Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Dad3353]

There is a simple solution, of course; Russia becomes member of the EU and joins NATO. Problem solved. 

[tegs07]

20 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

There is a simple solution, of course; Russia becomes member of the EU and joins NATO. Problem solved. 

I think Germany were trying to get as close an integration as possible. It kinda backfired.

[TimR]

39 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

There is a simple solution, of course; Russia becomes member of the EU and joins NATO. Problem solved. 

The problem with Russia, China, India, EU, and the US, is that a single government overseeing hundreds of millions of people leaves hundreds of millions of people disenfranchised. You live in your small village and are subject to rules that you have no say over. 

 

Certain leaders want to be the people who say what everyone can and can't do. Let's call them dictators. Whether they're elected or not. 

Edited Tuesday at 16:20 by TimR

[prowla]

12 minutes ago, TimR said:

The problem with Russia, China, India, EU, and the US, is that a single government overseeing hundreds of millions of people leaves hundreds of millions of people disenfranchised. You live in your small village and are subject to rules that you have no say over. 

 

Certain leaders want to be the people who say what everyone can and can't do. Let's call them dictators. Whether they're elected or not. 

 

Yep - I view the EU as being like a multinational; head office has its mission, never mind the little people.

[prowla]

2 hours ago, SumOne said:

 

Whether it'd be right or not I'm not sure, but I do think if Europe was as united as countries like China, or Russia, the United States, then it could be a military Superpower:

 

• Europe: Population 750m, GDP $28 trillion
• USA: Population 340m, GDP $28 trillion
• China: Population 1.4bn, GDP $18 trillion
• Russia: Population  144m, GDP $2 trillion.

 

I suppose that is a big if as getting all of Europe aligned to one military goal is a lot easier said than done. Europe as a region probably hoped more than most that the days or 'might is right' were past us as two world wars started in Europe didn't really bring Europe anything other than suffering, collectively had the feeling that others will realise that too and effort can be spent on better things.  

 

If Russia wasn't unpredictable and with Nuclear weapons then it wouldn't be much of a threat to a united Europe. Europe has more than 5x the population and 14x the GDP, I mean, I'm sure pretty much any European country could develop their own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if they really wanted to, I suppose they hoped the world would move towards other priorities.

 

In fact, if it was a game of Risk or top trumps it looks like Europe would be a winner on all other than vs China for population (....India enters the room as the next nuclear armed superpower). 

 

Actually, India is the world's most populous country.

Regarding Europe, it's not a country and a number of people don't want it to be.

(But we can and do work together, including on defence and other matters.)

[peteb]

28 minutes ago, TimR said:

The problem with Russia, China, India, EU, and the US, is that a single government overseeing hundreds of millions of people leaves hundreds of millions of people disenfranchised. You live in your small village and are subject to rules that you have no say over. 

 

Certain leaders want to be the people who say what everyone can and can't do. Let's call them dictators. Whether they're elected or not. 

 

That's a rather strange statement. For a start, every country in the EU has its own government (despite what the Brexity types would have you believe) and how does a democratically elected government leave people who live in this 'small village', but presumably had the opportunity to vote in an election, disenfranchised? 

 

The current situation does make one thing abundantly clear (as if it wasn't before) - the European democracies need to act strategically together in things like defence, otherwise they are vulnerable to the really big powers and just too small to stand up to them on their own. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 16:48 by peteb

[SumOne]

8 minutes ago, prowla said:

 

Actually, India is the world's most populous country.

Regarding Europe, it's not a country and a number of people don't want it to be.

(But we can and do work together, including on defence and other matters.)

 

Well yeah, I said (or alluded to) both of those things.

[Agent 00Soul]

17 hours ago, chris_b said:

There are very few options to get the US out of this dystopian nightmare.

For whatever reason, the UK press isn’t covering this as much as the Zelensky/tariff/foreign policy stuff but most of Trump’s energies have been actually spent altering the US internally. Almost all my friends and family are convinced this is the end of the US as we have known it. But the progressives see it as the coming of a theocratic kleptocracy and the conservatives see it as the end of government waste/regulation and the end of foreign wars used to prop up useless regimes that are always lost and ultimately meaningless for the US outside of wasted money and a massive body count on all sides (Vietnam/Afghanistan/both Gulf Wars).

 

I know more progressives than conservatives and they are in full panic mode. They have no idea what they are going to do in a new MAGA world or what their place will be in the future. Nothing ever prepared them for this. Obviously my conservative relatives and contacts are more serene and have adopted a “once all this shakes out, things will be better for all of us you’ll see,” attitude. 
 

Edited Wednesday at 07:34 by Agent 00Soul

[tegs07]

59 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

For whatever reason, the UK press isn’t covering this as much as the Zelensky/tariff/foreign policy stuff but most of Trump’s energies have been actually spent altering the US internally. Almost all my friends and family are convinced this is the end of the US as we have known it. But the progressives see it as the coming of a theocratic kleptocracy and the conservatives see it as the end of government waste/regulation and the end of foreign wars used to prop up useless regimes that are always lost and ultimately meaningless for the US outside of wasted money and a massive body count on all sides (Vietnam/Afghanistan/both Gulf Wars).

 

I know more progressives than conservatives and they are in full panic mode. They have no idea what they are going to do in a new MAGA world or what their place will be in the future. Nothing ever prepared them for this. Obviously my conservative relatives and contacts are more serene and have adopted a “once all this shakes out, things will be better for all of us you’ll see,” attitude. 
 

I very much sympathise with ordinary working Americans who will bear the brunt of this situation.

I do agree with Trump that the US deficit is deeply concerning and needs to be addressed. I also take his point about foreign wars and US aid. What I totally disagree about is the timing and the complete failure to understand or acknowledge that under Biden the USA did very well compared to the majority of major economies and recovered from Covid quickly with a booming economy and stock market.

 

Trump is steadily dismantling the foundations of this economic strength during a very volatile geopolitical period. It’s a huge gamble and the inflows of gold and the rise in the price of gold makes me think that the billionaires he represents know that the GOP are likely to cause an inflationary spike and probable recession.

 

I heard a decent discussion recently that we are entering the politics and economics of aggression. The politics of compassion started after WW2 and proved to be the biggest rise in social mobility and economic growth in history. It came to an end under Thatcher and Reagan and the policitics of indifference began. Every man for himself competing for scarce resources with limited help or sympathy for the weak. 

 

Welcome to the politics of aggression where the weak are intentionally kicked aside as deliberate policy (rather than collateral damage) by the powerful.

Edited Wednesday at 08:27 by tegs07
clarity

[Si600]

15 hours ago, peteb said:

... how does a democratically elected government leave people who live in this 'small village', but presumably had the opportunity to vote in an election, disenfranchised? 

 

This has just happened in Germany.  The Bundesländer that formed the DDR have overwhelmingly voted for the AfD.  The rest of the Bundstag have stated that they won't work with the AfD so those 5 Länder have an officially democratically elected head of state in the Bundestag who no one will work with.  They, at the moment, are going to be in permanent opposition rather than having a say.

 

It's beholden to Merz and the SPD to do something to reverse the disenfranchisement of the old DDR that has been going on for the last 30 years, but when and how is anyones guess.

 

 

That's the perspective of an Englishman living in Germany, BTW, not an expert on German politics.

[peteb]

26 minutes ago, Si600 said:

This has just happened in Germany.  The Bundesländer that formed the DDR have overwhelmingly voted for the AfD.  The rest of the Bundstag have stated that they won't work with the AfD so those 5 Länder have an officially democratically elected head of state in the Bundestag who no one will work with.  They, at the moment, are going to be in permanent opposition rather than having a say.

 

It's beholden to Merz and the SPD to do something to reverse the disenfranchisement of the old DDR that has been going on for the last 30 years, but when and how is anyones guess.

 

 

That's the perspective of an Englishman living in Germany, BTW, not an expert on German politics.

 

That's how democracy works! You could make a better case of saying the whole of Scotland was forced into Brexit, even though they were overwhelmingly against it. 

 

I'm no expert on German politics either, but I do know that the majority of West Germans were against reunification (as were the governments of the UK and France, the other major powers in Europe), but they were forced into it by the USA and general circumstances. If East Germany was still a separate country, I would imagine that the AfD would be a fringe party in WG, but a major force in a much poorer EG. 

 

[BigRedX]

6 minutes ago, peteb said:

I'm no expert on German politics either, but I do know that the majority of West Germans were against reunification

 

Interesting, because that's not the impression I got at all. I'm half German so I spent a lot of time in Germany staying with relations and friends during the 60s and 70s. Certainly in the 70s when I was older and more politically aware the East/West Germany situation was on the German news almost every night (in a similar way to how Northern Ireland situation was being covered in the UK) and all the Germans I knew who were very middle-of-the-road politically were pro reunification.

 

That may have changed once the Berlin Wall came down and the reality of the situation hit them, but whilst it was still just a dream reunification was always the goal for all those I knew.

[Lozz196]

It was the performance by The Hoff that did it, they never recovered from it 

[Si600]

From my impression and I stress that this is only my impression, Germans on the whole are happy with a unified Germany.  If we crudely split the country along GDR/DDR lines then there is a sort of underlying resentment, that's not quite the right word but it will have to do, that the GDR has had to pay for the updating* of the DDR, whilst the DDR feel they were ignored by the GDR in that no major companies moved or created jobs in great numbers in the old east.

 

I know people who still refer to the Ossies, so that discrimination is still there.  Ossies along with all other eastern Europeans are feckless lazy criminals, when actually they've been ignored by the affluent West.  It's going to take a lot of juggling and diplomacy to make it fly, and I for one wouldn't want that job. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/04/jd-vance-bullying-ukraine-hillbilly-elegy-eastern-europe 7th Paragraph onward specifically) 

 

*The Solidaritätzuschlag, the solidarity tax is still being taken to cover that cost, though it has been dipped into for Desert Storm and other bits n bobs.  It used to be 7.5%, is now 5.5% and only applies if you earn more than 20K I think.

Edited Wednesday at 10:51 by Si600

[peteb]

7 minutes ago, Si600 said:

From my impression and I stress that this is only my impression, Germans on the whole are happy with a unified Germany.  If we crudely split the country along GDR/DDR lines then there is a sort of underlying resentment, that's not quite the right word but it will have to do, that the GDR has had to pay for the updating* of the DDR, whilst the DDR feel they were ignored by the GDR in that no major companies moved or created jobs in great numbers in the old east.

 

I know people who still refer to the Ossies, so that discrimination is still there.  Ossies along with all other eastern Europeans are feckless lazy criminals, when actually they've been ignored by the affluent West.  It's going to take a lot of juggling and diplomacy to make it fly, and I for one wouldn't want that job. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/04/jd-vance-bullying-ukraine-hillbilly-elegy-eastern-europe 7th Paragraph) 

 

*The Solidaritätzuschlag, the solidarity tax is still being taken to cover that cost, though it has been dipped into for Desert Storm and other bits n bobs.  It used to be 7.5%, is now 5.5% and only applies if you earn more than 20K I think.

 

This is my understanding as well, except many West Germans are not so happy about it. There also is a resentment about the history of the old Prussian state, and how they treated the rest of Germany. 

 

I should note that I don't have much first hand experience of Germany and my impression is based on reading a book on modern German history. 

 

[Beer of the Bass]

18 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

There is a simple solution, of course; Russia becomes member of the EU and joins NATO. Problem solved. 

 

The Putin administration have a habit of imprisoning political opponents and having them disappeared in dubious circumstances, as well as having civilian observers in elections beaten. I can understand the reluctance to invite them to participate in other democratic institutions.

[Misdee]

 Despite all the hand-ringing and outrage in the rest of the world, it's important to recognise just how popular Trumps actions are with ordinary Americans. He is enacting what probably the majority of people think is perfectly good sense. The USA has a long tradition of isolationism. That is the philosophy which most of it's citizens gravitate towards. 

 

To most people living in the USA, Europe seems a long way away. In fact, to most people in the USA, Washington DC, NYC and L A seem remote and foreign. A large proportion of Americans don't even have passports. 

 

Trumps enduring success is based on  simple but effective strategy. He offers uncomplicated and very definite solutions to complex problems, and he creates conflict that he then resolves in his own favour as an act of patriotism. Donald Trump understands the American people very well and knows that combination will be enough. It's straightforward and robust formula that has been spectacularly successful. I don't anticipate that will change.

 

If Europe can scramble to the defense of the Ukraine  so quickly in the wake of American withdrawal, most Americans will be asking why they didn't do so sooner? Why should America shoulder the burden? 

[edstraker123]

An interesting article  : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/05/keir-starmer-defence-spending-cuts-europe-security

[Agent 00Soul]

1 hour ago, Si600 said:

It's going to take a lot of juggling and diplomacy to make it fly, and I for one wouldn't want that job. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/04/jd-vance-bullying-ukraine-hillbilly-elegy-eastern-europe 7th Paragraph) 

 

I thought that was a much-needed editorial, thanks for sharing. I know you were referring to the 7th paragraph in particular, but the authors didn’t go deeper into the bifurcation of the West. The struggle between rule-of-law vs populism isn’t in and of itself international. Governments change all the time. That’s just the result of internal splits on worldview: Democrats vs Republicans, Reform vs Labour, LePen vs Macron, AfD vs everyone else etc. Until those national conflicts are settled, the international world will remain unsettled. 

[BigRedX]

But the problem with US isolationist tendencies is that since the end of WW2 it hasn't't been even remotely so. The US sticks its oar in all over the world when it suits them to do so and have military bases in Europe and elsewhere in the world. If the US wants to be isolationist that's fine, but they need to stick within their own borders and leave the rest of us alone.

[Agent 00Soul]

6 hours ago, BigRedX said:

But the problem with US isolationist tendencies is that since the end of WW2 it hasn't't been even remotely so. The US sticks its oar in all over the world when it suits them to do so and have military bases in Europe and elsewhere in the world. If the US wants to be isolationist that's fine, but they need to stick within their own borders and leave the rest of us alone.

I think the majority of average MAGA people would agree with you. The problem with this idealism on their part is that a) it's not really possible in the modern world (and wasn't in 1939 or 1914 either) as much as they wish it could be, and b) Trump and the other people in charge of this don’t really want it no matter what they might say. They want to dominate on their terms. They want to have their cake and eat it. They are Cakeists, to paraphrase their erstwhile friend. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 17:58 by Agent 00Soul

[peteb]

It should be remembered that America wasn't always the superpower it is today. It only became so after the great European powers bankrupted and tore themselves apart following two world wars, caused by tensions that went back more than a hundred years. 

 

Following WW2, it seemed likely that most of Western & Southern Europe could fall to communism, leading America to intervene to rebuild the major European economies (including that of the UK) and to guarantee their safety with military assistance. The price for this was that the dollar was to become the reserve currency for the free world. This is what made the USA the dominant superpower, along with Europe being beholden / dependant on them for their safety. 

 

The fall of communism has led to the USA losing interest in Europe. With hindsight, Europe should have been pivoting away from America around the turn of the century and asserting its independence economically, politically and militarily. But there was loads of money to be made and no one on either side of the Atlantic wanted to rock the boat too much. The unfortunate thing is that Europe is now being forced to do so by an America that is showing signs of becoming a rogue state, when there is no money around anymore! 

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:43 by peteb

[Misdee]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

But the problem with US isolationist tendencies is that since the end of WW2 it hasn't't been even remotely so. The US sticks its oar in all over the world when it suits them to do so and have military bases in Europe and elsewhere in the world. If the US wants to be isolationist that's fine, but they need to stick within their own borders and leave the rest of us alone.

There in lies the paradox; they are isolationists who want to rule the world. 

 

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century the USA had on overarching foreign policy   objective, that was to dismantle the British Empire.  They succeeded, and what has happened subsequently is largely a result of that aforementioned paradox.

 

The business of America is business, and they want the rest of the world to be aligned in such a way that it is the most  suitable market for their goods and services. The rest is window dressing. Tyranny is perfectly acceptable providing it's profitable.

Edited Wednesday at 12:23 by Misdee

[PaulWarning]

I think we all know Trump is a bully boy, but if he does does manage to pull off a lasting peace in Ukraine, after the cease fire in Gaza, I do wonder if the ends justify the means?

[TimR]

3 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

I think we all know Trump is a bully boy, but if he does does manage to pull off a lasting peace in Ukraine, after the cease fire in Gaza, I do wonder if the ends justify the means?

 

He is only after increasing his personal wealth. He'll have shares that will increase when the US companies get hold of all the minerals. Same with Greenland. My guess he'll also hold the Panama Canal traffic to ransom with tarrifs for using it.