The U.S. can no longer be counted on as a safe ally especially when we have leadership that looks like Donald Trump. We always had everyone’s back but no more. A perfect title the U.S. is a risk to be managed.
Great and sad insight. Is there any country that we Contrarians can make a deal with? Our own personal security is out the window. Could use some backup.
If other nations no longer trust us to live up to our agreements, then our "leadership" no longer has any meaning.
Trump only knows one kind of agreement: one in which there is a winner and a loser. He doesn't understand how an agreement can work to the benefit of both parties, which is the object of virtually all international negotiations. And he gets off on causing pain to others. It's what makes him feel validated.
Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near national diplomacy.
James, I agree that US "leadership" is pretty much meaningless. Also question the idea of US power inside NATO when the power of the US has been overwhelming to undermine NATO.
Professor O'Neill, this was a difficult column for me to process. World leaders choosing options over outrage! Ugh! Playing the flattery game in public while privately acting to explore options that would control the risk of a rogue US. Flattery, ugh! Ultimately your analysis is persuasive that world leaders don't have the luxury to act out private feelings of outrage.
Your columns are particularly important to me as an education in how responsible world leaders and national security professionals operate. As you describe, they weigh a range of factors in deciding the best course among many options. Not simplistic and certainly not always emotionally satisfying.
PS I'm still not really on board with the strategy of throw the monster some red meat (flattery) while running for the exit. Even if it was performative, I was proud when an American President visiting China (Obama? Carter?) defied expectations and took the risk of reminding China of its human rights abuses while welcoming talks on areas of common interests. There are other examples, I hope.
So our former allies have to flatter T because the risk of challenging the US is too great? That sort of challenge is reserved to the US because of its "superpower" position?
That sort of foreign policy seems transactional too - what T is accused of.
The U.S. can no longer be counted on as a safe ally especially when we have leadership that looks like Donald Trump. We always had everyone’s back but no more. A perfect title the U.S. is a risk to be managed.
Great and sad insight. Is there any country that we Contrarians can make a deal with? Our own personal security is out the window. Could use some backup.
The US is to be treated like a sulky, demanding brat. Hopefully soon there will be adults managing our country.
I like the idea of being "harder to squeeze." Now how can we as Americans engineer that for ourselves against the Bigot in Chief?
If other nations no longer trust us to live up to our agreements, then our "leadership" no longer has any meaning.
Trump only knows one kind of agreement: one in which there is a winner and a loser. He doesn't understand how an agreement can work to the benefit of both parties, which is the object of virtually all international negotiations. And he gets off on causing pain to others. It's what makes him feel validated.
Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near national diplomacy.
James, I agree that US "leadership" is pretty much meaningless. Also question the idea of US power inside NATO when the power of the US has been overwhelming to undermine NATO.
Professor O'Neill, this was a difficult column for me to process. World leaders choosing options over outrage! Ugh! Playing the flattery game in public while privately acting to explore options that would control the risk of a rogue US. Flattery, ugh! Ultimately your analysis is persuasive that world leaders don't have the luxury to act out private feelings of outrage.
Your columns are particularly important to me as an education in how responsible world leaders and national security professionals operate. As you describe, they weigh a range of factors in deciding the best course among many options. Not simplistic and certainly not always emotionally satisfying.
PS I'm still not really on board with the strategy of throw the monster some red meat (flattery) while running for the exit. Even if it was performative, I was proud when an American President visiting China (Obama? Carter?) defied expectations and took the risk of reminding China of its human rights abuses while welcoming talks on areas of common interests. There are other examples, I hope.
So our former allies have to flatter T because the risk of challenging the US is too great? That sort of challenge is reserved to the US because of its "superpower" position?
That sort of foreign policy seems transactional too - what T is accused of.