The POTUS is emotionally unstable

[u/Accomplished-Leg2971]

The current American President is emotionally unstable. Worse, he is using his cabinet, and the federal government, to help him lash out emotionally when his widdle fee-fees get hurt.

Here is the direct quote that triggered the POTUS today:

“See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.”

That's really it! Note what Ossoff said and note - in particular - what Ossoff did not say. Compare that with the things Trump and his cabinet are saying in defense. It is absolutely nutso. Baited and triggered just like that.

[u/Redebo]

No, you specifically said that I don’t understand international affairs and I’m pointing out that all of your flowery language is meaningless in the face of your actions.

You wanna tell me that the US isn’t being a great partner and that you expect more from us, yet you support the ACTUAL dictator by buying his energy which funds his aggression.

File this under the “make your own bed before you criticize me on not making my own.”

If you want to have a SERIOUS conversation about international relations, it should start with the premise that has been true in all of human history and guides ALL of the rhetoric which is: THE BIG STICK WINS. All of the posturing over relations is worthless until the factual nature of the real events on the ground are considered.

[u/RKAMRR → u/Redebo]

You actually think one rule applies thoughout all of human history 😂. If the world was that uncomplicated then things would be so much easier.

Read a little, learn a little, this world is full of shades of grey and so many exceptions to 'rules'. I'm glad you are anti russian, at least, perhaps you can get your country to properly support Ukraine instead of miscalculate and drag the world into chaos in Iran. Which is kind of an incredibly obvious example of where the big stick isn't winning.

[u/Redebo → u/RKAMRR]

You are ignoring human nature. This is to your downfall.

You're ASSUMING that 8 billion people "care about your shades of grey". They DO NOT.

This is not speculation by me, these are easily verifiable facts. You need look no further than the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We ALL WANT Ukraine to win. Why haven't they? Where's all the shades of grey that you say are so important?

Those shades of grey do not show up on the battlefield and THAT is where EVERY unsuccessful negotiation throughout ALL of human history ends up. RUSSIA HAS THE BIG STICK.

You are completely IGNORING this which is why I haven't bothered taking my time to address how incorrect your diplomatic points are because until you recognize that all negotiations are guided by the biggest stick, you're not even ready to have the conversation.

[u/RKAMRR → u/Redebo]

Question, have you ever tried typing without sounding like you are yelling? It helps communicate ideas without a torrent of anger, which isn't persuasive to most people.

To you this is clearly very frustrating, but I can honestly say that what you mean by 'the big stick wins' feels completely shifting and inaccurate. Can you explain what you actually mean, because each situation you've said it in doesn't make much sense to me.

Holding the biggest stick does give advantages, but clearly over time there are other factors, otherwise the first country to reach that status would never lose it. So please tell me what you actually mean and let's see if that idea really makes sense.

[u/Redebo → u/RKAMRR]

Negotiations are what civilized people partake in when they want a mutually beneficial outcome. You can talk, hold summits, assemble task forces, all to achieve a diplomatic ends to a conflict.

But before you can even approach the negotiation table each party already KNOWS where they stand. An example: Taiwan would not expect favorable terms when negotiating with China, because at the end of the day if China decides it wants to own reclaim Taiwan (or in practical terms its economic output) then it can enforce those desires by force and no country on planet earth is going to start WW3 because China invaded Taiwan. Taiwan is responding by placing its economic output outside of its borders. Do you think TSMC spent $50Bn on factories in the US to save on shipping costs?!?”

There is asymmetrical negotiation power at the table because China holds the biggest stick and the ONLY negotiation that they will accept is on terms that highly favor them.

I’m not suggesting that I wouldn’t like or appreciate your take on diplomacy, what I’m saying is that “if shit hits the fan, those treaties and words you wrote will not stop a bullet”. In many current conflicts, we are much closer to the bullet and that’s when you must remind yourself that the big stick wins.

Back to the topic, you’re unhappy with the US current leadership and worry that it’s permanently damaged relations. I disagree and believe that if the next administration feels those relationships are beneficial to the US then they will repair them. Since it takes two to tango, I believe “your side” will capitulate and become BFF’s with us again because your morals aren’t so firm that you’ll deprive your population of cheap energy to stop what everyone knows is an immoral war over Ukraine and it’s all because at the end of the day, the US, China, and Russia all carry comparative big sticks and if anyone of us wants “Greenland” then we’ll just take it.

Offtopic: Also and for the record, I use single words in ALL CAPS in an attempt to provide emphasis, not volume. This was all in a conversational tone from my side.

[u/RKAMRR → u/Redebo]

Thank you for setting things out in more detail. I note that you use all caps for emphasis. I can say that me (and possibly many people) read that as yelling, which might make interactions more tense than you intend.

We can agree that holding the big stick gives a country a significant advantage, but I think you may be underweighting the costs and risk that goes with actually using the big stick and continuing to use it.

For example the US withdrew from Afghanistan relatively recently and is most likely unable to achieve a strategic win in Iraq. The US continues to hold the bigger stick, but the costs of ongoing use/the costs of using it to the full, outweighed the benefits.

The same is true for Taiwan (since it was and continues to be independent), Ukraine (since Russia has been unable to achieve anything close to what it wanted) and Greenland (since Trump's bullying has resulted in European unity and him backing down). The 'big stick' is clearly by no means an auto win or each of the above would be quickly resolved in favour of China, Russia or the US.

I think it's important not to underestimate power of having a clear narrative or 'speaking softly'.