With regard to Europe, Trump was correct in saying that Europe should get serious about its own defense and to stop relying on U.S. protection. Europe is wealthier, more populous, and spends a lot more on defense than Russia does, and there is no compelling reason for the United States to commit its own people to its defense. Accordingly, Trump could have proposed a gradual reduction in the U.S. commitment—say, over a period of 5-10 years—while making it clear that the United States wanted friendly relations with Europe and would continue to cooperate on areas of mutual interest. Indeed, Trump might even have tried to recruit Europe into a broader effort to check a rising China.
But that’s not what he has done. Instead, Trump has repeatedly insulted European leaders and embraced some of Europe’s most destructive political forces. He also increased the U.S. defense budget and the U.S. contribution to reassurance efforts in Eastern Europe, thereby giving NATO’s European members additional reason to free-ride some more. To be sure, some NATO members have maintained their Barack Obama-era commitments to increase defense spending but not by enough to lessen their dependence on Washington. With respect to NATO, in short, Trump has managed to
weaken ties with key allies without reducing U.S. burdens.yeah that's what happened...
In Asia, Trump understood that China was America’s primary long-term rival and it was time to get tough with Beijing about its economic practices. Unfortunately, he’s pursued that goal in a singularly inept way. He started off by unilaterally abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that would benefited the U.S. economy in several ways and strengthened its strategic position in Asia. Instead of lining up other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in a united front over China’s trade and investment policy, Trump threatened to launch trade wars with several of them simultaneously. And in recent weeks,
Trump’s all-too-public eagerness for a deal yeah not so much....with Beijing has undercut his own negotiating team, making meaningful progress on these issues less likely.
pure speculation....
Trump is also singlehandedly responsible for the
bungled U.S. approach to North Korea. yeah cuz missiles flying over japan and guam was much better....To be sure, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a problem that would challenge the shrewdest strategist, but Trump’s handling of it has been a textbook case of wishful thinking and the antithesis of hardheaded realism. Experts inside and outside the U.S. government insisted that Pyongyang was not going to give up its hard-won nuclear weapons capability, which North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the regime see as the ultimate guarantee of their own survival. Yet Trump deluded himself into thinking that his personal charm and self-proclaimed skills as a “master dealmaker” would somehow persuade Kim to do something that was obviously not in his own interest. Not only did Trump miss an opportunity to make tangible if limited progress on this vexing issue, but his bumbling gave America’s Asian partners yet another reason to question his judgment and competence.
In the Middle East, Trump’s policies have been a far cry from what realism would recommend. Instead of maximizing U.S. influence and leverage by establishing pragmatic working relationships with as many states as possible (as China and Russia do), Trump let himself get bamboozled by local potentates and repeated the same
mistakes that have crippled U.S. Middle East policy for a long time. so status quo? except that we wiped out ISIS, there have been no syrian gas attacks, no escalations and in fact things are actually quiet over there compared to recent years...Instead of sticking to the nuclear deal with Iran and working with the P5+1 and other states to curtail Iran’s regional activities, he walked away from the deal and got nothing in return.
the deal was nothing to begin with so a wash at the very worst...what has actually changed?He handed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process over to his unqualified son-in-law
too bad cuz it was gong so swimmingly well up til then....again what;s changed there?and turned a blind eye to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s increasingly erratic behavior.
pffft kashoggi, BFD...typical middle east behavior, nothing new at all...
Even when his instincts are correct—as when he announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of Syria—he’s been a Hamlet-like portrait of indecision, and his off-the-cuff remarks about using bases in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran roiled U.S. relations with Baghdad to no good purpose. And having promised to get out of the nation-building business, he sent more troops to Afghanistan (like Obama did), where they are likely to still be fighting when he leaves office.
part of a NATO mission ---Prime Minister Theresa May has announced that 440 more British military personnel will join the Nato mission in Afghanistan. But how do the UK and US allies see their role in the country?
The additional troops will be ferrying international advisors safely around the country's capital city, Kabul, in their Foxhound vehicles in what has been dubbed "Armoured Uber". All part of the Nato mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces.
Then there’s Russia. Back in 2016, Trump recognized that ironing out America’s current differences with Russia would be good for Europe, good for Russia, and good for the United States, too. But instead of confronting Russia over its misdeeds—including its possible interference in U.S. elections—and beginning a serious dialogue to resolve issues like Ukraine, cyberattacks, and arms control, Trump’s conduct as president has reinforced doubts about his own relations with Moscow (and Russian President Vladimir Putin). Ironically,
he is just about the last person who could even try to work things out with Russia because any serious effort to do so would lead critics to accuse him of being under Putin’s sway.this is just stupid...
the popular meme offers a misleading take on Trump’s actions regarding Russia after getting into office — namely by claiming that “[a]fter his election Trump immediately dropped our sanctions against Russia.”
That’s not so.
Trump did not drop the sanctions that President Barack Obama implemented in late December 2016 in response to the cyberattack. Sanctions were imposed on two Russian intelligence agencies, four intelligence officers and three companies that provided support for the cyber operations; the administration also shut down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, and ordered the removal of 35 “intelligence operatives.”
Some Democrats, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, misleadingly claimed in the first weeks of the new administration that Trump was “lifting sanctions” on a Russian intelligence agency. “Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present,” Pelosi wrote in a Feb. 2, 2017, press release. In fact, the change to which she referred was an adjustment to the sanctions by the Treasury Department in order to authorize U.S. companies to import information technology products into Russia.
Several months into his presidency, Trump actually signed a law that, among other things, codified Obama’s election-related sanctions — and instituted mandates for future sanctions. The law also requires congressional review if the president attempts to lift such sanctions.