Deterring conflict over Taiwan

Dive into a thought-provoking discussion on the dramatic shift in U.S. national security strategy. Simone and Malcolm Collins break down the recent changes in American foreign policy, exploring how the U.S. is moving away from its traditional role as “world police” and adopting a more pragmatic, self-interested approach.

In this episode, you’ll learn:

What the new U.S. national security strategy means for America’s relationships with Europe, Russia, China, and other global players

Why the U.S. is prioritizing sovereignty, border security, and domestic interests over global intervention

How these changes impact alliances, migration, trade, and the future of international cooperation

The philosophical and cultural shifts driving this new era in American geopolitics

Whether you’re interested in politics, international relations, or just want to understand the forces shaping our world, this conversation offers clear insights and lively debate.

Simone outlined this episode, so links and basic points are below and you’ll find the episode transcript at the end. :)

Based Camp - A Shift in US National Security

The Gist

The days of Team America: World Police are over; we’ve gone from “America, F Yeah” to “America: Don’t look at me ask Qatar.”

In November, the Trump Administration released a new national security strategy that is… pretty based

* It reframes the EU from partner to “problem”

* It insists countries need to handle their own problems

* It makes redditors mad: When prompted to explain the new strategy release, they said things like:

* “the eu is in Putin’s way. The US is currently in the habit of agreeing with Putin on everything, word for word. Also, the leader of the US is making a lot of noise to distract from being the name mentioned the most on those ‘trump files from epstein’s pedophile island” that everyone that isn’t on the list wants released. This is a good distraction.”

* “The EU didn’t allow Trump’s shady real estate businesses. So there are no Trump Towers here. He is now making deals with Hungary and other right wing led countries to finally get a foot on EU soil. But as for business opportunities, he is rather friends with russians and arabs who flatter him as much as they can.”

* Quotes from the document:

* “Our elites badly miscalculated America’s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the Ameri\can people saw no connection to the national interest”

* “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over”

* “We will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine”

* “[Europe’s] economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure”

* “We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.”

* “[America’s goal is] cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”

THE US IS SHIFTING FROM HELICOPTOR PARENTING TO F AROUND AND FIND OUT PARENTING!! YES!!!!

But in all seriousness, we as citizens—and we’d argue that all people—should probably be aware of what this shift in strategy entails, so let’s get into it

What is Changing About US Strategy?

In what way does this strategy represent a shift from the United States’ national security strategy up to this point?

* Replaces global “rules‑based order” and democracy‑promotion language with a much narrower definition of U.S. interests focused on sovereignty, borders, and domestic strength rather than universal values.

* Elevates the Western Hemisphere to top priority, making migration, drugs/cartels, and China’s regional footprint the central threats, instead of putting great‑power competition with China/Russia and the Indo‑Pacific or Europe at the core.

* Treats mass migration itself as a primary national security threat and justifies using military force, including cross‑border strikes on cartels, as a routine tool of hemispheric enforcement—far beyond prior strategies’ law‑enforcement and humanitarian framing.

* Downshifts the Middle East from central theater to secondary concern, framing it mostly in terms of energy markets and transactional deals, in contrast to decades of “war on terror” and regime‑change or stabilization ambitions.

* Reorients alliances and Europe policy around burden‑sharing, trade balances, and “Western identity,” openly criticizing European migration and regulatory policies instead of emphasizing cohesive liberal institutions and shared democratic values.

* Places economic nationalism at the heart of security, prioritizing tariffs, re‑shoring, and industrial policy over support for multilateral trade regimes that earlier strategies still treated as broadly beneficial for U.S. power.

* De‑emphasizes international law and the “rules‑based international order,” signaling more transactional, case‑by‑case cooperation and fewer self‑imposed constraints on U.S. action than in Obama‑era and Biden‑era documents.

What is Shifting About the United States’ Relationship with the EU?

* Signals a much more adversarial and instrumental approach to the EU than previous U.S. documents.

* Shows less deference to EU institutions

* Puts more direct pressure on EU internal politics

* Sets stricter conditions on U.S. security guarantees.​

How it changes cooperation with the EU

* Frames the EU less as a core partner and more as a problem case, depicting it as economically stagnant and facing “civilizational” decline because of migration and regulation.​

* Calls for “cultivating resistance” to the EU’s current trajectory by encouraging and working with Eurosceptic or “patriotic” parties and governments inside member states, rather than primarily channeling relations through Brussels.​

* GREAT way to handle dealings with feckless and broken bureaucracies

* Links U.S. security commitments more tightly to European burden‑sharing, expecting Europe to assume “primary responsibility” for its own conventional defense while the U.S. acts mainly as a nuclear backstop and focuses elsewhere.​

Makes support more transactional: emphasizes trade concessions, action against China’s economic practices, and higher defense spending as conditions for close partnership, instead of assuming automatic solidarity based on shared liberal values.​

Signals reduced enthusiasm for NATO expansion and more skepticism about long‑term alignment with European states whose demographics and policies diverge from Washington’s preferences, challenging the previous consensus on open‑ended enlargement and cohesion.​

Are New Allies Surfaced?

It clearly elevates some alliances and de‑prioritizes others, with a new emphasis on partners in the Western Hemisphere and selected “like‑minded” but not necessarily liberal governments elsewhere.​

Western Hemisphere partners

* The document defines a strategy of “Enlist and Expand” in the Western Hemisphere, prioritizing “regional champions” that will help the U.S. block migration, fight cartels, and secure supply chains.​

* It signals that such hemispheric partners could receive more U.S. troops, security assistance, and economic integration than many traditional allies outside the region.​

Alliances of “illiberals”

* Analysts note that the strategy implicitly favors governments aligned with U.S. nationalist and conservative priorities—even if they are not liberal democracies—over some traditional Western European elites.​

* This hints at deeper political‑values alignment with certain Central/Eastern European, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Asian leaders who share its stance on migration, culture, and sovereignty.​

Traditional allies and Asia

* The document still names NATO and Indo‑Pacific allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) as important, but conditions close cooperation on higher defense spending and tougher economic policies toward China.​

* It also gestures toward a de facto great‑power tier with the U.S., China, and Russia as the key shapers of order, implying that many other states will be treated more as swing partners or sub‑regional allies than as full strategic peers.​

Does This Change Our Stance vis a vis Conflicts?

Taiwan

What the strategy actually says

* It elevates “deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch” to a stated priority, and calls for the ability to deny aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain, including Taiwan.​

* It reaffirms the “longstanding declaratory policy” of not supporting unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, rather than introducing a new formal commitment to defend Taiwan.​

Expected U.S. moves before any invasion

* Accelerate military buildup and posture with Japan and other allies (more forces, long‑range fires, maritime and air assets) to make a successful invasion or blockade militarily unattractive for Beijing.​

* Expand arms sales, training, and coordination with Taiwan to strengthen a “denial” strategy (asymmetric defenses, resilience, and joint planning) while pressing allies to spend more and do more around the First Island Chain.​

If China actually invaded

* The logic of the strategy points toward trying to deny a successful takeover through combined U.S. and allied military action—especially air and naval operations in and around the Strait—rather than accepting a fait accompli.​

* At the same time, the document’s emphasis on avoiding great‑power war and on allies “stepping up” suggests Washington would seek to share risk and burden heavily with Japan and others, and might calibrate its own direct use of force to manage escalation, rather than treating intervention as automatic or unlimited.

Israel and Palestine

Role of the Middle East overall

* States that the Middle East is no longer a primary strategic focus, arguing that energy and “forever wars” no longer justify region‑wide prioritization.​

* Nonetheless lists “ensuring that Israel remains secure” and protecting energy flows and shipping lanes as continuing U.S. interests, so involvement remains but with narrower aims.​

Likely approach to Israel–Palestine

* Reaffirms strong support for Israel, citing its security as a U.S. interest and highlighting the ceasefire and hostage‑release deals as signature achievements to be consolidated, not undone.​

* Treats the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict as “complicated” but no longer central; expects regional partners (Egypt, Gulf states, etc.) to carry more of the burden of stabilization and reconstruction rather than a large new U.S. peace‑process push.​

Expectations on policy moves

* Likely to keep backing Israel militarily and diplomatically (including against Iran and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah), while resisting international pressure for rapid recognition of Palestinian statehood or moves seen as constraining Israeli freedom of action.​

* More likely to sponsor incremental, highly conditioned arrangements in Gaza and the West Bank that lock in Israeli security requirements than to invest in a far‑reaching final‑status agreement or robust U.S. nation‑building role.​

Russia and Ukraine

What the strategy actually says about the war

* Describes “an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” and restoration of “strategic stability” with Russia as a core U.S. interest, with far milder language on Russia than previous strategies.​

* Criticizes European leaders for “unrealistic expectations” about the war and portrays public opinion in Europe as wanting peace more than continued large‑scale support for Kyiv.​

Likely U.S. posture going forward

* Expect sustained pressure for a ceasefire or political settlement, even if it freezes lines close to current ones, rather than strong U.S. support for Ukraine’s stated goal of fully reversing Russian gains.​

* U.S. military and financial aid is likely to become more conditional and limited in duration, with Washington signaling that Europe must assume primary responsibility for any long‑term support.​

Relationship with Russia and Europe

* The strategy hints at a readiness to normalize relations with Moscow once a ceasefire is in place, aligning with Russian statements welcoming the softer tone and the focus on “strategic stability.”​

* It simultaneously downplays NATO expansion and admonishes European governments, implying that Washington’s priority is to cap the conflict, limit costs, and avoid deeper confrontation with Russia, not to lead a long war effort on Ukraine’s behalf.

Darfur and Other Atrocities in Africa

The strategy points to a much narrower, interest‑driven approach, so large‑scale U.S. intervention to stop genocide in Darfur or elsewhere in Africa is unlikely unless it clearly intersects with U.S. security, economic, or domestic political priorities. Expect selective, transactional engagement rather than a broad “responsibility to protect” posture.​

How Africa is framed

* Africa is repositioned as a region for limited, commercially focused engagement, with reduced appetite for major security or nation‑building missions compared with previous decades.​

* The document emphasizes that other regions and domestic priorities come first, implying that most African crises, including mass atrocities, will be handled primarily by regional actors with modest U.S. support.​

Likely tools the U.S. would use

* More reliance on sanctions, pressure at the UN, and short‑term ceasefire diplomacy (as seen in U.S. efforts around Sudan’s recent ceasefire proposals) rather than deploying substantial U.S. forces or funding large protection operations.​

* Continued, but possibly reduced, funding for atrocity‑prevention and accountability mechanisms, given ongoing legal obligations (Elie Wiesel Act, Genocide Convention) but also documented plans to cut some accountability programs.​

Selective and politicized responses

* Human‑rights and genocide language is likely to be applied selectively, with more vocal and coercive U.S. action where abuses fit domestic narratives (for example, cases framed around protecting Christians or specific minority constituencies) and quieter responses where they do not.​

* Overall, the NSS’s de‑emphasis on universal values and multilateral humanitarian norms signals that preventing or halting mass killings in places like Darfur will not, by itself, trigger major U.S. commitments unless tied to migration, terrorism, great‑power competition, or salient domestic politics.​

Conclusions

* This is what I would expect from any reasonable country’s national security strategy

* It’s funny that while leftists decry this now, they previously decried the concept of the USA as world police

* The US’s obligations are, first and foremost, to its people and I’m all for our investing more within our borders, especially in light of demographic collapse

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because we have reached a new era in American geopolitical strategy. The days of Team America, world police are over. We’re gone from America. F Yeah, we, we’ve gone from that basically to America. Don’t look at me. I don’t know. No, I,

Malcolm Collins: I really like this.

The Trump administration basically released a plan for how we’re gonna act in terms of national security going forwards. Mm-hmm. And they said that essentially Europe has been taken over by hostile actors. Let me,

Simone Collins: can you let me, ‘

Malcolm Collins: cause you know, okay.

Simone Collins: Right. In November, the Trump administration released a new national security strategy that is pretty based.

It, it, it basically reframes the EU from a partner to a problem like quite clearly, which is amazing. And it insists that countries basically need to handle their own problems. In other words, like the big shift, if you just wanna sum it up. Is that America [00:01:00] has gone from being helicopter parent to being the F around and find out parent, which is exactly our style of parenting.

Yeah. And like even per our style of parenting, we don’t just do it because we’re lazy and selfish than we are, we do it because it produces better outcomes. Like, it, it, it produces children who are not feckless and helpless. It, it produces people who can solve their own problems. So, you know, a lot of people right now, they’re admittedly pretty mad about this and we’re like.

You know what, this is good for you, sweetie. Like, you need to, you need to learn how to solve your own problems. And I love it. I love it. And, and you know that it’s good because Redditers be mad. And when, when prompted to explain the new strategy, like here’s some quotes from you’re just representative Redditer the EU is in Gin’s way.

The US is currently in the habit of agreeing with Putin on everything word for word. Also the leader of the US because they can’t even refer to him by name. He’s like [00:02:00] bor to them. No, 100% though is making a lot of noise to distract from being the name mentioned. And most of those Trump files from Epstein’s Pedophile Island, that everyone isn’t on the list once released.

This is a good distraction. Another person wrote. The EU doesn’t allow Trump’s shady real estate business. So there are no Trump towers here. He’s now making deals with Hungary and other right wing led countries to finally get a foot in EU soil. But as for business opportunities, he’s rather friends with Russians and Arabs who flutter him as much as they can.

And another redditer took some choice quotes from this new strategy document that was released by the White House in November. That really goes to show. Kind of just one, how much this would make leftists mad. But like all these quotes, I read them and I’m like, yeah. So, one quote, our elites, this is, this is from the document itself.

Our elites badly miscalculated, America’s willingness to shoulder forever, global burdens, to which American people saw [00:03:00] no connection to the national interest also. Yeah. They’re like,

Malcolm Collins: I hate that. How

Simone Collins: dare. They’re like, how very dare? And I’m like, yeah, very dare you. Absolutely. So yeah, I, I mean I do love this ‘cause it’s, they see this as damning and I’m like, no, this is fantastic.

Another, the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over. Yes. Thank you.

Speaker: This is all wrong. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams People are suffering.

Simone Collins: right. Another, we will assert and enforce a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. And I’m like, yeah, absolutely. This is why he was voted into office.

People like, you know Monroe, he did. Okay. Can we start something a little fresh? Another Europe’s economic decline is eclipsed by the real man, more stark prospect of civilizational. Erasure. Yes. Actually. Mm-hmm. And another, we want Europe to remain European to regain its [00:04:00] civilizational self-confidence.

And to abandon, its failed focus on regulatory suffocation. Oh. Like, I cannot tell you like the scene for me is that scene where that woman basically as an orgasm in a restaurant at this point. Like, I’m just like, ah, like this is just such a No, I,

Malcolm Collins: I love that. They’re gonna be like, what? They want Europe to state European that well, but also like the,

Simone Collins: when I was in college in, in, in, at, at Cambridge and we, we did a visit to the eu. I was, at first I was like, oh, the eu like, prestigious gotta be, it’s gotta be cool, right? And I came away so angry. Like just, it was just bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. I was horrified. I was like, this need, this thing needs to be burned down. It is, it is.

It is literally like the, it is holding a pillow over the face of Europe going sh and I don’t like it. Okay. Final quote from Reddit. In, in Brackets America goal is America’s goal. Is and bracket cultivating resistance to Europe’s current [00:05:00] trajectory within European nations. Absolutely. Europe is not going in a good direction.

An analogy that you’ve used with journalists is like. Basically there’s, there’s an anchor that’s, that’s like slowly falling off a ship. And everyone is like changed to the anchor. And America’s like removing their, their ankle from the chain because the anchor’s quickly, like now more quickly sliding to the ocean.

And everyone’s like, why are you moving yourself from the chain? And you’re like, dude, it’s going into the ocean. Like, I’m not tying myself to this. But I’m, I’m, I’m really excited about this. And also in, in more seriousness though, I, I think this is all perfectly serious and I’m not joking about any of it.

We as citizens, but I think pretty much anyone in, in the world, because we’re all affected by American foreign policy, should probably be aware of what the shift in strategy actually entails. And so I wanted to do a little look into it. So let’s, let’s, let’s go over it, you know, we won’t go too deep, but we’ll, we’ll get the important stuff.

Okay. And I’d love to just hear your reactions to this. So, does that sound good? Yeah. Like I, I’ll tell you what’s going on and you tell me what it means. ‘cause that’s kind [00:06:00] of how our relationship works. Yeah. You do the thinking. I do the stating so I don’t, I don’t,

Malcolm Collins: it’s just ‘cause I’m a man.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Brains and bronze. I, I, I do, I do the work. I, I, I, I clean. So, first what, what I wanted to look at with this document is. What is actually changing about strategy with the us? Like what’s gonna be different now? Because that’s all that really matters, right? I mean, as far as I’m concerned. So the, the really big thing is again, this takes away the America world police imperative that has been slowly been fading away anyway.

It replaces a global rules-based order and democracy, promotion language, which of course you saw with like things like USA, which we’ve already dismantled. With a much narrower definition of US interests focused on sovereignty, borders, and domestic strength rather than universal values, which absolutely I’m for.

Also, weirdly, I feel like, you know, the whole joke with, with team America World Police, the movie. [00:07:00] Was like that. Conservatives were all about this, you know, like go blow up. Like, you know, like, you know, fix things. Yeah. And like, make so, so progressives in the past were like, oh, you know, how dare we go in and impose our values on these other cultures?

And now we’re like, you know what, we’re just gonna like kids who our own business. Interesting way

Malcolm Collins: it shifted, but the reason it shifted

Simone Collins: Yeah. Is

Malcolm Collins: because, and we’ve mentioned this many times.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: In the nineties, the dominant culture in the United States was mm-hmm. Judeo-Christian culture. Mm. Today it’s the urban monoculture.

Mm. So of course now that they’re the dominant culture, they want to use the apparatus of the state to push their culture into other countries. Yeah. In the same way that the Judeo-Christian culture in the United States did. Back in the nineties. Yeah.

Simone Collins: It’s just so funny because at first they were like, how dare you intervene?

And then they’re like, how dare you not intervene? How dare you not intervene? What are you doing? Yeah, we asked for this. Yeah. So this this, there’s also a shift in really elevating the western hemisphere to the top priority. And it’s [00:08:00] making migration and drugs and cartels and China’s regional footprint the central focus instead of putting great.

Power competition with China and Russia and the Indo-Pacific or Europe at the core, which is what we had before. It treats mass migration itself as a primary national security threat and justifies using military force, including cross border strikes on cartels as a routine tool for hemispheric enforcement far beyond.

The earlier strategies of law enforcement and humanitarian framing, and I think this is really prescient of the Trump administration in general. It it’s a Bob

Malcolm Collins: strategy.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s our BOB strategy. They just adopted our parenting philosophy. What can we say? Describe.

Malcolm Collins: Some parenting strategies. When a child is misbehaving, you like have to hold them down until they stop doing what They’re good.

That’s like invading and, and maintaining a space. Yeah. In other parenting strategies. You like sit down and you talk with them. Yeah. That’s like the UN strategy, like [00:09:00] we’re gonna send you all, put the We’ll and Trump

Simone Collins: Jim just turns soleimani into salsa bop.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, just, but just bam,

Simone Collins: boom. Yeah. Those

Malcolm Collins: big, beautiful turrets you have.

Yeah. It’d be ashamed of mail. Exactly,

Simone Collins: man. Like that’s, and I think it, it, one, it’s more lightweight, it’s more effective. And that is gonna be the future of foreign policy. And I think this is, it’s really helpful to see this in the strategy document because what we’re seeing now is a sort of literary, formalization of something we’ve already seen in practice. And I really, one, I also love that, I mean, you know, we are like 100% against deontology actions speak louder than words for us. And also like results speak louder than like, you know, the, the performativeness of anything. And what we’re seeing here is that.

The administration has already spoken with its actions. Now it’s just sort of presenting the philosophy behind it. But we don’t have to be like, well, we’ll see if they actually follow through because this is what they’ve been doing already. So I also really like that about this. Another thing that’s shifting is we’re reorient, reorienting our alliances and, our European policy, [00:10:00] especially around burden sharing and trade balances and Western identity, while we also openly critique European migration and regulatory policies instead of emphasizing cohesive liberal institutions and shared democratic values. Like we’re not like, oh, we’re working with the EU on promoting democracy.

When we’re like, Europe, what are you doing? Like, why are you erasing yourself like you’re falling apart? And we’re also kind of like. I think there’s this in the document, you see this over and over, this like general acknowledgement that Europe has lost the plot and, and basically shot itself more and more like not, it hasn’t even shot itself in the foot.

It’s like shot an essential artery in its leg and it’s bleeding out and like well it was nice to know you to

Malcolm Collins: do with

Simone Collins: it. Yeah. You

Malcolm Collins: know?

Simone Collins: Yeah. It was like Europe. I’m sorry, like you’re over now. Our life. I think maybe a better metaphor is like we, we understand now that like Europe is, is, is like terminally ill or like irreparably addicted to fentanyl and like there’s just no way around it.

And we’re like, I’m sorry, I have to [00:11:00] disassociate from you. Like, there’s you, you are not listening. You are incapable of listening. At this point, I have tried to help you multiple times. It’s over now. Like you need to help yourself. Well, I

Malcolm Collins: do like that they talk about promoting, you know, European values in Europe where they can basically like Yeah.

Where we can put a foot on the lever to try to prevent the civilizational collapse of Europe like we will.

Simone Collins: But yeah. Actually, so I’m, I’ll jump ahead. To, to, ‘cause the other key thing is sort of what does this mean for our relationship with Europe? And my favorite thing about, or I, I, I think maybe the most clever thing that surprised me about this document insofar as it relates to our, our relationship with Europe is it basically, it’s like, it says we’re, we’re not, the United States is not going to closely work with the EU anymore, but it is going to essentially work with, how do they word it? It calls for cultivating resistance to the eus current trajectory by encouraging and working with euros, euroskeptic, or patriotic parties and governments inside member [00:12:00] states, rather than primarily channeling relations through Brussels. In other words, it’s going to go to like the dissident nationalist parties.

Well, like, like

Malcolm Collins: V Vance did when

Simone Collins: he met with the A Germany. Exactly. And here it is. Formalizing that as a policy, but I, I think it’s really brilliant, and this never would’ve occurred to me as a formal geopolitical national defense strategy like, because I’m like, well, okay, like Europe is being written off.

But no, the United States isn’t actually writing off Europe. The United States is choosing to invest in the facets of Europe that may have a shot that are not terminal. I like that. I think that’s really cool. Now, of course, people on the left are like, oh, like they’re just, they’re gonna invest in white nationalist parties and like all these things, right?

But like, what they’re really trying to do is, is like these people are attempting to create a sustainable version of Europe that isn’t going to be completely financially drained, that may be solvent, that may have a shot at the future. And we will try to build [00:13:00] alliances with them. And the rest, like, I’m sorry, but they’re gone.

And I love that. I think that that’s really, really cool. And of course they’re also like, you’re up, you gotta pay for your own stuff now. You know, we’re, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna bankroll you anymore. There there’s less deference to EU institutions in general. Like they, they acknowledge that you guys are just bureaucratic.

It, it’s, it’s like just breaks in. They’re robots. They don’t feel anything.

Speaker 2: . They’re just robots. Morty. It’s okay to shoot them. They’re robots. Feel like you shut up. Glen’s bleeding to death. Someone called his wife and she, they’re not robots, Rick. It’s a figure of speech.

Morty. They’re bureaucrats. I don’t respect them. Just keep shooting.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And it’s much more strict with US security guarantees. Like, I, sorry, we’re not gonna like come in and solve your problems. Like you need to solve your own problems. And, and I think that’s really cool.

I mean, it still frames, I don’t

Malcolm Collins: think it’s, it’s quite cool to see formalized ‘cause so much of Yeah. You know, Trump. Doctrine. You know, he’ll say it and his fans may get it, but then, you know, [00:14:00] he takes the White House and his team took the White House, like the first administration of his. Mm-hmm. And they weren’t putting stuff together like this because they didn’t get it yet.

No, they were

Simone Collins: like, well, they were so busy, basically dealing with an openly antagonistic deep state that was actively undermining every move that, like, what could they do

Malcolm Collins: really? Yeah, I, well, I mean, I, I, I loved what happened with the deep state that there, we went through the saga where they were like, the deep state doesn’t exist.

It’s a paranoid conspiracy. And then we find out that Biden is like, basically incapable of thinking. And we’re like, shouldn’t we like be doing something about the fact that we don’t know who’s running the government right now? And the left was basically like, oh no, it’s a bunch of unelected really competent officials.

I’m like that’s the thing we were worried about. Trust me,

Simone Collins: bro. Yeah. It was just not great. That’s the deep state

Malcolm Collins: we were talking about. What do you mean? Yeah, like they, they’re, they went from the deep state isn’t real to actually the [00:15:00] government’s in good hands because the deep state’s been running it all along.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But speaking of the deep state, what I love about this too, and I just feel like I feel so heard is that Europe is very distinctly framed in this document as. Undergoing civilizational decline because of migration and regulation. Like they’re being explicit about it. Ooh, they’re like Europe, like you boned, like demographic collapse.

Like just economically and, and, and specifically like the, the EU driven regulatory moras, you are imposing on your own people because, you know, we’ve done episodes on how like, well, I, Europe is opting out. Of relevance because of their privacy rules, because of their AI rules, because of all these things that they really are, are economically and technologically.

Let alone civilizationally, you know, well opt out had the future,

Malcolm Collins: talked to me recently, which I thought was really big, is, you know, we have a whole episode on like ease erasing itself from history because it’s erasing itself from AI training data, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. You know, and you can’t easily and if ai, well, and

Simone Collins: I love, I [00:16:00] love though that the US.

Like government, or at least a Trump administration is openly recognizing that in politic, well, they had the pro

Malcolm Collins: AI thing that everyone was freaking out about recently. Yeah. Their one AI rule, you know, for, for, for every state, every region, I wish everyone freaks out about because they’re like in that executive order.

You can’t do that in that executive order, which. I mean, you can’t, but large companies will find a way to use that. ‘cause they don’t care, you know, what you as a state have to say if they’re operating in every state, right? Yeah. Which makes a lot of sense. But outside of the, the Trump executive order on ai the, the other big problem which you told me about the EU and AI is EU has been trying so hard to make themselves green for a long time.

That they’ve been cutting down the amount of power that they’re producing. And there’s basically nowhere in the EU where it is cost effective to run giant data syn anymore.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Yeah, it is it’s a thing. So also there so clearly, right? Like we’re, we’re stepping away from the eu, right? Like we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re awkwardly like sidestepping, you know, at the party, like away from what used to be our good friend, [00:17:00] which is great.

I’m just loving it. But it’s also kind of, then the question is, and we need to ask this and look at this, who then are our new. And in this document, there’s a very clear elevation of some alliances and, and deprioritization of others, not just Europe. The, the new emphasis really is on partners in the Western Hemisphere.

And like-minded, but not necessarily liberal governments elsewhere. And this is where a lot of very progressive policy outlets are freaking out because it used to be like, well, if they’re urban mono cultured and if they’re quote unquote democratic, then they’re gonna be our ally. Yeah. Whereas the, the focus here is more on.

I would say alignment of, of interest in sovereignty, in, in like mutual interest and like, even if you’re a totalitarian government, as long as our ends, like our desired end state and our res, our mutual respect for sovereignty is there, like we’re, we’re happy to work together. So the document defines a [00:18:00] strategy of what they call enlist and expand in the western hemisphere, which prioritize.

Prioritizes regional champions, it will help the US block migration, fight cartels and secure supply chains. And it’s signaling that such hemispheric partners could receive more US troops or security assistance and that economic integration than many traditional allies outside the region. And so it’s kind of like, I mean, I think in a very practical way, like we’ll help you if you help us, like it’s much more.

Mercenary, which I, well, I don’t think in

Malcolm Collins: a, in a being able to take this perspective actually gives us a lot more flexibility, diplomatically percent, and I feel like it’s a lot

Simone Collins: more transparent as well.

Malcolm Collins: Right. So for example, like if you can, which Trump was able to do, which is what the way he was able to end the war in Gaza was to get Erdogan on his side, right?

Mm-hmm. Like, Turkey. And you know, the fact that he’s able to go to Erdogan and be like, Hey, buddy, like, I understand that, like, not exactly a [00:19:00] democracy, not exactly, you know, friends with the Europe and the way that things are done. But like maybe, and, and if he, he had been. Progressive. He wouldn’t have been able to make that deal.

He wouldn’t have been able to go to him and be like, Hey, like let’s talk the three. Like, let’s figure something out. Right? Yeah. But under this new system, he’s able to be like, look, you are broadly conservative, right? I’m broadly conservative, right? Like. We have a lot that we hate about those people in the EU together, don’t we?

Simone Collins: Well, and I wanna be clear that the document still names NATO and, and a bunch of also are in the Pacific Allies like Japan and South Korea and Australia as important. But more like the really important theme here is that it. Conditioning the close cooperation on higher defense spending and tougher economic policies toward China.

And it, it also gestures toward a defacto great power tier with the us, China, and Russia as the key shapers. The key shapers of order. Mm-hmm. Implying that many other states will be treated more as like swing partners or sub-regional allies [00:20:00] rather than like specific partners.

Malcolm Collins: I think, you know, Russia’s not really relevant economically on the global scale.

Geopolitically like,

Simone Collins: yeah, but here’s like, here’s how it, it actually stands with Russia. ‘cause this, all that like matters. Like, you know, so where do we sort of stand with Russia and Ukraine? And it’s, it’s no longer like. Well, here’s how things would be fair. Like here’s we’re, you know, it’s, it’s not the parent who’s like, well, to be fully fair, like, you need to give Jimmy back this, and you need to apologize to him.

It’s more just like, shut up and stop fighting. It’s just like, stop. Like, just stop. I don’t care anymore. I don’t wanna hear it. Just shut up. Or I will like, you know, Bob’s

Malcolm Collins: all around. I

Simone Collins: don’t care who started it. Yeah. And it’s not like, oh well, like, so, so this, this document kind of implies like, honestly, if you guys just shut up.

Just stop. I don’t care if the borders are right where they’re right now, just stop. Like, it’s not like, well you have to give back this land and we’re gonna broker this. It’s, no, it is just [00:21:00] stop. And I think that that’s honestly a much more pragmatic approach. And so when it comes like to it. What the document is clear is it, it, it’s basically like we want this to stop it, quote, an expeditious cesa cessation of hostilities in Ukraine.

And, and it wants a restoration of quote, strategic stability with Russia. And it, it’s honestly like, it, it is. I will, in all fairness, it’s, it is not very antagonistic toward Russia, but I also kind of get it because. And I, I, it is more antagonistic towards the EU than Russia in many ways. But I think that’s because it inherently recognizes the long-term damage that the EU has done to Europe.

Like Putin may be, he may have boned the Russian people by like shredding the male population. And, and preventing like, you know, accelerating demographic collapse in Russia. But he was one person like the eu, like [00:22:00] these people, like this is like a giant, huge organization that is systematically and permanently neutering the eu.

And this is like many countries I feel like that’s, that’s a little more insidious. And, and it’s like the US seems a little more angry about that. There’s kind of a similar situation with Taiwan as well. That. The, the document elevates, quote, deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch end quote.

Mm-hmm. So it’s really just trying to say like, we’re trying to make it clear in war games and like in from a strategic calculation to China, that it is not worth it to China to invade Taiwan. But it’s also clear from the document that if in the end China were to invade Taiwan, the emphasis would be on getting other allies in the region to lead.

And kind of how, like we, we did with Ukraine. Like maybe we’ll provide some weapons like we, and you’ll have to buy them from the US and we’ll all be benefiting from it, like with Israel, but. We’re not gonna like, we’re not gonna do [00:23:00] anything ourselves per se. Like it’s very much the BOP strategy. Or like we may go in and vaporize someone, but we’re not gonna like get super involved, like what we did with Iran.

I think what we did with Iran is very indicative of what we can expect in general with US foreign policy in the future. Until, of course, the Democrats come and take over and decide that they’re gonna do something. But I think at that point we’re, we’re so financially screwed as a country that. We won’t be to afford to return to the Old Team America World police format.

So I think honestly, this is here to stay. And I think we’re gonna get used to it because in the end, this policy is what I would expect from any country in their national security policy, like this whole world police. Like we’re gonna go and take care of the world’s strategy or, or policy that United States has had since World War ii, which we only really adopted, like.

For a variety of complex reasons after like the middle of World War ii, right? Like in the beginning we’re like hands off any [00:24:00] normal country, their imperative is to focus on stuff within their borders to take care of their own citizens. I mean, that’s the whole conflict with, you know, internally with Israel that I think is driven so much unnecessary antisemitism is that people are like, wait a second.

Like why are we sending aid. To like, Israel, what, what about me here? Like, stop. This is, yeah. Like

Malcolm Collins: what is this? Yeah, yeah,

Simone Collins: yeah. And I mean, like, so also, you know, when you look at there’s, there’s not a lot of direct mention, for example, of our policy in Africa. Like, well, but what about what’s happening in DAR four right now?

Like, you know, there’s, there’s genocides taking place, right? Like, terrible things are happening in the world and they are terrible. But in the end. It’s our responsibility is to solve problems for our own citizens. Like that’s who pays our bills. They’re the ones Yeah. That we need to take care of. I’m, I’m, I’m, and I see this

Malcolm Collins: being electorally a really smart position to be taking.

Yeah. 100%. Yeah. I think it’s, it’s, it is what the average American wants. Mm-hmm. I think it’s what people voted [00:25:00] for. Yeah. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Certainly. If like Kamala Harris had won. Maybe I would see that there’d be more of a mandate for our interventionism in things like the genocide taking place in Darfur, which of course wouldn’t be happening anyway because know the genocides in Palestine didn’t, you know, Malcolm didn’t, you know.

Yeah. You

Malcolm Collins: know, this genocide doesn’t matter ‘cause it’s happening to black people apparently.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Screw them. But yeah, I just. I think this is absolutely fantastic. I, I think this is extremely favorable, oh, by the way. Yes. The US still does. Speaking of Palestine see, Israel’s a key ally, but very, it’s very toned down.

This is a very muted thing. We’re like, okay, sure. Like there is strategic ally in the region. But it, it very, the document explicitly is like we’re over the forever wars. We are no longer, this is no longer a region that we prioritize. There the document does refer to quote, ensuring that Israel [00:26:00] remains secure and it wants to protect energy flows and shipping lanes and continuing US interests that, that are relevant in the area.

But it definitely is like, this is. This is not our priority. Our priority is our border security. And you know, as demographic collapse plays out, like Peter Zhan in his book, the End of the World is just, the beginning was really all about this. Like this was e exactly what you would expect as countries start to price in demographic collapse and recognize.

The declining relevance of many countries and regions both politically, but from a defense and population standpoint as well. So I think this is important for everyone to just sort of internalize is like, here’s what we can expect from the US and here’s what we can’t expect. And I think this is also really gonna influence how warfare is gonna play out in the future.

Bob strategy is going to pervade. Yes. Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: I love it. We need to get on the militarization of bopping. When countries get outta [00:27:00] line and they’re not listening, they get smacked on the nose. It was a, well, I mean, I think we really did That was like Iran recently, right? Like that was very much a bop strategy.

100%. Yeah. Right? Mm-hmm. It was, okay, will will bomb a bunch of infrastructure for like two days and then stop. And then, well, it was even like, you know.

Simone Collins: Israel loosened, loosened the lid. They were like, ah, ah, and like we came up and we were like, smash. And then, you know, opened it for you. But someone else has to work with us too.

And I think that’s, it’s such a great example because Israel did the vast majority of the legwork and Israel benefited from the vast majority of the legwork. Now, we absolutely did benefit from from the contribution that we made, but again, like the big emphasis here, which is emphasized again and again, is like.

Okay, Europe, sure we’ll work with you, but you’re gonna have to pay for like the value that you need. Like you, when you benefit primarily from this, you need to pay primarily for it. We’re not gonna bankroll you anymore. Someone once said also like the best way to [00:28:00] understand Trump and his decisions, which I should, I probably do this is read Art of the Deal.

He said that after reading Art of the Deal, like you can really understand like the vast majority of Trump’s policy decisions. And, and I do think that it really shows up when he’s like, we got a bad deal. Like, it’s like, why are we paying for this? Why are they paying for this? Like, this is not, I think maybe we should be looking at that, but I I do appreciate that.

I mean, what I, I

Malcolm Collins: thought I was, it was ghostwritten mostly right. Yeah, but it’s like the spirit of his strategy basically based on interviews with him or something. Yeah, it, yeah.

Simone Collins: So he didn’t write it obviously, but like he, it, it still, it was very much his thing. And it, yeah, it, it. 100%. It is, it is a, a description of his strategy with regard to business dealings and whatnot.

No, it’s, you know, you didn’t write it though. Let, let’s not dilute ourselves. But when I say mercenary, I don’t say it in a derogatory fashion, but of course, you know, the, the, the [00:29:00] progressives on Reddit who decry this the, the, the liberals who are writing about this and freaking out. You know, they’re saying things like mercenary and they’re saying things like, oh, we’re no longer the world police.

And they, they mean it in a really bad way. I progression sad. Now we’re no longer the world police, but also the, there it’s, I think it’s very, it’s like a deeply, it’s a deep ideological divide. There is helicopter parenting. Mm-hmm. And there’s e around and find out parenting. Right. And we, we are in that quadrant of.

F run and find out, and I, yeah, I think on a, from a geopolitical standpoint, I’m in favor as well, so I love you very much, Malcolm. Love. Love. And what am I making you for dinner tonight? Much.

Malcolm Collins: We’re, we’re doing the curry that you started to, I don’t know why you started to fill it out, but you sort of thought, because it’s

Simone Collins: getting to the point where that, that like, you can only keep curry frozen for so long.

Like, okay, well let’s do it. Mango, Curry. I’m making sourdough tonight, so maybe you just want that with sourdough to like dip in it or something. No, it

Malcolm Collins: will not taste good with sourdough. It’s a, it’s a like a milk beer. Curry rice. So it needs to be with rice. Okay, no problem. And so, [00:30:00] we’ll cook it.

You may wanna add a bit of like coconut oil or something to it. Don’t coconut early. So how we’re handling what I

Simone Collins: can do, how about I saute some peppers

Malcolm Collins: or no? I do not think that that’s going to go well with Mango. Okay. Then I’m just,

Simone Collins: yeah, I’ll, I’ll I’ll just suber it in a pan to warm it up

Malcolm Collins: and we’ll go from there.

Simone Collins: Sound good?

Malcolm Collins: Yep, that works for me.

Simone Collins: Oh, and would you like me to try to make cuddle corn? I mean, the kids will eat it now, but you could tell me if you like it and then I can make a batch dedicated just to you.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah, let’s try kettle corn. See kettle. See how that’s done? You are such a thoughtful, I I could just

Simone Collins: like, you know, we can put it in a container and you can take it to your room.

Like, I’m not suggesting you eat it for dinner, but like I’m gonna be down there anyway, shall I? Yeah. Okay. I love you so much Malcolm.

Malcolm Collins: You and I love America. Amazing.

Simone Collins: God bless you, and God bless America,

Malcolm Collins: boy. Oh my gosh. Have a good one. Bye.

Speaker 3: Bow Titan, are you fighting like [00:31:00] a power Ranger? Which power Ranger are you? I’m a Titan. Do you slay bad monsters?

Speaker 4: Toasty. Are you a power ranger? Yeah.

Are you the power ranger? What are you working on? Octavian? Um, that is not a good game. That is not what you said you were playing.

Speaker 6: No more computer. No.

Take one.

Dino Nuggets so you can become a Dino Ranger.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe