[StockHuman]

NATO already won; it has expanded and defence commitments are up, and that is besides the renewed raison d’être Russia has leased it.

The US defence industry has seen a minor win, too. It will reap the long-term win of new NATO accessions.

The EU got a wakeup call (not so much a win, but hey) to seek energy independence from belligerent petrostates, so that could be seen as a future win.

[ivan_gammel]

I‘m not sure about NATO, at least while Trumpism exists in America. If U.S. voters will think that Europe has to be sacrificed in favor of bilateral Russian-American deal, NATO is effectively as dead as it was pre-war.

U.S.defense industry will also depend on that. If Trump wins and commits to do everything he promised, they will be in a weaker position, loosing foreign markets one by one.

[jacquesm]

There is a lot of money riding on NATOs continued existence and I think if Trump decides to pull the USA out of NATO he will be in for a rude surprise. Playing with the climate accords was dumb enough and didn't have any immediate impact, if the USA visibly isolates itself from NATO after other countries supporting the USA in various efforts over the last couple of decades then the world as you know it will grind to a very rapid halt and the United States will be the big loser from that unless Trump is reigned in. I would expect him to receive a couple of very pointed reminders of what the consequences of such a move would be. Fortunately even an unhinged TV personality can not single-handedly destroy a country and what it has stood for for the last 70+ years.

[fooblaster]

Not to nitpick, but trump could singlehandedly destroy the United states in an afternoon. The presidency has absolute control over the use of the nuclear arsenal. One strike on China, in a conflict over Taiwan and the country will be blown to pieces. I don't think that's likely - but one cannot deny it is possible.

[lr1970]

This is not a serious argument. By the same token, putin or comrade xi can do the same if they feel suicidal.

There are controls in place (or at least on the paper) that prevent a crazy president from running amok with the nukes.

[jacquesm]

I'd hope that if he would give that order that someone would remove the source of the problem. Not everybody enjoys seeing the world destroyed.

[KerrAvon]

Any scenario where anyone throws a nuke means the __world__ will be blown to pieces. That's a different scale of issue.

[KerrAvon]

He absolutely can and will destroy the country and what it has stood for. He's already completely corrupted one of the only two viable political parties. They no longer believe in democracy. If Trump or one his sycophants gains office again, America won't be a shining city on the hill, it'll be a toxic waste dump.

[ivan_gammel]

Trumpism is an ideology that overgrown its founder: there are members of Congress, governors and other politicians who share his mindset. It is the Republican Party of 2020s, not just an insane businessman, who will throw global security under the bus. All those pointed reminders will mean nothing until it is too late.

[gettodachoppa]

>even an unhinged TV personality can not single-handedly destroy a country and what it has stood for for the last 70+ years.

A war-mongering, propaganda-spewing, dystopian corporate empire beheld entirely to the military-industrial complex and megacorps?

You're right, I don't think he can turn the ship around.

[beeboobaa]

Americans being in favor of making a deal with Russia would be proof that psyops works