according to an article published today in reuters, steven bannon, who some refer to as trump’s in-house neo-nazi , but whose official title is chief strategist (who is also–for some inexplicable reason a member of trump’s national security council), had a conversation with a german diplomat and the conversation was not all peaches and cream. bannon, who we will now refer to as clueless bannon doesn’t like the european union (aka the EU–which for you americans is not the same as europe, although it is in europe).
in fact, bannon could give a rat’s ass why it exists. because he and trump don’t like large international organizations. according to the article bannon could give a shit that the EU is a conduit for peace. that after centuries and centuries of war and more than 20 million deaths in world war 2, the european union (previously known as the common market as well as by other names) was established to tie germany (which started 2 world wars within the space of 20 years give or take a few) to its neighbor (as well as its neighbors to each other) in a complicated web of relationships so that the country would no longer do this.
there are some who might be confused as to why americans decided to hand their future to a man with a combover and a perm-a-tan–who is like the landlord who refuses to repair or paint your rent controlled apartment. in 2016 the new york times ran a fascinating article about how trump’s world view is ruled by mercantilism. on the one hand trump might think a divided europe would be great for the US as he could make deals with 27 countries instead 1 large trading group. but how would this benefit american companies? it would actually cost american companies more money as they would have to have individual specialists in business affairs to devine the trade and tax policies of each individual country. and whenever one would try to export physical products or services across 27 different boarders one would have to continuously sort out the rules. the bureacracy would cost american businesses billions per year. but if trump is interested in providing more service jobs in the US, then that could be a good strategy. but at the same time, in the end, it might just also be a company killer as well.
anyway. we are of the opinion that donald trump cannot drive a wedge between the european union. george w. bush and his adventures in iraq tried a divide and conquer method by luring parts of scandinavia and eastern europe (which donald rumsfeld, his secretary of defense labeled new europe) into the quagmire that is the second iraq war. nigel farage tried this twice last year with brexit (which is not going very well) and by touting an austrian exit prior to austria’s presidential election last year which many in the EU believe drove the austrians safely into the hands of the pro-EU green candidate. yesterdy there was an article in the new york times (yes, we are mentioning that paper again) about how trump has been the best thing for strengthening the EU. as we know loads of northern europeans traditionally have adversely responded to chaos.