And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    I get it, I do. Far removed consequences, in either time or distance, are hard to get motivated by, especially if you have issues closer to yourself. All the things you list are not exactly stuff Trump’s going to provide. I mean he wanted to get rid of the ACA in his first term.

    Problem is that being a superpower requires maintenance. It would seem that Trump doesn’t want to maintain that status https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/

    I don’t want Europe’s security policies to be dependent on the US. What my country’s governments have been doing since the 80s is nothing short of irresponsible. FFS in the Danish navy the largest vessels are our two frigates, crewed by 100 personnel each. One isn’t seaworthy and the other can’t fire its main gun, because we only have one targeting system, and it’s on the other ship. Luckily it seems that my government has been awakened. And it would seem that a lot of other countries have been too.

    But in the end, if Russia can get a seize fire in Ukraine, if Trump can get the Ukrainians to stop defending themselves. Then Putin will be able to regroup, and be able to rebuild his armed forces to be able to attack NATO countries, while Trump’s still president. And if NATO falls, because the US doesn’t get involved, then what’s stopping China from sinking some American boats to secure the South China Sea? While Iran goes full force on Isreal and North Korea invades the south?

    I’m not saying that it’s a given, but this scenario is far more likely with Trump at the wheel than almost anyone else.

    So while world peace isn’t the sole responsibility of the US, it kind of depends on the US at the moment.