Can Trump be stopped, or are international rules basically optional now?

[Anytimeilookaround]

I’m genuinely asking this rather than trying to start a rant. Can Trump actually be stopped by anyone?

The UN condemning things with words feels meaningless when there is no action behind it. We are watching a US president openly dismiss international law, threaten other countries, and act as if there are no consequences, and so far there do not seem to be any.

I know people will say powerful states have always broken the rules, but what feels different now is the lack of discipline or even pretence. There is no attempt to operate within the system anymore, just an open rejection of it.

This is where Gaza keeps coming to mind for me. Not because war itself is new, but because what happened there showed how far things can go with no intervention beyond statements of concern. It felt like Gaza became the resting point of what the world will tolerate when a powerful ally is involved. Once that line is established, it does not stay contained.

If international law is optional, the UN toothless, and alliances unwilling to check their own members, then are we actually living in a rules based order at all? Or just a power based one that we have not admitted yet?

I am open to being told I am wrong, but I would genuinely like to understand what, if anything, actually constrains a US president now.

I don’t disagree that people have allowed these mafiosi states to quietly amass power (and Britain has played a crucial role here by allowing them to finance themselves in our markets). But uou analysis assumes there is “method in the madness”.

I don’t see any method, just raw power without any real strategy or restraint. Like boys sizing up their chances of hurting the boy from the rival gang. Trump is driven by narcissism and grievance. This is the politics we are dealing with at the moment.

@BalladOfBarryAndFreda “He knows he and his cronies have got away with it.” Exactly - Trump or Putin, or any tyrant, it’s the cronies - the enablers that are not sufficiently referred to. They are the real tyrants.

I think the world is at a very scary juncture... What happened in Minnesota this week showed that the administration can push one narrative while we can SEE another narrative with our own eyes. May Renee Good RIP.

ICE agents receive very little training, are masked with no identity. They don't require warrants of any sort. There is no due process - they can literally disappear people from the streets.

I was watching the news last night and the population of Greenland is only 57, OOO. That is like a big town. Trump is saying that he is going to take it and he doesn't care what anybody thinks - he is an absolute bully...a disgusting dictator. And he truly doesn't care what anybody thinks. If I live to be a thousand I will never understand how people are STILL supporting him.

And I don't think he can be stopped - I agree that he is creating chaos so that the mid terms will be cancelled. I wonder if he will refuse to give up power in 2028. I don't think there are checks and balances in place at all.

Perhaps it’s to do with oil but the drugs flowing freely into the US create a huge problem with crime and disorder too. I’m sure oil is a motivator though but these decisions are rarely about just one thing.

Perhaps you’re right. But world leaders are happy to allow him to continue because whether it’s fuelled by narcissism or not, it’s still dealing with a problem that has needed to be addressed for a very long time.

The drum banging from Trump about how china or Russia are about to invade Greenland is rubbish. Neither I don’t think would be daft enough to go against a country which is part of nato. All the USA needs to say if they really think it’s a possibility is that nato would defend Greenland.

he is absolutely making it up to justify his actions to voters. He knows it’s not true

For me, it highlights the weak leadership in Europe and the UN.

So if it’s about drugs why isn’t he invading Columbia where more drugs come from than Venezuela? Or Mexico which is the biggest problem? I know he’s muttering about Mexico now and possibly sending troops in.

If international law is optional, the UN toothless, and alliances unwilling to check their own members, then are we actually living in a rules based order at all?

The un has always been toothless, just like the league of nations before it. The world order is decided by the world powers and ultimately who has the military capability.

They could well be next. Who knows! I watch it all with interest and I try to dig into any rationale which might exist. I think broadly (as I said before) world leaders are quiet because he is addressing issues that have needed to be addressed for a very long time. His motivation might be oil, narcissism, world domination or perhaps none of those, but he is still doing something no one else has dared to do.

I think the “rules based order” was always a bit of a fig leaf. US economic and military power has always been the ultimate backstop.

But previous US administrations did understand the importance of preserving the equilibrium between the two superpowers and their respective power blocs and not needlessly overstepping boundaries.

That seems to have completely disappeared.

In theory the American people can apply a brake if the democrats take control of the House of Representatives, but as we are increasingly seeing, Trump has no respect for his own people either so unsure if it would actually stop him

The only thing is time. Hopefully he gets annihilated in the mid terms and then he is a lame duck for the remainder of his term

International Law has always been optional. The Labour invasion of Iraq comes to mind....

America does bad things “because China is bad”. And they say exactly the same thing (just reversed) in China, and with equal justification.

I’ve always maintained that, despite the decades of threats, China is still decades away from seriously considering taking Taiwan by force. As the short/medium term hit to their interests (particularly economic) of an invasion would be so huge that it wouldn’t adequately compensate the long term economic/security benefit. But with Trump being such a monumental dick it’s almost like he’s goading Xi (who like Trump isn’t the sharpest tool in the box) into being the big man and “making a legacy for himself”.

Dared to do? What issues needed addressing with bullying and abuse of power? Ah.. Trump is behaving like a despot. We've had a fair few of those in the world, it doesn't end well, especially for us normal innocent people.

The fentanyl drugs - the excuse to raid Venezuela was bull as it comes mainly from Mexico. Trump can't even get that right. There's no rational excuse as to what he is doing. This is about oil, he openly admits it. It will be the same reason behind Greenland, a country with masses of natural treasures to raid, not about national security.

We rely on America to step in if anyone does anything too much against our interests and to enforce the international rules when it suits us. This has enabled us to spend money on nice things like welfare and the NHS, instead of defence, while tutting and looking down on the USA. We can't go against America now (especially with Russia doing what it is doing) because we are too weak and so far the US hasn't done anything to harm us.

Firstly, international law is about much more than the UN, and given the Security Council veto, the UN will never be effective when the US or Russia is the problem.
Secondly, breaking international law isn’t something where some international law police are called as it’s happening. It’s a matter for trials that happen much later.
What needs to happen is for other countries to take action, but as those governments decide to take action, they have to retain the support of their electorate, which is very complicated. So action tends to wait until the situation is very acute.

The drum banging from Trump about how china or Russia are about to invade Greenland is rubbish.

They might not be planning to do it this week, but they unquestionably both have their eyes on it. Russia sees control of that area as vital to its security, China is particularly interested in controlling the trade routes around it. They've made no secret of this.

All the USA needs to say if they really think it’s a possibility is that nato would defend Greenland.

Greenland is a member of NATO through Denmark - the USA don't need to say anything. If NATO doesn't defend Greenland from a forceful takeover (from China, Russia or the US) it will at the least fracture, and could potentially crumble completely.

he is absolutely making it up to justify his actions to voters. He knows it’s not true

Trump might be a clown, but he hasn't just woken up one morning and threatened to annex a random country for no reason.

The US's interest in acquiring Greenland goes back a long, long way. Their last attempt to purchase it was in the 1940s! They signed military agreements in the 50s to establish bases there, which were vital in the Cold War.

Trump only knows what he's told, and his military have been telling him for years that A) Greenland is a vital acquisition for national security, B) Russia/China will eventually make a move on it and C) That acquiring it by force is extremely achievable if diplomacy fails.

The Rest Is Classified podcast did 2 episodes called Why Trump Wants Greenland about 10 months ago. Episodes 22 and 23. They're well worth listening to for background on what is happening now.

It will be the same reason behind Greenland, a country with masses of natural treasures to raid, not about national security.

It's never just one thing.

Ironically, melting ice due to global warming does mean that Greenland's untapped natural resources (particularly rare metals) are going to become more accessible in the future.

However, it's geography and lack of infrastructure means that it isn't going to turn into a proverbial pot of gold overnight.

Acquiring Greenland is also about control of key shipping routes.

And it is - like it or not - about national security. It's played an important role in US national security since pre-cold war.

International rules have never really been a thing, what keeps the international balance of power in order is the powers themselves. We've had a generation, two I suppose of stability, but the nature of the order has been changing for decades now, so there will be major realignments and activity in the coming years.

As far as the US, there is also power realignment going on, particularly around the balance of powers and how that works. And that's in part because it was not working very well in many cases, Trumps administration has been challenging some of those conventions, and I think some of those challenges will be successful and lead to new norms, but others likely will not be. Hopefully it will settle out into a more effective form.

Europe and their colonial nations have had their heads in the sand about this, which tbh makes me angry a lot more than Trump does. Despite the advice of experts for years they've chosen to remove themselves from the playing field in terms of being world powers, we have preferred to spend our money on social welfare without the economic productivity to sustain it, and create cultures of entitlement with poorly resourced and ineffective militaries. And laughed at the Americans and felt superior while doing it.

I wonder if Trump would be doing any of this imperialist shit if the Epstein files weren’t such a hot potato.

Greenland isn't nearly as much of a weird thing as people think. All the countries with land in the north are putting huge amounts of money now into northern defence and exploration.

I think people have been too influence by idiots like Trevor Noah laughing about why would anyone want Greenland, har de har. The assumption that the Trump administration just does things because they are dumb is about playing to the viewers vanity and feelings of sophistication. But it stops them from seeing the real strategies and ideas they are persuing.

There seems to be this idea people have that if they can see the reasons, it means they think it is a good thing to do. That's not the case, but it does mean the possibility of seeing something that seems questionably moral is in fact politically pragmatic. And I think a lot of people are really uncomfortable with the idea that what fits their standards for moral behaviour is not always in line with political pragmatism. But that's reality.