this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
343 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39142 readers
4101 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Headline should read, "American allies worry the US is growing less dependable, because of Republican House insurrectionists"

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 46 points 9 months ago

No, the headline correctly expresses the sentiments of foreign leaders about american stability, regardless of the outcome of our elections.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's a major part, but the key problem IMO is that the USA has shown multiple times that a change in president can be enough to shatter existing promises and expectations. Even if we got the most progressive, effective president in the history of our nation, anything they accomplished could be undone by a single change of admin.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s a major part, but the key problem IMO is that the USA has shown multiple times that a change in ~~president~~ leadership can be enough to shatter existing promises and expectations.

FTFY

The US is fighting to even pay it's own debts because of the political grabass going on in the Legislative branch and who knows now what the Judicial branch is going to throw up to change. The President is just the most visible change.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Valid point, thank you for the correction.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

It's mostly just that one time. Usually foreign policy continues from where it left off much to the chagrin of the voting base who wants it all to change overnight. And this is because of the reason you stated, you don't want to break promises to other countries or everyone will thing the US is unreliable and that's bad for the US. Sure foreign policy can be turned and start slowly moving on a different path, but that has to happen over time.

Trump is the real outlier. He simply doesn't understand foreign policy, thinks of everything as a money deal. His incredibly corruption on foreign policy led to him being impeached the first time. Causing rifts within NATO. Legitimizing North Korea by having a summit. Gushing over how great various authoritarians are. Ended anything Obama did out of spite. Cancelled Obama's deal with Iran, which looked like a prelude to war because that's what it would be if the US had competent foreign policy.

In the first months of Trump's Presidency when he was putting out aggressive statements about certain countries (usually on Twitter) countries would put their militaries on alert. After awhile no one bothered. The US simply didn't have a leader anyone took seriously.

This is the reason for Biden's statement that "America is back." But unfortunately the US Congress is blocking funding that's needed for Ukraine, which would normally be a no-brainer in terms of foreign policy interests of the US. Usually something like that would go through with as a bipartisan thing with little to no negotiation necessary. Because it's in the best interests of the US to fund Ukraine's war effort against Russia, an adversary of the US. But it's blocked, because the GOP willing to sabotage the US in their effort to sabotage Biden.

So a Biden second term will mean the US isn't saying insane things anymore, but really can't be relied upon as it used to.

A Trump second term? Chaos. Not even sure the US can survive another Trump term, let alone be relied on for anything.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

If you think that’s the only foreign policy issue America has, you might be wasting your money on that subscription to “The Atlantic”

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

Someone should talk to the Kurds in Iraq. We have been undependable for a long long time

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 36 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Good honestly. The world needs to stop using America as a cure-all solution.

Weapons are evil, oil is bad, neo liberalism is terrorism and capitalism is slavery. Knock it all off

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It's not in our, or anyone else's really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn't tend to work out all that well.

We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We'll only run into problems if this whole "spheres of influence" thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That's a multipolar world we can work with.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 21 points 9 months ago (6 children)

In principle I agree, but the other poles are fucking with "us" though. Let's define "us" as the NATO-aligned countries.

India is offing political dissidents in Canada and the US (that's an honorable mention, since the US assassins were caught). China is setting up "police stations" in Western countries to intimidate ex-pats, not to mention the ongoing industrial espionage thing. Russia and North Korea seem to be conducting regular cyber attacks against NATO members (including civilian targets). And we've resigned ourselves to constant misinformation campaigns (+ election meddling) from Russia, China, and Iran.

If other poles follow the same gentleman's agreement, that works out. But I'm not sure how "we" can take the high road when other countries aren't.

[–] Fudoshin@feddit.uk 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To play devils advocate - the "gentlemans agreement" you speak of isn't perfect. The US was caught spying on Germany. I'm pretty sure the US & UK are only such tight allies because of shared intelligence gathering.

Also the US has shown twice (WWI & II) that allies are expendable until America is threatened directly.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

the "gentlemans agreement" you speak of isn't perfect

That's what I'm trying to illustrate. The post that I'm replying to suggests that a multipolar world is fine, "we" should stay out of the other poles' spheres of influence, and that there's a hard distinction between economic, philosophical, and military jockeying. I don't think that's the case. The gentleman's agreement that I'm referring to would be between poles.

You bring up a great example how "we" fuck our allies even when we have a gentleman's agreement with them. Which is a great point.

Fuckery is going to happen: we need to keep our friends close, and we need to build our international agreements in a way that keeps us safe. Assuming other governments will adhere to rules-based order with siloed areas of competition is unlikely to succeed.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 21 points 9 months ago

Evey four years we decide whether we'll be a serious country, or play in the mud. The fact that this argument seriously happens would diminish my faith in the US too.

I say would, because I live and and as such already have none.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

No need to worry that it might happen. It’s been happening for the last 20 years. It’s a constant slow grind to the bottom.

[–] Gazumi@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

This is true, certainly in the UK and we're so dim (by a slim margin) that we voted FOR Brexit. (I voted remain)

[–] _xDEADBEEF@lemm.ee 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Weird. I was just thinking this earlier whilst out walking. Can the US' word of friendship/help/support ever be trusted? Has it ever? Soon as it gets a little bit real for the population calls for undisturbed isolation come out and the US reneges on their word.

[–] Fudoshin@feddit.uk 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There's nothing unusual about that. America has a long history of fucking it's allies until the last minute (e.g. WWI & II).

[–] _xDEADBEEF@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

the unusual bit was thinking about it then finding an article in my feed

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Our Allies should rightly be concerned. The US has become more and more isolationist. The last major free trade treaty was under the TPP under Obama and both Hillary and Trump stated they would not support its passing.

The US is now energy independent and a net exporter. The US is also in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history which will bring much of our industrial plant back to North America.

In ten or fifteen years there will be no need for the US to get involved and keep sea lanes open like we are in the Red Sea. We can maintain a presence in the few areas that we deem critical.

My two sons will be of military age soon I would not support active involvement in any war that would risk their lives for Europe, Middle Eastern or other far flung countries when there is no real threat to mainland US. Supply military and financial aid, sure, but no boots on the ground. We don’t need to fight other peoples wars for them.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

TPP was a horrible treaty. The entire process was basically Hollywood and a few other corporate entities writing out their dream laws that were too horrible to actually pass any legislative body. But once it was in a treaty, they could hound Congress to pass said laws to "meet international obligations".

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

TPP was horrible, many, many give aways to the entertainment and medical industries. But my point still stands, there have been no regional free trade agreements attempted since TPP.

We’ve only negotiated bi lateral agreements with individual governments on narrow issues.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Ironically, it was a horrible treaty for everyone except the US. Trump nixing it was yet another own-goal. After the US pulled out, the remaining signatories reworked the TPP into the CPTPP by removing those "dream laws" and passing the rest of it without the US.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (7 children)

My two sons will be of military age soon I would not support active involvement in any war that would risk their lives for Europe, Middle Eastern or other far flung countries when there is no real threat to mainland US.

What the fuck....

Like, I get it. I'm from a red state, my public education is not the best.

But where did you grow up that they didn't even cover WW2 in school?

We ignore countries invading other countries, and we lose our allies while countries like Russia grow stronger.

They'll never stop. Even if Russia "restored the USSR" they're not going to just sit back and relax once that happens.

"Sparing" your two sons from a war that's not going to even have a draft is dooming your grandchildren to living thru ww3 where there will be a draft again and even civilian survivors will (if incredibly lucky and wealthy)live through nuclear Armageddon.

Proxy wars are the only way we've avoided more nuclear bombs, and if one side stops fighting the other is just going to speed up.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Supply military and financial aid, sure, but no boots on the ground.

The US is failing to do even that minimal level of assistance in this case. No American troops are helping Ukraine fight, it's all been training and supplies. That's all that's been requested by them. And that's what the Republicans are blocking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is isolationism often leads to situations we can't ignore, as with the world wars. We were isolationists before then, and we benefited greatly from our international involvement ever since. We are the richest country in the history of the world largely thanks to our geography and international involvement. The dollar is the world's fiat currency. We prefer not to fight wars for other people, rather we usually just fund and arm groups that share our interests.

If we withdraw back into our shell, we lose the privileged place we have in the world.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I’d argue that the US greatly benefited from isolationism during the world wars, since all the main destruction happened in Europe/Asia.

This meant that after joining the war late and being in the winning side, they were perfectly poised to inject themselves as a global trade leader. Ironically isolationism brought about the globalist policy today.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes, being late to the party did benefit the US, but only because we stopped being isolationist.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The US is also in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history which will bring much of our industrial plant back to North America.

What's this now?

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

See article for details but there is a huge surge in construction of factories and manufacturing in North America.

Mostly due to decoupling from China, not only because they’ve proven to be terrible economic partners but because their population is imploding.

We also found that we can automate a lot of manufacturing since Covid. A textile factory used to need hundreds of workers. With modern mills you need maybe a handful to maintain the machinery while it produces almost finished garments. You can now locate your factory near consumers and avoid long transport.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-the-boom-in-us-construction-of-manufacturing-facilities

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


With a divided electorate and gridlock in Congress, the next American president could easily become consumed by manifold challenges at home — before even beginning to address flashpoints around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East.

In campaign speeches, Trump remains skeptical of organizations such as NATO, often lamenting the billions the U.S. spends on the military alliance whose support has been critical to Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

Politics at University College London, said that whoever wins the presidential race, the direction of travel will be the same – toward a multipolar planet in which the United States is no longer “the indisputable world superpower.”

Germany is the second-largest donor of military aid to Kyiv, behind the U.S., but Scholz recently told Die Zeit that the country couldn’t fill any gap on its own if “the U.S.A. ceased to be a supporter.”

China, where leaders’ initial warmth toward Trump soured into tit-for-tat tariffs and rising tensions, little changed under Biden, who continued his predecessor’s tough stance toward the United States’ strategic rival.

Associated Press writers Jiwon Song in Seoul, South Korea, Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, Nomaan Merchant in Washington, and Jill Colvin and Michelle Price in New York contributed to this story.


The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›