>>104005137>>104004957>>104005337>>104005290The UN and NATO are both diplomatic organizations, meaning that they're used to hash out join interests among nations. NATO is mainly the European sphere, where as the UN is more global.
The function of these organizations isn't to raise an army and conquer people who disagree with you, but to give a little and get a little. If the UN agrees to sanction a country, for example, then that's what they do. Being a major controlling interest in the UN allows the US some leverage over foreign entities who depend on maintaining good relations with other nations, but post-Trump I think the US will wind up being taken less seriously. Take the debacle with the Iran deal, for example - the US is demonstrating that a new administration won't respect anything an old administration has done, so even if Iran honors the explicitly written aspects of the bargain, in four to eight years all of that can be tossed out the window. Why bother negotiating with a capricious and unstable country?
NATO is also not a financial tit-for-tat type of thing. The US puts resources in, but then we're once again a major controlling interest, so NATO nations often provide a lot of concessions to the US. Trump has now torn away from that, meaning that we've gone from having leverage in NATO to having less leverage, and there's really not a political advantage to the US.
Trump has also mucked around with the WTO, which is a similar situation. The US basically ran the WTO and won almost every case it presented, and the US presented by far more cases than any other nation. But now Trump is running away from the WTO whining about it not being fair enough to America, which loosens power over the WTO and will result in less favorable deals for America.
Trump just doesn't understand any of this political stuff. His cabinet is also a mess, with regulatory bodies staffed by the likes of Ajit Pai and other people with conflicted interests.
