It seems that Donald and Vladimir might strike up an ‘arrangement’ to sort out ISIS. Shock horror and o me miserum I hear.
But hang about, as we say. There’s nothing unusual about marriages of political convenience. Boa and Christopher will cite a couple of dozen from the annals. As a layman I can think of a few. Between Winston and Josef for one. Nobody wanted to associate with the Russian Bear but when a common foe appears…..
It is equally concerning for the European bloc that Trump seems rather slow to recognise their star qualities and would rather pacify Russia than protect the endangered.
Different – but not necessarily impractical. Isn’t that what politics is about?
11 thoughts on “An unpalatable alliance”
How about Ho Chi Minh and the Anglo-American Alliance during the Second World War? Ho and his forces bled the Japanese and their French allies dry in a relentless guerilla conflict. Yes, the French were allied with the Japanese in Asia at the same time they were allied with both Hitler and Churchill in Europe.
The EU have made a mockery of themselves. Trump isn’t keen on trade blocs and he certainly isn’t keen on being insulted. They will have to deal with him and an Anglophile Republican Party in control of the US Government for the foreseeable future. (The Democrats are quickly following Labour. They ignored their collapse at the state level, the primary source of political talent, and have 11 vulnerable Senate seats to defend in 2018. Trump is also quickly taking a pragmatic turn and has an established record of choosing excellent advisors and letting them get on with their job) HM Government have made a point of embracing the outcome of the US election and will almost certainly do well out of it.
As for the lovely EU… I recently read comments by Mikhail Gorbachev about the EU and NATO expansion. When agreeing to Germany’s reunification, the USSR did so on the understanding that NATO would not expand east of Germany and that the historical buffer zone between Russia and Western Europe would be respected in practice, if not in name. Both have torn up these assurances and have moved to the Russian border. No one in the Kremlin has confidence that anyone in the West will act in good faith. With Trump not keen on saving the EU from itself or supporting the worst of its hare-brained schemes, we can, perhaps, expect that Europe might return from its slumber as the EU continues to decline into irrelevance.
As per Confucius we are certainly living in interesting times. For all his faults Trump may be letting fresh air into a stinking world.
Janus: Trump is a non-ideological deal-maker and isn’t a micro-manager. His successes largely came from his ability to put the right people in the right places and get them to work together.He has his failures and his ghastly sides — but this is so mad that is just might work. Symbolically, his victory shattered the foetid old order that has brought the West down.
I cannot but agree with Christopher.
In terms of risk, a USA/Russian might destroy ISIS and bring peace to the ME, without increasing E/W tensions. It might also lead to the exposure of the EU as a self-seeking club with little value.
And see the Observer today: VP’s big problem: America is no longer the enemy’.
Agree with all the above.
Pragmatically, the sooner peace is achieved, however way, the sooner the gimmigrants can be deported to their homelands from Europe and everywhere else!
Cant’ be bad!
Of course, paradoxically, if Obama had offered to work with Russia in the same way, he would have been dubbed a bleeding heart liberal, amongst other things! But Trump has his sights on reducing the military budget, bringing the troops home and raising trade and other barriers.
Good piece on johnredwoodsdiary.com :-
“……Ten questions for a stunned elite on both sides of the Atlantic
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: NOVEMBER 14, 2016
Why did you let the banks expand credit far too much prior to 2007?
Why did you bring several banks down by refusing liquidity and not backing schemes for bank recovery and leave others badly wounded in 2007-8?
Why have you gone for Quantitative easing and ultra low rates, which damages small savers and helps the super rich at the expense of everyone else?
Why didn’t you get on with the task of encouraging and enforcing recapitalisation of the banks so we can have a normal credit creating system again capable of financing recovery?
Why did you bring down a dictator in Libya without having a plan to rebuild a better government and society?
Why did you go to war in Iraq?
Whose side are you on in the Syrian civil war, and how is western military action helping?
Can you bomb people into accepting democracy?
Why did you back the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Euro, the Remain campaign and the Clinton campaign, and what do you think of how they have done?
Why should people trust the economic and political judgements of the World Bank, the EU, the IMF, the Bank of England and the rest when they have got so many forecasts wrong?
Also good piece in the Spectator which is vaguely relevant:-
Didn’t N also aver: ‘God is dead’? Food for thought but politically unhelpful.