Tariffs

[Cyclotron]

Improper indiscriminate use of tariffs will always provoke a political response and as we all know often a tit for tat tariff.

2024 when I last visited Shenzhen, ~50% of cars were EV's and 1 in 10 was a Tesla....apparently assembled in China.
Our yet to be planned 2026 visit will quite likely display a very different state of affairs....

The actions of the bull in the China shop will always have unintended consequences....

I think that invoking tariffs at all will provoke a political response. At least history tells us it will. China and the US have both substantially propped up their industries.  The US bailed out GM (Government Motors). China subsidizes its solar panels and so on.  As discussed, the Milk Cartel to the north would rather pour milk down the drain than to give it to someone in need or put it on the market. These are all ridiculous things in my view.

But we also have to consider the overall intent. China has proven its intent. They set themselves up as the cheapest and near-sole supplier of rare earths, and then turned that into a weapon. They didn't just use that weapon on the US, either; they used it on everyone (the same as Trump's broad tariffs).

I can't say the US always has good intent. I'm sure that's simply not true of any country. But I know the kind of country I live in, the values, and the intent the majority of the nation has. One could point to the amount of money the US sends to other countries as good intent, but then there are folks who say it's just to have power. Maybe that's true.

The US was once an isolationist country, and the people wanted it to be that way. It was dragged into WW2 by both US politicians and other countries. Even then, the US troops were called out for being brash and so on, in the UK it was (Overpaid, over sexed, and over here). A lot of responsibility was placed on the US during that war and in the post-war period. The US industrial engine delivered then, and it is still a very strong engine. As Eisenhower said, the Military Industrial Complex will be a problem; it has been true to his warning. The US has asked to reduce its responsibility and asked allies to step up for their own good. That appears to be going in the right direction as far as I can tell. I'm perfectly ok with the US pulling all of our military back to our shores and reducing our taxes spent on bullets.

The Bull in the China shop has had a significant impact on China. The data show that, across its allies, exports to the US are, almost universally, up, as the US has pivoted to purchasing more from allies and itself. A large portion of that trade is covered by free trade agreements (tariffs do not apply). If the allies and others want to teach the US a lesson about Donald Trump, they should revoke those agreements and not sell to the US. Otherwise, some responsibility flows outward.

[PlainName]

Edit: Seeing if a truce might work

[KE5FX]

I'm no expert, but I think the continued, looming presence of NATO on Russia's borders has almost certainly played a major part in creating the polarised, hostile, anti-West regime operating in Russia.

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!"   

Yeah... no.  We should've listened to von Neumann, or at least Patton.

[Zoli]

...
"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!"   
...

Which neighbourhood watch promised NOT to get closer to Russia after 1990:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
My conclusion is: if you pull the bear whiskers, expect to be slapped.
/politics

[Cyclotron]

...
"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!"   
...

Which neighbourhood watch promised NOT to get closer to Russia after 1990:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
My conclusion is: if you pull the bear whiskers, expect to be slapped.
/politics

Whisker pulls drove the bear into a frenzy, so it had to go get some beachfront property in Crimea.

That seemed to increase the number of countries joining NATO, and even includes Finland and Sweden as the most recent.
If the bear didn't want the neighborhood watch to expand, I don't think they chose the appropriate deterrent.

Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO. If everyone were a member, any country attacking another would have to deal with the resst of the world.  This should be a book, maybe.

[Zoli]

...
Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO. If everyone were a member, any country attacking another would have to deal with the resst of the world.  This should be a book, maybe.

It was refused:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954
Just to keep facts straight.

[Analog Kid]

Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO.

No, the bear would be happy if NATO would just quietly disappear and stop encroaching upon it, having long outlived its usefulness.

I'd be happy too. And eventually all Yurp would be as well. (Or at least could be.)

You might be too young to remember, but there was this phrase going around when I was younger:
"peaceful coexistence".

Seems to have totally disappeared from the vocabulary.

[KE5FX]

Which neighbourhood watch promised NOT to get closer to Russia after 1990:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
My conclusion is: if you pull the bear whiskers, expect to be slapped.

Ah, yes, a promise that wasn't a promise, made to the leader of a country that no longer exists, by someone who wasn't authorized to make it. 

[tom66]

Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO.

No, the bear would be happy if NATO would just quietly disappear and stop encroaching upon it, having long outlived its usefulness.

I'd be happy too. And eventually all Yurp would be as well. (Or at least could be.)

You might be too young to remember, but there was this phrase going around when I was younger:
"peaceful coexistence".

Seems to have totally disappeared from the vocabulary.

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries.  It doesn't encroach on Russia's territory.  And the war in Ukraine shows how essential it is for there to be an alliance against Russian aggression.  Having missile defence systems near Russia's border is not a threat. 

Remember, Russia has invaded the following European countries since the end of the cold war:
- Georgia (I) 1991
- Moldova 1992
- Chechnya (I) 1994
- Chechnya (II) 1999
- Georgia (II) 2008
- Ukraine, Crimea & Donbas 2014
- Ukraine 2022

Meanwhile NATO has invaded the following Russian or CIS territories:
[ no results found ]

... because it's a defensive alliance that doesn't invade other countries, unless attacked itself first. 

By the way, the USA is under no obligation to protect Europe.  But if the USA wants European cooperation in other ways, like having air force bases in just about every major European country, as well as shared sky agreements, missile warning systems, and the like, then Europe's gonna want something back.  Historically, cooperation on NATO has been that.  But that could change - it's subject to bargaining, like any other agreement.  Americans may not like being blind in Europe in the event they do decide to pull back considerably.  It's incredibly useful to have bases like Ramstein for projecting power.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's getting a lot of use right now due to a certain "Iranian special operation".

I do think it would be the right thing for Europe to up spending on defence to 5% GDP per country, if for no other reason than high dependence on the USA is a bad idea.  I really hope the US doesn't pull out of NATO on a whim, we'd struggle to maintain effective defence; but a gradual withdrawal (over 5 years or so) would probably be manageable.  I would say Trump has done a good thing here: by appearing to be such an unreliable ally, suddenly Europe is getting its act into gear and actually spending on defence again.  That's good.

[Zoli]

...
Ah, yes, a promise that wasn't a promise, made to the leader of a country that no longer exists, by someone who wasn't authorized to make it.

Typical western promise.
Edit: In diplomacy, a promise made is a promise kept - otherwise nobody will talk to your country.

[Analog Kid]

Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO.

No, the bear would be happy if NATO would just quietly disappear and stop encroaching upon it, having long outlived its usefulness.

I'd be happy too. And eventually all Yurp would be as well. (Or at least could be.)

You might be too young to remember, but there was this phrase going around when I was younger:
"peaceful coexistence".

Seems to have totally disappeared from the vocabulary.

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries.  It doesn't encroach on Russia's territory.

Defensive, eh?
Look: encroachment doesn't necessarily mean invasion.
NATO has definitely done that.

Russia was promised (unfortunately only verbally, not in writing) that NATO would not advance "one inch eastward" after the breakup of the USSR. A promise that has obviously been reneged upon.

Don't take my word for this: it's been verified and can be looked up online.

[langwadt]

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries.  It doesn't encroach on Russia's territory.

Defensive, eh?
Look: encroachment doesn't necessarily mean invasion.
NATO has definitely done that.

Russia was promised (unfortunately only verbally, not in writing) that NATO would not advance "one inch eastward" after the breakup of the USSR. A promise that has obviously been reneged upon.

free countries have voluntarily joined an alliance, maybe Russia should be thinking about what they have done to their neighbors since that all want to join NATO

Putin is acting like a violently jealous possessive ex-bf

[Analog Kid]

The actual, unstated purpose of NATO:

Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

https://www.counterfire.org/article/keep-the-russians-out-the-americans-in-and-the-germans-down-a-potted-and-bloody-history-of-nato/

[langwadt]

The actual, unstated purpose of NATO:

Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

https://www.counterfire.org/article/keep-the-russians-out-the-americans-in-and-the-germans-down-a-potted-and-bloody-history-of-nato/

"Counterfire is a revolutionary socialist organisation dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism by the working class"

they still dream of the good old days of communist USSR utopia?

Keeping the Russians out seems like pretty good idea to me, when it was formed that required American help, considering Germany had just started two world wars keeping them down also seem like good idea

[tom66]

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries.  It doesn't encroach on Russia's territory.

Defensive, eh?
Look: encroachment doesn't necessarily mean invasion.
NATO has definitely done that.

Russia was promised (unfortunately only verbally, not in writing) that NATO would not advance "one inch eastward" after the breakup of the USSR. A promise that has obviously been reneged upon.

Don't take my word for this: it's been verified and can be looked up online.

So all of these countries either joined NATO or engaged in cooperative training with NATO because they fear Russia or other forces in their regions, though only NATO allies are protected by Article 5.

It's not encroachment.  It's defense in depth - in the event of an attack they will be prepared. If they are a NATO ally they will be able to respond by using training and equipment from the West.

Only Russia has invaded eastern European nations since the end of the cold war (internal skirmishes like Serbia/Kosovo aren't relevant), so who could blame the Baltic nations for wanting to join such an alliance, after watching what happened to Georgia and Moldova? Who could blame Ukraine? NATO is a tremendously powerful alliance to be protected under.

And a promise means very little when the circumstances that the promise was made under change, like Russia actively invading other countries.

[Cyclotron]

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries.  It doesn't encroach on Russia's territory.

Defensive, eh?
Look: encroachment doesn't necessarily mean invasion.
NATO has definitely done that.

Russia was promised (unfortunately only verbally, not in writing) that NATO would not advance "one inch eastward" after the breakup of the USSR. A promise that has obviously been reneged upon.

Don't take my word for this: it's been verified and can be looked up online.

So all of these countries either joined NATO or engaged in cooperative training with NATO because they fear Russia or other forces in their regions, though only NATO allies are protected by Article 5.

It's not encroachment.  It's defense in depth - in the event of an attack they will be prepared. If they are a NATO ally they will be able to respond by using training and equipment from the West.

Only Russia has invaded eastern European nations since the end of the cold war (internal skirmishes like Serbia/Kosovo aren't relevant), so who could blame the Baltic nations for wanting to join such an alliance, after watching what happened to Georgia and Moldova? Who could blame Ukraine? NATO is a tremendously powerful alliance to be protected under.

And a promise means very little when the circumstances that the promise was made under change, like Russia actively invading other countries.

A promise by someone who had no right to promise on behalf of the people it affected. Just like Churchill's "naughty document" and the Potsdam agreement before, where these nations and realms of influence were decided after WW2.

These nations were freed to make their own alliances and agreements. If that offends Russia or anyone, really, F-them is what those nations should say.

[dietert1]

And everybody in the NATO or let's better say in the whole world hold their breath when the US government begins wars all over the world, the most recent one with the potential to become a nuclear confrontation.

[Cyclotron]

And everybody in the NATO or let's better say in the whole world hold their breath when the US government begins wars all over the world, the most recent one with the potential to become a nuclear confrontation.

The world holds its breath all the time for nations that are pursuing nuclear arms. The Ukraine invasion could easily escalate to nuclear levels. The US convinced Ukraine to let us help them dismantle their nuclear weapons, and given the circumstances, they likely wish they had kept them.

Iran has continuously pursued war, but only through the funding and arming of others. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ruling Iranian regime and extremists in charge have often stated in very plain language what their intent is for anyone who's not their particular brand of Muslim. Even to the point that other Muslim leaders in many other states have called them out for it.

I would typically not be interested in the US taking action. I take responsibility for my country and prefer to leave others to their responsibilities.  But if there is, and there appears to be, a significant Iranian interest in deposing their current leaders and they are seeking outside help, I see no reason not to provide it. Especially given what we've seen as the regime's response to those protests.

There have been so many years of talk and negotiations, only to get nowhere. This can very easily rise to nuclear. North Korea was rattling that sword the other day. When Iran achieves it, I can only assume they'd use it, given they've used every weapon they've developed so far by giving it or selling it to others who were going to use it in proxy for them.

One could say the same about the US selling arms to other nations. I'd prefer other nations build and supply their own but I'm not in mind to turn down allies. But this is a pursuit of what-about-ism, and I see no value in it.

[tom66]

It's a tricky one... I agree the current leadership of Iran had to go, and of all countries, nuclear weapons in their hands would be terrible... but I am less convinced that they will be replaced by anything better. There does not seem to a plan other than to chop the head off the current regime.

Apparently US/Israel now has air superiority over Iran, so if they wanted to, they could continue bombing assets... but as we've seen with other countries, merely deposing the leadership doesn't solve the structural issues that led to that invasion in the first place.  I very much doubt US wants boots on the ground in Iran. So what's the plan?

[TUMEMBER]

Serio?

[Cyclotron]

Serio?

[Churchill told Franklin Roosevelt] on 31 May…that the proposed Anglo-Soviet arrangement applied only to war conditions and was not an attempt to carve up the Balkans. Roosevelt was unimpressed and on 11 June held that the result would be "the division of the Balkan region into spheres of influence despite the declared intention to limit the arrangement to military matters." Churchill then urged the President to consent to the arrangement being given a three-month trial. And on the 13th Roosevelt rather weakly gave way…This turned out to be a decision of great importance.

Roosevelt believed it was imperialism and was against it. But was warned that if the West didn't acquiesce, Russia would simply control it all.
Roosevelt died that April only a few months from the decision to give it "a try".

[Cyclotron]

It's a tricky one... I agree the current leadership of Iran had to go, and of all countries, nuclear weapons in their hands would be terrible... but I am less convinced that they will be replaced by anything better. There does not seem to a plan other than to chop the head off the current regime.

Apparently US/Israel now has air superiority over Iran, so if they wanted to, they could continue bombing assets... but as we've seen with other countries, merely deposing the leadership doesn't solve the structural issues that led to that invasion in the first place.  I very much doubt US wants boots on the ground in Iran. So what's the plan?

Is it ok to make the joke that Trump will just put tariffs on the boots?

I think the administration wants to believe in the "Arab Spring" event for Iran (me too). I don't know if that's realistic. The coalition hasn't divulged the endgame.  If an Arab Spring event gains traction I "ASS-U-ME" that it will be supported to some end. The US has boots all over the Middle East, not that I'm a fan of that being the case and not a fan of paying for it.

But even if the spring happens and so on, I, like you, am unconvinced that anything better will come with a replacement head. The only thing that this absolutely indicates to them is that the US and Israel will act. That and 10 bucks will get you coffee at the Starbucks.

[soldar]

Maybe the bear would be happy to be invited to join NATO.

No, the bear would be happy if NATO would just quietly disappear and stop encroaching upon it, having long outlived its usefulness.

I'd be happy too. And eventually all Yurp would be as well. (Or at least could be.)

You might be too young to remember, but there was this phrase going around when I was younger:
"peaceful coexistence".

Seems to have totally disappeared from the vocabulary.

Russia, Putin, has tried to join NATO and to develop closer relations with Europe but was rebuffed every time for the simple reason that NATO needs Russia as their enemy.

My view is that the US [military-industrial complex] wants and seeks confrontation [with Russia, Iran, etc.], that the present aim [Venezuela, Iran, etc] is to try to asphyxiate China by denying them oil and that this is a very dangerous game. That Europe are like minor children, mildly retarded, who have no say or weight in anything. Sad but true.

All the excuses of removing threats, removing dictators etc. are the usual BS. Excuses for the masses. And the masses swallow them whole.

The US want to rule the world and deny other countries their independence and sphere of influence. For now it is not getting too bad but it would be a grave mistake to think China and Russia will give in without a fight. And this is a fight the US cannot possibly win.

1991 (Boris Yeltsin): In December 1991, just before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, President Boris Yeltsin expressed interest in NATO membership.

2000 (Vladimir Putin): Shortly before his inauguration, Putin told the BBC he would not rule out joining NATO "if and when Russia's views are taken into account as those of an equal partner". He later indicated he discussed this with Bill Clinton in 2000.

2001 (Vladimir Putin): Transcripts show Putin suggested to U.S. President George W. Bush that Russia could be an ally and felt left out of NATO.

In these instances, Western leaders viewed the requests as insincere or incompatible with NATO's core purpose.

[tom66]

There is no way Russia could ever be allowed to join NATO, and the very idea is absurd, given Russia is the number one foe in the region.

[Analog Kid]

There is no way Russia could ever be allowed to join NATO, and the very idea is absurd, given Russia is the number one foe in the region.

That would be a total contradiction in terms, absolutely.

NATO should just die a quick, painless death instead.

Which, of course, is not what's going to happen. Instead, the Eurotards are going to double and triple down on Russophobia and attempt to prevail against Russia in Ukraine in an unwinnable war.