The New World Order
Really, a older, more imperialistic one.
The United States is meeting with Russia to discuss Ukraine. Not represented at the meeting is Ukraine nor is there any representation from Europe. This is old-school Great Power politics that is elevating Russia to a status it does not deserve both morally and materially. However, the Trump administration is affording the Putin regime a status boost while at the same time treating Ukraine like a vassal.
Welcome back to the pre-WWII way of doing global politics, without all of the unpleasant implications that brings to mind.
To add a little extra-authoritarian zing to the recipe, the talks are being in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The NYT reports, Rubio Lands in Saudi Arabia for Talks on Gaza and Ukraine.
Mr. Rubio is also scheduled to meet in Riyadh on Tuesday with Russian officials to discuss the future of the Russia-Ukraine war. They will be joined by two other key U.S. officials — Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, who also works on Ukraine-Russia issues — according to Tammy Bruce, a State Department spokeswoman.
[…]
The moves prompted concern in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, where leaders fear being sidelined from discussions that will dictate their countries’ futures. Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, reiterated in an interview that aired on Sunday that his country would “never” accept a peace deal struck by the United States and Russia if Ukraine was not involved in the talks.
With this move, Trump is treating Putin like a legitimate equal and treating Ukraine as some kind of junior partner. And the more that the US is willing to deal directly with Russia while excluding Ukraine and our partners in Europe, the more Trump is validating Russia’s invasion in the first place. This is old-school power politics of the type that used to lead to wider, regional wars. Russia has already been trying to assert and normalize 19th-century-esque territorial acquisition for some time now, but the rest of the world has been resisting letting it be accepted as just something that countries do. The Trump administration is about to do just that (of course, since he has dreams of Greenland, Gaza, and the Panama Canal dancing around in its head, so be it, I guess).
Such a meeting is massively insulting to Ukraine, given it is their country and future that is at state, and our partners in Europe who have provided substantial aid to Ukraine and who have reasons not to want Russian influence and power to grow.
In the simplest of terms, we are treating Russia, which engaged in naked aggression, with more respect than we showed our NATO allies last week. And we are treating Ukraine like a child in a dispute between adults.
Indeed, the NYT further reports: European Leaders Meet in Paris as U.S. Pushes Ahead With Ukraine Plan.
The leaders of many of Europe’s biggest countries on Monday will descend on Paris in an effort to forge a strategy for their own security as President Trump’s envoys prepared for talks with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine without them.
The meeting in Paris was pulled together rapidly, after Vice President JD Vance’s scathing speech in Munich criticizing Europe’s exclusion of far-right groups from power and the fast-emerging American plans to begin peace talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia this week, without the presence of Ukrainian or European leaders.
Expected in Paris are leaders from Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as the president of the European Council, the president of the European Commission and the secretary general of NATO.
We are driving allies away (indeed, bringing into question decades-old friendships) while enhancing the power of Russia. It is an insane set of maneuvers if one is trying to enhance US power and influence.
It is also worth noting that Rubio is going to discuss Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan (I find the NYT‘s characterization to be inaccurate) with there are as well (in case anyone was hoping that the notion would just be confined to that press conference).
From the first linked NYT piece.
Mr. Rubio, who flew to Riyadh from Israel, was expected to press the Saudi leadership to propose a vision for postwar Gaza. President Trump’s idea to depopulate and occupy the territory has spurred widespread opposition in the Arab world, including in Saudi Arabia. That has led Mr. Rubio and other U.S. officials to encourage Arab leaders to suggest an alternative.
I noted at some point that one of the reasons that Trump could put a fairly standard pick in the Secretary of State slot is because, as president, he could more directly drive foreign policy than any of the other cabinet-level areas. We are seeing this in real-time. See, also, Politico Magazine: This is Not Marco Rubio’s State Department.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Marco Rubio is secretary of State in name only.
Since taking over Foggy Bottom, Rubio has constantly appeared one or two steps behind the actions of President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk — popping up to explain, justify or even double down on choices he probably would not make if he was actually running the show. He’s talking (and posting online) in a different voice, contradicting earlier policy views and appears to have little control over the implementation of Trump’s assault on the federal workforce.
For example, on Trump’s Gaza plans he has said the following (source).
Mr. Trump has “been very bold about what the future for Gaza should be, not the same tired ideas of the past,” Mr. Rubio said in prepared remarks delivered alongside Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday after the two met privately. “It may have shocked and surprised many, but what cannot continue is the same cycle where we repeat over and over again and wind up in the exact same place.”
“Little Marco,” indeed.
Feels like Molotov-Ribbentrop but out in the open.
So, the plan in Gaza is to do something different (but weirdly stupid all the same) this time but still arrive at almost the exact same place (at the cost of American other people’s children in addition to Israeli and Palestinian ones)?
Put me down as a “meh…” on this one.
“With this move, Trump is treating Putin like a legitimate equal and treating Ukraine as some kind of junior partner.”
This is exactly the same playbook Trump used to achieve the “Abraham Accords” — basically he solved the issue of Palestine by locking the Palestinians out of the negotiations so that no one had to listen to their concerns.
I suspect that Zelensky is smart enough to recognize this — especially after Trump’s newest plan for Palestinians is to steal their land to build hotels to enrich himself and pretend to hope someone else will take care of them.
And I’d add global wars, too.
Spheres of influence set up an inherently unstable international order. Regional hegemons easily rub up against the countries they are trying to dominate. Within these countries, frictions emerge between collaborationist elites and other groups. And the hegemons run into problems with other hegemons, whenever there’s a question about critical resources, open sea and land routes, and other sorts of hard power issues. And that’s not even getting into all the other reasons (ideological, for instance) why great powers, when unconstrained, can really get up into each others’ grills.
This is also why Putin is not terribly smart when it comes to international relations — say, Kaiser Wilhelm-level dumb. He seems sincerely dedicated to establishing the New Russian Empire, because in his mind, that’s ipso facto better than the status quo. However, Russia benefits to some extent from that status quo. Even when a government in NATO and/or the EU changes, they’re collectively restrained from becoming a greater threat to Russian interests. The democratic governments that he so very much wants to undermine are more transparent than authoritarian regimes, and slower to anger. The insistence on respecting sovereignty cuts both ways. But, you know, fantasies about ancient Rus are way more important than anything.
I believe that the statements by Vance are likely to reawaken DeGaulle type views of NATO. Vance scolds the Europeans for being insufficiently grateful for the shield that the US provided via NATO. Some people think that NATO ensured that Europe would be the battlefield for any US/USSR war by placing American military bases in forward positions on European soil and obligating European nations to fight. The cornerstone of NATO is article 5 which has been invoked once in seventy years for 9/11 which was an attack in the US. DeGaulle withdrew France from the combined NATO command in 1966; France rejoined in 2006. He was not the only one who thought that NATO was a US tool. A European alliance without the US may result.
BTW, Vance also criticized Europeans for their acceptance of large numbers of immigrants. Why are middle eastern people looking to migrate? Perhaps wars largely instigated by the US and its friends have made it uncomfortable to be a resident of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
Rubio’s insatiable lust for power and prestige has overwhelmed both his sense of pride and whatever passes as a moral compass for today’s Republicans. He joins Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham as pols who at one time forcefully, and correctly, deemed Trump both unfit and dangerous, and who now grovel before him. Trump cannot see any issue beyond “what’s in it for me?” He wants the Nobel Peace Prize, and he thinks ending the war – no matter how much Ukraine gets screwed – is the ticket to that goal. So naturally Trump would want spineless tools like Rubio, Hegseth, and Vance to pave the way.
@Charley in Cleveland: I think the Nobel Committee is smarter than that.
The Allies are holding Emergency Meetings today.
The YUGE question is what will they do in the face of Trump essentially re-aligning the World Order and positioning the US as an un-reliable partner?
And how will it affect the price of eggs?
@Charley in Cleveland:
I think it’s more about a reliable paycheck for Marco and a way to get rich via connections. He always wanted to live above his means. His potential for earnings drops significantly if he can’t stick around.
@Kingdaddy:
All the better to justify growing the Defense budget, while cutting all other government spending, no?
This has long been my theory of Trump. Not an ideological fascist, but an older kind of authoritarian that operates in terms of machine politics, spoils systems, patronage systems, clan/tribal systems, mob/crime boss systems, etc. At least from what I’ve read, New York real estate and politics were very much of that general character, and with what’s going on with Mayor Adams (a situation I have not followed closely at all), it may still be the case.
The gist is that friends are to be rewarded, enemies are to be punished, territory/assets are to be protected, and underlings/clients are to be kept in line. This is why loyalty is such a major factor in these systems.
In my view, Trump’s behavior fits the mob boss model especially well. He treats Putin with more perceived respect than NATO countries and allies because he sees Putin as another mob boss—a kind of peer with whom he can negotiate over spheres of influence. Meanwhile, America’s allies, especially Ukraine, are seen as clients, not peers, who need to be reminded of who is in charge and what the pecking order is.
Another aspect is that most everything becomes transactional. It’s all about the deal and “winning” negotiations, even if the win is just one of perceptions. The Mexico/Canada tariffs are a perfect example of this, IMO.
@Andy:
I think this is an astute read on Trump’s behavioral drivers, but I’m wondering if you think it matters in communicating how dangerous Trump’s leanings are. Mobster Authoritarian versus Fascist Authoritarian – what better conveys the threat to then drive response?
@Daryl:
I’m more worried how will it affect the price of uranium.
Also what happens when countries like Germany, Italy, Poland and others essentially abandon the non-proliferation treaty. What does that signal Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, etc.?
If there were no other reason, and there are many, nukes alone are a potent argument against making war a central part of relations between great powers once again.
@Kathy: I think that the odds of a nuclear war in the next 30 years are now extremely high.
The odds of a nuclear warning shot is now 99%.
Well, the dominant role of the Greater Powers has long been a truism.
But also the reality that a sufficiently motivated lesser state can make life exceedingly unpleasant for a would be hegemon. Let alone a coalition of such states.
There were good reasons that after the most destructive wars of Modern history – Napoleonic, WW1, WW2 – each time the victors thought it would be rather sensible to try to establish systems that attempted to ameliorate pure machtpolitik, with its retrospectively evident dangers with conciliar systems.
Which attempted, in their various ways to balance the realities and interests of Power with regard to rights, legalities and limitations: the Congress of Europe, the League of Nations, the United Nations.
But what did those guys know, compared to the Donald.
Metternich; what a wimp!
@Kathy:
The UK has a stockpile of plutonium that was recently being mooted for “putting beyond use”.
I wonder if second thoughts are occurring to some in government on this matter, because they certainly are to me.
@Kathy:
The most immediate danger is Taiwan. China now sees that President Doughboy won’t protect Ukraine. So they can safely assume Taiwan is theirs for the taking. Of corse, when that happens it will be Biden’s fault.
@Andy: I agree with a lot of that, but my mental model of Trump is more a mediocre kid who inherited the family business. He likes being the rich boss, but he doesn’t like working very hard. He likes being the sales guy, the face of the business, but he leaves actual operation of the business to minions, retained for their loyalty, like his convicted felon accountant and his convicted felon legal”fixer”. And Roy Cohen who taught him bullheadedness could take him far.
In Tump’s case he bankrupted daddy’s business, but succeeded in building his personal brand well enough that some “reality” TV producer built him back up again. And to his surprise as much as anyone else’s, his partly affected, partly real, simple mindedness appealed to a lot of Americans. Now he’s somehow head of the business again and he needs minions to do the actual work. Musk will work hard at appearing to be loyal enough to stay on board. As will the Project 2025 types. As they all pursue their own agendas.
I suspect refusing to take part, which was Zelenskyy’s call by the look of this, could pan out to be a tactical mistake. I can understand why Zelenskyy might want to not participate himself, this is a meeting of representatives for the most part, but having somebody there would change the nature of the meeting.
Refusing to participate is not a great look, and if you want to make Witkoff’s job harder you should have somebody at that table to do that.
@JohnSF:
Making a simple fission bomb isn’t hard if you already have the fissile materials, Making an H bomb is far more difficult, and requires a breeder reactor to make tritium.
But the real obstacle is the delivery system. For strategic nukes, the best remains ICBMs or SLBMs, followed by cruise missiles. That can take years to develop.
Still, having a few nukes is a powerful deterrent.
@Daryl:
I don’t think Xi will be as rash as Mad Vlad was, especially in assuming he can just invade and win in a matter of days, two weeks tops.
On the other hand, it’s not as if Europe would get involved. Korea maybe, Japan as a distant possibility. That’s about it.
@dazedandconfused:
Oops, I withdraw this opinion as I have discovered I was mistaken. Ukraine was not invited to participate. My bad.
I doubt Trump has any grand plan to exercise influence over Europe. I think his promise to end the Ukraine War before he even took office, together with his bragging about how easy it would be, are an embarrassment. Consequently he wants to find an out as quickly as possible. The best way would be to strike an “in principle” deal with Putin and present it to Zelenskyy as an ultimatum. If Zelenskyy accepts it, the war’s over. If he rejects it, Trump shrugs his shoulders, says he made a deal that should have ended the war, and condemns Zelenskyy as a corrupt warmonger. Either way, he can wash his hands of any further involvement. He can concentrate on his real enemies: NATO members.
BTW Kellogg must have proved too difficult in his role as “Ukraine/Russia special envoy”. Probably keep raising objections to what Trump, Vance and Hegseth told him to do. Property developer Steve Witkoff has the mix of talents the job requires.
@Scott F.:
First of all, thank you for the nice comment.
I think there’s a fundamental difference in terms of danger between the idea that Trump has a fascist worldview vs Trump as a kind of Capone who sees the world as a big patronage and spoils system. The former is much more dangerous – the latter is something that is common around the world and in American history – IOW, we know how it works.
As far as communicating, I think it’s incredibly important to be accurate, to not exaggerate, to not engage in noble lies, and to base arguments on real and identifiable principles and not principles of convenience. Unfortunately, a lot of anti-Trump commentary violates all of that and, in my view, makes the message and messenger less effective. And this applies to actions as well.
For example, if one makes exaggerated claims that don’t come true, then Trump looks better, and you look worse by comparison. A neutral observer will be less inclined to take future claims seriously. And the reality is that what Trump is doing is sufficiently bad that exaggeration isn’t and shouldn’t be necessary. Same with actions. If one claims to hold a principle but then makes self-serving tactical exceptions, then credibility is damaged. So, the TLDR version is to be factually accurate and not get over one’s ski’s or spend effort with worst-case catastrophic predictions. It should be obvious by now that most people have tuned them out, and for Trump supporters, it becomes an object of ridicule (“Oh look at the crazy shit those lefties are saying now, remember when they said this dumb shit that wasn’t true? lol”).
On the big picture, as I’ve said before, Trump is President – he has inherent power, latent power which has historically only been constrained by behavioral norms (which he’s testing the limits of), power and authority he’s trying to claim that the office doesn’t have. I would have preferred a less powerful Executive, but that is water under the bridge at this point. Trump’s excesses aren’t going to be countered by better communication, much less anything any of us here do or say in a comment section – they’re going to be countered by actions in politics and the courts. The historically thin GoP majority in Congress and Trump’s lame-duck status is a major vulnerability – hopefully, Democrats are smart enough to play that hand without shooting themselves in the foot.
This is also where state sovereignty comes in. I’ve made this point many times: States have a lot of latent power and authority and a significant amount of independence. Much of the federal government’s authority over state action is contingent to federal funding – states agree to do things and limit their own authority in exchange for federal money. Trump disrupting that arrangement is a double-edge sword – one that I very much doubt that Trump and Musk understand. So the short version of what I’m saying is to suggest that those who have been against federalism in the past need to learn to love it again.
Then there is the courts. Most actions can be temporarily stopped by the courts, perhaps long enough to get past the mid-terms. I don’t agree with the catastrophic predictions that the courts, especially SCOTUS, will do whatever Trump wants. At the same time, I do wish that Congress would fill its institutional role, but that isn’t the world we currently live in.
Trump’s “flood the zone” strategy is inherently time-limited. There is no way to keep that pace up. Like any offensive, it will culminate, probably sooner rather than later. And two can play at that game – can Trump’s thinned-out DOJ and weakened civil service handle an onslaught of lawsuits and state actions?
Also, I think prioritization is of huge importance. One of the problems that Democrats consistently have is an inability to prioritize. This is why the “flood the zone” strategy can be effective because if you prioritize everything, you prioritize nothing. In terms of messaging this applies too. Even as a news junkie, I cannot keep up. And furthermore, since I have many friends and colleagues who I get first-hand accounts from and are feeling the real-world effects of the chaos, I’m getting a barrage from that direction too. I – and most of my friends and my spouse – cannot take it all in and stay sane. We all have cut way down on news and commentary consumption not only for our own mental health and sanity, but also because we need to be able to focus on those things that we can actually have some influence on. For me right now, that is putting effort into supporting my friends however I can, directly engaging with my representatives at the state and national levels, and coordinating with others to do the same. And, very rare for me, also giving money to organizations that hold and fight for my principles. I’m not rich by any means, but every little bit helps.
Finally, and this is part of the prioritization, one can’t and shouldn’t try to protect the voters from everything bad Trump is attempting. The opposition needs to try to ensure that bad consequences land in Trump’s lap in the minds of average Americans, not just the minds of the median MSNBC viewer. Don’t give Trump and the MAGA GoP the space to shift blame.
Ultimately (and I see I’ve gone on way too long with this comment now), the issues with Trump will get solved via elections – state and local elections, the mid-terms, and then we will have a Presidential election with no incumbent and Trump as an ex-President whose influence is yet to be determined. It’s important, IMO, to keep perspective that Trump is already a lame duck and whatever actual power and authority he’s using now can be reversed and rolled back by the future Presidents, Congress, and the courts.
@gVOR10:
I don’t think your mental model and mine are in conflict – in many ways they are complimentary.
@Andy:
I will admit that I continue to grapple with this term and its applicability. I still think that you expect too much ideology from fascism. I am also, unfortunately, starting to see a more global reactionary movement of extreme nationalism, and Trump is part of it (Vance’s speak, the whole “Make Europe Great Again” bit, Musk, etc).
All of which is to say that just because Trump is not an ideological thinker doesn’t mean that he isn’t swimming in ideological waters.
Just some musings for the moment.
(But of course, regardless of fascism or ideology, all of this is pretty damn disturbing).
@gVOR10: I am in the process of trying to figure out how to look at/assess Trump, but I am going to say that the whole “he’s just a thuggish bufoon who inherited his wealth and doesn’t like to work hard” is not the right model.
That seemed to be true for 2016. But like it or not, he has reshaped one of two political parties in the US. He is instigating massive change to the functioning of the US government in ways that may end of being quite profound. And he is actively reshaping the global order.
He is proving to be an incredibly consequential actor–unfortunately all in a very negative way.
I think this requires some rethinking.
@Andy:
I take your point about not overreacting.
But, to stick to the topic of this post: I am gravely concerned that, in fact, reversing the damage to the post-WWII global order may not be possible. Europe, for example, could have dismissed Trump 1.0 as an aberration. A mistake that could be avoided after voters saw what a mistake they had made. But, Trump 2.0 shows that the voters can’t fully be trusted and, by extension, can Europe ever look at the US the way it did from the end of WWII until the recent period?
@Steven L. Taylor:
I don’t want to get into another semantic debate about fascism, but ideology is one critical factor that separates it from the kind of patronage politics I described above that exists and existed long before fascism was invented.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Not to defend Trump’s actions, but I think he is more of a symptom than a cause. The post-WWII order of a bipolar world between communism and liberal capitalism, followed by the unipolar world with the US as hegemon with liberal capitalism triumphant, is an unsustainable situation. The global reactionary movements you mentioned, the rise of hegemonic competitors like China, the effects of globalism, and the social changes we’ve seen around the world, all driven and exacerbated by new technology, are, IMO, the disruptive causes driving the end of the post-WWII structure. Trump is a symptom of that, not a cause.
The fact is that burden-sharing with our allies, particularly Europe and NATO, continues to be unsustainably asymmetric. For the past couple of decades, every US president has emphasized the need for our European allies to take more responsibility and share the burden of an alliance that hasn’t fundamentally changed its structure or organization. Until Trump, we did it nicely through pleading and speeches and such. Our European partners mostly ignored that, preferring to offload the bulk of responsibility (and expense) of collective defense to the US. That has only begun to change with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While I do not at all support the extreme methods that Trump is using, I think that our allies must understand that the status quo regarding burden-sharing cannot continue, and that is a position I held before Trump came on the scene.
NATO has no serious enemies except Russia, which is weak and getting weaker. Europe is perfectly capable of conventionally defending against any Russian threat without US assistance if only they would more seriously take their obligations for collective defense and readiness and not rely so heavily on the US. The Ukraine war and the various actions that NATO is taking (shows of force, defending airspace, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance) are still dominated by American forces and the inability of Europe to supply Ukraine with materiel, is emblematic of this problem. The US has lots of fish to fry – the Middle East and China especially, plus policing the global commons. Unless the American people are willing to increase defense budgets and military capabilities substantially, we cannot continue to resource military support to Europe and organize NATO like it is still the Cold War and, at the same time, prepare for/deter a war with China or any other number of contingencies.
Again, with Trump, I think he has gone way overboard on this point, swung the pendulum way too far, and introduced all kinds of very bad dynamics that could cause long-term and unrecoverable damage. However, the pendulum did and does need to swing to something more sustainable. A future President can—hopefully—adjust it back from Trump’s extreme to a situation that the bulk of Americans can support over the long term.
@Andy: @Steven L. Taylor:
I am now regretting paying less attention to this thread than the OTB culture post.
When I read @Andy’s comments, it becomes evident why we are able to communicate so well. If I could be as consistent in tone and fairness, I would feel much better about myself.
Anyway, I wanted to echo Steven’s response. Granted, I likely have a somewhat different take on America’s historical relationship to the Left than either of you do. But that highlights my biggest concern over Trump since 2015.
I have long seen a strain of authoritarianism–in some corners fascism–in the American Right.
So, for me, it has less to do eith Trump himself–I don’t think he has firm beliefs about much of anything. I remember a moment from one of the 2016 debates, maybe it was a stump speech, wherein he argued that he saw the corruption up front–Andy is spot on IMO. I didn’t think he was lying about that, but I did not believe that he would do anything about it. As flimsy as it may seem, why would he? Some of his business success is no doubt owed to corruption.
I also admit that I think Trump holds personal resentment toward New York high society, and that resentment is also a driving force for his actions. And, frankly, he probably has a point regarding the hypocrisy inherent in some of those people.
All that is to say, I see him as a vessel. IMO, the political actors who surround him also see him that way.
It was not so much what he can or cannot do in four years, nor whether he could or would successfully stay in power longer. But I was also more worried in 2024 than I was in 2020, and 2016. Because he activated a cohort who had long been marginalized, but not eliminated, in mainstream politics. It took a party-wide effort to sideline the Birchers and it took a few cycles for Goldwater’s insurgency to gain a foothold.
This will be much harder to push aside.
More immediately, because his 2016 victory was a surprise, four years out of office allowed preparation that did not exist 9 years ago. Those four years out of office allowed those hoping to leverage a second term the time to solidify a road map.
Maybe the GOP eventually must move toward the center. But that would require a a break from late-20th century political history. And given the incentives structures of American elections, it is hard to see how.
—
One more thing. I read an article about some of the things Musk’s son is speculated to have said in the Oval Office and during some other appearances. People have been saying that during some event with Tucker Carlson, the kid twice said, “they’ll never know.”
Buried in that piece was a reference to a conspiracy theory I had not heard about. That Musk somehow hacked the 2024 election. I have no interest in entertaining that idea. But from what I can see, it was contained to social media posts.
But I note that in 2020, the RW media ecosphere jumped with both feet into absurd conspiracy theories, credible evidence be damned.
Yet, the center, center left, and left wing media outlets have not even considered the lefty 2024 sonspiracists, as far as I know.
This is a problem–not because the media outlets with integrity didn’t jump on board, rather that the RW media did. But that distinction means little to an alarming portion of the electorate.
@Kathy:
The UK is perfectly capable of producing thermonuclear weapons.
The “Holbrook” warhead is home-baked.
The UK no longer has a native source of tritium (the Treasury being cheap, as per usual, went with the “let’s scrap it and rely on the US” option)
But I’m sure the French would be amenable to a deal, as they definitely still produce tritium.
The French also have an entire native delivery system chain: the M-51 submarine launched ballistic missiles, the MIRV bus for that, and also the AMPSA air launched cruise missile.
Whereas the UK leases US Trident D-5 SLBM’s
I think Andy is mostly correct about Trump’s motivations but he points out that Trump wants others to do the hard work. The others with whom he associates and who are responsible for presenting to Trump and carrying out ideas Trump likes, those people have ideological beliefs. Trump may just want to be the mob boss, but his lieutenants and his mob have definite ideological bents and for many of those people there are definite strains of fascism, at least as conventionally defined in textbooks and dictionaries.
Steve
@Andy:
Ah, but the semantic argument that I not thinking about it really about “ideology” as I think you are making that word do a lot of work.
And you are utterly missing my point about foreign policy. Turning our backs on NATO and becoming an untrustworthy partner, all while treating Russia like a Great Power equal is a significant change.
Rather obviously, the world is a different place than it was in 1950, 1990, or even 2000.
But that’s not my point.
There is nothing about those changes that led to Trump’s treatment of Europe or the resurrection of imperialist rhetoric that makes him a symptom of a broader change. He is the driver here.
I think you are too hopeful that all of this can be reset.
And everything is not a pendulum.
@Kurtz:
I agree with this.
And I think my still nascent thoughts about “ideology” as per my interchange with Andy is that I reject the notion that for Trump has to be a deep ideological thinker to be the leader of an, at least, quasi-fascist movement (and I do recognize the weight and baggage that term carries). I think he does have a worldview, which includes specific views of national and executive power as well as some clear ethno-nationalism. Does he have to have written a book or manifesto to be a consequential leader of such a movement? I don’t think so.
And I think he is more than just a stooge for a movement.
I think the problem (for me, anyway) is still trying to get past the notion that Trump is the TV clown I used to watch on Letterman and who was on reality TV.
But he is on track to potentially be one of our most consequential presidents, but in very, very negative ways. This notion, if accurate, requires some reassessment of buffoon and stooge narratives. (This is not to say that he isn’t profoundly unserious and not especially smart).
@Steven L. Taylor:
I definitely do not think he’s a stooge.
I think he’s transactional.
I think he is a salesman of image.
I think he is a narcissist.
He is an active signifier:
He is a vessel ideologically. What I mean is that he does not have political beliefs in the sense that most of us here would define the term. Rather, he signifies whatever belief will further his goals–material or psychological.
I think quasi-fascist is probably an accurate term for Trumpism writ large. The movement has pockets of bona fide fascists, but a much larger group of garden-variety authoritarians.
I don’t think it fits to call Trump a fascist.
But authoritarian does fit. At least in the sense of the petty tyrant archetype of businessman.
I note that James Gandolfini had issues with people expecting him to sound and act like Tony Soprano. There is an anecdote about him visiting a hospitalized young fan who was in a coma. Gandolfini started talking to him, and the kid’s mom stopped him, and said, no in your voice. She meant as Tony. He dutifully did it. But it bothered him.
Like Tony, Walter White is viewed as a hero, if not somewhat of a role model, among a certain subset of Americans.
Those are purely fictional characters.
So it should surprise no one that the cartoonishness of The Apprentice would bleed into the real world perception of Trump. He has always been a persona, but American culture hit a point that persona is considered real.
Pretty sure Beaudrillard had something to say about this.
@Steven L. Taylor:
and
It’s not clear to me what difference – if any – exists between fascist and “quasi-fascist.”
My point is that fascism is inherently, IMO, an ideological philosophy that is driven by specific ideological beliefs. Patronage systems, unlike fascism, are found in many different ideological contexts.
Secondly, I have not said that a fascist has to be a “deep ideological thinker” – my point is that fascism itself has a specific ideology and specific ideological goals (which don’t require deep thinking to understand) that separate and differentiate it from similar forms of authoritarian governance, to say nothing of the patronage-based systems described earlier that have existed for as long as humans have.
It’s a significant change, but in my judgment not an enduring one.
On the contrary, that aspect of Trump is growing increasingly common around the globe and it ties in with growing unrest, anti-immigrant sentiment, and the growing success of right-wing parties.
My point is that yes, the world is a different place, yet the security relationship between the US and Europe has remained the same. Other Presidents have not done much to change that despite changes in US public opinion regarding fairness and burden-sharing, which has left Trump with a lot of room to come in swinging. I would have preferred to have a more orderly transition to a more stable defense relationship, but previous Presidents have not prioritized that and left the field open for Trump. We will have to see what the public ultimately thinks about what he’s doing and what the long-term effects are.
I don’t desire a reset, I desire substantial reform. From a strategic POV, I think the cross-Atlantic alliance is more durable than you’re suggesting – and, BTW, it’s not clear what you think the consequences actually are.
@Kurtz:
Authoritarian for certain.
And I get the quasi-fascist v. fascist distinction, as I find myself being more comfortable with the hedging prefix. And yet once one deploys the root word in question, does the prefix really matter? (I ask, leaning towards “no, it doesn’t,” but am not 100% there).
And I agree with your overall list.
It should not surprise. I will confess it did surprise me sometime back in 2016, but no longer. And I will confess to taking government and politics so seriously that it remains hard for me to fully see it.
It has been a looooong time since I read Beaudrillard, but I expect you are correct.
@Andy:
Speaking as a guy who taught political theory for a couple of decades, including fascism as a topic, I continue to struggle with your insistence here. And I say that not as an appeal to my authority, but to tell you that as someone who has at least some basis of understanding the topic beyond just recent political discussion that I am puzzled at your insistence of fascism being a clear “ideological philosophy.” While I can find some clear connections between, say, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, I don’t see the clarity of ideology that I see in, say, communist states and politicians.
To me, your insistence on Trump’s alleged lack of ideology feels more like a special sauce that I cannot quite see that fuels the overall recipe of your position.
And I am further persuaded, it ways you that clearly are not, in Stanley’s position that fascism is a way of doing politics more than it is an ideological expression the way communism is.
Like some version of ethnonationalism and reactionary dream of return to past social glory as driven by the notion that only a powerful leader can force submission to achieve those goals?
You keep talking ideology, and I know you have you tried to explain it before, but I remain unmoved.
If you are going to pick an example, I will agree that Trumpism lacks the corporatism (i.e., group-based politics for organizing society that I can explain further if needed) of Mussolini and Franco in particular.
BTW, as a guy who cut his teeth on Latin America, I know from patronage politics. I don’t get how you see this as some kind of either/or proposition. I also do not see what he is doing as explainable simply as patronage politics.
This is the key question. I am less sanguine than you are that the change is easy to undo, whether that means reset or reformation.
I still think you are misreading my point/not giving me credit for understanding the nature of various global trends.
BTW: I don’t understand how Trump’s connection to a wider nationalist movement (which is an ideology) someone bolsters your position that he isn’t ideological. I think it puts some weight on my side of the scale.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m not sure what to make of this. Stating that fascism doesn’t have some undefined level of ideological clarity compared to communism isn’t very helpful. And I think it’s also not true, at least using the definition of fascism most people subscribe to.
As I’m sure you are well aware, authoritarian governments and governing hierarchies of various types (many of which I listed in my original comment) predate the development of ideology as a concept. We don’t say that tribal and clan structures operate on the basis of ideology, we don’t say that family/mob boss structures operate on the basis of ideology, or any other number of examples previously mentioned even though they may share some common aspects of fascism. There are, for example, numerous examples of leaders and societies before ideology was even a concept that are characterized by “ethnonationalism and reactionary dream of return to past social glory as driven by the notion that only a powerful leader can force submission to achieve those goals.” Let’s take an example I’ve been reading about recently – the formation of Spain and the “Reconquista.” Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand sought to purge Jews and Muslim ethnicities to restore a vision of Spain rooted in a unified, traditional Christian past using powerful, centralized leadership. Fascist or not, and why?
My theory is that Trump operates at a more basic level that what you’re describing, which is why I compared him to a mob boss. I’d just add to my assessment that his primary motivation is his own ego, not anything we typically consider ideological. In short, I don’t agree that he has dreams and plans aimed at achieving or attempting to achieve something like what fascists desire, much less a monarch like Queen Isabella. He wants personal wins, to increase his influence and authority, and to directly benefit himself and his family – but mainly himself. I don’t think he is pursuing the grand design that you imagine he is, but I supposed we can’t really know since we can’t read his mind. My evidence for my theory is his consistent willingness to throw anything approaching principle or, dare I say, a coherent ideology under the bus when it comes into conflict with his ego. If he is really committed to the fascist principles you say he is, then he would be willing to sacrifice to achieve them. We will see how much – in reality – he is committed to these fascist things you believe he is committed to or, as I think is the case – it’s more like the threats of tariffs against Mexico and Canada – a means to get a personal win that results largely in maintaining the status quo.
Anyway, to close – and this will be my last comment in the thread – I think the Queen Isabella example illustrates the fundamental problem with my understanding your (in my view) overly broad definition of fascism. Specifcially, it’s not clear to me how to distinguish a fascist leader from some other kind of authoritarian using your definition, which is materially different from how the vast majority of people think of fascism and how it’s traditionally been defined. Trump is always the central character in these discussions, but to really understand the utility of your particular definition or view of fascism, we would need to apply it more broadly. To be useful, the definition would need to distinguish which leaders or governments are fascist and which are not in a clear way.
If I remember correctly, your definition has removed totalitarianism, the idea of the centrality of the state in all aspects of society, and corporatism. Then we left with what you wrote earlier:
If that’s the definition, then in my view that applies to a whole lot of current world leaders as well as those going into the distant past that most people would not consider to be fascists. By that definition, Xi, Erdogan, Modi, Orban, Putin, Bolsonari, Lukashenko, and Saddam Hussein are examples off the top of my head that would fit, in addition to Isabella. I’m sure I could find many more less-known figures. Not here, but perhaps in a future post or debate it would be useful to understand who you think your definition applies to and why, and who it doesn’t apply to, and why not.
@Andy:
I understand that position, but it does make responding sort of pointless.