Discussion loosely centered on Trump's effects outside the US, starting with Danimal's interesting set of prognostications.
1. The Baltic States are screwed.. Russia will within the next few months begin to pressure Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. NATO status will be irrelevant, because the trouble will be in the form of Russia finding locals who will begin agitating, and Russia will supply military assistance similar to what happened in Ukraine. When the governments ask for assistance, Trump will say this is an internal matter, and Article 5 does not apply. The rest of NATO simply does not have the capacity to project power into that part of the world, and the Baltic States are swallowed in the Russian orbit and functionality cease being independent, sovereign states. The U.S.' position as a reliable, trustworthy ally is fatally ruined and never recovers. NATO remains an alliance in name only, and essentially disintegrates into a Western Europe-only alliance. As a form of self-preservation, more states try to gain their own nuclear weapons, significantly reducing the future safety of the planet.
Wow, you've done something most of us have not... Tried to put Trump into a real global perspective.
I think the timeframe in the Baltic States will be a few *years* rather than months, but I also think it's likely to happen as you say.
2.We are at war with Iran by the summer of 2017.. The treaty to suspend Iran's nuclear program is seen as a major accomplishment of Obama, and will not be allowed to stand. The new administration will disavow the agreement and begin demanding concessions and inspections and a whole series of patently insulting requests, and this will lead Iran to restart their program. There will be an air campaign, followed by boots on the ground, followed by an extended U.S. presence as we try to just take their oil for ourselves to try to shore up our own economy. This destroys the last stable state in the area, essentially meaning the kind of chaos we see in Syria extends to the entire region.
This is interesting. I had not considered it. But... What's the reason to break the treaty? It's actually working, and I think the intel agencies and military will push back on a repudiation. Unless there's a catalysing event, I don't see Trump or Congress with the political will to go toe to toe with Iran in an actual fight. Much more useful as a propaganda punching bag.
3. The U.S. pivots away from Pakistan and towards India.. India is experiencing its own rise of nationalistic, right-wing authoritarianism, and our odds of remaining friendly with Islamic states under a Trump administration seen aggressively bad. With us no longer in Pakistan and the balance of support shifting, a newly-expansionist India aggressively moves to military conflict to try to resolve the Kashmir issue once and for all. War breaks out between two nuclear-armed states, and I think there's a terrifyingly good chance of the nuclear genie being let out of the bottle.
This implies a serious disengagement from Afghanistan... Are we ready for that?
Yeah, Russia is my biggest fear from a European perspective. There's currently a lot of NATO troops (including British) milling around in the Baltik states at the moment if memory serves (specifically to act as a deterrent to the tens of thousands of Russian troops just on the other side of the border..."on maneuvers").
One slip up there could be quite the disaster. 
But..it might help deter any "sneaky rebellions from within" in the short term at least.
Rather than quoting, just replying to Robear bit by bit. Yes, the global context is what worries me. I dread what Trump will do domestically. What he could do to global order and stability literally keeps me up at night. I genuinely think this election could be a significant turning point in history, and it scares the shit out of me.
The Baltic States--Putin waited like a week or something after the Sochi Olympics to annex the Crimea, wasn't it? I think he specifically will move quickly in the Baltic just to prove he's in charge. Trump is going to realize before long that Putin considers him to be glorified lap dog. Let's put it this way: Trump-->Christie = Putin-->Trump.
Iran--I have conservative friends who absolutely believe Iran is chugging ahead and didn't slow down at all. This is a common belief. That being said, you know why I really think relations with Iran break down? That deal was an Obama accomplishment, and this entire election has fundamentally been about wiping out every bit of Obama's legacy. Yes, I think there is an excellent chance we go to war in Iran and finally cap off the process of destroying the Middle East out of childish spite.
India-Pakistan--This is admittedly more speculative, but Trump has really fundamentally damaged any relationships we might have with Islamic states. Afghanistan is messy and ugly, and India represents a burgeoning economy and opportunities for trade and, most importantly, they're not Muslims. Also, with the big pivot towards Russia, we're not staying in Afghanistan. There's a longer history of Afghanistan being in Russia's sphere of influence, and pulling out will be part of the shuffle of global politics once we become more firmly Russian allies/lap dogs. India's just a logical choice to me.
Oh, I need to go back to the other thread. Trump gets impeached, because he eventually stands up to Russia, and Russia dumps all his financial information, the info they hacked from the RNC they didn't give to Wikileaks, and the piles of other dirt they have on him, and it destroys him.
Hopefully he won't light the world on fire going out the door.
On this topic, I have a group of project managers who work with me out of Costa Rica. The work they're doing shifted there last year after my American PMs received pink slips. Of course that's not the Costa Rica team's fault, and my previous PMs have since found very good jobs.
Since the election, I've been getting a lot more personal contact from them. They're concerned about the US in general, very concerned that we'll be pulling out of NAFTA and their jobs will go away, and also worried that this will mean instability in Central and South America. I can't give them much solace other than listening to them and chatting about my perspective and what's going on here.
These people are professionals with decent skills. They're a part of globalization efforts which provide cheaper labor for US companies and some pain in the US in the short term, and lift up other economies to participate in the global marketplace over the long term. I get what has been happening, and though it does make things more painful here right now it's much more meaningful than labeling it as some generally bad "NEW WORLD ORDER" thing.
IMO Trump puts global progress in jeopardy, and people of the world who just recently attained a better standard of living are afraid/uncertain right now.
On this topic, I have a group of project managers who work with me out of Costa Rica. The work they're doing shifted there last year after my American PMs received pink slips. Of course that's not the Costa Rica team's fault, and my previous PMs have since found very good jobs.
Since the election, I've been getting a lot more personal contact from them. They're concerned about the US in general, very concerned that we'll be pulling out of NAFTA and their jobs will go away, and also worried that this will mean instability in Central and South America. I can't give them much solace other than listening to them and chatting about my perspective and what's going on here.
These people are professionals with decent skills. They're a part of globalization efforts which provide cheaper labor for US companies and some pain in the US in the short term, and lift up other economies to participate in the global marketplace over the long term. I get what has been happening, and though it does make things more painful here right now it's much more meaningful than labeling it as some generally bad "NEW WORLD ORDER" thing.
IMO Trump puts global progress in jeopardy, and people of the world who just recently attained a better standard of living are afraid/uncertain right now.
I think something that this movement hasn't grasped about immigration is that people don't want to move to America because America.
They move because their local situation is so dire.
A surefire way to start a wave of central American immigration? Tear up free trade agreements and put their economies in recessions.
People aren't pouring out of Syria because they woke up and had a hankering for pork and kolsch.
My big fear is between the economies and actual war this will lead to an uptick in displaced people and in turn more knee jerk isolationism.
We're talking about a person who probably actually thinks you can build a wall across the Mexican border and it would work. I don't think this was a symbolic thing.
The Canadian perspective will be interesting. We have a fairly open border yet are very open to refugees. We have open trade that is supposedly the worst deal ever (NAFTA) but we also have one of the largest oil reserves in the world (when the price is right). We just announced a major investment to protect the artic vs Russian interests but where the f*ck does Trump actually stand vs Russia.
Oh yea we're legalizing weed. 8 states? Did also recently but yea how's that going to shake out.
It's so hard to know for sure what is going to happen because Trump has promised to set fire to international diplomacy, but he's also a liar so it's impossible to know if he is going to abandon NATO and continue appeasing Russia. If he pulls support for NATO I'm with Milkman that it's a matter of months before we say goodbye to the Baltic states.
I'm more concerned about the global impact of tanking US and UK economies on the Global South. When the companies start to pull out it's going to get bad.
German troops are already in the Lithuania. Canada are the leads in Latvia and Britain in Estonia. Trump may not want American troops defending the Baltics but, frankly, they never were.
I'll add this: Many didn't appreciate how far Germany (and others) was prepared to go to keep the Euro together during it's crisis. Germany ultimately viewed its demise as the potential collapse of the EU. What makes you think it will stand by and allow a EU member state get invaded? I just don't see it happening. But I've been wrong before.
The Baltic States--Putin waited like a week or something after the Sochi Olympics to annex the Crimea, wasn't it?
With you on most of this, but check out this timeline of the Ukrainian crisis. Yanukovich fled on the 22nd, and the Olympics ended on the 23rd. Putin's actions were related to the ongoing, Russian-sponsored crisis in the Ukrainian leadership, not to a taunting of the West.
The global consequences have always been my main concern. In the end if a country really want a terrible president for themselves, who are we to argue :/
Of course, a lot of things that might at first only hurt US domestically, will have consequences elsewhere.
Don't really think a war with Iran is likely. It will probably just go back to what it was a few years ago. The treaty might very well break apart - not like Trump can actually "make a better deal" like he claims about everything. Going back to the ice-cold relations is in itself a shame though. Iran could be one of the more promising countries in the Middle East given some time and a more normalized relationship with everyone.
I guess one hope could be that everyone else do not follow suit if US breaks the treaty, and keep opening up toward Iran.
Putin, North Korea, maybe Pakistan/India on the other hand. Yeah, disaster likely awaits us.
Given everything we know about Putin, I cant imagine he wont try his luck during the next 4 years. It is unlikely it will lead to real war between NATO and Russia, but he will push to see if EU/NATO can be broken. Which they both seem somewhat likely to do.
But really, the most direct influence Trump can have on the world, other than destroying even the tiniest efforts against Climate Change, is if he tanks the US economy and drag down everyone else with it.
It is unlikely it will lead to real war between NATO and Russia, but he will push to see if EU/NATO can be broken. Which they both seem somewhat likely to do.
I agree with this. Russia will back all sorts of extreme elements in Europe. Putin is basically exporting local political strategy to the West in order to protect his and other wealth. Shooting wars with the West will endanger that so I'd be surprised if he risks it.
Trump knowledge of global business leaves a lot to be desired. The author explains quite clearly why reducing corporate tax won't do anything to incite big technology and pharmaceutical firms to move operations from Ireland. In fact, both firms require a lot of H1Bs to functions in the US so Trumps anti-immigration stance may force those companies to move it's global operations to another country.
Finally, the US might find that those multinationals just might choose to move their global headquarters out of the US entirely, to more internationally business savvy and friendly locations. Like, er, Ireland.
If he pulls support for NATO I'm with Milkman that it's a matter of months before we say goodbye to the Baltic states.
Honestly, separating from NATO would be a good thing for the United States. The alliance lost its purpose when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it's been looking for people to fight ever since. It was originally formed because the European countries couldn't defend themselves, and that hasn't been true for at least thirty years now. The fantasy that the United States could Do Something about Russian aggression in the Baltic states, Georgia, or the Ukraine is just that - a fantasy. And it's dangerous for the people who live there to get the impression that the United States could or would do something.
So rumors are that Merkel will confirm in a few hours that she is running for reelection. Haven't exactly been a huge fan of her, but some stability would likely not be bad over the next years.
And French 'primary' election today, picking the conservative candidate. That one is important since he will likely be the only candidate running against Marine Le Pen.
No idea who is the best of them, they are all right win in the end. Sarkozy is running on a Pen-lite platform though, competing on who can hate muslims the most, so I guess the other two candidates at least are potentially better.
One of the others sounds like a great guy... or not. Could allow le Pen run on a platform similar to Trumps against "corruption".
In 2004, Alain Juppé was tried for the felony of abuse of public funds, when he was head of the RPR and the RPR illegally used personnel provided by the City of Paris for running its operations. He was convicted and sentenced to an 18-month suspended jail sentence, the deprivation of civic rights for five years, and the deprivation of the right to run for political office for 10 years. He appealed the decision, whereupon his disqualification from holding elected office was reduced to one year and the suspended sentence cut to 14 months.
Sounds like they will need a second vote next week though, due to their runoff system, ending up with the two front runners against each other.
How about that, Sarkozy comes in third in their primary.
Sounds like Fillon is winning. Despite seemingly being third in the polls.
In next week second round, the Sarcozy voters might switch to the last candidate, so I guess Fillon could lose, but he seems to be winning by a lot today. Doesn't seem very likely to change.
Behind a mild, refined demeanor, the 62-year-old is a hard-hitter bent on slashing the cost of government, mostly by axing public service jobs."I want to give the country its liberty back!" Fillon told a rally on Friday, promising to do away with the 35-hour working week, drastically cut public spending and slash red tape in the health sector.
An admirer of late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as Labour and Social Affairs Minister he faced down street protests in 2003 over his retirement pension age reforms.
Doesn't exactly sound great. Though to be fair, France does seem to have had problems with their public finances for years, so for once someone like him might actually have a case.
But I wonder if such a candidate could send more people from the middle class and the left over to support Le Pen :/
MrDeVil909 wrote:If he pulls support for NATO I'm with Milkman that it's a matter of months before we say goodbye to the Baltic states.
Honestly, separating from NATO would be a good thing for the United States. The alliance lost its purpose when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it's been looking for people to fight ever since. It was originally formed because the European countries couldn't defend themselves, and that hasn't been true for at least thirty years now. The fantasy that the United States could Do Something about Russian aggression in the Baltic states, Georgia, or the Ukraine is just that - a fantasy. And it's dangerous for the people who live there to get the impression that the United States could or would do something.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said on Monday he would move nuclear-capable missiles closer to Europe in response to Nato's expansion in the Baltic states.In a bold display of force against Western allies, Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles and a ballistic Iskander system will be deployed in Kaliningrad, which is situated between Lithuania and Poland.
Iskander missiles have a range of 450 miles, which means they could hit Berlin if launched from Kaliningrad.
I guess we will see if the European countries can defend themselves...or if we just need to redraw a bunch of maps to make Russia bigger.
Maybe everyone should move to Canada.
An admirer of late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
...nooooooooooooooooooo...
It seems to me that Russia is the only one expanding/threatening anyone... unless, they're using different maps than everyone else?
Canada isn't immune from this either - Russia's been trying to lay claim to much of the Arctic, too. I'm used to maps showing most of the Arctic as Canada, maybe theirs don't, or Putin just dgaf.
I want to live in a world where, when asked about which world leader you like, it would be slightly better to pull a Gary Johnson than mention Thatcher.
It seems to me that Russia is the only one expanding/threatening anyone... unless, they're using different maps than everyone else?
Canada isn't immune from this either - Russia's been trying to lay claim to much of the Arctic, too. I'm used to maps showing most of the Arctic as Canada, maybe theirs don't, or Putin just dgaf.
No no, you are wrong. The arctic totally belongs to Denmark/Greenland. Move along 
If Ukraine is anything to go by, Russia certainly do have their own maps.
It seems to me that Russia is the only one expanding/threatening anyone... unless, they're using different maps than everyone else?
.
As far as Russia thinks, it's just reclaiming it's own 'rightful' property (in regards to the Balkans) so Putin probably just thinks he's filling in the empty spaces in his Soviet-era map again. I suspect he'd prefer to use the sneaky backdoor tactics he's used elsewhere but with NATO troops sitting in the countries he's forced to fall back on the old classic military willy waving.
But yeah, I imagine the loud exclamations of defending Russia from NATO are most likely for the benefit of the folks back home, who he seems eager to convince are constantly under siege by the Evil Westerners. Probably so they don't think too hard about looking closer to home for solutions to their many problems.
It seems to me that Russia is the only one expanding/threatening anyone... unless, they're using different maps than everyone else?
Nope, they are using the same maps as everyone else.
In 2011, NATO officially recognized four aspiring members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Macedonia has been prevented from joining the alliance by Greece, one effect of the Macedonian naming dispute, while Montenegro's membership is in the process of being ratified by current members. Future expansion is currently a topic of debate in several countries outside the alliance, and countries like Sweden, Finland and Serbia have open political debate on the topic of membership, while in countries like Ukraine, support and opposition to membership is tied to ethnic and nationalist ideologies. The incorporation of countries formerly in the Eastern Bloc has been a cause of increased tension between NATO countries and Russia.
Note that in at least one case, Georgia, NATO has literally expanded to the Russian border. Imagine how the United States would've reacted if Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s.
Edit: Also, if the Russians were smart, they'd petition to join NATO. The ensuing chaos would be awe-inspiring, and probably let them get away with what they want.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, all of which are existing NATO members (since 1999 or 2004) already share a border with Russia, so I'm not entirely sure why you're calling Georgia (which is not yet a member) out as a special case.
NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. Article 5 only got invoked once, after 9/11. I wouldn't consider NATO enlarging it's membership to the Baltics as "expansionism", given that it's implausible that the US or EU would have any more control over Lithuania with it in NATO than without.
NATO's relevance as a geopolitical alliance might have been questionable when Russia was a peaceful partner, but it's military interventionism in Ukraine shows that countries bordering Russia have cause for concern. You could argue that American interventionism has been just as bad or worse, but American Wars are not all NATO wars (see the Iraq war as an example). If Russia sees NATO as an extension of American imperialism, they're looking at it from their own Paradigm, which I don't think matches the reality of how NATO members see it. Which, IMO, makes it all the more necessary.
Just this week Putin was congratulating kids who won geography contest. He asked one of the kids to show him where are the borders of Russia. Kid showed him where the border goes.
"Wrong," president of the Russia smiled. "Russia has no borders".
Of course, he just joked. Yet it illustrates his world view perfectly.
Whatever Trump has planned, world markets are expecting him to spend and spend big with stimulus. One of our big 4 banks lifted interest rates, which suggests your Federal Reserve will move soon on a rate rise. This is a weird outcome when global markets are still fragile and rate rises will threaten economic recovery.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, all of which are existing NATO members (since 1999 or 2004) already share a border with Russia, so I'm not entirely sure why you're calling Georgia (which is not yet a member) out as a special case.
"Note that in at least five cases - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Georgia, NATO has literally expanded to the Russian border. Imagine how the United States would've reacted if Mexico and Canada had joined the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s."
That better? 
And not being an official member is kinda irrelevant for this discussion, since NATO wants them to be a member.
NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. Article 5 only got invoked once, after 9/11. I wouldn't consider NATO enlarging it's membership to the Baltics as "expansionism", given that it's implausible that the US or EU would have any more control over Lithuania with it in NATO than without.
The Warsaw Pact was a "defensive alliance" as well. NATO has a long history of aggression, and its member countries have a disturbing habit of participating in American wars. The NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 was dubiously legal, even by NATO's own standards. NATO was directly involved in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The attack on Libya in 2011 was an official NATO operation. Major NATO countries are heavily involved in Syria, and Turkey - a NATO member - actually shot down a Russian plane.
And note that none of these wars has involved an invocation of article 5, because NATO has never been attacked. However, NATO has threatened an invocation of article 5 and military action in response to cyber attacks, which is beyond absurd. And again, put some time into considering how the United States would react to similar actions taken against U.S. allies or forces (remember that Syria, and the Assad regime, is a long-time Soviet / Russian ally).
I'm not defending the Russians here; clearly they are looking to threaten, bully, and / or shoot their way into the territories they want. But NATO does not behave like a defensive alliance - it is also doing things that anyone else would interpret as threats, bullying, and provocation, and to expect the Russians not to react the way any other powerful country would is highly dubious. This is a cut-and-dried case of "white-hat" syndrome: the guys on the "other" side are bad, so that must mean that the guys on "our" side are good. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And note that none of these wars has involved an invocation of article 5, because NATO has never been attacked. However, NATO has threatened an invocation of article 5 and military action in response to cyber attacks, which is beyond absurd.
What is absurd about that. You could potentially have a cyber attack some day that is equivalent in damage and size to a military attack. Seems to merely be an adjustment to how wars can be fought.
Yes, it is easy to see why Russia might feel threatened by NATO expansion. Russia is clearly being contained.
But NATO as an aggressive threat to Russia is still something that only exists in Russias/Putins head.
That the US might act equally as paranoid in the same situation is not comforting.
and Turkey - a NATO member - actually shot down a Russian plane.
Of course Turkey also happens to have a leader as paranoid as Putin these days. What can possibly go wrong.
More like that will happen if Russia keeps sending aircrafts, subs etc. into other countries territories to provoke them.
What about the rest of the world?
From my perspective looking across from the UK I'm wondering if anyone is ever going to take Republicans seriously ever again.
Pages