| The Pivot to Asia 08:52 - Mar 8 with 2095 views | DJR |
It strikes me that Trump's current approach in relation to Ukraine could be said to be an extreme and rather treacherous continuation/extension of Obama's Pivot to Asia.
This from Wikipedia.
"U.S. President Barack Obama's East Asia Strategy (2009–2017), also known as the Pivot to Asia, represented a significant shift in the foreign policy of the United States since the 2010s. It shifted the country's focus away from the Middle Eastern and European sphere and allowed it to invest heavily and build relationships in East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, especially countries which are in close proximity to the People's Republic of China (PRC) either economically, geographically or politically to counter its rise as a rival potential superpower."
I assume this came about in part because of the view that Russia was no longer an economic or military threat to the US. And it may well be that the Russian failure to take over Ukraine, and well as the sanctions imposed on it, have only reinforced this view.
It is perhaps also for consideration as to whether Obama's failure to react to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Syria were in part a consequence of the Pivot.
As it is, there are already far more US military troops and resources based in the Asia and the Pacific than in Europe, and it is clear that the US has for a long time seen China as the main threat to its hegemony.
I have also come across this from an Asian newspaper.
"In 2011, US President Barack Obama announced America's "pivot to Asia"– only for conflicts from Afghanistan to Ukraine to bog him down. In Brussels last week, however, newly installed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth renewed the United States's pledge to refocus on China. It might seem that Uncle Sam has left it a bit late, given the Middle Kingdom's rise in the intervening years. Yet emerging fault lines in China's economic strategy suggest that now might be an opportune moment for the pivot after all.
US Vice President JD Vance's speech at last week's Munich Security Conference hogged the headlines. Yet Hegseth's earlier remarks at NATO's Brussels headquarters contained the more practical pointer to the future of geopolitics. His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific".
[Post edited 8 Mar 8:54]
|  | | |  |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 with 2042 views | StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |  | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:14 - Mar 8 with 1970 views | DJR |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 by StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |
You don't think think the pivot away from Europe, and the following passage, are significant and an indication of the direction of travel?
"His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific"."
As it is, he's only been in power for a matter of weeks, and he has enough other things on his plate at the moment to keep him fully occupied.
And he has already imposed, and not suspended, tariffs on China. [Post edited 8 Mar 9:16]
| | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:20 - Mar 8 with 1933 views | nrb1985 |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 by StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |
Have had the opportunity through my work to listen to a number of geopolitical bods recently on this subject and the common theme across them all is the world retrenching from harmonized globalization and towards what they call “spheres of influence”. Therefore, I don’t think Trump has any interest in Asia at all, especially now they need less semis from Taiwan.
Found this article online that neatly sets out what was discussed by the various talking heads I mentioned;
https://www.omfif.org/2025/02/from-open-door-to-spheres-of-influence-us-and-the- [Post edited 8 Mar 17:12]
|  | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:38 - Mar 8 with 1852 views | DJR |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:20 - Mar 8 by nrb1985 |
Have had the opportunity through my work to listen to a number of geopolitical bods recently on this subject and the common theme across them all is the world retrenching from harmonized globalization and towards what they call “spheres of influence”. Therefore, I don’t think Trump has any interest in Asia at all, especially now they need less semis from Taiwan.
Found this article online that neatly sets out what was discussed by the various talking heads I mentioned;
https://www.omfif.org/2025/02/from-open-door-to-spheres-of-influence-us-and-the- [Post edited 8 Mar 17:12]
|
China is a threat to US hegemony, so I think it is stretch to think that Trump doesn't have any interest in Asia at all. Indeed, he has already imposed sanctions on China.
And his picks, such as Marco Rubio, are Chinese hardliners, as is the Republican party.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rubio-pick-signals-trump-china-policy-that-coul [Post edited 8 Mar 9:54]
| | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:51 - Mar 8 with 1790 views | LeoMuff |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 by StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |
Reminds me of the elections speeches he used to make, rambling on for hours without any structure or point, jumping around lashing out at anybody.
The weave as he called it, was just nonsense - policy now seems to follow the same pattern |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:53 - Mar 8 with 1776 views | Steve_M |
I think assuming Trump cares about US hegemony is a fallacy; if he did he wouldn't be letting Musk gut the state.
I don't really think you can read nay continuity from the Obama era as the world is a very different place to 15 years ago. If you were in Taiwan, would you hold out much hope of this US government supporting them? |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:01 - Mar 8 with 1743 views | DJR |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:51 - Mar 8 by LeoMuff |
Reminds me of the elections speeches he used to make, rambling on for hours without any structure or point, jumping around lashing out at anybody.
The weave as he called it, was just nonsense - policy now seems to follow the same pattern |
He might fire from the hip, but he is attempting to implement much of the Project 2025 agenda, and he has already succeeded in overturning Roe v Wade.
This from Wikipedia (with footnote indicators).
"The project calls for merit-based federal civil service workers to be replaced by people loyal to Trump, to take partisan control of key government agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce (DOC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).[15] Other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Education (ED), will be dismantled or abolished.[16] The president will then be free to implement Project 25's agenda, including reducing taxes on corporations and capital gains, instituting a flat income tax on individuals,[17] cutting Medicare and Medicaid,[18][19] and reversing President Joe Biden's policies.[20][21] Project 25 calls for reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and proposes making the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent and defunding its stem cell research.[22] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[23] removing legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination,[24][25] and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[5][25] while having the DOJ prosecute anti-white racism instead.[26] The project recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants,[27][28] and deploying the military for domestic law enforcement.[29] The plan also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right,[9][30] such as criminalizing those who send and receive abortion and birth control medications[31][32][33] and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception.[18]"
Of course, he may well not achieve all this but to think there is not some sort of agenda is rather naive. [Post edited 8 Mar 10:07]
| | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:07 - Mar 8 with 1694 views | bsw72 |
Errr, no. You have to understand the context and approach of Obama versus what Trump subsequently did in his first term and what he is doing now.
Trump’s first-term Asia policy was transactional, unilateral, and confrontational, unlike Obama’s multilateral approach and his second term is becoming even more confrontational and transactional.
You cannot draw parallels with a strategic policy approach and with Trumps reactionary ones.
To expand on Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy. It aimed to rebalance U.S. foreign policy by strengthening alliances, expanding economic ties, and reinforcing regional security to counter China’s growing influence. It emphasized multilateral engagement through ASEAN and the East Asia Summit, bolstered military presence in the Indo-Pacific, and promoted trade leadership via the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The approach sought to integrate China into a rules-based international order while hedging against its assertiveness, balancing diplomacy with deterrence.
Now compare that with Trumps approach in his first term and what he is now undertaking. Trump’s first-term Asia strategy was unilateral, transactional, and confrontational, focusing on economic decoupling from China, reducing reliance on multilateral alliances, and asserting military pressure in the Indo-Pacific.
He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), launched a trade war with China, and pressured allies like Japan and South Korea to increase defense spending. His administration expanded freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) in the South China Sea and engaged in direct diplomacy with North Korea, though with limited long-term results. The approach prioritized economic coercion and military assertiveness over diplomatic engagement. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:16 - Mar 8 with 1625 views | Pinewoodblue |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:14 - Mar 8 by DJR |
You don't think think the pivot away from Europe, and the following passage, are significant and an indication of the direction of travel?
"His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific"."
As it is, he's only been in power for a matter of weeks, and he has enough other things on his plate at the moment to keep him fully occupied.
And he has already imposed, and not suspended, tariffs on China. [Post edited 8 Mar 9:16]
|
Can’t see US pushing back if China makes a move on Taiwan.
Another 4 years of Trump will have a bigger impact on US influence than anything China does. |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:17 - Mar 8 with 1622 views | Guthrum |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 by StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |
I think there is a degree of consistency with Trump and his advisors (some of whom have much more definite ideologies than the President himself).
It's not quite isolationism in the sense of withdrawing from all engagement outside their own hemisphere. More the expression of a sort of rage that the USA has been paying for loads of stuff (in absolute terms) since the mid 1940s, while all they've got in return is having their industries undercut from elsewhere and being lectured on (liberal) morality by everybody. At best a gross historical simplification, but that is how they see the world and reversing that supposed flow is what drives their policy.
Their chief aims:
- End expensive US engagements abroad, be that conflicts, supporting others or aid. This may include cutting off those the country has formerly backed (Ukraine, NATO) or threatening extreme, if second hand, violence against "annoying problems" (Gaza).
- Turn every trade balance in favour of the USA (whether or not that is feasible, or even beneficial to the nation).
- Reopen as many old industries as possible (coal, oil) and try to force others back from abroad, to bring jobs to deprived areas like Tennessee (which happen to be predominantly Republican-voting).
- Damage central government (outside the White House) to the extent that regulation and checks/balances are completely undermined. The reduction of expense being an added benefit.
Like a lot of revolutionaries, they have big ideas which are not necessarily coherent or practical. Or, indeed, very good for their own citizens (they care little for those elsewhere). Almost inevitably, things will go wrong and that's where it can get very unpleasant as blame has to be pointed away from the leadership. |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:49 - Mar 8 with 1534 views | DJR |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:07 - Mar 8 by bsw72 |
Errr, no. You have to understand the context and approach of Obama versus what Trump subsequently did in his first term and what he is doing now.
Trump’s first-term Asia policy was transactional, unilateral, and confrontational, unlike Obama’s multilateral approach and his second term is becoming even more confrontational and transactional.
You cannot draw parallels with a strategic policy approach and with Trumps reactionary ones.
To expand on Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy. It aimed to rebalance U.S. foreign policy by strengthening alliances, expanding economic ties, and reinforcing regional security to counter China’s growing influence. It emphasized multilateral engagement through ASEAN and the East Asia Summit, bolstered military presence in the Indo-Pacific, and promoted trade leadership via the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The approach sought to integrate China into a rules-based international order while hedging against its assertiveness, balancing diplomacy with deterrence.
Now compare that with Trumps approach in his first term and what he is now undertaking. Trump’s first-term Asia strategy was unilateral, transactional, and confrontational, focusing on economic decoupling from China, reducing reliance on multilateral alliances, and asserting military pressure in the Indo-Pacific.
He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), launched a trade war with China, and pressured allies like Japan and South Korea to increase defense spending. His administration expanded freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) in the South China Sea and engaged in direct diplomacy with North Korea, though with limited long-term results. The approach prioritized economic coercion and military assertiveness over diplomatic engagement. |
I didn't say the approaches were the same, and indeed used the word extreme in my OP, but that doesn't mean there isn't an Obama version of the pivot, and a Trump version, both in my view driven by the rise of China.
As it is, I think the Trump approach (including its mercurial nature and things like cuts to overseas aid) is counter-productive because it it likely to push countries in the Global South into China's orbit.
Anyway, I'm off the the football, so no further comments from me today. | | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 11:03 - Mar 8 with 1464 views | mellowblue |
American interest in Asia goes further back than Obama recognising a sleeping giant like China was finally in a financial position and in an outward viewing state to flex it's muscles at all round it. Hence their involvement in Korea and Vietnam and all the forward bases in the Philipines etc. In the international hegemony, the US has got used to being top dog and certainly sees the threat China now poses to it's status. That is a lot of the point of forcing Europe to be more self reliant when it comes to security, rightly so. Collectively it certainly has the resources to but lacked joined up thinking and cohesion between the countries. That seems less of an issue now. Now Germany are starting to smell the coffee and is shrugging off it's post war pacific mindset, that will really help | | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 11:08 - Mar 8 with 1452 views | bournemouthblue |
| The Pivot to Asia on 10:17 - Mar 8 by Guthrum |
I think there is a degree of consistency with Trump and his advisors (some of whom have much more definite ideologies than the President himself).
It's not quite isolationism in the sense of withdrawing from all engagement outside their own hemisphere. More the expression of a sort of rage that the USA has been paying for loads of stuff (in absolute terms) since the mid 1940s, while all they've got in return is having their industries undercut from elsewhere and being lectured on (liberal) morality by everybody. At best a gross historical simplification, but that is how they see the world and reversing that supposed flow is what drives their policy.
Their chief aims:
- End expensive US engagements abroad, be that conflicts, supporting others or aid. This may include cutting off those the country has formerly backed (Ukraine, NATO) or threatening extreme, if second hand, violence against "annoying problems" (Gaza).
- Turn every trade balance in favour of the USA (whether or not that is feasible, or even beneficial to the nation).
- Reopen as many old industries as possible (coal, oil) and try to force others back from abroad, to bring jobs to deprived areas like Tennessee (which happen to be predominantly Republican-voting).
- Damage central government (outside the White House) to the extent that regulation and checks/balances are completely undermined. The reduction of expense being an added benefit.
Like a lot of revolutionaries, they have big ideas which are not necessarily coherent or practical. Or, indeed, very good for their own citizens (they care little for those elsewhere). Almost inevitably, things will go wrong and that's where it can get very unpleasant as blame has to be pointed away from the leadership. |
There was a suggestion on Newsnight that Trump was deliberately trying to weaken the dollar in order to make US exports more attractive, which would suit the industrial strategy but damaging an economy already seeing high inflation |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 11:22 - Mar 8 with 1431 views | TractorWood |
| The Pivot to Asia on 08:56 - Mar 8 by StokieBlue |
I don't really think there has been any evidence of a "pivot to Asia" thus far, he has essentially ignored Asia.
He's not even had a call with Xi apparently.
I think trying to look for any theme, direction or even sense in Trump's approach is folly. He's clearly a scattergun who just does things as the wind blows and how he feels at the time. Any deep analysis is thus rendered void in my view and actually gives him too much credit as it implies intelligence and forethought behind his decisions.
I don't think his decisions deserve that much credit.
SB |
I literally think he wakes up, picks two things to have a rant about having not considered a strategy, history, US diplomatic position, global position etc and just says what comes into his head.
The bizarre dynamic is that if he was leading a small country, he could be ignored and written off. However, as he leads the global policeman we see the rest of world leaders trying to deal with his totally chaotic views.
It's going to be a long 4 years. |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 12:36 - Mar 8 with 1333 views | StokieBlue |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:14 - Mar 8 by DJR |
You don't think think the pivot away from Europe, and the following passage, are significant and an indication of the direction of travel?
"His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific"."
As it is, he's only been in power for a matter of weeks, and he has enough other things on his plate at the moment to keep him fully occupied.
And he has already imposed, and not suspended, tariffs on China. [Post edited 8 Mar 9:16]
|
Not really no.
I think you've over-analysed this, as other posters have also said. It's almost irrelevant what quotes you find to support the view because tomorrow there will be a quote which will not support the view.
He's imposed tariffs on lots of places including historical allies so I don't think you can use that as evidence of any pivot to Asia.
Some things to consider:
- Trump hates Obama, he more likely to do the opposite of him out of spite than continue his policies.
- Trump changes his mind daily and says things he doesn't mean.
- There is no real evidence of any pivot to Asia past a quote you've cited which isn't very strong.
- He's not even really pushing Diego Garcia which would be vital in any pivot.
- He's attacking Japan on their defence agreements, something which is odd if you're pivoting to Asia.
Sometimes things can't be analysed, Trump seems to be one of those anomalies. It's annoying, I know.
SB | | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 13:07 - Mar 8 with 1249 views | judespiveyg |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:20 - Mar 8 by nrb1985 |
Have had the opportunity through my work to listen to a number of geopolitical bods recently on this subject and the common theme across them all is the world retrenching from harmonized globalization and towards what they call “spheres of influence”. Therefore, I don’t think Trump has any interest in Asia at all, especially now they need less semis from Taiwan.
Found this article online that neatly sets out what was discussed by the various talking heads I mentioned;
https://www.omfif.org/2025/02/from-open-door-to-spheres-of-influence-us-and-the- [Post edited 8 Mar 17:12]
|
China produce and process the majority of Rare Earth Elements so I'm sceptical of the notion that the US have no interest in China or Asia, especially as these elements are absolutely central to tech, the business leaders of which have aligned and positioned themselves close to the US President. |  |
| I survived Ipswich 0-0 Burton |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 13:16 - Mar 8 with 1210 views | StokieBlue |
| The Pivot to Asia on 13:07 - Mar 8 by judespiveyg |
China produce and process the majority of Rare Earth Elements so I'm sceptical of the notion that the US have no interest in China or Asia, especially as these elements are absolutely central to tech, the business leaders of which have aligned and positioned themselves close to the US President. |
He's looking for a new source of those materials though hence all the pressure put on Ukraine. Would fully expect him to try and source these from Australia and Brazil as well soon enough.
There is also a lot of US funded development into replacements for rare-Earths which would be far cheaper and use more common elements.
The US itself also has significant rare-Earth deposits, they just tend to try and use everyone else's first.
Certainly it's an issue but it's not like he can invade China for these resources and if he really wanted them he wouldn't have started putting large tariffs on China.
That's of course assuming he's actually thought about any of the above or any general strategy which seems unlikely.
SB | | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 13:17 - Mar 8 with 1207 views | OldFart71 |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:14 - Mar 8 by DJR |
You don't think think the pivot away from Europe, and the following passage, are significant and an indication of the direction of travel?
"His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific"."
As it is, he's only been in power for a matter of weeks, and he has enough other things on his plate at the moment to keep him fully occupied.
And he has already imposed, and not suspended, tariffs on China. [Post edited 8 Mar 9:16]
|
Whilst I appreciate that unlike myself and many who have knee jerk reactions to things that happen globally Trump apart most Governments stand back and think through what they should do before taking action. Whilst I think Trump is bizarre and his actions seemingly not far off madness I do believe that Britain should be far more protectionist when it comes to a raft of things from security to the selling of vital utilities and pioneering companies. Where Countries like China subsidise their steel industry we merely throw money at potential buyers who then close down the plants or part of. It has always been a good idea not going down the path of using the Euro as our coinage even when in the EU as it allows the BoE to control our interest rates better to either increase or devalue the pound. But I think whichever Party is in power there are too many naive people running many of the departments who have neither the skill or experience. | | | |
| The Pivot to Asia on 14:05 - Mar 8 with 1135 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I am not convinced there is any deliberate US policy of pivoting to Asia.
However, I am sure that the big winners in the world situation are currently China. They have kept good economic relations worldwide and have stayed out of all the major conflicts as far as possible, I believe. It is like they are watching on from the sidelines in preparation to pick over all the pieces. |  |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 16:09 - Mar 8 with 1008 views | Kropotkin123 |
| The Pivot to Asia on 09:14 - Mar 8 by DJR |
You don't think think the pivot away from Europe, and the following passage, are significant and an indication of the direction of travel?
"His message was unambiguous: "stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe." Chief amongst those realities is China, which Hegseth called a "peer competitor" with the "capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific"."
As it is, he's only been in power for a matter of weeks, and he has enough other things on his plate at the moment to keep him fully occupied.
And he has already imposed, and not suspended, tariffs on China. [Post edited 8 Mar 9:16]
|
It's what they've said. But the two arenas are connected. North Korean troops and weapons in Russia, Chinese financial backing.
Being weak on Putin will give China confidence on invading Taiwan. The calculation being Trump cares more about money and limiting US involvement in international affairs.
Hard to call it a pivot, when they are, by extension, weakening themselves in that arena.
How many ally's can they call on to assist in that arena now? Limited. Economic wars with allies in addition to abandoning Ukraine is hardly the actions that get you assistance in that arena.
I think it is more a pivot away from the world stage, even if they care more about China. They are a branch of isolationism in my opinion, not a country strategically prioritising countering China. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| The Pivot to Asia on 16:24 - Mar 8 with 951 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The Pivot to Asia on 16:09 - Mar 8 by Kropotkin123 |
It's what they've said. But the two arenas are connected. North Korean troops and weapons in Russia, Chinese financial backing.
Being weak on Putin will give China confidence on invading Taiwan. The calculation being Trump cares more about money and limiting US involvement in international affairs.
Hard to call it a pivot, when they are, by extension, weakening themselves in that arena.
How many ally's can they call on to assist in that arena now? Limited. Economic wars with allies in addition to abandoning Ukraine is hardly the actions that get you assistance in that arena.
I think it is more a pivot away from the world stage, even if they care more about China. They are a branch of isolationism in my opinion, not a country strategically prioritising countering China. |
They think that by being isolationist they will be protectionist. China, by contrast, take the oppostie approach and will benefit greatly. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
