US Politics

I'm going to watch that lecture now.

I love hearing what Blyth has to say as much as listening to Chomsky. Brilliant, as you say.

.

1 Attachment

So... it seems like Trump is pivoting towards Russia and away from China, which basically rips up Nixon's alliance structure and is causing all kinds of conniptions because for many of us, it's been the way things have worked for most if not all our lives.

But starting from the assumption that China and Russia are equally unpleasant regimes to have to deal with, you could make the argument that the US and Russia currently share some strategic interests in the Middle East, that Russia is unlikely to want be boxed in by China, and that Russia is probably quite easily mollified by being treated as a peer instead of as a rival. It poses little economic threat to the US, and the nuclear threat would be reduced by better communication.

China, on the other hand, could be argued to have pursued an economic policy that has been incredibly damaging to the US, very much considers itself a rival, and shares few strategic interests with the US elsewhere in the world. It's not a major military threat and has a only small nuclear arsenal with a very conservative nuclear deterrent policy.

So, between the two, maybe it could be argued that it does make more sense to have at least detente (entente would be a stretch) with Russia while taking a more aggressive tone with China - you don't want to battle with both at once and Trump has already defined China's economic policy as a major issue.

I say 'could be argued' because I don't really know what I think on that determination - it's an interpretation that I think can be substantiated but it starts getting very subjective very quickly.

Genuinely curious how this will play out, to be honest - it's high stakes and I don't relish the idea of trade wars. But there is something quite Nixonian in the boldness of it that fascinates me on an academic level.

east asia, oceania, disputed area and eurasia ?

The facile Orwell references are getting a bit tired.

Kissinger wrote a couple of books explaining the logic of the alliance system he helped Nixon build - yes, they were both cunts, but if you set that aside, there were decisions made that had major implications for how the world security structure and economy evolved over the last 40 years. Trump looks to be about to rip up those structures with a major realignment, but the way he's going about it is pure Nixon/Kissinger. Sorry, but I think that's genuinely interesting.

Presuming Trump didn't come up with this strategy himself, who do you think did?

What I struggle with are Trumps motivations, is it naked self interest (Exxon CEO for Sec State, enable joint exploitation of Alaskan oil with Rosneft, profit) or is he genuinely trying to do what he thinks is right?

It's easier if it's just one big grift. Gets harder to guess which way he'll jump if there's some idealogical aspects in there.

Interesting commentary by the way - can you point to any further articles analyzing this?

Although as TV points out it's probably grift from Trump mixed with ideological/agenda driven from elsewhere within his team I guess.

He's been spending quite a bit of time with Kissinger, actually. So quite possibly the idea comes from him.

I haven't seen anything that spells out the same line of thought I have - most writers have such a revulsion for a)change and b)Nixon/Kissinger that they spend most of the article demonstrating how tightly they're holding their nose. Which gets a bit dull.

This isn't bad, though https://www.thenation.com/article/mad-men-trump-may-be-the-perfect-vehicle-for-kissingers-philosophy/
Although it focuses on Vietnam because of the horror of it, without talking about Nixon's Russia/China policy, which is more complex.

is it naked self interest...or is he genuinely trying to do what he thinks is right?

If it is true that he is a narcissist then there may actually be no difference between these in his mind. What's good for him is good for America. He could genuinely believe that everything he does is for the good of everyone.

the way he's going about it is pure Nixon/Kissinger

On the one hand, you have two consummate politicians and diplomats, making calculated and negotiated decisions, and on the other, an impetuous and unpredictable man-baby putting his neck, and that if the USA, on the proverbial block, on the basis of obtuse, obscure and irrational personal feelings and self-interest.

The ends might resemble "pure Nixon/Kissinger", but I don't see anything suggesting that the means and the motivation are even close.

Nixon deliberately cultivated the idea he was a bit deranged/unpredictable, for what it's worth.

Trump does not inspire confidence in me, but if there's one thing I guess I've learnt, it's not to presume I know the content of someone else's head without evidence.

Nixon deliberately cultivated the idea he was a bit deranged/unpredictable

Perhaps Trump is being led by people, say he wants to take back production from China to the USA, he may have to do the Russia thing.

Oh and BTW the Russians have hacked computers, leaked hacked information strategically, so yeah... interesting manipulation.

Better that than wargames, but what does it say about the current elections? Should they be redone?

I was drafting something similar to this, but you got there.

I agree with you, @h2o, that this is really interesting and the geopolitical implications are huge. However, Nixon and Kissinger developed a geopolitical strategy firmly grounded in realist assumptions and American exceptionalism. Trump seems to simply be an admirer of the oligarchical paradise that is Russia.

(Also, China in the early 70s had a GDP equivalent to that of Canada, and there was little on the the line economically).

Thanks. I was reminded of Ed Luttwak, and hey presto, here is an article on Trump from the WSJ in March:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/suffering-from-trumphobia-get-over-it-1457565216

And going back even further, a Harvard University Press article on China:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066427

I'm not sure I care why Trump in his heart of hearts wants to go this route - his calculations (e.g. - gang up with Russia in Syria) have been quite realist and he has been consistent from the outset that he thinks trade with China has been skewed in China's favour. I guess I'm arguing for us to analyse the policy instead of disparaging the man, as the latter course leads to all kinds of analytical errors.

Ah, yes. Luttwak and Meirsheimer are two of the most thought-provoking writers in IR IMHO, and both quite realist.

You may be in the wrong place ;)

I think you're right to be wary of disparaging him for the sake of it. But I also feel his interests ("his heart of hearts") are relevant if we want to understand the ends he aims to achieve (to my understanding, anyway).

That is, if his interest in better relations with Russia based on a re-balancing the US's relationship away from China in the hope of strengthening its relative position (i.e., something akin classic balance of power?), then we can make some assumptions as to what he will and will not be willing to do internationally and domestically. (Also, I've now wondered whether we'd see Nixon doing the same thing were he to come to power today?).

If, instead, his interest in born out of a person political philosophy which simply recognizes kindred spirits in the Russian political system (and there is lots of evidence for this), we may see radically different international and domestic policies and outcomes.

That is, the former may explicitly change the American trading relationship with China. The latter may not, and could result in more obvious changes in the US response to Russian policy (hands off) and domestic US politics.

I hadn't really thought about it (I guess because I've just assumed it's the latter), so cheers. You're right - will be "interesting."

Why not both?
He admires Russia's avant-garde theatre-as-politics as a means of confusing the shit out of everyone but also wants to sway the balance of power away from China.

The thing is, all three superpowers have very different views of what the "power" part actually entails. By definition, it implies a certain degree of self-interest and China's interpretation is heavily based on stability, whereas Russia's model seems to be say one thing and do another but actually be intending something completely different from either.
Trump seems to want to try the latter model.

Why not both?

I get your point - and think you're right. But I think there would be some level of incompatibility. For example, if Trump is only interested in Russian models of power, but wants to ensure the continuation of the global liberal economy (and his unwillingness to part with his businesses certainly seem to point to him caring about this), he's unlikely to really push China (although he'll certainly make a show of it).