Ukraine

[Holman]

Eight years doesn't undo generations of friendship. Leaders come and go all the time, in all countries. Our friendships have endured decades of changing leadership from both sides of the political spectrum. They'll endure Trump.

"Friendship" is a thing between individuals, not nations. International Relations are necessarily more wary and suspicious. Continuity across administrations was only possible when it could be assumed that the general trend of alliances and common goals was persistent despite different governing styles and different domestic agendas.

What's happening now is an intentional erasure of the post-WW2 global order. This is huge. Trump has just done a 180-degree turn on our commitment to an ongoing war in Europe. No, he isn't aiding Russia with positive reinforcement, but he is all but denying Ukraine's sovereignty. And we might be just days away from Trump's and Musk's withdrawal of active aid of any kind, both military and informational.

The USA is technically still part of NATO, but can any NATO country assume that we would commit resources to the aid of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or even Poland if Russia attacked? Can they assume that we will still share intelligence about Russia securely and accurately? I feel sure that they've already written off American commitment to preventing Russian political meddling and election interference in Europe, since we've basically been endorsing Russia's political allies.

The USA has turned on a dime. This is a rarity in democratic alliances, sure, but now that it has happened, our allies would be stupid to trust that it will never happen again.

[YellowKing]

'"Friendship" is a thing between individuals, not nations.

It was just shorthand.

The USA is technically still part of NATO, but can any NATO country assume that we would commit resources to the aid of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or even Poland if Russia attacked?

Not currently. Under a future administration that has reaffirmed its commitment to NATO? Sure.

[Blackhawk]

But again, the decision that Europe (and the rest of the world) has to make is whether to continue to count on the US to hold up their end when it matters, or invest the time and money required to be able to handle it themselves. It takes time to create those kinds of resources and infrastructure.

Our position as a top superpower was that those nations (like NATO) relied on us. Not even looking at trade, they relied on us for troops, military hardware, and especially, as a nuclear deterrent. It's something Trump was half-right on - we've held up an outsized share of the world security load. Europe hasn't needed the level of military that we have because they've known that we've got their backs - Russia and China know it, too. What Trump's missing is that our doing so has given us the clout that's allowed us to maintain our position in the world. The benefits to the US have outweighed our outsized world security commitment.

So what do those nations do?

If they play it safe and create their own self-reliance, then they won't need the US. At that point, even if they choose to work with us again in the future, it will be with us having lost all of our leverage, and us coming to them as equals that they don't need. That's a fundamental shift in who the US is globally.

If they're going to rely on a future administration and choose not to, then they know that they could end up with their entire way of life destroyed if yet another future administration takes things the way of Trump.

Imagine that you're a NATO country. Which option do you choose for your people? Do you count on the US to stop be unreliable, or do you find a way not to have to rely on the US?

Here's the thing - this isn't speculation. Europe is already positioning themselves to take those steps. It's in the works. It's happening. And because of that, our value to the world has changed, and changed long-term. Our position in the world is changing. Permanently, and unavoidably.

[Blackhawk]

Just to be clear, that doesn't mean that we won't be allies during the next administration. It doesn't mean that we won't be 'friends.' It doesn't mean that we won't have treaties or engage in trade with them. They won't be turning their backs on us.

They will, however, be doing so far more cautiously. They'll be making deals that benefit us both, but won't be making deals that leaves them reliant on us like in the past.

We've lost our clout, and with that, we've lost our bargaining position and our role in the world. If the question is whether we can return to what we were before Trump, the answer is a confident 'no', and that's without trying to make predictions.

[Daehawk]

Voting in Trump and his ilk and the things they are now doing to us and the world proves the US and its system is no longer trustworthy. I wouldn't trust us..i dont trust US and im a citizen.

[raydude]

Just to be clear, that doesn't mean that we won't be allies during the next administration. It doesn't mean that we won't be 'friends.' It doesn't mean that we won't have treaties or engage in trade with them. They won't be turning their backs on us.

They will, however, be doing so far more cautiously. They'll be making deals that benefit us both, but won't be making deals that leaves them reliant on us like in the past.

We've lost our clout, and with that, we've lost our bargaining position and our role in the world. If the question is whether we can return to what we were before Trump, the answer is a confident 'no', and that's without trying to make predictions.

My take: Trump just lost us Pax Americana.

[GreenGoo]

'"Friendship" is a thing between individuals, not nations.

It was just shorthand.

I'm comfortable with your usage. Friendly relations is a thing between nations. Informally calling that relationship "friendship" seems reasonable to me.