25/08/16 00:48:10.05 .net
account for～を占める
it accounts for roughly one in six deaths. By the early 2000s, some viewed Nixon’s war as a failure.
13:名無しさん
25/08/16 15:54:49.42 .net
Two flawed assumptions underpin Trump’s approach: first, that no viable alternatives to U.S. leadership exist; and second, that Washington can remain dominant without allied support. History shows the opposite. From sanctions on Iran to technology restrictions on China, success has depended on broad coalitions. Acting alone often produces limited results and alienates potential partners.
Squandering Enduring Advantages
Despite political rhetoric painting the U.S. as depleted, the country retains formidable strengths: a massive domestic market, the world’s primary reserve currency, a young and growing workforce compared with other developed nations, abundant natural resources, leading universities, and a tradition of attracting global talent. These assets have allowed the U.S. to maintain unmatched economic and strategic clout.
flawed欠点のある、間違いのある
underpin支える
同格のthat
assumptions that no viable alternatives to U.S.leadership exist
viable現実的な、実現可能な
assumptions that Washington can remain dominant without allied support
dominant支配的な
allied同盟した、連合国の
coalition連合
alienate遠ざける
squander浪費する
enduring永続する
political rhetoric政治的な物言い
paint A as B、AをBとして描く
deplete枯渇される、消耗する
retain保つ
formidable恐るべき
primary reserve currency第一位の通貨準備高
asset資産
unmatched匹敵するものがない
clout影響力
14:名無しさん
25/08/16 16:00:37.77 .net
次の課題
Yet recent policies are undermining these advantages. The administration has expanded executive power at the expense of other institutions, strained relations with allies through erratic trade measures, and withdrawn from key diplomatic initiatives. Foreign aid cuts have weakened American leverage, while public praise for authoritarian leaders has unsettled democratic partners.
The Costs of Alienating Allies
Trump’s negotiating style treats allies as obstacles rather than force multipliers. Viewing partnerships as burdens, he uses U.S. economic and military leverage to demand unilateral concessions. This ignores the practical reality that cooperation often makes American pressure more effective. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example, sanctions achieved real impact only when joined by European, Russian, and Chinese participation.
15:名無しさん
25/08/16 16:04:46.17 UTQTCg2gd.net
今の若い人はアメリカに憧れがないから給料良くても、永住権サポートがあってもあっさり帰国するよね。
URLﾘﾝｸ(bunshun.jp)
給料は日本時代の2倍以上ありました。
患者さんやドクターからは、「日本人は優しくて仕事が丁寧だね」と高く評価してもらっていました。良くも悪くもアメリカ人の看護師はマイペースな部分もあるからかもしれません（笑）。
1年間働いて、帰国するために退職を申し出たところ、「永住権を取得して仕事を続けてほしい」と引き止められました。永住権を申請するための弁護士まで紹介してくれましたが、アメリカに住む気はなかったし、「ここでやれることはやり切った」という気持ちがあったので、2019年の11月に帰国しました。
16:名無しさん
25/08/21 07:08:43.84 AX2YNsikH.net
2019年のバカな選択をした１人を持ち出すガイジであった…
17:名無しさん
25/08/23 01:01:38.22 .net
新課題
使い捨て可能な国家―ポスト・アメリカ世界におけるアメリカ
Donald Trump’s political success has been shaped in part by his portrayal of the United States as a nation in decline—weak, overextended, and diminished. Yet paradoxically, his foreign policy assumes that America still possesses overwhelming leverage and can compel compliance from others through unilateral moves. This outlook neglects the reality that, since the end of World War II, U.S. influence has rested more on partnerships and shared rules than on coercion.
For decades, the U.S.-led system relied on mutually beneficial arrangements that amplified American power at low cost. Allies and even neutral states participated willingly because the framework protected their interests and provided stability. This cooperative approach limited the need for force and reduced the incentives for others to form counterbalancing coalitions, a pattern rarely seen in history. The Trump administration, however, appears blind to the value of this system, assuming that other countries cannot—or will not—opt out. In doing so, it risks accelerating the very shift it wishes to avoid: the erosion of the U.S.-centered order.
Overconfidence and Miscalculation
Trump and his advisers seem to believe that America’s relative decline is irrelevant because other powers—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—are even less trusted by U.S. allies. They assume these countries will have no choice but to continue accommodating Washington. But this reasoning underestimates the capacity of partners to act independently or form alternative networks. In reality, if allies decide the costs of alignment outweigh the benefits, they can withhold cooperation in ways that diminish U.S. influence.
Two flawed assumptions underpin Trump’s approach: first, that no viable alternatives to U.S. leadership exist; and second, that Washington can remain dominant without allied support. History shows the opposite. From sanctions on Iran to technology restrictions on China, success has depended on broad coalitions. Acting alone often produces limited results and alienates potential partners.
Squandering Enduring Advantages
Despite political rhetoric painting the U.S. as depleted, the country retains formidable strengths: a massive domestic market, the world’s primary reserve currency, a young and growing workforce compared with other developed nations, abundant natural resources, leading universities, and a tradition of attracting global talent. These assets have allowed the U.S. to maintain unmatched economic and strategic clout.
18:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:08:41.71 .net
Yet recent policies are undermining these advantages. The administration has expanded executive power at the expense of other institutions, strained relations with allies through erratic trade measures, and withdrawn from key diplomatic initiatives. Foreign aid cuts have weakened American leverage, while public praise for authoritarian leaders has unsettled democratic partners.
The Costs of Alienating Allies
Trump’s negotiating style treats allies as obstacles rather than force multipliers. Viewing partnerships as burdens, he uses U.S. economic and military leverage to demand unilateral concessions. This ignores the practical reality that cooperation often makes American pressure more effective. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example, sanctions achieved real impact only when joined by European, Russian, and Chinese participation.
Similarly, restricting China’s access to advanced technologies will fail without the cooperation of countries such as Japan and the Netherlands, which produce critical components. Threats to cut market access lose potency if the U.S. is already perceived as an unreliable trade partner, or if the dollar’s central role in the global system weakens.
Signs of a Shift
While adversaries have long coordinated to circumvent U.S. pressure, a more dangerous development would be if traditional allies and neutral states began subtly disengaging. This might start with symbolic acts—skipping summits, avoiding direct coordination, or limiting U.S. visibility in global forums. Over time, these small steps could reduce Washington’s ability to shape agendas and rally collective action.
Economic repercussions would follow. If foreign investors reduced purchases of U.S. debt or demanded higher returns, borrowing costs would rise. Doubts about U.S. fiscal discipline—fueled by tariffs, high deficits, and political instability—could erode the dollar’s safe-haven status. Supply chains might be reoriented to bypass American firms, and trade agreements among U.S. allies and competitors could deepen regional integration at Washington’s expense.
19:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:10:54.99 .net
Multilateral Institutions at Risk
Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization have historically reinforced U.S. influence by embedding American preferences in global economic governance. Recent U.S. criticism and funding threats have shaken confidence in these bodies, potentially opening space for rivals to increase their sway.
A notable example of shifting dynamics emerged when Japan and South Korea—two of Washington’s closest Asian allies—joined China in announcing plans for a trilateral free trade pact. Such moves suggest that even key partners may hedge their bets when U.S. policies appear unstable or self-serving.
Security Implications
A retreat from cooperation also carries serious security risks. Intelligence sharing depends on mutual trust, which erodes when sensitive information is mishandled. Trump’s past disclosures to Russian officials, as well as lapses in secure communications, have raised concerns among intelligence partners.
Military readiness is another concern. Deploying elite units to domestic missions reduces their combat preparedness, weakening America’s value as a defense partner. Moreover, allies may hesitate to buy U.S. weapons if they fear restrictions on use during crises—undermining interoperability, one of the key advantages of the U.S.-led alliance network.
The projection of American military power depends heavily on access to bases, airspace, and logistical routes controlled by other nations. Without such cooperation, the U.S. would struggle to respond quickly to global contingencies. Hostility toward U.S. policies could make governments more reluctant to provide such support, even in the wake of a major attack on the United States.
20:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:12:33.99 .net
Eroding Deterrence
The credibility of U.S. security guarantees—central to deterring aggression—has already been damaged. When Washington fails to respond to attacks on partners, as in the case of Iranian strikes on Saudi oil facilities, it signals unreliability. In Europe, doubts about U.S. willingness to defend NATO members could prompt governments to seek compromises with aggressors, weakening collective security.
Once trust is lost, restoring it is difficult. European powers’ handling of Russia’s initial 2014 invasion of Ukraine, which resulted in the flawed Minsk agreements, illustrates how weakened resolve can embolden adversaries.
Misplaced Confidence
The administration may believe that ideological differences between U.S. allies and its rivals will ensure continued alignment. Yet history suggests otherwise: democratic partners have maintained economic ties with authoritarian states when it suited their interests. Moreover, the U.S. has itself set aside values-based considerations when dealing with regimes it finds useful.
Some in Washington seem to think that focusing solely on competing with China—while sidelining alliance management—will produce long-term success. The idea is that economic and technological superiority will attract global support. But if others lack access to American markets or see U.S. policies as harmful, they will seek to insulate themselves from dependence on the United States.
A Self-Inflicted Decline
Rather than strengthening the country, protectionist trade measures, ballooning deficits, and the politicization of major technology firms risk economic instability and reduced defense capabilities. The cumulative effect is a less attractive, less dependable America.
The post–Cold War era demonstrated that U.S. indispensability was not automatic; it was earned through sustained commitment to a rules-based order that benefited others as well as itself. If Washington abandons those principles, it forfeits the trust and cooperation that made its leadership possible.
Trump’s vision appears to favor being feared over being respected or admired. Yet his policies risk achieving neither outcome. An America seen as too harsh to like but too weak to fear will find itself sidelined in shaping global events. Over time, alliances built over decades may wither, and rivals will eagerly fill the gaps. Even if a future administration seeks to rebuild the old order, the damage to credibility will limit how far the clock can be turned back. The world will have moved on—and so will many of America’s former partners.
21:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:16:59.18 .net
Donald Trump’s political success has been shaped in part by his portrayal of the United States as a nation in decline—weak, overextended, and diminished. Yet paradoxically, his foreign policy assumes that America still possesses overwhelming leverage and can compel compliance from others through unilateral moves. This outlook neglects the reality that, since the end of World War II, U.S. influence has rested more on partnerships and shared rules than on coercion.
portrayal描写
asとして
overextend拡大しすぎる
diminish小さくする
assume決め込む
compel強要する
compliance服従
unilateral一方的な
outlook 見解
rest more on A and B than on C、CよりもA、Bにかかっている
partnership協力関係
shared rule共有されたルール
coercion強制、強要
22:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:18:41.64 .net
For decades, the U.S.-led system relied on mutually beneficial arrangements that amplified American power at low cost. Allies and even neutral states participated willingly because the framework protected their interests and provided stability. This cooperative approach limited the need for force and reduced the incentives for others to form counterbalancing coalitions, a pattern rarely seen in history. The Trump administration, however, appears blind to the value of this system, assuming that other countries cannot—or will not—opt out. In doing so, it risks accelerating the very shift it wishes to avoid: the erosion of the U.S.-centered order.
arrangements取り決め、協定
amplify増大する
need for force武力の必要性
incentives for A to do B、AがBする動機
counterblancing coalitions対抗勢力になる連合
seen過去分詞後置修飾
be blind to～に気づかない、わからない
assume that～と決め込む
opt out脱退する
二つのit=the Trump administration
very形容詞、まさにその
shift変化
the very shift that the Trump administration wishes to avoid
トランプ政権が避けたいと望むまさにその変化
23:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:21:05.33 .net
Overconfidence and Miscalculation
Trump and his advisers seem to believe that America’s relative decline is irrelevant because other powers—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—are even less trusted by U.S. allies. They assume these countries will have no choice but to continue accommodating Washington. But this reasoning underestimates the capacity of partners to act independently or form alternative networks. In reality, if allies decide the costs of alignment outweigh the benefits, they can withhold cooperation in ways that diminish U.S. influence.
irrelevant重要でない
If you say that something is irrelevant, you mean that it is not
important in a situation.
The choice of subject matter is irrelevant.
テーマの選択は重要ではない。
assume決め込む
have no choice but to do～せざるを得ない
accommodate～を受け入れる
reasoning論法、論理
to act,（to） formはcapacityを修飾する不定詞の形容詞的用法
decide～と判断する
alignment提携
withhold～を与えずにおく
diminish減らす
decideについて
decide that SVのとき
decideが決定するの意味のときthat節内は仮定法現在(イギリス英語はshould)、判断する(思う)のときは直接法
決定
They decided that the profits be divided equally.
It was decided that he be dismmissed.
判断する(思う)
I decided that I was too old to take the job.
I decided that her father was a decent guy, after all.
24:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:23:48.50 .net
Two flawed assumptions underpin Trump’s approach: first, that no viable alternatives to U.S. leadership exist; and second, that Washington can remain dominant without allied support. History shows the opposite. From sanctions on Iran to technology restrictions on China, success has depended on broad coalitions. Acting alone often produces limited results and alienates potential partners.
Squandering Enduring Advantages
Despite political rhetoric painting the U.S. as depleted, the country retains formidable strengths: a massive domestic market, the world’s primary reserve currency, a young and growing workforce compared with other developed nations, abundant natural resources, leading universities, and a tradition of attracting global talent. These assets have allowed the U.S. to maintain unmatched economic and strategic clout.
flawed欠点のある、間違いのある
underpin支える
同格のthat
assumptions that no viable alternatives to U.S.leadership exist
viable現実的な、実現可能な
assumptions that Washington can remain dominant without allied support
dominant支配的な
allied同盟した、連合国の
coalition連合
alienate遠ざける
squander浪費する
enduring永続する
political rhetoric政治的な物言い
paint A as B、AをBとして描く
deplete枯渇される、消耗する
retain保つ
formidable恐るべき
primary reserve currency第一位の通貨準備高
asset資産
unmatched匹敵するものがない
clout影響力
25:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:26:56.82 .net
Yet recent policies are undermining these advantages. The administration has expanded executive power at the expense of other institutions, strained relations with allies through erratic trade measures, and withdrawn from key diplomatic initiatives. Foreign aid cuts have weakened American leverage, while public praise for authoritarian leaders has unsettled democratic partners.
The Costs of Alienating Allies
Trump’s negotiating style treats allies as obstacles rather than force multipliers. Viewing partnerships as burdens, he uses U.S. economic and military leverage to demand unilateral concessions. This ignores the practical reality that cooperation often makes American pressure more effective. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example, sanctions achieved real impact only when joined by European, Russian, and Chinese participation.
executive power行政権、執行権
institutions制度
diplomatic initiative外交的率先(行動)、外交イニシアチブ
public praise for authoritarian leaders権威主義のリーダーへの公共の場での称賛
unsettle不安にする
alienate遠ざける
treat A as B、AをBとして扱う
ally同盟国
force multipliers力を増加する物
Viewing partnerships as burdens＝Because he views partnerships as burdens
leverage影響力
to demand unilateral concessions一方的な譲歩を要求するために
reality that同格のthat
make O C=makes American pressure more effective
アメリカの圧力をもっと効果的にする
only when (sanctions were)joined by～
26:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:29:21.83 .net
Similarly, restricting China’s access to advanced technologies will fail without the cooperation of countries such as Japan and the Netherlands, which produce critical components. Threats to cut market access lose potency if the U.S. is already perceived as an unreliable trade partner, or if the dollar’s central role in the global system weakens.
Signs of a Shift
While adversaries have long coordinated to circumvent U.S. pressure, a more dangerous development would be if traditional allies and neutral states began subtly disengaging. This might start with symbolic acts—skipping summits, avoiding direct coordination, or limiting U.S. visibility in global forums. Over time, these small steps could reduce Washington’s ability to shape agendas and rally collective action.
similarly同様に
critical components重要な部品
potency効能、効力、有効性
unreliable信頼できない
circumvent回避する
disengage離れる
start with～で始まる
limiting ～visibility、～の可視性を制限する、～の存在感を弱める
shape agenda協議事項を設定する
rally collective action政治集会の集団行動
27:名無しさん
25/08/23 03:32:35.09 .net
次の課題
Economic repercussions would follow. If foreign investors reduced purchases of U.S. debt or demanded higher returns, borrowing costs would rise. Doubts about U.S. fiscal discipline—fueled by tariffs, high deficits, and political instability—could erode the dollar’s safe-haven status. Supply chains might be reoriented to bypass American firms, and trade agreements among U.S. allies and competitors could deepen regional integration at Washington’s expense.
Multilateral Institutions at Risk
Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization have historically reinforced U.S. influence by embedding American preferences in global economic governance. Recent U.S. criticism and funding threats have shaken confidence in these bodies, potentially opening space for rivals to increase their sway.
28:名無しさん
25/12/30 22:05:02.72 .net
新課題
Was the Cold War Ever Truly Over?
For those who remember the late twentieth century, the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 remains an indelible image. Armed guards, floodlit watchtowers, barbed wire, and the grim symbolism of Checkpoint Charlie vanished almost overnight, swept away by an overwhelming surge of popular desire for freedom. To many observers, it felt like history itself had turned a decisive page.
Only weeks later, in December of that year, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union met in Malta and publicly announced the end of the Cold War. After four decades of ideological confrontation, the world appeared to be entering a new era. At the time, few doubted the magnitude of the moment.
Yet more than three decades on, that sense of finality appears premature. By the mid-2020s, Russia—under Vladimir Putin’s long rule—had once again assumed the posture of a revisionist power, pressing against the borders of Europe and treating neighboring states not as sovereign equals but as strategic possessions. Ukraine, the Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova, and even Poland have found themselves once more under implicit or explicit pressure. In retrospect, the events of 1989 look less like a conclusion than a temporary pause.
History, after all, has a habit of misleading those who live through it. Each generation tends to believe its own crises are unprecedented, its upheavals uniquely transformative. But time and again, moments celebrated as epoch-making prove less decisive than advertised. Political commentators rush to label events as “historic,” “unparalleled,” or “world-changing,” often because perspective is short and memory selective. The same patterns repeat, while their lessons are forgotten.
29:名無しさん
25/12/30 22:06:04.26 .net
The uprisings known as the Arab Spring offer a clear example. Once heralded as the dawn of democratic renewal in the Middle East, they soon dissolved into repression, civil war, or renewed authoritarianism. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 likewise prompted declarations of a radically altered world order. Yet the most enduring consequences were not greater stability or security, but prolonged conflict, legal erosion, and strategic misjudgment, most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Such episodes suggest a broader truth: many events that appear revolutionary are, in fact, false dawns—products of wishful thinking, strategic error, or collective illusion. Seen in this light, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 represents not a reshaping of global politics but a costly failure rooted in outdated imperial assumptions. Britain’s departure from the European Union, once promoted as a bold assertion of sovereignty, has likewise proved sobering, even humiliating, and is now being quietly reconsidered.
Continuity, rather than rupture, remains the dominant feature of international affairs. Despite the noise generated by nationalist movements, culture wars, and digital misinformation, the foundations of global politics have proven remarkably resilient. Revolutions tend to be exaggerated in retrospect; when they do occur, they are unpredictable and frequently followed by reversal. Genuine historical turning points are rare—and rarely recognized as such in real time.
The career of Donald Trump illustrates this dynamic well. By his own telling, he stands among history’s transformative figures. In reality, his record reveals more spectacle than substance. His foreign-policy initiatives stalled, his economic strategies produced mixed results, and his personal conduct eroded institutional trust. What distinguished him most was not achievement but scale of self-regard.
30:名無しさん
25/12/30 22:07:08.91 .net
At present, the political turbulence associated with Trump and his movement appears dramatic. A confrontational U.S. foreign policy, suspicion toward allies, and the erosion of long-standing norms have prompted dire warnings about the collapse of the postwar order. Yet perspective matters. Trump’s time in power is finite. His coalition is unstable. And history suggests that political movements built on personality rather than principle rarely endure.
Americans once believed isolationism in the 1930s marked a permanent retreat from global engagement. It did not. Likewise, today’s upheavals may eventually be remembered not as a turning point but as an aberration—an unsettling interlude rather than a lasting transformation.
Looking ahead, it is worth recalling that authoritarian systems often appear immovable until they suddenly are not. Leaders such as Putin, Xi Jinping, or Netanyahu govern without clear successors, precisely because they fear replacement. Yet history shows that post-authoritarian transitions, while uncertain, often bring reform rather than collapse, as occurred after Stalin and Mao.
Despite mounting anxieties, much endures. Most nations continue to support international institutions. International law, though strained, remains a reference point. Culture, art, science, and sport still connect societies across borders. Education and research continue their slow but relentless advance. Even faith, distorted at times by extremists, remains a source of moral continuity for millions.
If one could wish for anything in the coming years, it would not be dramatic transformation but its absence. No great upheavals, no geopolitical earthquakes, no manufactured crises. Most people simply want stability: the freedom to live peacefully, improve their circumstances, and coexist without being dragged into ideological crusades or power struggles.
31:名無しさん
25/12/30 22:07:49.43 .net
As an old Spanish expression puts it, que no haya novedad—let nothing new arise. In a world weary of conflict and anxious about the future, such quiet continuity would be not a failure of history, but a blessing.
32:名無しさん
26/01/22 05:35:40.46 BuqXClSTm
斬り付けやら殺人が流行ってるがクソポリ公か゛国民から強奪した税金で湯水の如く石油燃やして毎日グルグ儿閑静な住宅地まて゛騒音ヘリ
飛ばしまくってマッチポンプ丸出しで住民イライラ犯罪惹起してこれでもかと利権を貪ってたり力によるー方的な現状変更によって
JALだのAＮAた゛のテロリストに都心まて゛数珠つなぎて゛家の壁を容易に突き抜ける低周波騒音に莫大な温室効果ガスにとまき散らさせて私権侵害
気候変動、海水温上昇、土砂崩れ、洪水、大雪、山火事と災害連発させて人殺しまくって政府主導で強盗殺人させてんだから当然の流れ
そんな殺人テロ国家の国會では消費税減税は財源カ゛一た゛の寝言ほざいてるがクソポリ公からおもちゃ取り上げて航空燃料税リッタ１万円に
するだけで100兆円わいてくるし消費税廃止どころか所得保障まで容易、騒音によって技術力壊滅もはやスパイで儲けてるた゛けの
日本のIT業も正常化するし農作物や海産物被害も激減するし物価も治安も落ち着くのは明らか
日銀にモラ儿八サ゛－ト゛株買わせて物価暴騰事実上国民から強奪した金で自民献金癒着企業の新陳代謝阻止した結果が競争力壊滅赤字決算連發な
航空機連絡先情報 noisｅ.web.fc2.com