AmericanNationalist's Foreign Policy Doctrine: Updated for 2020's world map.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by AmericanNationalist, Dec 10, 2020.

  1. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,165
    Likes Received:
    20,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Four years later, I would still like to primarily work out trade imbalances with other nations. I'm well aware that just like with debt, some trade imbalance is actually positive but ideally it's within a 2-to-1 ratio, not the 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratios we've suffered over a growing period of the last few decades. Meaning the financial underpinning has transcended political policy and has become a point of national policy failure. Trump's tariffs have had mixed results at best, and perhaps a more cooperative and constructive dialogue with European and Asian nations can reach to more equitable agreements on both sides. We can use the recent trade board rulings to reach equitable settlements with our European counterparts.

    Speaking of the European-US Alliance, it has strayed because our message has been misconstrued by both European and American theaters. So I want to take the point to make it clear: From a Civic Nationalist point of view, the European-US alliance is worth keeping because many of our family members, let alone lost or unknown family members living in Europe are related. For many of us, Europe is a second home and its national security is firmly in our interest.

    But, where the divergence occurs is that we are still Americans first and it is the US Mainland that requires our immediate attention as well as our national defense. Secondly, a strong Europe is a stronger alliance(this is true for our allies in Asia as well.). We want you, Europe to stand on your own so that you will be even more capable to the NATO alliance. We want you to be stronger so that you are a greater deterrent to Russian meddling or worse actual invasion.

    You spending at 1-2% is pitifully laughable. Can you imagine if the American State reduced its defense spending to 1-2%? You can afford to do so as long as the US is a protectorate and admittedly, the "normal" Washington(since returned) is more than fine with playing this.

    But there are millions of Americans who are not only not fine with this, but see the strategic weakness not only for Europe but for the United States. Even with our troops existing as a 'tripwire', Benghazi is proof of how limiting that policy is in reality. It took our men over several hours(like about 8) to reach the consulate and by then, Mr.Stevens and several Americans were dead.

    This brings to mind the stupidity of Syria, sure they are a tripwire against Russia but from Russia's perspective(as well as Assad), if they wanted to wipe our men from the map they could do so in no short order, and what are we going to do? Are we going to seriously go to major war with Russia/Syria?

    The danger becomes Syria's calculus becoming: 'Welp, we're already at war with the US anyway since they're on our shores so why not get them out of here?' The deterrent of a tripwire only exists if the nation-state doesn't want to go to war. But enough of an annoying fly flying around and they'll want to swat at it.

    And sure, maybe we would achieve victory over Assad and Putin but at what cost to US forces and to the US Economy? It's not just waging war, it's the logistics of war and the gains of victory. The only reason for going to war with Russia would be the destruction of the Russian State.

    (The same is true in the reverse for Putin). The only reason for launching war against America, is to destroy the United States.

    This is the big reason for our Proxy States(which I've elaborated at large: The freedom fighters of the 80's and the Arab Spring. And our biggest proxy state is Japan.). Proxy States launch small(or mid-large) scale operations/wars while minimizing damage to the US. However, the danger exists that these proxy states can bring us into a greater conflict just like how WWI was started.

    As it regards Syria, let's be clear: It doesn't matter whether Syria is a 'democracy' or not, whether Assad rules until he's dead or not. If we view American interests in terms of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, we have absolutely zero shits to give about a country that neither exists in our Pacific Rim nor threatens our European allies.

    And since US/Russia can only essentially fight a war of existence, the question for both countries becomes whether SYRIA is that country worth fighting that war. In my view, it's not. The same can be said for Afghanistan, Iraq and really the entirety of the Middle East wit large.

    Yemen is pointless, all it's doing is muddying our human rights record and not achieving a single thing on the ground.

    The other thing is that as much as we value our European friends(it's a two way street, we need more access to your markets), the battlefield has shifted towards Asia. This is something I was criticizing the Obama Administration on.

    A coronavirus later(and a phase 1 where they wrote a 'natural disaster' clause, I still don't believe it's a coincidence) as well as the intel on their spying and it's clear that China is the greatest national security threat of our lifetimes.

    Here's the good thing about America: Because of our weight, and because of our clout we can easily join(or rejoin as the case were) any agreements. Also, groups or blocs like that of the European Union would bend over backwards to add the strength of the US dollar to their group.

    So we can join ASEAN and be a member there, and gain more access. Or we could make a Western-Asian pact(I know that's what the TTP was meant to be. But even HRC had her reservations.). I think however with our geopolitical might, value and importance we can bend the TTP to our will.

    It's what I will miss the most about Trump: The trump economic team. In comparison, the people replacing them are wholly inferior and not as experienced. If it were up to me, I'd have kept them in place with their excellent results.(The coronavirus is skewing the strong record we've had and should continue to have once the virus dissipates.)

    Outside of economic alliances, special attention should be paid to Hong Kong. We have the opportunity to make it a US State if we should so(rightly) choose. It will be our new Louisiana Purchase. It's infinitely more valuable then either Alaska or Hawaii. Gaining access to their ports and their rich cities will add so much monetary value to the US.

    It will also give us a foothold, legitimacy and a challenge in Asia to the Chinese(which is why it would probably be a red line for them but I don't give a damn. It's more beneficial to us to do it than not to do it.).

    As far as Africa is concerned, where the African nations want to ally with us and engage with us productively, we'll do that. But if we're viewed as an imperialist country to them then there's no reason for us to engage unproductively for either side.

    Overall, my foreign policy is to engage the international community fairly and with reciprocity. If you engage us fairly, you can expect to be treated fairly and with dignity. If on the other hand you treat us antagonistically or indifferently then that's exactly what would come from our side as well.
     

Share This Page