B0ycey wrote:
Ok, after going through this, I think most of what you have wrote here is fair. But it doesn't address the fundamental argument we were having. The effectiveness of Trumps Tweets.
But on your first point regarding US imperialism, regardless what you want to believe, I doubt Europe wants to be standing in front of cameras declaring anti Russian or Syrian rhetoric any time soon. You can tell by the language they have used recently. They do so because of the US's influence over them - namely in terms of security. Once Pesco becomes a reality, I doubt NATO would last much longer. The wedge between the US and Europe (excluding the UK) has widen significantly since Trump. Not just because of his tweets. There was Paris, his tariffs, now Iran. You cannot prove what is happening behind closed doors of course. And surely, yes this is an opinion. But I suspect if they could they would indeed be telling the US to fuck off and leaving them alone if it wasn't for NATO about now. The language used over the Iran crisis is clear that America is beginning to over step the mark. How much do you honestly think America can get away with until the cord snaps?
As for Trumps Diplomacy, let's talk effectiveness? Do you believe they altered the course of events or do you consider what has happened coincidence?
I was actually too confrontational I think. Apologies for that.
Trump's tweets are mostly noise and I would hope that foreign governments have realised this by now. You could take some of them simply as a straightforward signal that the US had decided to take a less lenient approach which may also have been communicated through other channels in a more diplomatic way. A different Republican president would have gone about this in a different way, obviously. It could also be, based on the idea that NK's nuclear programme was already crumbling, that the tweet spectacle was mostly for domestic consumption. I'm not in the "Trump plays 8D chess" camp, but what he has managed to do with some regularity is making the Dems and their media go overboard with their reactions and look a bit unhinged while rallying his base at the same time. If the US had an inkling that NK was already in trouble, he could have just played it up.
I think talking about Europe as an entity, even if we exclude the UK, doesn't do the situation justice. The EU recently tried to issue a statement in opposition of the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem. They couldn't arrive at a consensus even on that relatively minor issue, as a few Eastern European countries objected. France and the UK also seemed more keen on the Libya intervention than the US, for instance.
As for Paris and the Iran deal, as I understand it, Trump was able to reverse those easily because they never went through Congress. It should have been clear to Europe that the possibility of the US pulling out of either was there once a Republican became president. It's bad practice in general in my view to try push agreements or deals through in this way and hope there will be enough outrage around the world that the next president doesn't dare to reverse them.