpret the current thing with Russia as a twofold message. It is a message to Ukraine: "See what happens if you don't accept to fork over your minerals: I'll hop into bed with the Russians and blame you for the war". The stick for Ukraine becomes a carrot for Russia: "If you play ball with us, amazing things can happen". The stick for Russia is that currently the US hasn't prevented Ukraine yet from using their weapons on Russia, quite the contrary. And Russia is already under plenty of pressure. Now the question becomes, what does he need the Russians for? He's showering them with presents, obviously not to be trusted by anyone with a brain. A seemingly needless gift means, he's asking Russia for a lot in return. The man is as transactional as they come and has a heart of stone. It was stated by the administration itself, just days ago, I lost the source, that they want to "pull Russia away from Iran, North Korea and China". It's a big ask, because Russia's got no one else. Take away these 3 and Russia only has itself ... and the US. OK imagine he's done that, now what is that for? He can't get Russia's land, in resources Russia competes with the US, and Russia as a market is tiny. So getting along with Russia must have to do mainly with China. At the very least creates a stick for China. It contributes to isolating China. And it may in the long run become a squeeze for China, between the Pacific and Russia.
Of course I am not advocating any of these here... I am trying to figure out what they are thinking. Strategy consists in defining what goals one wants to achieve, and then doing everything necessary in order to achieve them. By looking at what actors are doing, you can deduce their goals.
BTW re: negotiation tactics. I don't think that the whole Gaza redevelopment plan is meant for real. It's another "awful alternative" meant to force someone else to do something. No idea who and what exactly that is but we'll find out.
One complication here is that Trump seems to have the same sort of negative view of Taiwan that he has of Ukraine. He complains that Taiwan steals our business, and that we spend money defending them.
Another possibility is that Trump wishes to break Russia and China away from Iran and North Korea, and create a sort of axis of big evil. Three big powers that will (between them) control the world--with the US being number one.
Or maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all. I'm truly uncertain. All I know is that he currently wishes to cozy up to Russia.
I agree that under no scenario does everything make sense here. Most likely in my view is that yes Trump wants the US to be a large nation state rather than a subtle global empire, and does subscribe to great powers having a natural right to dominate their "spheres of influence", or in putinspeak (tm) "the near abroad" . In the process he would trade in global hegemony. So he might let China have Taiwan, Russia gets Ukraine, and the US gets Canada. Europe gets itself, a tough act already.
Biggest obstacle in my mind is that Russia has nothing to gain from aligning with the US except Ukraine, right now, and even here the corridor to Crimea is enough for them. And lifting sanctions. But nothing beyond that. Jeopardizing a near Century long relationship with China isn't worth gains that may last just one US election cycle. As Putin once told a US delegation, "We look like you so you believe we think like you. But we don't think like you." (paraphrased from memory). Frankly, I believe Russia and China "get" each other more than the US "gets" either of them.
MBKA, above all, I'm gratified with the great extent that you engaged with my reply. You're clearly brilliant and have the temperament of a level-headed grown-up. You can clearly handle it if someone pushes back on your theories a little. Disagreement is the spice of life! :)
Anyway, I just replied to Prof. Sumner and I'm going to repeat the same points below:
"a large elephant in the room that has gone unmentioned is just Trump's crude and craven instincts for growing his personal wealth. Both he and Elon might just see bigger money-making opportunities in dealing with dictators instead of leaders who have to win contested elections on a regular basis. Consider Trump's dealings with Saudi Arabia.
It might just be narrow, self-interested, short-sighted instincts for making a quick buck that explains the Trump Administration's foreign policy and that's all there is to it."
As Prof. Sumner himself said, "maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all."
Oh, also, MBKA, re: my original comment, you still have not informed me about any additional highly insightful anti-China people who seem to genuinely have Trump's ear.
You wrote "Three big powers that will (between them) control the world--with the US being number one." That is essentially Phillip P. O'Brien's view. And O'Brien has the ears of both Krugman and Noah Smith.
Anyway, a large elephant in the room that has gone unmentioned is just Trump's crude and craven instincts for growing his personal wealth. Both he and Elon might just see bigger money-making opportunities in dealing with dictators instead of leaders who have to win contested elections on a regular basis. Consider Trump's dealings with Saudi Arabia.
It might just be narrow, self-interested, short-sighted instincts for making a quick buck that explains the Trump Administration's foreign policy and that's all there is to it.
As Prof. Sumner himself said, "maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all."
Alert: Noah Smith just provided a lot of support for your anti-China hypothesis, including links. He labels it "Reverse Kissinger."
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-is-being-sold-out-by-its
That said, Noah's still inclined to side with Phillips O'Brien and his alternative "spheres of influence" theory.
These are the actions of a man behind a state that is drowning. With its last breaths aimlessly punching in the air and hitting itself in the face. The cult of personality demands bravado, but Americans have gotten their ass kicked in most confrontations since WW2. Just give it time and give him some cheeseburgers.
Some of this sounds bold to me so I need a little clarification. You're clearly a smart guy so I'm excited I'll be enlightened!
Re: The Trump Administration and China, it seems to me that it's cross-pressured especially since Elon Musk has a giant financial interest in getting along with them and allowing them to invade, say, Taiwan. So is Trump himself genuinely passionate about confronting China? Is Stephen Miller? Maybe Marco Rubio is but he might be the only one.
It still seems plausible to me that Trump and/or Miller know that tribalistically bashing China is useful because it's highly popular domestically. But are they genuinely committed to aggressively confronting China in order to weaken it geopolitically? That's not clear to me at all. A lot of their bleating seems mostly symbolic for low-information U.S. voters.
I could easily be wrong, though! Hopefully you'll inform me about highly insightful anti-China people who genuinely have Trump's ear.
Some other brief points:
- Biden was old and not compelling in a lot of ways. But Noah Smith has shown that he WAS genuinely committed to aggressively confronting China in order to weaken it geopolitically.
- If China is THE major enemy that needs to be confronted, why muddy that message with saber-rattling toward Canada and Mexico?
- I'm curious whether you find yourself more in agreement with Sumner or Noah Smith about how the U.S. should treat China and/or who is better at interpreting the Trump Administration's approach to China. They've had some great back and forths recently!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H8jweWyUb0
https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/should-i-stay-in-my-lane
Oh and I agree more with Scott than Noah here. By a mile. Manufacturing prowess is important but really, it's not a competition. A lot of people seem to think that manufacturing and trade balances are some king of competition they ought to win, like a beauty contest. First off, that is not the case. Secondly, imports from China total about 500 billion US$. Compare that to the 23 trillion US$ GDP. It's just not that dramatically massive.
It is worth noting that 8 years ago Trump started with China in his crusade to isolate the US ... then Mexico with NAFTA was a close second. Panama is about China (preventing Chinese companies from managing the canal, countering BRI). Greenland and Canada are also about China (mineral rights, ports / airports in Greenland coveted by China, polar Silk Road).
Trump's "negotiation" method seems to entirely consist of blackmailing the other party with awful alternative scenarios. So I interpret the current thing with Russia as a twofold message. It is a message to Ukraine: "See what happens if you don't accept to fork over your minerals: I'll hop into bed with the Russians and blame you for the war". The stick for Ukraine becomes a carrot for Russia: "If you play ball with us, amazing things can happen". The stick for Russia is that currently the US hasn't prevented Ukraine yet from using their weapons on Russia, quite the contrary. And Russia is already under plenty of pressure. Now the question becomes, what does he need the Russians for? He's showering them with presents, obviously not to be trusted by anyone with a brain. A seemingly needless gift means, he's asking Russia for a lot in return. The man is as transactional as they come and has a heart of stone. It was stated by the administration itself, just days ago, I lost the source, that they want to "pull Russia away from Iran, North Korea and China". It's a big ask, because Russia's got no one else. Take away these 3 and Russia only has itself ... and the US. OK imagine he's done that, now what is that for? He can't get Russia's land, in resources Russia competes with the US, and Russia as a market is tiny. So getting along with Russia must have to do mainly with China. At the very least creates a stick for China. It contributes to isolating China. And it may in the long run become a squeeze for China, between the Pacific and Russia.
Of course I am not advocating any of these here... I am trying to figure out what they are thinking. Strategy consists in defining what goals one wants to achieve, and then doing everything necessary in order to achieve them. By looking at what actors are doing, you can deduce their goals.
BTW re: negotiation tactics. I don't think that the whole Gaza redevelopment plan is meant for real. It's another "awful alternative" meant to force someone else to do something. No idea who and what exactly that is but we'll find out.
One complication here is that Trump seems to have the same sort of negative view of Taiwan that he has of Ukraine. He complains that Taiwan steals our business, and that we spend money defending them.
Another possibility is that Trump wishes to break Russia and China away from Iran and North Korea, and create a sort of axis of big evil. Three big powers that will (between them) control the world--with the US being number one.
Or maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all. I'm truly uncertain. All I know is that he currently wishes to cozy up to Russia.
I agree that under no scenario does everything make sense here. Most likely in my view is that yes Trump wants the US to be a large nation state rather than a subtle global empire, and does subscribe to great powers having a natural right to dominate their "spheres of influence", or in putinspeak (tm) "the near abroad" . In the process he would trade in global hegemony. So he might let China have Taiwan, Russia gets Ukraine, and the US gets Canada. Europe gets itself, a tough act already.
Biggest obstacle in my mind is that Russia has nothing to gain from aligning with the US except Ukraine, right now, and even here the corridor to Crimea is enough for them. And lifting sanctions. But nothing beyond that. Jeopardizing a near Century long relationship with China isn't worth gains that may last just one US election cycle. As Putin once told a US delegation, "We look like you so you believe we think like you. But we don't think like you." (paraphrased from memory). Frankly, I believe Russia and China "get" each other more than the US "gets" either of them.
MBKA, above all, I'm gratified with the great extent that you engaged with my reply. You're clearly brilliant and have the temperament of a level-headed grown-up. You can clearly handle it if someone pushes back on your theories a little. Disagreement is the spice of life! :)
Anyway, I just replied to Prof. Sumner and I'm going to repeat the same points below:
"a large elephant in the room that has gone unmentioned is just Trump's crude and craven instincts for growing his personal wealth. Both he and Elon might just see bigger money-making opportunities in dealing with dictators instead of leaders who have to win contested elections on a regular basis. Consider Trump's dealings with Saudi Arabia.
It might just be narrow, self-interested, short-sighted instincts for making a quick buck that explains the Trump Administration's foreign policy and that's all there is to it."
As Prof. Sumner himself said, "maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all."
Oh, also, MBKA, re: my original comment, you still have not informed me about any additional highly insightful anti-China people who seem to genuinely have Trump's ear.
You wrote "Three big powers that will (between them) control the world--with the US being number one." That is essentially Phillip P. O'Brien's view. And O'Brien has the ears of both Krugman and Noah Smith.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/a-chat-with-paul-krugman
Anyway, a large elephant in the room that has gone unmentioned is just Trump's crude and craven instincts for growing his personal wealth. Both he and Elon might just see bigger money-making opportunities in dealing with dictators instead of leaders who have to win contested elections on a regular basis. Consider Trump's dealings with Saudi Arabia.
It might just be narrow, self-interested, short-sighted instincts for making a quick buck that explains the Trump Administration's foreign policy and that's all there is to it.
As Prof. Sumner himself said, "maybe Trump doesn't have any grand strategy at all."