Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Gurn Blanston]

Cruz did not endorse Trump, and even suggested some Republicans might not want to vote for him. Hannity said he couldn't understand why Cruz is doing this. Principle? He really believes Trump is a bad choice for president perhaps?

He knows who the opposition would be in 2020. As he is my senator, I can say with conviction that Cruz is a total asshole. However, he is not a stupid asshole. Anything positive he would say about Trump, even now, is something that would be used against him in the future, so he might as well be prepared. 

[Ken B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0

The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.

"To me, 'America First' is a brand-new, modern term," he said. "I never related it to the past."

[Karl Henning]

Cruz did not endorse Trump, and even suggested some Republicans might not want to vote for him. Hannity said he couldn't understand why Cruz is doing this. Principle? He really believes Trump is a bad choice for president perhaps?

I guess El Tupé ain't such a hot negotiator, after all.

Cheetos-Man: I both get to call you Lyin' Ted, and I get your endorsement.
Sen. Cruz: No deal.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0

The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.

That's the first time I've heard you say anything positive about him.

[Florestan]

How can you say that? From the article:

Oh, my bad. Indeed, the surest, best and most effective way of preserving Western´s world peace and security is meetings and talks, especially with such people famous world-wide for their peacefulness and reasonableness as Putin and Erdogan. And who knows, maybe opening an embassy in Al-Raqqah is not such a bad idea, after all...

Flower power! Make love not war! We didn´t know what friends we had until we came to Leningrad!

(NB: the sarcasm is directed at Trump, not at you.  )

[Florestan]

That's the first time I've heard you say anything positive about him.

[North Star]

I think there's some sarcasm flying in both directions, Andrei..

[Florestan]

I think there's some sarcasm flying in both directions, Andrei..

Could you please be more explcit?

[Brian]

Some fun quotes from Trump's NYT interview this morning:
-
Massive wealth. We're talking about countries that are doing very well. Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself."
-
Now we're protecting Japan because Japan is a natural location for North Korea. So we are protecting them, and you say to yourself, "Well, what are we getting out of this?"
-
TRUMP: I'm a fan of the Kurds, you understand.

SANGER: But Erdogan is not. Tell us how you would deal with that?

TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together. And that would be a possibility. But I'm a big fan of the Kurdish forces. At the same time, I think we have a potentially — we could have a potentially very successful relationship with Turkey. And it would be really wonderful if we could put them somehow both together.

SANGER: And what's your diplomatic plan for doing that?

TRUMP: Meetings.
-
David, I have statisticians, and I know, like if I went to Pennsylvania, I say, "Give me the statistics on what is going on with respect to manufacturing." Numbers — 45, 55, 65, I have states that are so bad.
-
SANGER: Since your time is limited, let me ask you about Russia. You've been very complimentary of Putin himself.

TRUMP: No! No, I haven't.

SANGER: You said you respected his strength.

TRUMP: He's been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well.
-
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven't seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don't think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?

TRUMP: I don't want to tell you what I'd do because I don't want Putin to know what I'd do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I'm not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.

SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——

TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren't paying their bills.

SANGER: That's true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.

TRUMP: You can't forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that.

SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——

TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
-
SANGER: You've been a little bit vague about what we'd do with ISIS other than bomb the hell out of them.

TRUMP: I don't want to be specific because I don't want ISIS to know what I'm planning. I do have ideas, very strong ideas on ISIS.
-
HABERMAN: What do you think people will take away from this convention? What are you hoping?

TRUMP: From the convention? The fact that I'm very well liked.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html

[Florestan]

TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together.

Spoken as a genuine "bleeding-heart liberal": it wouldn´t be good if things were worse and it wouldn´t be bad if things were better.

[Florestan]

SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——

TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.l

The man´s utterly ignorant of what an international binding treaty means.

I really mean it, gentlemen: Trump´s being elected as POTUS would be the third, and greatest, geopolitical catastrophy of 2016, after Brexit and Turkey.

[Todd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0

The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.

I like this bit:

For example, asked about Russia's threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us."

He added, "If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes."



If the leaders and people in Yurp are serious about collective security, then they should meet their treaty obligations.  Very few Yurpean nations meet the minimum expenditure requirements of being part of NATO - this being based on the 2% of GDP defense expenditure requirement and the various Yurpean government official stats regarding their defense spending.  In short, Yurpeans are free riders taking advantage of US taxpayers for their defense.  Yurpeans act in bad faith.  There's nothing at all wrong with pressuring Yurpeans into meeting their obligations.  Treaty partners must all act in accordance with the treaty, otherwise it may no longer have force.

I question whether Trump has thought very long and hard about foreign policy, but some of what he suggests is perfectly acceptable.  There is nothing at all wrong with speaking with Putin or Erdogan or even Kim Jong-un.  It's not wise to praise them publicly, but that's something else.  There is nothing wrong with the US working with non-democratic governments.  There is nothing wrong with the US not interfering in the domestic policies of other sovereign states.  That has its solid roots in the Westphalian system.  I did like that the article points out that Trump has met with Kissinger and Baker, proper wise men.  If elected, he should also consult Obama.  Obama has shown himself more of a realist than idealist in foreign policy.  Alas, he has been too keen on deploying missile shields.  (I mean, if the threatening rogue state of Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat, that only leaves Russia as the perceived threat.  But then it was always Russia.)

[Florestan]

I like this bit:

If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.

Plus: I cannot speak for the BS or Poland, but Romania has been involved with troops and casualties in the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning until today. In your opinion, does this count as "fulfilling our obligations towards US"?

[Brian]

I did like that the article points out that Trump has met with Kissinger and Baker, proper wise men.

Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.

HABERMAN: You had meetings in the last couple months with James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Did they in any way change your views?

TRUMP: No.

[(poco) Sforzando]

If the leaders and people in Yurp are serious about collective security, then they should meet their treaty obligations.  Very few Yurpean nations meet the minimum expenditure requirements of being part of NATO - this being based on the 2% of GDP defense expenditure requirement and the various Yurpean government official stats regarding their defense spending.  In short, Yurpeans are free riders taking advantage of US taxpayers for their defense.  Yurpeans act in bad faith.  There's nothing at all wrong with pressuring Yurpeans into meeting their obligations.  Treaty partners must all act in accordance with the treaty, otherwise it may no longer have force.

Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.

[Ken B]

If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.

I say give 'em just Romania, and we will have peace in our time. I of course use that phrase as a modern thing, I never relate it to the past.

[(poco) Sforzando]

TRUMP: I'm a fan of the Kurds, you understand.

So he's a big fan of a group of largely Sunni Muslims. As long, I suppose, as they don't try to come to the US, 'cause they might be terrorists plotting against us.

[Florestan]

Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.

HABERMAN: You had meetings in the last couple months with James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Did they in any way change your views?

TRUMP: No.

My biggest concern and fear is that Trump´s views on foreign policy cannot be changed by anybody and anything save the hardest hitting reality, and only when it is way too late.

[Florestan]

Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.

I knew I could count on you, Larry! Thank you!

So he's a big fan of a group of largely Sunni Muslims. As long, I suppose, as they don't try to come to the US, 'cause they might be terrorists plotting against us.

The Kurds are, by far, the most determined and effective military forces that fight ISIS on the ground.

[Todd]

If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.

I disagree.  The Baltic States have literally no impact on US security, and basically none on economic interests, save, perhaps, for some minor, easily substituted imports.  Poland is admittedly more important in that it is a buffer state between Russia and Germany.  (I view Belarus as close to a vassal state of Russia.)  Romania is of dubious strategic value, at best.  In order to effectively aid and defend Romania, the US needs free and easy access to the Black Sea, which Russia can block more easily than the US can defend.  This is also one major reason why the specific leader of Turkey is less important than an on-going relationship.

Part of forming an alliance involves establishing effective, executable plans in defending allies.  This is overwhelmingly the burden of the US.  It is the US that deploys the most troops, the most ships, the most conventional weaponry, the most nuclear weapons, the most money.  It is not an organization of equals, not even close.  Unfortunately, the US is in no position to defend every country in NATO.  If Russian tanks roll into Tallinn, what then?  Compare supply lines for Russia and NATO.  The only effective military response is strategic nuclear weapons, which is insane, so that leaves jawboning, sanctions, and perhaps a small naval blockade here or there.

I see expanded NATO commitments as more likely to lead to unnecessary conflict.  If Russia ruled an empire the scale of the Tsars or Bolsheviks, the Pacific and Atlantic would still be the same size, the silos in the Midwest would still be filled with missiles, and US SLBMs would still be silently deployed in the seas.

Plus: I cannot speak for the BS or Poland, but Romania has been involved with troops and casualties in the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning until today. In your opinion, does this count as "fulfilling our obligations towards US"?

It is well known that Eastern European countries have been the most reliable allies in NATO as it pertains to military action and spending this century.  It is obvious why.  It is more the fat and happy big countries farther to the west that have shirked their responsibilities.

This topic has already been covered at least twice before.  Some people believe in the peaceful utility of an expanded NATO, and some believe it destabilizing and contributing to strategic overreach for the US.  I doubt Trump's chatter will change the opinions of anyone in this regard.