My word choice betrayed what I intended to get at and I didn’t realize how significantly I misunderstood the connotation of capitulated until more folks started voicing the same perspective as XiBuck. That is why I initially balked at what I saw as a significant extension beyond what I intended to say in his response.
Capitulated probably has the wrong connotation, but I was responding to a comment I interpreted as asking what concessions the Chinese got from the US. Namely, nothing directly. All the surrounding stuff is fair enough and likely where the Chinese negotiators heads were at too but they did not even mildly press the US here. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Again, I’m not intending to make a value judgment or suggesting one course of action over another. If I intended to do that, I would have said something like “the Chinese should have punished the US”. But I never said that because I didn’t intend to make a value judgment or suggest a course of action over another, as though I’m better positioned to understand what’s going on than the people intimately involved.
I said the Chinese had an opportunity to significantly pressure the US economy and did not take it. You are arguing that they shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to pressure the US economy. We aren’t having the same conversation. I don’t know what the right choice would be in this situation and don’t claim to understand the situation better than the Chinese govt if that wasn’t clear.
So you agree that China is more interested in maintaining business as usual than putting pressure on the US? That is what I originally said. This is why you should respond to the argument someone makes, not what you assume they are saying by imagined extension.
Alright, how about you refrain from inventing a bunch of random stuff I never said to bolster your point?
China positively could have put the screws to the US but did not. They are being incredibly amicable with the US as they always are.
China had the US in a significantly compromised position and instead of pressing this, just decided to go back to business as usual without securing significant concessions as they likely could have. As anyone aware should know, being friendly to the US probably wont lead to the US later returning the favor, so the benefits of getting along don’t really exist. This is really just the US saying ‘let’s just pretend the last month where we significantly weakened our bargaining position didn’t happen’ and China says ok.
China did what many expected and pretty clearly capitulated ceased to resist the US’s unilateral attempt to start a damaging trade war and returned to the prior state of affairs while eating the damaging consequences that have already taken place. Probably the correct choice for their interest in fostering world trade but also majorly bailed out the US at a time where if they had wanted, they could have placed considerable pressure on the US economy. Any expectation we have of a Chinese conflict with the US needs to be considerably tempered after this. They still have no interest in serving as direct opposition to the US and when they do, it’s like with the Russians, only after they are forced by the west.
Edit: My wording led folks to believe I was admonishing the Chinese govt for their actions. That was not my intention and I do not claim to understand Chinese geopolitics better than the Chinese.
It can be hard to enjoy contemporary art if you aren’t familiar with the surrounding conversations and history. I’d suggest going to public lectures that are frequently given at art museums. A speaker will present the background succinctly and that may give you a little more to appreciate.
deleted by creator
Ok absolutely. I got caught up on a random detail and missed the forest for the trees a bit when reading what you were saying.
That’s exactly why capturing it physically makes no sense. It’s already controlled territory for all intents and purposes. Begging the people of Greenland to form an insurgency by invading the country, all so the US can own the territory on paper (more so than being part of NATO already makes it) has no benefit whatsoever.
Making deals to build more bases is exactly what Harris would do to accomplish the goal Trump is interested in. But that’s exactly business as usual, the polar opposite of threatening to invade.
Maybe I’m not understanding your point. You saying Harris would make deals to get more bases undermines the idea that Harris would be threatening Canada and Greenland with capture—which is what Trump is now doing. I thought you were saying that Harris would also be threatening to invade Greenland. That’s a ridiculous notion. Harris building bases in Greenland and deploying more troops to the arctic certainly isn’t, but a Harris govt (and any other presidential admin in memory, even Trump 1, when he was surrounded by old guard Bush republicans) would get the blessing of Denmark and Greenland to do it.
Do you not see a difference between making a deal with Denmark and Greenland to build bases vs the US threatening to take the land and personally physically administer all of Greenland? If you’re of the mind that it ultimately doesn’t matter how US troops end up in Greenland, whether as welcomed troops of an allied power, or an invading force, that may be our point of contention. I think that difference between new US troops in Greenland being perceived as ally or invader has huge implications for how the Euros and Canadians understand their relationship with the US from here forward.
Harris would be Biden 2. Biden made none of those moves or anything resembling them. The idea that a Harris govt would be making overtures to physically capturing NATO territory is so ridiculous that I’m not sure how you could possibly form such an opinion genuinely.
To your point, I think people substantially overstate how different it would be, but Trump’s threats to capture Canada and Greenland, the arbitrarily imposed and lifted tariffs, and humiliating Euro allies in a way that causes even the sycophants over there to try and do something about it, wouldn’t have happened under Harris. I think the Trump admin is accelerating the decline of the US to the point that I’m no longer concerned the US empire will manage to limp along until climate change makes the planet uninhabitable. A long line of uninterrupted Obama-style admins could have kept the empire rolling for decades longer than could possibly be managed after this Trump admin.
Prior to the second Trump admin, I think what you’re saying is undeniable. Trump 2 is a bit of a new animal though. His intense breaks from previous foreign affairs and financial moves in opposition to the steadiness and easy predictability loved by big capital is a paradigm shift away from business as usual. We’re in uncharted waters right now I think. That’s not to say the dems will in anyway rise to protecting the previous govt paradigm, as you put it well, they aren’t there to be opposition.
She’s not wrong and usually I find her writing insightful, I just think “actually you and the group you view as your mortal enemies are the same” is a less than optimal rhetorical strategy for convincing anyone who isn’t already in the know and just comes across as incredibly smug and annoying to ‘normal’ folks. I was being overly flippant though I’m sure.
I generally agree. My possibly naive hope is that Trump is significantly weakening the US’s position as global hegemon, which will eventually benefit humanity. But his admin’s actions are chaos at best and monstrous at worse.
Edit: Nvm already posted
Edit: I don’t know why I was so cranky earlier. Just ignore my complaining that someone was supposedly complaining.
Depends on what harm you care about. Trump is very clearly much more damaging for Americans than Harris could ever hope to be, probably to the (eventual) benefit of the global population, however.
Anyway, Johnstone’s insistence on whining about a single lib imagining she has any influence to get anyone to do anything is tiring but maybe an ego-boost on some level—I couldn’t imagine why else she thinks it deserves mention at all.
So what’s the current understanding of Trump’s tariffs? Was it simple market manipulation and they never intended to keep tariffs on long term? Or did the Trump govt really think this was a good idea to bring back manufacturing without understanding how this would impact the US economy and are now running from the consequences?