Trump impact on Defence posture

[Finningley Boy]

A tricky question, but just how sincere is Trump's accommodation of Vladimir Putin? How do we imagine it will impact on NATO/Russian relations?

FB:)

[PDR1]

Given Trump's previously expressed view that NATO should be disbanded I guess the answer would be "dangerously".

But no doubt someone will be along explaining that Trump was only trolling, so that's alright.

PDR

[MPN11]

Trump + Sincere = Expediency.

[Lonewolf_50]

Given Trump's previously expressed view that NATO should be disbanded I guess the answer would be "dangerously" PDR
There's been sentiment in certain parts of the US since the wall fell (1989) that NATO is Overcome By Events and we should "bring the boys home." What mitigates against that is that NATO decided, collectively, to not only begin to do "out of area operations" but to even expand. All of the nations had to sign up to that, including the US. Is that the better idea? I have mixed feelings about that. The bickering over people actually spending their 2% GDP, and American annoyance with freeloaders, has been going on since the mid 1970's. It's not a new wheeze and the alliance seems to have survived that internal grumping for decades.

Will President Trump, when he gets into office, choose the former posture or the latter? Before making a prediction, I will wait to see who he gets to be his Sec Def and his Sec State. I'll also want to see who wins the Speaker of the House (money is raised in the house) scrum about to happen. Ryan may not stay in his chair.

Why Trump may retract that rhetoric.


Trump's a real estate guy. Location, Location, Location.


Having access to real estate in various parts of Europe via NATO, or bilateral arrangements, is advantageous to the US. I think that such an argument to him may get him to reconsider that position, from "value of the location" but that also may not matter.


He may pursue the 'NATO is past its sell by date" PoV and see if he can pull out, which will take work with the Senate who is in charge of Treaties. If he does that successfully, NATO ceases to exist.


As noted in another thread, loose cannon. No telling what he'll do.

[Finningley Boy]

It would be interesting to see how his relations with Putin will pan out, if they start to firm, will they with Europe as well? I'm thinking of how the Baltic States and Poland will react in particular. What would complicate matters would be if Putin starts giving the latter 'menacing food for thought' while pressing the flesh with Donald?:uhoh: I can see things starting to unravel somewhere along the way.

FB:)

[SWBKCB]

Surely the answer is that nobody knows, as there is no track record.

What people say before they get elected isn't normally a great guide as to future actions... :eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

Of note regarding US/UK is the headline of the local newspaper , the Buchan Observer:

Aberdeenshire business owner wins presidential election

[NutLoose]

Russia will get the ports and airfields, America will get real estate and potential holiday resort and golf course locations.

[Finningley Boy]

Of note regarding US/UK is the headline of the local newspaper , the Buchan Observer:

Aberdeenshire business owner wins presidential election

Now that's what I call an attempt to create a misleading impression.

FB:)

[Melchett01]

I suspect in certain quarters there was a sharp intake of breath followed by some drumming of fingers on tables.

Whether or not we actually invest the required 2% of GDP and haven't cooked the books by including all sorts of other associated costs, the U.K. believes NATO to be the cornerstone of Defence going forward. I think this reliance on NATO was probably the get out of jail free card in the event of a post-BREXIT economic reset and another SDSR and the need to find quick cash to buy votes in the run up to 2020.

However, behind the bluster Trump's perfectly legitimate question of why should the US foot the bill for others when they are not prepared to help themselves and their partners by investing in NATO, if we want to rely on NATO we will have to ensure our contribution isn't smoke and mirrors. Especially if Trump does decide to refocus on the domestic front which would leave the UK as one of if not the major defence player in Europe.

Whether or not the politicians appreciate this and actually start to take Defence investment seriously remains to be seen. Maybe we need Trump to call the Government's bluff before anything changes. Until then our posture will look like an unfortunate combination of hand to mouth meets knee jerk reaction.

[Wander00]

FB - reminds me - nearly as good as when my former boss (DDIOT) at Cranwell in the 80s, who lived in Rauceby and had a few sheep made Air Vice Marshal -

Sleaford Standard

"Local Farmer Promoted"

[Herod]

Aberdeenshire business owner wins presidential election

I believe that when George VI passed on, the headline read "Former Duke of York Dies"

[Chugalug2]

Wander00:-
...and had a few sheep made Air Vice Marshal
Ah! That would explain a lot...

[Pontius Navigator]

Now that's what I call an attempt to create a misleading impression.

FB:)
They have form, Apr 13,1912, Tragedy at Sea, 3 Buckie fishermen lost.

[tartare]

We're just finalising the shopping list down here in Australia for when Guam is closed and you all go home from everywhere else in our backyard.
We'll have eight Virginia class boast on lease complete with ICBMs, some special TLAMs, and we really think you should start working on a special package for those JASSMs our Hornets carry.
Oh - and send some GE nuclear engineers down here please - we'll need something a little bigger than Lucas Heights.

[jack11111]

Waiting for the Trump hotel and golf course in Crimea.

[Rick777]

Trump and Republicans ran on a project defense platform to build up the military.Trump says he knows more about fighting ISIS than the generals do.That said he is buddies with Putin who considers him a useful tool so who knows. If I were a European NATO member I would be thinking seriously about vastly increasing my defense budget.

[PersonFromPorlock]

As I understand it, Trump's position isn't that NATO should be disbanded, but that members who don't meet their financial commitments to it shouldn't be able to rely on its support.

I think we'll have to wait and see; Trump was elected to 'drain the swamp' here in the US and may not be too concerned with the rest of the world. In which case, 'the rest of the world' had better see to its own defense. And really, given that Russia is much reduced from the old Soviet Union, why can't Europe take care of itself?

[melmothtw]

Perhaps the time for the much-derided EU Army (and by extension, EU Air Force and Navy) has now finally come....

[Royalistflyer]

As long as that EU army and EU air force doesn't include us, fine - but it will probably just be the latest in the line of the armies commanded by Napoleon I and Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. So we should look to our own defences - our Navy and Air Force primarily.

[A_Van]

"Perhaps the time for the much-derided EU Army (and by extension, EU Air Force and Navy) has now finally come...."


Then you have to gather all those crowds of folks from the Eastern and Southern Europe and put them in a regular English primary school, first of all. Speaking poor and broken language over a beer or in a classroom without stress and non-real-time requirements is OK, but when it comes to "real business"....

[Mechta]

Putin who considers him a useful tool

You could leave out the word 'useful'.

[Herod]

Perhaps the time for the much-derided EU Army (and by extension, EU Air Force and Navy) has now finally come....

Yes, the time has certainly come....to scrap the whole idea.

[ShotOne]

Asking, or perhaps insisting others pay their fair share is hardly calling for NATO disbandment. Nor is it an unreasonable ask by Trump. But from a negotiating perspective there has to be a consequence or else it's meaningless words.

[skippedonce]

Asking, or perhaps insisting others pay their fair share is hardly calling for NATO disbandment. Nor is it an unreasonable ask by Trump. But from a negotiating perspective there has to be a consequence or else it's meaningless words.

Agreed: however, if that means Article 5 of the Washington Treaty now carries a caveat (though you could argue it is already there with Article 3), drawing the resolve for acting in collective defence further into doubt will only stoke the fear and mistrust of the 'eastern allies' and make the whole thing a dead letter anyway.

[Expatrick]

"Perhaps the time for the much-derided EU Army (and by extension, EU Air Force and Navy) has now finally come...."


Then you have to gather all those crowds of folks from the Eastern and Southern Europe and put them in a regular English primary school, first of all. Speaking poor and broken language over a beer or in a classroom without stress and non-real-time requirements is OK, but when it comes to "real business"....

A regular English primary school - you jest of course.

[Finningley Boy]

I've been gobbling down what a few pundits have had to say/prophecy about the future of Trump and Putin. The common take seems to be that relations may start well but in time a conflict of interest is sure to influence events at which point matters could turn very sour. Had Hilary Clinton being headed for the White House, relations between Putin and herself would have been difficult but would have fallen into the standard current frame of Russian/Western relations and the Status Quo such as it is would likely have endured. However, the much noted volatility of Trump amidst the present world climate might be rather hair raising!

Personally, what would be concerning, is say he decides soon next year to deploy ground troops to Syria, a Humvee goes astray and about half to a dozen of young Americans, male and female, end up surrendering to a large Force of Daiesh. Supposing they end up receiving a typical Daiesh welcome for their enemies, with extra perverse Brutality and their bodies are later found impaled on meat hooks. I can see his and other world Security advisers and experts having their work cut out for themselves trying to convince him that a Tactical Nuclear Strike on the largest concentration of Daiesh that intelligence can pin point is not a good idea?

FB :)

[AreOut]

I've been gobbling down what a few pundits have had to say/prophecy about the future of Trump and Putin. The common take seems to be that relations may start well but in time a conflict of interest is sure to influence events at which point matters could turn very sour. Had Hilary Clinton being headed for the White House, relations between Putin and herself would have been difficult but would have fallen into the standard current frame of Russian/Western relations and the Status Quo such as it is would likely have endured. However, the much noted volatility of Trump amidst the present world climate might be rather hair raising!

Personally, what would be concerning, is say he decides soon next year to deploy ground troops to Syria, a Humvee goes astray and about half to a dozen of young Americans, male and female, end up surrendering to a large Force of Daiesh. Supposing they end up receiving a typical Daiesh welcome for their enemies, with extra perverse Brutality and their bodies are later found impaled on meat hooks. I can see his and other world Security advisers and experts having their work cut out for themselves trying to convince him that a Tactical Nuclear Strike on the largest concentration of Daiesh that intelligence can pin point is not a good idea?

FB :)
if Trump&Putin make a deal to use tactical nukes against ISIS who'd oppose them? China and EU? Well I'm not sure that would work.

[A_Van]

FB,


I tend to think on similar lines with what you wrote in para 1 of your post 28.

[Melchett01]

Well this is about to get awkward

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/trump-putin-alliance-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/trump-putin-alliance-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/)

Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump’s plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.

In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some “very difficult” conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.

Looks like Trump might not go back on this pledge after all. Putting aside the fact that it's not quite as simple as smashing Da'esh - imagine breaking a piece of glass on a shag pile carpet; you know you haven't actually got rid of the glass, just put splinters everywhere and you can't see them til you stand on them - are we seeing UK and other western politicians having their bluff called by a businessman who might just think that years of going round in circles without any substantive progress amounts to spin over substance - or a poor return on investment?

Whatever your views on his personal qualities, I suspect we will find him to be pragmatic as far as his own interests are concerned and results oriented. Whether those interests and results fit in with the Liberal London elite's view of the world is another matter. But they aren't the ones holding the big stick.

[riff_raff]

Just more of the same tired old rhetoric from the leftist media whenever a Republican is elected US President. Remember how the insane warmonger Ronald Reagan was going to start World War III and destroy humanity with his aggressive foreign policy approach towards the Soviet Union? Yet before he left office, the Soviet Union had collapsed on its own as a result of his foreign policies. Or remember the predictions of global catastrophe resulting from the cowboy mentality of President G.W. Bush causing massive nuclear wars?

Of course the leftist media conveniently ignore that the current Nobel Peace Prize winning Democrat US President has engaged the US in a greater number of foreign military conflicts (eight) than any President since WWII.

[Finningley Boy]

FB,


I tend to think on similar lines with what you wrote in para 1 of your post 28.

Exactly Sir,

He sems likely to take a simplistic approach to some very sensitive matters and I don't envy his 'guys' trying to pull back on his leash when snarls and barks at someone.

FB:)

[ShotOne]

Before we tear into Trump's approach, is there any realistic prospect of Assad leaving anytime soon? Surely insisting on this point only guarantees ghastliness without end. His plan might even be fractionally less awful than what's currently happening.

[bspatz]

Trump has an idiosyncratic way of interpreting his own rhetoric and is already beginning to backtrack on some of his commitments, I believe that, at least in the early days of his presidency, it will be a case of seeing what he does rather than listening to closely too what he says. Only then will we get some idea of the direction that he is taking.

[Heathrow Harry]

the big problem for us Brits over Assad is that if he turns up at LHR he has a decent case for admittance as his Mrs is a UK citizen.......

[skua]

HH
Sure we can admit him, and give him a free stay in Pentonville until his room is ready in the Hague!

[Lonewolf_50]

if Trump&Putin make a deal to use tactical nukes against ISIS who'd oppose them?
Neither of them is that stupid.

[GlobalNav]

John McCain sent a warning shot Tuesday at Donald Trump over Vladimir Putin.

A day after Putin pledged better U.S.-Russian relations in a phone call with President-elect Trump, McCain said in a statement: "We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies, and attempted to undermine America’s elections."

Raises my opinion of Sen McCain. But the problem is, there may be too much in common between Putin and Trump. They praise and respect each other. I don't want a leader like them. Have to wait and see, like it or not.

[West Coast]

Putin pledged better U.S.-Russian relations

I'd prefer that over pledging to make things worse. Attempting better relations with the Sov...err the Russians doesn't equate to letting them off the hook. So much hot air coming from DC from people trying to get their sound byte in.

[tartare]

If I am Xi Jinping or Vladimir Vladimirovich, at the moment I am sensing... opportunity.
How long before the first challenge to Trump's authority to test him?
Another sneaky little Baltic annexation?
A little South China sea armed confrontation - maybe a shoot down of a Japanese military jet?
I reckon middle of next year.
They'll want to find out if this new President is a paper tiger.

[msbbarratt]

If I am Xi Jinping or Vladimir Vladimirovich, at the moment I am sensing... opportunity.
How long before the first challenge to Trump's authority to test him?
Another sneaky little Baltic annexation?
A little South China sea armed confrontation - maybe a shoot down of a Japanese military jet?
I reckon middle of next year.
They'll want to find out if this new President is a paper tiger.

His unpredictability is of concern to everyone, including Russia and China. He's said all sorts of things about withdrawal from the Western Pacific, which has got the Japanese quite worried.

He's said all sorts of things which will probably unravel now that he's been elected and the harshness of reality cannot be ignored. That's already happening - wall -> fence, scrap-Obamacare -> keep-it. Same may happen with foreign policy.

Actually the biggest worry is that his inevitable failure to do the things he said he will do could cause a full scale political meltdown in the USA, an end to effective federal government. That would be very dangerous.

Apparently a plan being whispered about is that there's plenty of potential for an impeachment. There's clearly a few skeletons in his cupboard (e.g. The risk of prosecution for sexual harassment). First hint of there being a court case against him will raise questions about an impeachment, and it'll presumably be the House and Senate voting on that. Both are controlled by the mainstream Republican party, who he right-royally pissed off.

[tartare]

Interesting though - if you read about the real potential for impeachment - he has to have done something pretty heinous, and a Republican dominated Senate and Congress might actually not be so keen - counter-intuitively.

See this article (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/will-trump-be-impeached) for an interesting perspective.

[West Coast]

The only ones talking impeachment are fringe elements who are still pissed off and haven't a clue about impeachment proceedings. I wouldn't hitch my wagon to those groups.

[tartare]

Yep - I reckon he's still gonna be CinC this time next year.

I suspect law and order won't melt down - but there are going to be some very ugly incidents when his voting base actually realise he was never going to be able to do what he said he would.

[Lonewolf_50]

Actually the biggest worry is that his inevitable failure to do the things he said he will do could cause a full scale political meltdown in the USA, an end to effective federal government. That would be very dangerous.
Chicken little, might want to back off on the hyperbole. The rhetoric about "Imperial Bush" and how President Obama was destroying democracy was as insipid as that which you just posted.


Have a cup of tea and calm the blood. Trump's going to have to learn on the job, just as all of his predecessors did.

Tartare makes the best point: he's going to get tested by the Russians and by the Chinese, to see if he can be pushed. Is he, Trump, thinking that far ahead? I hope so.

[riff_raff]

Apparently a plan being whispered about is that there's plenty of potential for an impeachment. There's clearly a few skeletons in his cupboard (e.g. The risk of prosecution for sexual harassment). First hint of there being a court case against him will raise questions about an impeachment, and it'll presumably be the House and Senate voting on that. Both are controlled by the mainstream Republican party, who he right-royally pissed off.

I wouldn't get too excited about Trump being impeached. Impeachment is a legal process conducted by Congress for considering charges of "treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors" committed by a federal official while serving in office. And whether that official should be removed from office.

First, Trump has never served a single day in federal office. Second, the Republican-controlled House will never vote the majority required to proceed with impeachment hearings against a President Trump. Third, the Republican-controlled Senate will never vote the two-thirds majority needed to formally remove a President Trump from office as a result of the impeachment process.

[stilton]

Trump is a thin skinned, volatile, tantrum throwing egomaniac with little to no interest in learning about anything significant.


If he's not insulting or threatening anyone different than him, he's on twitter whining about how unfair he is treated.


He is the most dangerous person in the world and will shortly be the most powerful.



Great combination.

[tartare]

All true.
But it won't get him impeached.
Or prevent him from being CinC.

[Arclite01]

It's the usual:

Being in Opposition is easy - you can say what you like on a range of subjects and you don't have to actually do or deliver anything............

Once you are elected and 'In Power' it's a whole different ballgame - you look at the books and realize there isn't the $ to do what you want, you realize that actually there are a whole range of legal and constitutional checks and balances that stop you doing whatever you like, you find that people who you thought were your friends before and during the time in opposition actually have their own personal agendas - radically different to yours or what you thought theirs were....................... and finally, you can only blame the people who were there before you for so long before people get fed up with your whining................ and then vote you out next time around. If Trump didn't know this before then I am sure he's starting to realize it now.

Let's face it - when was the last time you saw a bunch of major changes made quickly or against public opinion in any of the 'great' democracies - Hmmm, let me think...................

I think it was Obama who recently told his wife he was the most powerful leader in the world but he couldn't get anything done. Trump will be likewise - I expect the status quo pretty much as it is now in 4 years time. The Russians and the Chinese will push him to see what he is made of.......... he will have to put up or shut up IMHO......................which will it be ?

I know what I think he'll do.................

Arc

[Wander00]

From this side of the pond I see Trump as an archetypal bully. And what do bullies do when someone actually stands up to them So I for one am hoping neither the Chinese nor Russian actually do take him on because there would be a lot of teddy throwing, foot stamping and thumb sucking, but he will run away, IMHO of course

[Willard Whyte]

Obama who recently told his wife he was the most powerful leader in the world but he couldn't get anything done.

Having both Senate and Representatives 'run' by the Republicans probably didn't help. Although Trump doen's exactly have the unwavering support of the party, it probably means one or two policies might ease their way through.

[Lonewolf_50]

He is the most dangerous person in the world and will shortly be the most powerful. Regarding that part in bold: bull****. The chicken little approach, and the hyperbole, is downright pathetic. Like Mr Obama, Mr Trump has to get what he wants to do through Congress. That isn't a free pass; it takes work.

[Hangarshuffle]

Or maybe Putin and USA Trump v. PRC?
It gets the rust belt back into war production after 70 odd years of decline. It may cancel out the incredible debt?
Its totally dreamy up, comic book stuff by me just now after a good evening, but I would never discount it, at all these strange days.
Seeing Trump and his incredible rhetoric and all.
Wipe out the debt, get mainland production going...do a deal with Russia.... I mean it is so simple and plausible....
China would be militarily annihilated.
**** the dead, what's not to like?

[JG54]

From a purely military / strategic perspective, that would make perfect sense HS - and perfect time - wise, too (it'd be far trickier a generation from now).

Morally / ethically, however, the thought should make any normal - minded chap feel sick.

Just as well the proposed aggressor states aren't governed by sociopaths, then. Oh, hang on...

[Lonewolf_50]

Or maybe Putin and USA Trump v. PRC?
It gets the rust belt back into war production after 70 odd years of decline. It may cancel out the incredible debt?
Its totally dreamy up, comic book stuff by me just now after a good evening, but I would never discount it, at all these strange days.
Seeing Trump and his incredible rhetoric and all.
Wipe out the debt, get mainland production going...do a deal with Russia.... I mean it is so simple and plausible....
China would be militarily annihilated.
**** the dead, what's not to like?
The Chinese get a vote on whether or not they want to go to war with anyone.
Pro Tip: The Chinese aren't stupid. They'll flex their muscles when they are good and ready, on their timeline ... not someone else's. My view of their strategy is that they play the long game.

[andytug]

The Chinese get a vote on whether or not they want to go to war with anyone.
Pro Tip: The Chinese aren't stupid. They'll flex their muscles when they are good and ready, on their timeline ... not someone else's. My view of their strategy is that they play the long game.
Not sure they would go to war with a country they already hold a huge amount of debt for.... why would they need to?

[racedo]

I dreaded the idea of HRC winning because it would inevitably have kept poor relations with Russia and the continuing attempts to get a conflict going somewhere where Neo Cons would assume it would not go hot.

GCC money being used to lobby and buy off many people across the Western World be it media and politicians.

Given Russia has been invaded by the West 3 times in 100 years and lost between 30-35 million people then any war will get hot very quickly.

Trump being elected gets a full reset on relations.

Idea that Russia wants to invade all of Europe is laughable.................... why would they want to damage their biggest Customers for Oil and Gas and to achieve what exactly ?

Anybody want a laugh is youtube John Simpson of BBC and Putin.

[Lonewolf_50]

Andy, as I see the current Chinese ambitions, it is to further anchor themselves as The Big Dog locally, which they are already. Go back to Imperial Japan and consider the "Asian Co Prosperity Sphere" idea. That's step one. They are already trading globally. They already have significant links to resources in African nations without all of the moralizing the modern West brings with them.


Jung Gwo (my spelling) aka China aka the Middle Kingdom has an eye on becoming "the Middle Empire" but I don't know how to parse that in Mandarin.


As to the debt: that is leverage for "war by other means" ...

[racedo]

They already have significant links to resources in African nations without all of the moralizing the modern West brings with them.

The moralizing of the West in Africa for hundreds of years my friends reared in Africa find funny.

One gave his view on China, they come in build roads, schools, hospitals, stay out of politics and don't try and run the country as fiefdoms for personal enrichment.
Yup they can sometimes have racist views but they ensure they build infrastructure which unsurprisingly is popular with Population and Politicans.

His view on Western Govt and Companies is they buy off a few politicians who use the Military to give Western companys what they demand and give nothing back to the people. Then then arms sellers turn up to sell arms so those in power can settle scores. Then the have the social justice warriors arriving under NGO's telling them how to run their country. Oh and he finds their racism even worse.

Not unsurprisingly him and lots of other Africans want China not the West.

[tartare]

Yep - China will be happy when their 5000 years of history (which in their eyes means they should be as culturally revered as the Greeks or Romans) means they are treated with the international respect and reverence they feel they deserve.
Or at least that's how it was explained to me last time I was in Shanghai.
Under Mao they apparently had ambitions regarding Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk... that's if you believe Pravda!
I think Russia is incrementally more dangerous in the near term.
Thinking they're going to invade large swathes of Europe is laughable.
But some more Baltic adventures seem highly likely to me.
Even moreso under Trump, who I think will wilt under the extraordinary pressure and seriousness of what to do if Putin marched into another neighbouring state.

[pr00ne]

"some more Baltic adventures seem lkely to me..."

More of what? What existing "Baltic adventures" have there been?

[tartare]

Sorry - my bad.
I should have said Crimea...

[tdracer]

As to the debt: that is leverage for "war by other means" ...
I've feared for a long time that all the Chinese needed to do was tell Washington that - if we didn't go along with what they wanted - they'd start selling their USA debt at pennies on the dollar. Net result, the US would be unable to borrow to support our deficit addiction and the USA would be forced into bankruptcy...
For all their faults, the Chinese are not dumb...

[chopper2004]

Anyone seen or read this?

cheers

U.S. Congress passes $618.7 billion annual defense bill | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress-idUSKBN13X26G)

[T28B]

Chopper:
Many people are happy that the bill is still not hung up in the usual bickering and all of that "continuing resolution" stuff. I'd bet a ten spot on the President signing it.

[PersonFromPorlock]

I've feared for a long time that all the Chinese needed to do was tell Washington that - if we didn't go along with what they wanted - they'd start selling their USA debt at pennies on the dollar. Net result, the US would be unable to borrow to support our deficit addiction and the USA would be forced into bankruptcy...
For all their faults, the Chinese are not dumb... The problem with that is that the Chinese then only realize pennies on the dollar for their holdings. Given 'just in time' inventory control, they would be better advised to threaten shutting down American retail trade by turning off the product tap.

One of the better reasons for supporting Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign is because it promises to remove our dependence on unreliable suppliers (which, admittedly, it may not succeed in doing).

[Fonsini]

Once the generals show Trump the big book of world secrets you can rest assured that very little will change. But Trump does regard Europe as weak and progressively overrun by immigrants, and therefore increasingly unstable - a situation he is determined to prevent in the US.

But he will be re-educated, just watch his policy statements begin to reverse.

[Lonewolf_50]

The latest purge of officers form their NATO positions, by the Turkish government, is not a comforting development. It is another morsel on the plate to feed Mr Trump's distrust of the status quo. How to the heads of state of the other NATO allies see that (absent the Greeks, who would have told anyone who'd listen that the real enemy is the Turk ...)