U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to impose far larger tariffs on the European Union and Canada if they work together to combat trade tariffs.
For many years I have argued that Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Europe “make sense” based on the assumption that no country in the world actually has agency in its actions other than a handful of superpowers - Russia, the US, and China. Any other country not on that list must be a vassal state of one of the ones that is, so if the Eastern European countries are no longer Russian vassals then that must logically mean they are now American vassals.
It would appear that Trump is under a similar delusion. He’s apparently trying to beat countries into submission that he views as already being American vassals. Hence why he thinks stuff like the “51st state” garbage is no big deal, since in his view Canada’s already 90% of the way to being a state anyway.
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. I don’t see any evidence for this vassal worldview (apart from extreme cases like Belarus and Russia). Without that first assumption the whole premise falls apart.
Even assuming the main characters (MC) and vassals idea is true to reality, the rest of the argument is flimsy at best. Even if a MC loses a vassal through mismanagement or foreign interference, that doesn’t automatically mean that the vassal has a new MC overlord. They could be in a limbo state where some of the MCs are vying for control.
As for Trump, I think it’s much less of a stretch to assume that Trump loves the sound of his own voice and what better way to hear his own voice than to create sound bites, hence the 51st state nonsense. If anything Trump’s actions say to me that he has NO capacity for the mental mapping required to envision this kind of complex interweaving of interests and angles that is geopolitics. I find it even less likely that this is the one he would subscribe to.
Maybe vassals is too strong-worded to describe the phenomenon. But living in western Europe I have firsthand experience in the relationship between the US and my country in the past decades. The US offered protection to the “free world”, but of course this comes at a price. The US had to be regarded as a role model in many ways, and everything that came out of the US, was copied and implemented verbatim. Which made the US the de facto puppet master and they really liked that role. This relationship was carefully orchestrated and nurtured by the US from the end of WW2 onwards, and the effect was that European countries embraced this strategy and viewed the US in a positive light, no obvious power play or bullying necessary. But the fact is, there always was a strong dependency on the US, and this was by US design.
Trump doesn’t realize that there was good reason for choosing such a “soft” strategy, he can’t because bullying is his only available tactic. He will soon find out that his perceived european vassal states don’t respond as well to hostility and blackmail as he might have expected.
I see what you’re saying, although I think it was a joint effort by the US and the EU. And it was short-sighted on both their parts.
The EU is feeling the heat that comes from a lapse in personal security and the US will find out that they aren’t the power they thought they were without their allies.
If Trump isn’t corrected it could all come crashing down for the US and the EU.
Because it never stops at just stopping the enemy, the allies could have simply contained Nazi Germany but chose to invade. The US could have continued the war in the Pacific but chose to drop 2 atomic bombs.
Beating the enemy so thoroughly is the only way humans have ever been able to truly end a conflict of that scale, and in that situation if Europe is to beat Russia like that I don’t believe they’d hesitate to start launching nukes.
So we’re stuck in a situation where Europe either risk nuclear war, or an extended border skirmish that could last decades. Both would be devastating
For many years I have argued that Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Europe “make sense” based on the assumption that no country in the world actually has agency in its actions other than a handful of superpowers - Russia, the US, and China. Any other country not on that list must be a vassal state of one of the ones that is, so if the Eastern European countries are no longer Russian vassals then that must logically mean they are now American vassals.
It would appear that Trump is under a similar delusion. He’s apparently trying to beat countries into submission that he views as already being American vassals. Hence why he thinks stuff like the “51st state” garbage is no big deal, since in his view Canada’s already 90% of the way to being a state anyway.
I agree. He seems to think countries should be paying tribute to the US.
No “seems” necessary. Just look at him and Vance berating Zelenskyy for not thanking them.
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. I don’t see any evidence for this vassal worldview (apart from extreme cases like Belarus and Russia). Without that first assumption the whole premise falls apart.
Even assuming the main characters (MC) and vassals idea is true to reality, the rest of the argument is flimsy at best. Even if a MC loses a vassal through mismanagement or foreign interference, that doesn’t automatically mean that the vassal has a new MC overlord. They could be in a limbo state where some of the MCs are vying for control.
As for Trump, I think it’s much less of a stretch to assume that Trump loves the sound of his own voice and what better way to hear his own voice than to create sound bites, hence the 51st state nonsense. If anything Trump’s actions say to me that he has NO capacity for the mental mapping required to envision this kind of complex interweaving of interests and angles that is geopolitics. I find it even less likely that this is the one he would subscribe to.
Maybe vassals is too strong-worded to describe the phenomenon. But living in western Europe I have firsthand experience in the relationship between the US and my country in the past decades. The US offered protection to the “free world”, but of course this comes at a price. The US had to be regarded as a role model in many ways, and everything that came out of the US, was copied and implemented verbatim. Which made the US the de facto puppet master and they really liked that role. This relationship was carefully orchestrated and nurtured by the US from the end of WW2 onwards, and the effect was that European countries embraced this strategy and viewed the US in a positive light, no obvious power play or bullying necessary. But the fact is, there always was a strong dependency on the US, and this was by US design.
Trump doesn’t realize that there was good reason for choosing such a “soft” strategy, he can’t because bullying is his only available tactic. He will soon find out that his perceived european vassal states don’t respond as well to hostility and blackmail as he might have expected.
I see what you’re saying, although I think it was a joint effort by the US and the EU. And it was short-sighted on both their parts.
The EU is feeling the heat that comes from a lapse in personal security and the US will find out that they aren’t the power they thought they were without their allies.
If Trump isn’t corrected it could all come crashing down for the US and the EU.
Why for the EU?
It’s much easier to produce military hardware than to set up a large trading network.
Remember, we only need to have enough to decisively stop the Russia. We don’t need to become another US military power.
Because it never stops at just stopping the enemy, the allies could have simply contained Nazi Germany but chose to invade. The US could have continued the war in the Pacific but chose to drop 2 atomic bombs.
Beating the enemy so thoroughly is the only way humans have ever been able to truly end a conflict of that scale, and in that situation if Europe is to beat Russia like that I don’t believe they’d hesitate to start launching nukes.
So we’re stuck in a situation where Europe either risk nuclear war, or an extended border skirmish that could last decades. Both would be devastating