I mean his deal fell through and ROK citizens blame him for the failed negotiations.
What, you expect them to blame themselves?
The deal was always going to fall through. There was no way that North Korea was actually going to give up those nuclear weapons. What Trump did do however, was convince the North Koreans to cease testing on ballistic missile technology. Because the greater threat wasn't that North Korea would nuke South Korea or Japan, it was that they'd be able to target the US mainland. Trump has done this before, supplementing the term "nuclear weapon" when he's more worried about the ballistic missiles. He did the same with Iran. He wasn't worried about them developing the nuke, he was worried about them developing their ballistic missile technology/inventory. Because those ballistic missiles were/are going to be used against any opponent Iran targets, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The second thing that Trump accomplished, was softening relations between North Korea and South Korea, as well as the USA. North Korea has always feared that we would go in and replace their regime. Trump made it clear that the US could and would match North Korea on any military escalation, up to and including nuclear weapons. Since the primary purpose of those nukes were to both protect North Korea and Kim himself (it was part of a domestic gambit--it just attracted Trump's attention in the way that it didn't Obama's), it would defeat the purpose to escalate the conflict so high that North Korea is strangled by an American encirclement or destroyed by the USA launching hundreds of nuclear missiles because North Korea fired a standard missile at South Korea.
If Poland is attacked we will stay there and fight until Poland is safe, especially if soldiers stationed there are killed in the initial attack.
Yes, if US troops stationed there are killed, the US can't back down. Which is why Russia will avoid striking US positions at all costs. The US President in the future will then slowly withdraw American troops, to avoid a war that he fears will get him kicked out of office. And the Russians, knowing the US is there, will wait for an excuse to invade. Russian minorities in danger or civil unrest. All Russia needs is a pretense and all the US needs is a pretense and a clear highway.
Poland is more of a bluff. That's not to say it isn't a good bluff; Russia can't win a war against a major power at this point. So what Russia is doing is following the path of least resistance. If it can convince states like Ukraine to essentially be its strategic and economic partners, that's good enough for Moscow. If they have to wait until a crises to install a puppet government or take charge, then they will do that too. So bluffing Russia with a US supported Poland acting as a buffer state between Germany and Russia is not a bad play.
All I'm saying is that it is a bluff.
We are also opening the world up to World War 3: Europe does jack and shit.
If there is a World War III, Europe will be the cause. Both world wars were started by Europeans fighting Europeans. Russia always became involved, because of the European plain, but the wars always originate within Europe itself. The First World War happened because the Austria-Hungary Empire declared war on Serbia over an assassination. And because of the network of alliances that had been formed before the incident to create a balance of power between the European states, all the major powers (including Russia) were drawn into the conflict. And of course, the Second World War was caused by the Germans going batshit.
All of those conflicts however, have a common central issue; the Germans. Germany was once a border region composed of various small states that competed with each other. It helped to separate Russia from Europe. After Napoleon ran through the region however, the German states stitched themselves together and unified under a single state. What was once various small states suddenly became a state whose size rivaled that of France, but whose geography was far more efficient and whose people were far more competitive. The result was a regional hegemony that challenged France. And worse, thanks to the European plain, had a direct highway to France.
Europe never found a solution to balancing the industrial and economic might of Germany with the other powers. That's impart why the French pushed for the EU and German membership. Because they'd hope to pull Germany into a subordinate role and harness their economic and industrial power for France's own personal benefit. And that worked because Germany had been split between the US and the Soviets during the Cold War. But after reunification of Germany in 1990, the German economy and industrial might began to grow so large that France couldn't control it and now they're the junior partner at the head of the EU.
The same problem has arrived on the world stage again, right under our noses. Germany's industrial and economic power has spread itself throughout all of Europe. South Europe is impart so impoverished because Germany out competes them on efficiency and because they share a monetary value, they can't hope to compete on price point. Germany is skittish of military power because of its past and its current position; without firing a single shot, they accomplish the geo-economic goal that they'd been hoping for, for well over a century. And that has turned a lot of countries within the EU against the Germans. And when the US leaves Europe, there will be no one left to promise either side that they won't be invaded.
Though I do get your last point, I was born in 1999. I don't remember 9/11, neither do people younger then me.
Well, that would make you Gen Z (Zoomer) then, not Gen Y (Millennials). And even while you don't remember 9/11, you grew up with what followed; war in the Middle East. Unpopular wars where Americans began to feel like imperial masters, not the heralds of freedom. All while our economy staggers under the weight of supporting rival economies. You yourself may not have an issue with it, but this is a cultural issue that you have grown up in. And while Gen Z is mostly disengaged with politics (save for liberals and commies), the general discussion of the US between the Millennial and Boomer generations suggests that Gen Z is not going to be all that excited in oversea wars.
They are fairly up there in military.
I also did not know this about Russia, that is valuable information.
They are among the best, but that requires a lot of support. If Russia had the means of sustaining its demographics, this probably wouldn't be an issue. It may not become an issue, because advancing technology has favored smaller numbers, but more expensive hardware. So Russia could still potentially hold off smaller attackers. So long as they aren't supported by strong allies such as Turkey, France, or Germany.
On the other hand, we've seen what happened in the Middle East when the US tried to shape a battle without boots on the ground; you either need a proficient proxy to do the battles for you or you manage only to blunt the enemy force. Infantry is by far, one of the most important aspects of warfare, even in the modern era.
This is why they should ally with the Damn US. We will prevent them from being invaded! We will also have an ally against CHina. That is the two biggest reason.
But they don't trust us. We've had about 70 years of geo-strategic competition between our countries. That won't just evaporate in four years. You also have to keep in mind that even if Trump and Putin get along well, the media and opposing Democrats will attack Putin and Russia as a means of going after Trump. The US media demonized Russia the past four years, asserting they rigged our election and that Trump is their puppet. And that media is strongly connected to the current Democratic party. And if the Democrats win, you can bet that they will take an aggressive stance against Russia, if only to help cover for their own incompetence.
And more importantly, they can't believe our promise to protect them. Because we are pulling out of the Free Trade game. And that means there will be a power vacuum and that means Russia has to deal with not just America being there now, but what happens when America is gone or unwilling to fully engage. Our promise to Europe won't hold, why would it hold for Russia?
This is perhaps why the US sees them has the major threat they are still because they are unstable
Wish that were the case, but it isn't.
Remember, the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs have ran DC for ~70 years. The idea of containing Russia and its influence is that old. Those are the policies that they grew up with, supported, paid for, and sent young men to die for. Some even fought in the wars to contain Russia, losing limbs and/or friends in the process. Just as you are certain that we would never abandon the Polls, so are they certain that they will never abandon the sacrifices of the people who died for this cause,
military and civilian. People like Joe Biden and John McCain? Grew up during the Vietnam War. They are very much aware of what the US did to try and stop the Russians, as well as maintain world order.
The globalists are not interested in protecting Russia. Because Russia has been their nemesis for the better part of a century. And they most certainly won't do so now, because Russia dared to upend the world order. Syria would not have required US forces to go in had Russia not intervened to make the disaster worse (which they did intentionally). Nor would Iran be as much a thorn in the side of the US were it not for Russia constantly supporting them. Nor would China be so able to challenge the US Navy were it not for the Russians supplying them with advanced weapons platforms. Nor would they look so foolish after having supported Ukraine's move towards the West, had Russia simply accepted that they would never have a warm water port ever again.
The globalists will at best, allow Russia to wither from the inside and more than likely, will find excuses to intervene and take away what little remains to the Russian people.
Trump and nationalists do not view Russia as a threat. Or even as economic competition. So Trump and nationalists are willing to make a deal with Russia, so America can take its troops and go home. That would create a power vacuum that in turn might threaten Russia itself, but it's a much better option than the globalists who will strangle Russia for daring to defy them.
That makes sense, but should a war breakout between US and China, who has signed a pact with both Pakistan and Iran, would be a bone in the side of Russia that way, and India, the other major threat to china to the south. Either wy Russia is going to be dragged into said war
Why?
Think about this for a moment. Pakistan and Iran are junior partners in any sort of alliance with China. Certainly they might send a symbolic force to show solidarity, but China has all the manpower it could ask for, it has superior technology than its allies, and it has them in far greater numbers. For heaven's sake, China is boasting proto-Gen 5 aircraft while Iran is flying around a drone, pretending it's a Gen 5 aircraft, while it's actual aircraft is primarily composed of F-4s and F-14s. Of which, they're running out of because said fighters keep taking swan dives into the local geography due to US sanctions.
All Pakistan and Iran can do is promise to supply China with oil and markets. Oil is easy, so long as the US allows them to ship through the seas. Which it won't. They can go for a land route, but the US can still take out their oil facilities. Something Iran is particularly exposed to. Either way, Russia doesn't have a dog in the fight. Russia will do everything short of actually helping. They'll send some gas (at various price points, depending on Russian needs), they'll sell them weapons, they'll send military advisors (with intentionally dubious advice at times), they'll send in some engineers and special forces (but rarely if ever put them in harm's way), they'll protest and denounce the US (but not too loudly), and Putin will probably not poison their tea when they come over to talk politics.
What Russia won't do is actually help them. And if you doubt me, you can look to Syria. The Syrian regime is by far, one of Russia's strongest and longest standing allies. When they were facing a civil war, the Russians came and helped. And by helped, I mean they shifted the war from a mostly entrenched one,
to a mobile one. That leveled the playing field for the rebel fighters and the ISIS cells. And the Russians did so intentionally. Why? Why do that to a long time ally?
Because of one major demographic; the Kurds. The Kurds are spread throughout several Middle-Eastern countries. Including Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. And those three are key. The US would arm the Kurds in hopes of breaking the Syrian regime and kicking Russia out of the region entirely. Except by arming the Kurds in Syria, the US was also in effect arming the Kurd terrorists in Turkey--a long-standing NATO ally. And by encouraging the formation of a Kurd nation just south of the Turkey border, the US was in effect, allowing an unacceptable threat to Turkish security to form. Not just allowing, but encouraging.
Sacrificing Syria's own security allowed the Russians to turn the Turks against the Americans and distracting them from Russia's more distant moves in the north. Look at the result of this policy, even after Trump took over; the Turks are out of the F-35 program and have purchased S-400 pieces. Russia is helping to transform Turkey into an energy hub. If Clinton had been put into office and she had gotten her way with supporting the Kurds,
Turkey might have come in firing at American soldiers.
Russia will not help the Chinese, Russia will exploit the Chinese for their own benefit. They'll shift the war to be as destructive and as distracting to both the US and Chinese as they possibly can, without getting their own hands dirty. And while the US and China are locked in war, Russia will move against Eastern Europe.