[petejh]

Yeah, far too long. It really isn't worth 2+ hrs of your time unless you have a masochistic desire to seek out being offended by opinions you find disagreeable . I had it on in the background while doing more interesting stuff like filling the dishwasher.

I’m not smart enough to know how much the Trump Abraham Accords (lauded by the guest) increased the likelihood of a Palestinian attack on Israel but I’ve read commentary in that direction.

I'm not either, but from what I know about the 'normalisation process' (of relations between the arab states and Israel, aka the abraham accords), it is seen by those in power in the west, Israel and the arab states who signed up as a 'generally' (much nuance behind that word) positive process compared to the prior sate of affairs. But by a majority of citizens of those arab states as a negative process. And seen by Iran as extremely threatening to its influence in the region.

The tipping point for Iran and its militias Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon supposedly being Saudi Arabia about to join the other accord signatories (Morocco, Bahrain, UAE, Sudan) who'd already normalised diplomatic relations with Israel since the start of the accords process.

I'm not sure that 'increasing the likelihood of the psychopathic repressive malignant theocracy neighbour and its puppet militias who don't recognise your right to existence and are overt about their intent on your total destruction because you believe in the wrong god' is valid justification to not work to normalise diplomatic relations with all the other arab countries around you who aren't completely fucking lunatic and intent on wiping your state off the map... To suggest so would be along the line of a geopolitical version of suggesting not going out dressed like that because if you do you'll be at fault for getting raped.

[stone]

My very tentative impression of Trump's general approach to foreign policy (and what the podcast perhaps approved of)  is that Trump tries to foresee the eventual endpoints of current conflicts and then short-circuit to such endpoints by diplomatic means.

The case could be made that such an approach might avoid protracted wars, that anyway would get to the same point. If so, then that approach might avoid the horrors of war whilst not actually being any more unjust than getting to the same eventual settlement after war.

I suppose my (everyones?) difficulty with that is that perhaps the outcome of such conflicts isn't such a certainty. Also it totally rewards mighty agressors and so could even prompt more such aggression.

Perhaps I'm (inadvertently) mischaracterising Trump and/or the podcasters.

PS: my excuse for listening through the whole thing is that I had several thousand fish embryos to sort through yesterday. I also listened through a BBC_R1 Essential Mix whilst still doing that

[teestub]

This sounds like a fucking terrible foreign policy approach.

[remus]

Perhaps I'm (inadvertently) mischaracterising Trump and/or the podcasters.

I think you're being far too generous. I suspect his actual approach is roughly:

1. What's going to make me look best?

In the case of Ukraine, that means pulling all US military support, getting to say "Im great, I sorted out that whole Russia/Ukraine business" and then by the time he's out and Russia is fucking large areas of Europe and torpedoing huge quantities of trade from the EU then someone else is in and he will blame it on them.

[Wellsy]

My very tentative impression of Trump's general approach to foreign policy (and what the podcast perhaps approved of)  is that Trump tries to foresee the eventual endpoints of current conflicts and then short-circuit to such endpoints by diplomatic means.

The case could be made that such an approach might avoid protracted wars, that anyway would get to the same point. If so, then that approach might avoid the horrors of war whilst not actually being any more unjust than getting to the same eventual settlement after war.

I suppose my (everyones?) difficulty with that is that perhaps the outcome of such conflicts isn't such a certainty. Also it totally rewards mighty agressors and so could even prompt more such aggression.

Perhaps I'm (inadvertently) mischaracterising Trump and/or the podcasters.

PS: my excuse for listening through the whole thing is that I had several thousand fish embryos to sort through yesterday. I also listened through a BBC_R1 Essential Mix whilst still doing that

Trump doesn't have a consistent approach to foreign policy outside of admiring authoritarian "hard men" and despising soft power basically on his stupid macho instincts

He's a fucking idiot. He hasn't a clue. Honestly I'm astonished you'd credit him with more than just a simple instinctive response, and then just essentially saying yeah whatever to the advice of his foreign policy apparatus.

[stone]

I was much more trying to gather my perception of the podcaster's perception of Trump's approach.

That's pretty far removed from me expressing a view about whether Trump may act like that as a result of being an idiot poseur, or because he's some kind of genius strategist.

My impression was that the podcasters thought he was neither. Rather that Trump approached foreign policy like a business situation where you have to be ruthlessly pragmatic; quickly assess how things actually are and swiftly make the best of the hand dealt.

In terms of demonstrating business accumen, I suppose Trump has largely just carried forward the wealth he inherited. But he hasn't lost it all (quite yet) 

[teestub]

Do you share any of these views on Trump Stone, or are you just trying to make a case from Kaizen’s very poorly informed point of view? It’s hard to tell from your posts.

Oh another thing is that both Steven and Kaizen recommend using Chat GPT to fact check things several times, obviously this is terrible advice and maybe goes some way to explaining how they ended up where they are!

[stone]

Do you share any of these views on Trump Stone, or are you just trying to make a case from Kaizen’s very poorly informed point of view? It’s hard to tell from your posts.

If I was American, I'd campaign against Trump.

I largely agree with the point you made that forcing through a very unjust peace settlement might simply spark off a bitter flare up of violence. It does seem possible to me that the Trump Abraham Accords did that.

I share the podcasters' wish to avoid "forever wars". I also want a foreign policy that leaves foreign intervention (including 'meddling") as a last resort.

I accept that foreign policy if very hard to get right. I don't share the podcaster's view that Trump is good at it anymore than I share their view that he will solve the "western-lifestyle-junk-food' disease crisis. I share their consternation that on both subjects there seems complacency that "business as usual" is fine and dandy despite ongoing terrible outcomes.

[Will Hunt]

My very tentative impression of Trump's general approach to foreign policy (and what the podcast perhaps approved of)  is that Trump tries to foresee the eventual endpoints of current conflicts and then short-circuit to such endpoints by diplomatic means.

The case could be made that such an approach might avoid protracted wars, that anyway would get to the same point. If so, then that approach might avoid the horrors of war whilst not actually being any more unjust than getting to the same eventual settlement after war.

This is as naive as the idea that Trump's foreign policy is driven by a desire to avoid conflict. If a grievance is serious enough to result in a war where both sides will be able to inflict serious losses on the other, you cannot just shortcut to the conclusion. And not just because war has unpredictable outcomes and one side might fare better or worse than expected. The settlement happens when one side has decisively won or, more likely between modern military powers, the toll of the fight becomes so great that neither side can endure it any longer. It's the gruelling adversity of war, not just the small matter of the death, injury, and damage to infrastructure, but also the economic and political harm that forces the negotiation.

[stone]

Will your argument seems to be against any peacekeeping/reconciliation  effort ever.

People have the capacity to look ahead and consider "what ifs" and change their actions on that basis.

I'm not even sure that going through a war even necessarily gets people closer to making peace. Wars can go on and on for many decades or even centuries. Perhaps war is a default state for human conduct and it takes effort to ever get or stay out of it.

[jwi]

Between 1202 and 1815 France and various British states^* were at war 23 times, which is quite a lot, considering that one of the wars was called, in a rare example of a Franco-British litote, the hundread years war.


---
_{* To this outsider many of them appears to be French civil wars where some enterprising nobel raised an army on the archipelago}

[spidermonkey09]

Stone's argument essentially parses Corbyn's about wars, which is:

All wars end with a political solution. All wars end with dialogue. Why don’t we cut out the fighting zone and go straight into the talking zone?

Its just fundamentally far, far more complicated than that. Trump and Corbyn have in common the delusion that these things are simple, when in fact they are extremely complex. One can no sooner go straight to the talking/negotiation stage than one can say (crap and trite example) lets go straight to the running a marathon/climbing 8a without the training. The training informs the outcome of the hobby, and the progress of war informs the outcome of negotiations. To just skip straight to negotiation transparently rewards the aggressors.

There was quite a good Moral Maze on Russia/Ukraine in this context quire recently, although I think you do have to tolerate Tim Stanley on the panel.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vmcv

[Wellsy]

Will your argument seems to be against any peacekeeping/reconciliation  effort ever.

People have the capacity to look ahead and consider "what ifs" and change their actions on that basis.

I'm not even sure that going through a war even necessarily gets people closer to making peace. Wars can go on and on for many decades or even centuries. Perhaps war is a default state for human conduct and it takes effort to ever get or stay out of it.

Whereas you seem to think that if we don't get involved then everything will work out.

Look at Syria. Civil War. The powerful wealthy nations of the world wash their hands of it. The result? A decade of slaughter, misery, hundreds of thousands dead, culture destroyed, slavery, sexual violence, war crimes...

If you refuse to engage in things using armed intervention you share responsibility for what happens. And this is not a position on the spectrum, left vs right. You can have left and right wing intervention and isolation both.

And you also can't say well we forced a political settlement so yay no war. That rewards the aggressor who may walk away with an unjustly taken piece of the pie

Frankly, naive and dangerous sentiment. Some struggles have to be fought. Calls for "peace" in some places are absurd, where both sides actively want to fight. A political settlement right now freezing the lines in Ukraine and Gaza would be a victory for violent genocidaires

[Will Hunt]

Will your argument seems to be against any peacekeeping/reconciliation  effort ever.

What on earth gave you that impression? I can't even be bothered to reply.

[wasbeen]

This interview with the CEO of Ford was massively heartening to me. He seems to be the antithesis of Musk:

[lagerstarfish]

Soul Music on Radio 4 is always good, but this week seemed extra good.
Bill Withers' Lovely Day