trump: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
le pen: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
brexit: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
now, who benefits?
who benefits from a weakened europe.
If the US and France are going to meddle in Russia's elections and affairs, what is the big surprise if Russia does the same?
Insofar as who benefits from "isolationism" and breaking up western [military] alliances, the answer is me, an American worker and taxpayer. I gain nothing with my tax money going to kill or rape some Vietnamese farmer, or overthrow an elected government in Ukraine.
Trump has a lot of negatives, but that does not apply to whatever notions he has of not getting the US involved overseas militarily more than he already as.
Then why does Voice of America have a Russian language TV and radio broadcast? All it does is spread disinformation about Russia.
There's no proof Russia hacked into these computers. The US hacks into foreign computers all the time - the US created Stuxnet, perhaps with the Israelis. Thomas Reed from the NSC said the CIA got software into a Russian pipeline (in the 1980s!) that blew it up. Never mind spying, they bragged about explosions that disrupted oil pipelines in the 1980s and could have killed people.
I think most people on this board are under the age of 50, and an international audience, and the "wild allegations" are not what I said, but that this is all "standard Russian propaganda". The Democrats have more-or-less been saying that Trump and his cabinet are all Russian agents, and it's making the Democrats look a little loony. They'd be better off pointing out Trump's errors, which are often bad enough.
NED is maybe working in a gray zone, but using illegal means to influence an election is, if not an act of war pretty close to it.
mid-July 2016, post BrExit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/reveng...
The elites were ignoring their own voters and listened only to those with money (Wall Street, tech leadership) who wanted cheaper labor through global labor arbitrage (eg, through exporting work to lower wage countries, illegal alien reform making 11 million illegal low-wage residents legal, increasing the number of H1-B Visas).
Trump spent almost half the money as Clinton and he did not take money from tech elite (except Peter Thiel) or from Wall Street elite. The remaining Dems except Sanders and all other Republicans sold out which is exactly what Trump was claiming.
Instead of addressing the global arbitrage problems caused by global trade, the elites resort to ad hominem of Trump voters as Hilary Clinton said, "a basketful of deplorables."
In France, there are similar issues which is why Le Pen is doing so well. The French elites are ignoring the harms of global labor arbitrage from globalization to normal non-elite people.
I don't support Europe's socialist ideals.
Edit: awww, downvote. One less fake internet point :(
There's shades of a tech anology: remember teh 1990s when Microsoft was the big bad monopoly, and it crushed competitors such as democratic Linux, and also... Apple, who would have been the same monopoly or worse, if only they hadn't lost to Microsoft
Trump campaigned on slogans like "We don't win anymore". I think he's trying to choose and court a winning team (Britain, China, etc.). Once the gang is together they'll go raid the world economically. So in my opinion not isolationist, but I could be all wrong.
edit: Since it'll probably come up...I don't support this plan.
That's a BIG if. It's also not likely, and without it the answer is a resounding "no".
The collapse of the EU will firstly send the world into a recession which given how perilous some countries economies are could take decades to get out of. And given that France IS Europe they would be affected the most. They depend on free trade within the EU and the Schengen has done wonders for their economy. Britain would be ruined given how important EU is to them. US would probably suffer the least but still they depend on NATO as a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Also not sure what on earth "winning team" means. There are no simplistic winners or losers. Some countries have advantages in some areas, disadvantages in others. But everyone depends on global stability, free trade and efficient movement of human capital.
'Also not sure what on earth "winning team" means.'
Economic aggressor would be another way of putting it. For instance, threatening Canada & Mexico for concessions to NATO that benefit the US. Pulling out of the TPP in order to negotiate 1-1 deals.
'Some countries have advantages in some areas, disadvantages in others. But everyone depends on global stability, free trade and efficient movement of human capital.'
Do we really have those things now? I see a Europe dominated by German interests, treating Greece and others as vassal states. US/CA colonialism over an entire continent. Russia desperately trying rebuild their sphere, and every other regional power exploiting what they can.
Perhaps I just have a grim view of the world.
So maybe will be a win for usa-china, not for france/uk (as history teaches, also the winner get BIG losses from wars)
Europe has always been a mess continent(and pretty much very poor) until after ww2, where we've started to create a european project(that benefits everyone).
The 18th, 19th and early 20th century might want to have a word with you.
That gives foreign intelligence agencies license to interfere in your country and others, for they rarely leave proof, if they are any good, and much evidence is classified. Shall we just give them free reign? Is the Russian FSB innocent until proven guilty?
Oh really. Feel free to substantiate your claims.
Weaker Europe means less money for business subsidies e.g. agriculture, less travel and tourism, less household income to spend on consumables, less trade.
And how exactly does a weaker Euro benefit those countries ?
Also weaker EU does not mean collapse of EU, so tourism would be the same, as would be trade.
I am not necessarily an advocate of this solution, however, just pointing out that the current status of EU is not the best possible world for each one of its 27 members States.
Other say that that in the end it's always a zero sum game, as you do.
However, in the latter case, given that participation to the EU is on a voluntary basis, more and more countries may decide to exit.