Not the entire world, not by a long shot. Realistically the entire third world would have absolutely no problem trading with Trump’s America, at least not any more than with business as usual America. Then you have Europe which is ran by pussies who would never go to war unless European mainland territory (i.e. not Greenland) is threatened, which would never happen, and Japan and South Korea are right out. This leaves the only realistic belligerents as Canada and/or Mexico if they’re invaded, Venezuela and/or Iran if Trump picks a fight with them and China if and when they decide to take Taiwan. And of course throughout all this Russia would support America, providing easy access to resources and shipping. Point being: Even in a WWIII-ish scenario America will have plenty of people willing to give it resources for the war machine; the “against the entire world” thing is very eurocentric and unduly optimistic. Now that I’m typing this out, I’d honestly bet on America in WWIII.
PS: Europe has plenty of fascists who would trade with America in such a scenario.
This is the case now, but in case of a global-scale war Europe will absolutely be involved in opposition to America, even if as I said they’re likely to not send troops. Therefore, supporting America would be helping one geopolitical semi-rival* wear down more dedicated geopolitical rivals while pulling the semi-rival to their side, overall strengthening Russia’s geopolitical position. Also in the case of war (unless it’s a classic Europe + US against China scenario, but that’s looking less likely now) US-Europe relations would necessarily deteriorate, lessening the incentive for America to stand with Europe against Russia. It’s not like Russia and America are directly competing for anything important now that Syria is mostly settled; Russia’s ambitions are mostly a threat to Europe, not America, so if and only if the US-Europe alliance breaks down better relationships with Russia would start making sense. Yes it’d be bad for billionaires, but that’s the thing about fascism: The fascist dictator can do whatever the hell he wants and shoot anyone who disagrees. Capitalists tend to (not unjustifiably) count on the dictator to be a benevolent (to them) dictator, but there’s no mechanism guaranteeing that benevolence.
*I say semi-rival because, even though Trump is opposing Russia, he’s not nearly as dedicated as precedent would suggest, so the rivalry is cooling down.
Yeah, I don’t know how well their supply lines would cope against basically the entire world. But it’s still scary.
Not the entire world, not by a long shot. Realistically the entire third world would have absolutely no problem trading with Trump’s America, at least not any more than with business as usual America. Then you have Europe which is ran by pussies who would never go to war unless European mainland territory (i.e. not Greenland) is threatened, which would never happen, and Japan and South Korea are right out. This leaves the only realistic belligerents as Canada and/or Mexico if they’re invaded, Venezuela and/or Iran if Trump picks a fight with them and China if and when they decide to take Taiwan. And of course throughout all this Russia would support America, providing easy access to resources and shipping. Point being: Even in a WWIII-ish scenario America will have plenty of people willing to give it resources for the war machine; the “against the entire world” thing is very eurocentric and unduly optimistic. Now that I’m typing this out, I’d honestly bet on America in WWIII.
PS: Europe has plenty of fascists who would trade with America in such a scenario.
Why? Trump is not a Russian puppet but does what US billionaires want. Syria. Ukraine, the US is opposing Russia.
This is the case now, but in case of a global-scale war Europe will absolutely be involved in opposition to America, even if as I said they’re likely to not send troops. Therefore, supporting America would be helping one geopolitical semi-rival* wear down more dedicated geopolitical rivals while pulling the semi-rival to their side, overall strengthening Russia’s geopolitical position. Also in the case of war (unless it’s a classic Europe + US against China scenario, but that’s looking less likely now) US-Europe relations would necessarily deteriorate, lessening the incentive for America to stand with Europe against Russia. It’s not like Russia and America are directly competing for anything important now that Syria is mostly settled; Russia’s ambitions are mostly a threat to Europe, not America, so if and only if the US-Europe alliance breaks down better relationships with Russia would start making sense. Yes it’d be bad for billionaires, but that’s the thing about fascism: The fascist dictator can do whatever the hell he wants and shoot anyone who disagrees. Capitalists tend to (not unjustifiably) count on the dictator to be a benevolent (to them) dictator, but there’s no mechanism guaranteeing that benevolence.
*I say semi-rival because, even though Trump is opposing Russia, he’s not nearly as dedicated as precedent would suggest, so the rivalry is cooling down.
The US have financed the NGOs in Ukraine.
Russia is the biggest obstacle against containing China.