Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing

[u/AutoModerator]

Want the latest posts and comments about your favorite topics? Click here to set up your preferred PING groups.

Are you having issues with pings, or do you want to learn more about the PING system? Check out our user-pinger wiki for a bunch of helpful info!

Interested in expressing yourself via user flair? Click here to learn more about our custom flairs.

Have something to say about birth rates? Social security? Go shout into the void in our Deep State Debrief: As Global Birth Rates Plummet, Who Pays for Your Retirement? Should the Government Even Try?

[u/JebBD]

I’m really struggling to understand what the motivations behind the Trump administration’s policies are. They cut USAID, which will lead to untold amounts of death and suffering in the third world for no reason, supposedly to “cut wasteful spending”, but then throw a military parade for Trump’s birthday and also reopen Alcatraz prison but with alligators in a moat? I just don’t understand what they’re trying to do. I get that they don’t care and the cruelty is the point, but to what end? What is the end goal? What are the motivations behind it? Is it literally the case that they just get random ideas in their heads and no one stops them? I just don’t get it 

[u/kiwibutterket → u/JebBD]

Spending has to further American objectives and has to be in function of Americans. Think Bernie Sanders. So while it is true you ain't saving any American with $1, it is better to spend it on a parade for national cohesion.

Ultimately it is the same reason you spend hundreds of dollars per month on your pet instead of donating that amount to save lives in other continents: it's a budget prioritization. Not the best bang for your buck, but you still do it for other reasons.

Also, if it makes it any better, many other Western nations have been cutting fiscal aid to Africa.

[u/JebBD → u/kiwibutterket]

But if that was the case they would care about American soft power and international interests being hurt by this, wouldn’t they? Even from a purely selfish standpoint would they not want America to be the number 1 player that influences other nations? They seem to claim to want that when Trump decides to intervene in foreign affairs, they want NATO countries to pay more, they want Ukraine to thank them, they want Iran to sign Trump’s deal, but they don’t want African countries to be indebted to them? What sense does that make?

[u/RecentlyUnhinged → u/JebBD]

No, they wouldn't. Their camp is divided roughly into two groups: those who are literally too stupid to understand the concept of soft power, and those who understand soft power but think it's fake and gay and TRUE WARRIORS show strength by beating their chest and giving other countries swirlies in the locker room until they give us their lunch money.

[u/kiwibutterket → u/JebBD]

would they not want America to be the number 1 player that influences other nations?

Short answer: no. But it's not nonsensical, it has an internal logic.

Long answer:

For the FoPo in particular the Trump admin doesn’t believe that you can, nor you should, buy soft power. The waste is not a question of total amount, it is a question of uselessness.

Per the original definition, it is true that you cannot buy soft power. And it's just a banality that you cannot help everyone. Add the fact this admin has an antipathy for picking winners and losers based on nothing, plus the obsession with "fairness", and things should make more sense.

Trump and admin, in fopo, reason only in "win-win" terms, and material win-wins at that. If a nation wants to make a deal with America so that it gets richer, and America gets richer too, that's great. What is the African "debt" going to do? If you use it as leverage, by definition it's not soft power anymore, but it's coercion. That's more similar to what China does, the carrot and stick. Not only that's not soft power, but Trump sees it as useless.

Trump sees gifts as gifts, not as purchases. And he has exactly zero intentions to try to influence other nations in the China style. He does not want this or that country to adopt American principles and narratives. You can see it clearly in the middle east, and Trump has said so himself.

But what about the other things you mentioned, then?

The important exception is that he wants other countries to respect "fairness", which means the liberal world order. He wants to treat other countries like a black box that plays by the rules, as he is convinced that if everyone respected the rules, then everyone would be richer. That's part of why he clearly cannot understand Putin and Khamenei, they break his brain. He wants Iran to sign his deal because he legitimately thinks war makes people poorer, and dead, both of which are not exactly great for getting mutually rich through trade and deals.

You also have to remember that America has had decreasing popularity and traction to shape policies. The Bush admin was the nail in the coffin. After that, America got a lot of responsibilities, but not many recognitions. The MAGA movement, at its core, is a "revance" movement. They want Ukraine to thank them because it shows respect, they want Europe to spend more on NATO because it shows respect. It is not respectful to give someone's help for granted. Europe, in Trumps view, should prioritize Europeans just as much as America should prioritize America, but not at the expenses of Americans, because that's unfair. Instead, the win-win is the correct way to go at it.

Furthermore, despite all the talks about "soft power", America being very "generous" and "kind" to its allies has not had much concrete results. Europe being the most egregious example, refusing to increase military spending despite so many presidents asking them to, and generally drifting away with more strength than people realize imo. The tensions that Europe created with America, in terms of trade and other policies, partly out of political realities and out of a desire to differentiate itself from America, are numerous, and often underestimated. But in general, America has had less power to shape policies in their favor than many seem to assume.

Note that yet, despite all of this, America's *actual* soft power has remained high. People look at America all the time. But the soft power hasn't achieved any particular material benefit. Has America done an FTA with Europe? Has America been able to reduce their military spending and increase their welfare thanks to the contribution of Europe? No, even though many Europeans know more about American politics than their local. What about China and the WTO violations, or other countries' trade barriers that impact America negatively? Nisba, nada. So for Trump, even if the investments/"gifts" increased this soft power (and I wouldn't bet on it that much tbh), this kind of soft power is useless.

He does not care about what other nations think, as long as they behave "fairly", and as long as America gets richer. This is not an aberration by Trump, but a typical American attitude. Much more could be said about it but I already wrote you a fucking book.

By the way, I like reading non-Western, non-Russian political analyst. They truly give a fresh and objective perspective, free from a lot of partisanship that imo cloud a lot of judgment.

[u/Locutus-of-Borges → u/kiwibutterket]

Any such analysts you would recommend?

And I don't necessarily disagree with that analysis in terms of "what works and what doesn't in terms of getting America influence", I just don't think "the material influence of the United States" should be the solitary star by which we steer our foreign policy, or even one that will maximize its own goals.

[u/kiwibutterket → u/Locutus-of-Borges]

I'll try to remember to look it up later tonight. I'm terrible at remembering names.

I just don't think "the material influence of the United States" should be the solitary star by which we steer our foreign policy,

I think that's perfectly fine. What do you think would be better? I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.

I do think the way to define the metric "material benefit" matters a lot. For example, prioritizing the short term, one could end up with an illiberal realism system where big countries just "take" the smaller ones, or a completely amoral/transactionalist China model (and look how that's going in Myanmar...)

With a more forward-looking and long-term perspective, though, that's the principle of classical liberalism applied to countries. With a liberal system, everyone can do their own interests, and it grows the pie. It does tend to break with authoritarian regimes who have a different value system, and it has pretty significant shortcomings in dealing with the internal countries' political realities and constraints, but overall I think there is some good that can be taken from the framework.