We are going to do a Q+A for paying subscribers next week - so please put your questions in the comment section below (or email us if you want to ask anonymously).
Might some of the scenarios described (trade war, Russia winning in Ukraine, the US pulling out of NATO, wider conflict in Europe etc.) push the UK materially closer to the EU in the years ahead such as back into the single market or even to a longer term policy to rejoin the EU?
Why is it acceptable for the US and UK to intercept missiles from Iran to Israel, but for the US and Europe to allow Russia to send missiles to civilians and infrastructure in Ukraine without trying to protect them?
1. One may consider the US constitution as containing too many checks and balances, where nothing is resolved (guns, lack of social security and public healthcare, lack of public transport, crumbling infrastructure, an unaffordable education sector, third world country social misery). Do you expect any kind of changes to that on the Federal level?
2. During Trump’s first term, nearly nothing passed through the Congress. Much ado and few laws. Will that be the same in Trump’s second term?
3. If Trump's US is reluctant to work within NATO and other treaties, what about the bilateral treaties between the US and other countries. Will they be treated according to the whims of the day?
“Probably not” isn’t good enough. There are far too many Europeans comfortable with America sacrificing our children and our country to nuclear hellfire so as to defend your borders. Why should my kids have to die for you?
Until you can provide a convincing answer to this question, you won’t understand why some of us, even if we didn’t vote for him, are hoping Trump will do everything he can for peace.
Edit: after reading some of the comments here, some of you are delusional—you really don’t understand the extent that Americans don’t want to fight and die for you or our over extended imperial commitments. We don’t care about European security like we once did—Robert Gates recognized this in 2008, and the last four American presidents have been consistent in that we will not be ultimately responsible for Ukraine.
America is, of course, free to choose to withdraw/reduce involvement. There is a long strand of isolationism in US history, after all. The similarities with the 1930s grow. It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe, but I am not optimistic. I wish all children everywhere good luck.
This time around, a whole set of powerful and well prepared/equipped political/economic machines are supporting/defining/designing Trump 2.0., many of their top people being younger and looking certainly beyond Trump‘s second term. What if they manage to change the very architecture of the U.S. polity in a way that cannot be undone for some generations? While having some trust in the resilience of the polity, these risks need to be explored and explained. If THE global power makes a “weird” turn, we might end up in a transactional universe where multi-vector policies from all sides create - chaos.
On the election itself. Superficially this is a very good result for Trump and the Republicans and a disaster for the Democrats, but given the fickleness of the public could it easily be reversed such as in the UK? In 2019 there was a lot of hubristic talk about Tories ruling for another 10 years and then 2024 happened with Labour with a massive if thin majority.
If Trump and his regime prove as incompetent and unable to achieve anything as the Tories did or like Trump's first term, which is highly likely given what he seems to be planning with cutting civil servants and appointing MAGA fanatics surely it could change quickly.
Not to say it will. The Democrats will obviously have to do a massive review, learn how to speak to socially conservative voters and hold off the left wing loons. But now Biden and Pelosi have shuffled off the stage they seem to have a group of young talented politicians particularly at governor level in states where they have to talk to Republican voters eg Whitmore, Shapiro and Beshear.
How do you see the UK & USA collaborating during President Trump’s term in office. Presumably Keir Starmer will need to make some kind of move towards choosing either a European or American circle of influence, or does American First preclude any kind of practical UK/ USA alliance?
A US election related question. A lot of the fear with Trump was an end to US democracy- what are the steps Trump could take that would make the US more undemocratic or is he still at risk of a midterm election push back which takes the wind out of his term?
And I suppose related to that if the democracts manage to swing the house in this election does that provide much limitations on what he can do?
I know it’s perilous to speculate at this point but do you have any predictions as to who the Democrats might nominate in 2028? And more generally what do the Democrats need to do to win back the voters who rejected them this time?
It s would be to large a field to suggest democratic party nominees. What democrats need to do, is firstly accept the result. Then they need to explain why the policies of the Trump presidency will fail. Then when the fail, probably around the mid-term if Trump is lucky - I suspect it will be much sooner, which will give the democrats and opportunity to campaign on a vision of a renewed America, one grounded in rights and responsibilities, freedom and equal opportunity for all. Then there need to take that vision and turn it into concrete policies. It needs fearless leadership, not beholden to powerful interests or money. Not self-service but public service.
They need to rebuild the party, and start by learning European History, from say 1730 to 1830. Most of the debates and policy alternatives, were debated, same were implemented, some were even fought over. Most were resolved. The USA does not need to go through the learning experience all over again.
Where will the power in the US really lie? For instance, will Trump be the figure head, but really just spend his time playing golf and writing tweets, while the country is run by billionaires etc?
The golf playing was stopped during the latter part of his campaign because his private courses offer too many security risks and opportunities for would-be assassins to target hom from public roads. Apparently the cucurtailment has been a sore point and source of increasing boredom.
It will be interesting to see if his golfing resumes, perhaps with a widened security perimeter - at taxpayer expense, of course.
With a potential/likely drop in US support to Ukraine, it’s often mentioned that Europe will have to step up to the plate to help bridge the gap in funding/support - especially France/Germany/U.K.
Realistically, whilst I think this is unlikely to happen (especially due to Europe’s sclerotic growth), what can these governments more do to help Ukraine that would be feasible solutions?
E.g. would it be Germany giving Taurus missiles, the U.K. upping defence to 3% of GDP & sending more financial/military aid to Ukraine?
Or is there simply no replacement at all to US aid (especially military aid)?
Impossible question I know, but do you think the Starmer govt will get its act together and achieve at least some of the five objectives? I am a Lib Dem but wanted desperately for Starmer to succeed but have been pretty quickly disillusioned as they were much less ready for office than they claimed/
I’ve heard two main arguments for why Trump may not be as bad for Ukraine as predicted:
1) Trump is “unpredictable”, therefore, Putin is likely to be wary of him
2) “Facts are stubborn things” i.e. whatever Trump said about Ukraine during the campaign will be tempered by reality
Personally, I’m not convinced by either, however, I would be grateful for Lawrence’s assessment of how much merit there is in each argument and whether both/either will adequately compensate for Trump’s many failings i.e. trash talking alliances, admiration for Putin etc?
1. There is a narrative that if Trump were in the White House, Putin would not dare to attack Ukraine. Whats your opinion? And more generally, is there really some aspects of Trump’s behaviour that some dictators might feel more restraint?
By the same token, how do you think the 6/1/21 events affected Putin’s calculus (as he & XJP like to perceive USA as an empire on decline)
2. More general - how do you think military exercises of USA and allies have affected the deterrence from all sides since the end of WWII? Do the Chinese see it same way as russian do?
For Sam:
1. Is Kemi Badenoch likely to expand the tory base (at expense of RFM lets say)? Why didnt she appoint Cleverly or Tugendhat into the Shadow Cabinet?
2. What is the chance that Reform will take over the tories as the dominant party? Can we hope for “Farage factor” will blow the party up?
3. Regardless of US citizens, Trump & Vance seem to hold very anti-consesus on global and foreign policy issues. They might not like it (spoke to many of them past three weeks in US) but they voted for them anyway.
Again, what about Reform? There are some members (the one who sugested UK shld stay neutral during WWII, Farage’s pro-Putin comments) Is this bug or feature of the party? If there is a huge chunk of Tory voters who could vote for them - would it be a crucial issue to them? In other words, is there a strong “robust nat-sac policy” constituency that might affect their manifesto? Or is it goin to be - “They are now only alternative against Labour, so I am voting for them”?
Might some of the scenarios described (trade war, Russia winning in Ukraine, the US pulling out of NATO, wider conflict in Europe etc.) push the UK materially closer to the EU in the years ahead such as back into the single market or even to a longer term policy to rejoin the EU?
Why is it acceptable for the US and UK to intercept missiles from Iran to Israel, but for the US and Europe to allow Russia to send missiles to civilians and infrastructure in Ukraine without trying to protect them?
Because the Russians can kill us all and the Iranians can’t.
It’s a simple as this I believe: Russia has, in theory, greater escalation capabilities vis-à-vis the West than does Iran
Questions:
1. One may consider the US constitution as containing too many checks and balances, where nothing is resolved (guns, lack of social security and public healthcare, lack of public transport, crumbling infrastructure, an unaffordable education sector, third world country social misery). Do you expect any kind of changes to that on the Federal level?
2. During Trump’s first term, nearly nothing passed through the Congress. Much ado and few laws. Will that be the same in Trump’s second term?
3. If Trump's US is reluctant to work within NATO and other treaties, what about the bilateral treaties between the US and other countries. Will they be treated according to the whims of the day?
A question that needs to be answered is why should I put my American kids at risk of being vaporized all so that Ukraine can hold onto the Donbas?
I didn’t vote for Trump, but if there is a real possibility for peace in Ukraine that doesn’t involve my kids getting killed, I hope he takes it.
What kind of peace agreement do you expect to solve the Russia-Ukraine War? Your children are probably not at risk in that war..
Your children may be at risk in a Russia-Nato war in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. How will you avoid that war?
“Probably not” isn’t good enough. There are far too many Europeans comfortable with America sacrificing our children and our country to nuclear hellfire so as to defend your borders. Why should my kids have to die for you?
Until you can provide a convincing answer to this question, you won’t understand why some of us, even if we didn’t vote for him, are hoping Trump will do everything he can for peace.
Edit: after reading some of the comments here, some of you are delusional—you really don’t understand the extent that Americans don’t want to fight and die for you or our over extended imperial commitments. We don’t care about European security like we once did—Robert Gates recognized this in 2008, and the last four American presidents have been consistent in that we will not be ultimately responsible for Ukraine.
Be fair, all the Russian children would have to die, too. And the British ones, French ones, German ones, Polish ones, &etc...
I don't think there are many people out there truly 'comfortable' with all of that.
America is, of course, free to choose to withdraw/reduce involvement. There is a long strand of isolationism in US history, after all. The similarities with the 1930s grow. It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe, but I am not optimistic. I wish all children everywhere good luck.
Do we need a „Thuringia-Project“ for the U.S.?
This time around, a whole set of powerful and well prepared/equipped political/economic machines are supporting/defining/designing Trump 2.0., many of their top people being younger and looking certainly beyond Trump‘s second term. What if they manage to change the very architecture of the U.S. polity in a way that cannot be undone for some generations? While having some trust in the resilience of the polity, these risks need to be explored and explained. If THE global power makes a “weird” turn, we might end up in a transactional universe where multi-vector policies from all sides create - chaos.
For some background of the “Thuringia-Project: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-thuringia-project/
On the election itself. Superficially this is a very good result for Trump and the Republicans and a disaster for the Democrats, but given the fickleness of the public could it easily be reversed such as in the UK? In 2019 there was a lot of hubristic talk about Tories ruling for another 10 years and then 2024 happened with Labour with a massive if thin majority.
If Trump and his regime prove as incompetent and unable to achieve anything as the Tories did or like Trump's first term, which is highly likely given what he seems to be planning with cutting civil servants and appointing MAGA fanatics surely it could change quickly.
Not to say it will. The Democrats will obviously have to do a massive review, learn how to speak to socially conservative voters and hold off the left wing loons. But now Biden and Pelosi have shuffled off the stage they seem to have a group of young talented politicians particularly at governor level in states where they have to talk to Republican voters eg Whitmore, Shapiro and Beshear.
How do you see the UK & USA collaborating during President Trump’s term in office. Presumably Keir Starmer will need to make some kind of move towards choosing either a European or American circle of influence, or does American First preclude any kind of practical UK/ USA alliance?
A US election related question. A lot of the fear with Trump was an end to US democracy- what are the steps Trump could take that would make the US more undemocratic or is he still at risk of a midterm election push back which takes the wind out of his term?
And I suppose related to that if the democracts manage to swing the house in this election does that provide much limitations on what he can do?
I know it’s perilous to speculate at this point but do you have any predictions as to who the Democrats might nominate in 2028? And more generally what do the Democrats need to do to win back the voters who rejected them this time?
It s would be to large a field to suggest democratic party nominees. What democrats need to do, is firstly accept the result. Then they need to explain why the policies of the Trump presidency will fail. Then when the fail, probably around the mid-term if Trump is lucky - I suspect it will be much sooner, which will give the democrats and opportunity to campaign on a vision of a renewed America, one grounded in rights and responsibilities, freedom and equal opportunity for all. Then there need to take that vision and turn it into concrete policies. It needs fearless leadership, not beholden to powerful interests or money. Not self-service but public service.
They need to rebuild the party, and start by learning European History, from say 1730 to 1830. Most of the debates and policy alternatives, were debated, same were implemented, some were even fought over. Most were resolved. The USA does not need to go through the learning experience all over again.
Where will the power in the US really lie? For instance, will Trump be the figure head, but really just spend his time playing golf and writing tweets, while the country is run by billionaires etc?
The golf playing was stopped during the latter part of his campaign because his private courses offer too many security risks and opportunities for would-be assassins to target hom from public roads. Apparently the cucurtailment has been a sore point and source of increasing boredom.
It will be interesting to see if his golfing resumes, perhaps with a widened security perimeter - at taxpayer expense, of course.
Question for the Q+A please: Can you see a way for the establishment Republicans to recapture the party or is MAGA here to stay?
With a potential/likely drop in US support to Ukraine, it’s often mentioned that Europe will have to step up to the plate to help bridge the gap in funding/support - especially France/Germany/U.K.
Realistically, whilst I think this is unlikely to happen (especially due to Europe’s sclerotic growth), what can these governments more do to help Ukraine that would be feasible solutions?
E.g. would it be Germany giving Taurus missiles, the U.K. upping defence to 3% of GDP & sending more financial/military aid to Ukraine?
Or is there simply no replacement at all to US aid (especially military aid)?
Will European countries individually or in concert step up to give Ukraine sufficient supplies and equipment to continue the fight against Russia.
Impossible question I know, but do you think the Starmer govt will get its act together and achieve at least some of the five objectives? I am a Lib Dem but wanted desperately for Starmer to succeed but have been pretty quickly disillusioned as they were much less ready for office than they claimed/
I’ve heard two main arguments for why Trump may not be as bad for Ukraine as predicted:
1) Trump is “unpredictable”, therefore, Putin is likely to be wary of him
2) “Facts are stubborn things” i.e. whatever Trump said about Ukraine during the campaign will be tempered by reality
Personally, I’m not convinced by either, however, I would be grateful for Lawrence’s assessment of how much merit there is in each argument and whether both/either will adequately compensate for Trump’s many failings i.e. trash talking alliances, admiration for Putin etc?
For the Q&A:
To Sir Lawrence:
1. There is a narrative that if Trump were in the White House, Putin would not dare to attack Ukraine. Whats your opinion? And more generally, is there really some aspects of Trump’s behaviour that some dictators might feel more restraint?
By the same token, how do you think the 6/1/21 events affected Putin’s calculus (as he & XJP like to perceive USA as an empire on decline)
2. More general - how do you think military exercises of USA and allies have affected the deterrence from all sides since the end of WWII? Do the Chinese see it same way as russian do?
For Sam:
1. Is Kemi Badenoch likely to expand the tory base (at expense of RFM lets say)? Why didnt she appoint Cleverly or Tugendhat into the Shadow Cabinet?
2. What is the chance that Reform will take over the tories as the dominant party? Can we hope for “Farage factor” will blow the party up?
3. Regardless of US citizens, Trump & Vance seem to hold very anti-consesus on global and foreign policy issues. They might not like it (spoke to many of them past three weeks in US) but they voted for them anyway.
Again, what about Reform? There are some members (the one who sugested UK shld stay neutral during WWII, Farage’s pro-Putin comments) Is this bug or feature of the party? If there is a huge chunk of Tory voters who could vote for them - would it be a crucial issue to them? In other words, is there a strong “robust nat-sac policy” constituency that might affect their manifesto? Or is it goin to be - “They are now only alternative against Labour, so I am voting for them”?