How is the new order any different than the old order? We didn't send our troops into Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. When we intervened in East Asia and Southeast Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, it didn't go particularly well, and the China we were facing (explicitly in Korea, and implicitly in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia) didn't have a real nuclear deterrence and was largely equipped with obsolete weapons.
The manner of the message in this case may be shocking to some, but it seems far more like an acknowledgment of reality than a real change in American policy. And it is well and good for Europe and Japan to point to the implicit benefits to the US, but: (1) the fact remains that we have subsidized their defense since the end of World War II; (2) with the debt we have racked up doing this while also maintaining our own 1930s and 1960s era social programs and fighting wars across the globe, we are in a world of hurt; (3) we turned a blind eye to the rise of China for far too long, and are now in second place in a race that we may not be able to win; and (4) because of all of the above, we may no longer be in a position to protect our own interests and subsidize the protection of everyone else's.
Are we a good friend? Maybe, maybe not. But even assuming that international relations are akin to friendships (dubious, but we'll roll with it), good friends tell you the harsh truths that you need to hear; not platitudes that you want to hear.
The only chance the US has in countering China is with the help of its allies. Only with them can it match China’s population, manufacturing base and overall economy.
Certainly demand that allies contribute fully, but don’t abandon them or drive them to the Chinese side.
Also, democratic values matter. The West’s great strength is that these values are attractive to people. Autocracy is not, whether it’s Russian, Chinese, or American.
So let's take the most frightening proposition. China decides to cross the Strait of Taiwan. Let's even grant that China makes the dumb decision to attack Guam as part of this plan. Even so, Article 5 would not apply.
Exactly which US allies do you expect to join the US if it decides to intervene? Latvia? Japan, after China has threatened to nuke them if they intervene? South Korea, knowing that intervening may precipitate a repris invasion from North Korea?
With or without allies, do you think the US has a reasonable possibility to stop China? Odds are that the preparation for an invasion will be done under the fig leaf of a military exercise, and will thus likely come with very little warning - certainly not a long enough time to sail from European waters. The US and any allies that come will be operating at the end of a very long logistics chain, at a location that is within range of China's land-based surface-to-surface and surface-to-air systems?
All of the advantages that our surface Navy has are negated when it is operating in a relatively known location within easy striking distance of mainland China. And our subs' primary advantages (underwater speed and endurance) are largely negated when they are operating in constricted, shallow waters like the Strait of Taiwan. Our Air Force doesn't have the ability to meet its tanking needs in peacetime. How are they going to operate over Pacific distances in a high-threat environment?
But let's say that the US and Taiwan manage to defeat a Chinese invasion, but at the cost of a decent chunk of our fleet and Air Force. Given the relative disparities in industrial capacity that post-1990 free trade agreements have brought, who wins the long game? Do we have the ability to rearm as quickly as China? Do we have the spare money to do so?
I agree that democratic values matter. I agree that they are more attractive, and I doubt I'd last long in an authoritarian regime. But there were an awful lot of countries during the First Cold War who didn't share that opinion, and who chose to ally themselves at least tacitly with the Warsaw Pact and/or China. They get a vote, and so do the authoritarian regimes.
Finally, how far should we be willing to go to defend these values? The destruction of our conventional armed forces? A general nuclear exchange?
I am not suggesting that it is wrong to care about these things, but we cannot simply wish away constraints.
All wargames by both the US and China indicate Taiwan could be taken in three days against any defense sans American involvement. If the US is involved it raises Chinese risk exceptionally:
A successful U.S. submarine campaign could help bring the war to a swift end, preserving Taiwan’s independence and blunting China’s global ambitions. A failed undersea campaign, by contrast, could invite Chinese dominion over Taiwan and the whole Western Pacific region.
Win or lose, the U.S. Navy should brace for heavy losses. Even a victorious USN sub fleet could suffer staggering losses in battle with the Chinese navy around Taiwan.
That’s one sobering result of a series of war games organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. In most of the 24 iterations of the game, subs were able to enter the Chinese defensive zone and wreak havoc with the Chinese fleet.
But even in the scenarios that were optimistic for Taiwanese and allied victory, the U.S. undersea force, which today numbers 53 nuclear-powered attack and cruise-missile submarines, lost up to a quarter of its boats and thousands of sailors.
The 40 or 50 submarines would organize in squadrons of four boats apiece and deploy to U.S. bases in Guam, at Wake Island and in Yokosuka, Japan. One squadron should be on station in the narrow Taiwan Strait when the first Chinese rockets fall and the invasion fleet sets sail.
In CSIS’s war games, those four boats sank Chinese ship after Chinese ship until their torpedoes and missiles ran out or Chinese forces hunted them down. The other nine or ten USN sub-squadrons meanwhile synchronized into an undersea “conveyor belt” attacking, returning to port to reload and return to the combat zone.
Yet even that decisive victory came at a high cost for the Americans. Chinese escorts, aircraft and subs sank a fifth of the deployed American subs every three or four days throughout the two-week war. In the end, perhaps a dozen or more American submarines lay wrecked at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, radioactive tombs for as many as 2,000 submariners.
That's why its called "deterrence". Deter the aggressors so that no one needs to go to war. We are relying on deterrence to keep Taiwan independent, China is relying on their deterrence to keep North Korea. The situation in North Korea is a much larger affront to world human rights standards than anything else I can think of - 26 million people living in a police state that can barely feed them with no political or economic freedom while the world looks on. Our dependency on China goes both ways - without our market they cannot continue to raise their living standards. Right now, it is simply not in anyone's economic interest to start a war for Taiwan or North Korea - China will only act if we send the wrong signals (like "I don't give a sh*t). So ... let's avoid sending those signals - it is free and only requires LEADERSHIP.
I don't entirely disagree. But effective deterrence requires a number of assumptions to be correct.
For example, one of the major assumptions the Europeans had in 1913 was that the major powers would never go to war with each other because their economies were too intertwined.
So what if China views "reunification" with Taiwan as a historical necessary, and only views avoiding the economic consequences of war with the US as desirable but unnecessary? Or what if China believes that - after the panic induced by toilet paper shortages during COVID - the US will lack the will to fight. Is that irrational?
Or, most dangerously, what if China believes that Taiwan presents a strategic fork vis-a-vis the US (i.e. if the US intervenes, an even trade in losses works in China's favor given the manpower and industrial imbalance; if the US doesn't intervene, other Asian countries see the US as a paper tiger and are forced to realign for their own security).
I think we can broadly agree that China will not want a general nuclear exchange, but then again, neither do we. So if they don't escalate, will we be willing to start dropping nukes to defeat an invasion? More relevantly, will they perceive that we'd be willing to?
Agreed with all points. As noted, the Strait of Taiwan is shallow and confined. Our subs - or at least the ones I am personally familiar with, perhaps the Virginia class are different - were not optimized for combat in shallow, littoral spaces.
I have not read the results of those games. Did the scenarios assume a lack of operational surprise? If those were the results without operational surprise, I'd hate to see what they would be if the defense of Taiwan is in actuality an attempt to recapture it. I think at the very least the assumption would need to be that the only air cover the Navy will have will be what it brings with it.
But win, lose, or draw, as you say, a defense of Taiwan will be bloody. This raises two questions in my mind: (1) No matter who's in charge, will we have the will to fight; and (2) what will the long-term consequences be if we lose at least 1/4 of our fleet doing so?
Back when we had industrial capacity to spare, relatively simple designs and construction techniques, and a large naval acquisition plan in place before hostitilities kicked off, it took years before we fielded our "fleet at flood tide." What about now?
I hate being pessimistic, but we are in a world of hurt when it comes to dealing with China in its own backyard.
"With or without allies, do you think the US has a reasonable possibility to stop China?"
This is a moot point -- Trump has already surrendered to China and Russia.
Just as Britain is now the greatest economic power in Europe thanks to Trump's and Republicans' enthusiastic support of Brexit, they now intend to do the same for the U.S.
We can see that for the last 80 years, the U.S. has been horrifically stupidly led resulting in it being a third world "shithole", but now that we have the greatest mind the world has ever known in Trump in charge, we will rise to heights never seen before.
Bill Clinton created the China problem with favored Nation status and high tech.
Bill Clinton created the Ukraine problem with NATO expansionism.
Bill Clinton created the Iraq War with the yellowcake lies he fed through Sidney Blumenthal, which is why Hillary had to commit chronic insubordination to keep him on her payroll despite orders directly from President Obama.
And Obama built on all that "policy" with Arab Spring.
Despite the fact that every single action by the Democrats was in violation of US and International Law.
The problem has been a long time in coming. Pun not intended.
Abandoning Europe suits China. It's Christmas for China and Christmas for Russia. They couldn't be happier with that "world order". American isolationism was ideal for Hitler too. It is difficult to read this Trumpington nonsense. YOU ARE FOLLOWING TRUMP'S NARRATIVE!
I do not disagree with you and I have been making g this argument as nauseum to my Gaean friends since 2014 (well, really since Rumsfelds ‘Old Europe’ comment). I don’t at all like how it’s being done but I think this is good medicine for the EU. Having said all that, I don’t think ours strategically wise to look at alliances through a strictly transactional lens. Especially considering things like global supply chains: https://youtu.be/eUL8EvZkfEY
Category error. Now that Europe is raising its defense spending to 2% on average, Trump is demanding 5% spending. But it’s all bullshit anyway. The goal is to burn down relations with America’s allies. Threaten the Danish PM. Threaten Canada. Stop providing intelligence support to Ukraine. The first thing to do is stop letting them gaslight us about their actions. They hoodwinked half of America, the sooner at least a portion realizes they got conned and we’re all going to suffer… well, it won’t stop what’s to come, but we might still have a shot at some correctives in 2026 and 2028.
A simple check with Perplexity shows the UK has spent over £12 billion supporting the Ukraine in the war. That is one country in Europe. We continue to spend and we have many Ukraine refugees. My brother's wife is one of them. What is the matter with you? Why have so many Americans accepted Trump's lying and criminal, malign narrative?
Because hatred "trumps" everything for much of this country. We see this throughout our history, whether it was hatred of blacks, "indians", Jews, Catholics, Irish, Muslims, Hispanics, Chinese, et al, our country's politicians have always used hate to generate political support -- no different than Hitler, Stalin, Putin, (insert the name of your favorite dictator here).
My assessment of the top few fallacies permeating the discussion:
1) The contention that Pax Americana from WWII to today has "cost us" because we have given too much to freeloader Europe at high risk to us with nothing back. In fact, Pax Americana costs less now (reflected in military and foreign development spending) than it did up through Reagan; down from 7 -10% of GDP in the 50s and 60s to around 4-5% now. In return we got nuclear non-proliferation, containment of expansionist dictatorships, safe global transportation of goods leading to us having by far the largest economy in the world.
2) Notion that our military and foreign development spending has created a large national debt. Not a logical conclusion given point #1. Heightened economic inequality from 1980s on leaving many U.S. regions in various levels of decline/despair, financial crisis, pandemic answered with stimulus, infrastructure and safety net spending much more likely reason. National debt and interest are lower percent of GDP than at many points in last 70 years.
3) Idea that we're spending and risking a lot in Ukraine. Reality is no U.S. combatants, around $30B in humanitarian aid and $150B in sending aging U.S. stockpiled weapons - very small spend. The money actually being spent in the U.S. on replenishing with more effective modern weapons. WWIII? Stopping support with an appeasement rationale is safer? Really? Would it stop cyber and psychological, the so-called asymmetric/total warfare? Maybe "total" detente⁶ is Trump/project 2025 goal but how do you enforce?
4) Idea we owe nothing to Ukraine.
Part of nuclear non-proliferation was to recover Soviet nukes post the 1989 dissolution of the Soviet Union. We partnered with tenuous Russian and Ukraine governments to stop the disappearance of Soviet nuclear warheads to who knows for sure where. Ukraine gave them up voluntarily in return for U.S. security guarantees. No country will ever trust us again for any kind of agreement - if it gets bothersome we flee.
The statement that the United States’ national debt and interest payments are currently lower as a percentage of GDP than at many points in the last 70 years is inaccurate. In reality, both metrics are near or at historically high levels.
National Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
• Current Level: As of 2023, the U.S. national debt stands at approximately 119% of GDP. 
• Historical Comparison: This ratio has seen significant fluctuations over the past seven decades:
• 1950s-1970s: Post-World War II, the debt-to-GDP ratio declined, reaching a low of around 31.8% in 1974. 
• 1980s-2000s: The ratio began to rise, surpassing 50% in the 1980s and reaching approximately 60% by the early 2000s.
• Post-2008 Financial Crisis: The debt-to-GDP ratio accelerated, exceeding 100% in 2013 and continuing to rise. 
• 2020s: The ratio peaked at 130.4% in March 2021, largely due to pandemic-related spending, before slightly declining to the current level. 
Interest Payments as a Percentage of GDP:
• Current Level: In 2023, federal interest payments were approximately 2.4% of GDP. 
• Historical Comparison: Over the past 70 years, interest payments as a percentage of GDP have varied:
• 1950s-1960s: Relatively low levels, often below 1% of GDP.
• 1980s-1990s: Increased significantly, peaking at 3.2% of GDP in 1991. 
• 2000s: Declined to around 1% of GDP, partly due to lower interest rates.
• 2010s-2020s: Began rising again, with projections indicating that interest costs could reach 3.2% of GDP by 2026, surpassing the previous high from 1991. 
Conclusion:
Contrary to the statement, both the national debt and interest payments as percentages of GDP are currently near historical highs, reflecting significant increases over the past several decades.
At last a rational argument. I also liked George Shay's response. The problem is that all of the current strife can be traced back to a single event- the NATO declaration at the Bucharest summit. Don't get me wrong. The decision to declare the NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine as inevitable, wasn't the first slight Russia felt impossible to resist. The illegal abandonment of the ABM treaty was a huge mistake, as was the decision to snub Putin during the period when he was far more amenable to partnership and cooperation, back in the early 2000s.
Most people don't understand the mindsets involved in the Munich Agreement. Hitler wanted war, and was enraged when France and Britain frustrated his ambitions. Britain in particular was desperate to avoid a war until they had built up their bomber strength. You should read some of the debates from Parliament during the period, particularly Churchill's speeches on the subject. Many were convinced London would become worse than Coventry a few weeks into the war. The Trenchard view that 'the bomber would always get through' was the prevalent theory in relation to aerial bombardment campaigns.
This view was probably correct, even if the supposition was probably a little hysterical. At the time, it likely would have taken the Luftwaffe six months to reduce most of non-suburban London to smouldering ruins. The first operational stations for Chain Home weren't completed until 1938, the first Chain Home Low stations weren't introduced until early 1940, and the deployment was rapidly completed by mid-to-late 1940. The reality was that Sir Hugh Dowding's technological miracle only materialised within weeks of the Battle of Britain. In at least the minds of the British Establishment at Munich, they were faced with the conventional equivalent of an atomic aged enemy, able to level cities with impunity, at a point when they had yet to shake themselves from the complacency of having little to no deterrence. The French military's lack of foresight was even worse than that of the British.
Trump's problem is that he is myopically focused on the NATO provocation. In his mind, he would have simply agreed to pull back from Ukraine before the invasion and probably agreed to end funding the provocative levels of Ukrainian military build-up. What he doesn't see is that NATO provocation wasn't the only issue for Putin- yes, Putin viewed it as an existential threat to Russian sovereignty, but it wasn't the only motivating factor. Putin has also had the long-term goal of reducing/destroying/damaging American hegemonic power for around 17-20 years, and he always considered the USSR's decision to separate Russia from Ukraine as an ahistorical strategic blunder of the first order.
Where almost everyone else goes wrong is in failing to understand why wars happen more generally. Quite apart from the superficial seeming contradiction built into 'qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum' there is a deeper paradox built into the statement, which hinges on the understanding that group dynamics differ substantially from those of individual actors. It's compounded by the inability of modern Westerners to distinguish between Nationalism (bad) and National Feeling (much better than its absence, or, indeed, the dystopian resort to supranational governance).
Isaiah Berlin was particularly acute in making this point- the British and Americans were able to avoid National Feeling turning to Nationalism during the unstable 30s because their patriotic sentiments hadn't been undermined by wounded national feeling. Italy was the old man out on the Axis side, in that many Italians felt aligning with the Germans placed them on the wrong side.
The West has made many mistakes in terms of diplomacy, for decades with the Russians, and more recently with China (although the seeds of the current dissent were sown when America made a Faustian bargain without the consent of the American people, in exporting so many jobs to China and elsewhere). In many ways, the observation that he who desires peace should prepare for war is still valid, but requires a caveat- to understand that group dynamics mean that those operating from a wounded sense of national pride will often decide to act expressly against their own interests in the face of perceived slight or aggressive posturing if the alternative is a state of continuing humiliation. In this sense, the Thucydides Trap is more of a Ledger of long-nursed grievance.
This also provides a chilling prognosis for Taiwan. Let's not forget that until the 90s, Taiwan was run by an autocratic junta. From the Chinese point of view, America's concerns over the sovereignty of Taiwan have always been a thinly veiled and cynical attempt to maintain a knife at China's throat.
Good points. I would only add that the Western Allies' "missile gap" in the late 1930s was a largely self-inflicted result of inaction in the early to mid 1930s. By the time they acknowledged the threat, they were playing catch-up in a race they couldn't win. I fear we are facing a similar situation in the Western Pacific.
I was looking at the distance between Taiwan and Mainland China this morning, and thinking of the infamous 2002 Millennium Challenge. I don’t think it’s an understatement to state that low tech mass produced drones have upended the conventional wisdom that small, well-equipped (hi tech), modern militaries will always outperform numerical superiority.
If I were influential in the Pentagon, I would be calling for a large number of simulations aiming to contingency plan the impacts of mass produced drone warfare…
Anyway, my whole problem with the Russia/Ukraine debacle was that Blue Team could have easily waited for Putin to die, rather than pushing the issue of Ukraine to the point of war, pre-invasion.
Two observations- first, a new Russian leader could have reset the relationship. Second, regardless of what people think about Putin on a moral level, it’s a difficult position to argue that any successor to Putin would be more capable. Why not just wait ten years, offering a ten year moratorium on Ukrainian membership of NATO or the EU, back at the end of 2021?
The problem was many in the Western Foreign Policy Establishment really believed there were realistic prospects for either a Russian economic collapse or an Internal Regime collapse. The best minds of the current generation are facile compared to their predecessors. The Soviet Regime’s demoralising effects on its citizenry were just as much to blame for the Soviet collapse as Afghanistan or Reagan’s genius on defence spending.
My position is one of concern over the Doomsday Clock. Chances of nuclear escalation are still relatively low- but a scenario in which Putin is assassinated probably raises the probability to well beyond that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I watch and read a lot of John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, as a balance against other observers on geopolitics.
It's true that spending on defense and foreign aid is not the main reason why we're so deep under water. Rather, the main fiscal problem is runaway entitlement spending, which elected officials, including Donald Trump, have been unwilling to acknowledge, let alone attempt to ameliorate.
I think I agree with the kernel of this answer (assuming I'm not misunderstanding), essentially that the US is (and has been) spread too thin, and it cannot continue to defend (and fund the defense of) liberalism against every threat everywhere, while at the same time keeping sufficient focus on the most critical threats of our time; China, Russia, and Iran - this reckoning has been a long time coming.
It's just unfortunate that the time is nigh and, rather than the deft hand of a Henry Kissinger-like diplomat to see the world through, we have a narcissistic child that can't help but quarrel with everyone; as such everything is stained in the hue of chaos.
You are hearing correctly. I may disagree with Trump's messaging, but I don't disagree with the message. We have constraints, and it is irresponsible (and potentially lethally dangerous) to pretend otherwise. It may already be too late.
I may be slightly less enthused about Kissinger, since it was the "opening" of China as a means of triangulation against the Soviets that sowed the first seeds for our current mess. On the other hand, maybe this was inevitable.
What a homerun? Trump sees threats that Europeans just don't want to admit to. Nigeria recently joined BRICS and almost no news about it. The threats to the U.S. are growing and the EU continues to live in a world where the U.S. has to do all the work.
To be fair to Kissinger, it probably made a lot of sense at the time. And if we hadn't followed it up with a ruinous trade policy that systematically destroyed our domestic industrial base, I'm sure it would have worked out just fine.
But, to paraphrase, we have allowed evil to triumph because good has been very, very dumb. And now we are stuck with the consequences.
Yes, if only we still had that legendary statesman, Joe Biden (who I imagine you voted for) to save the Western alliance which he led to the brink of dissolution. His solicitous concern for corrupt international institutions (Davos, WEF, etc.) and “rules based norms” were worthy of his driveling senility. I’m sure Bismarck and Metternich would be envious.
I hereby assign you reading on the foreign policy of Metternich and Bismarck. Your exam question is, all things being equal, would you prefer you and your family to be living in the Austria of the Holy Alliance or Wilhelmine Prussia, or opt for the comparative peace and prosperity of Joe Biden’s America.
Oh, I think the virtues of “doing no harm” and even coasting are vastly underappreciated. Especially juxtaposed with a political actor who presents deep, systemic risks. The electorate is far too sanguine and unimaginative when it comes to thinking about whether their world can be significantly worse than it is today.
"... the US is (and has been) spread too thin, and it cannot continue to defend (and fund the defense of) liberalism against every threat everywhere ..."
I have no issue with asking our allies to pony up more - let them make hard decisions too - but the most successful strategy so far has been to grow a bigger pie and then to divide it more equally. War is an annoying distraction from all the better things we could all be doing with our time.
We didn't intervene in Eastern Europe because the cold war was better than a hot war given everyone's losses in WWII. We attempted to change that philosophy with our wars in Korea and Vietnam and learned that the Kalashnikov had done a lot to change warfare since WWII. Having an air force and a large army was no longer enough.
Every political philosophy in the US brings something to the table from which we can learn. I appreciate the isolationists desire not to go to war - because even just and noble wars are really bad for vast numbers of people and the planet. But there are a lot of things we can do short of going to war to protect our friends and OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNERS and I don't see us doing those things.
My points were around keeping the supposed cost in perspective with the supposed benefit of isolationism via abandonment. We are not at war. We are providing weapons, intelligence, human survival assistance, training and advice which cost us very little. Is that such a distraction? We're learning extremely valuable modern warfare lessons and modernizing our weapons cache and expanding our weapons manufacturing capacity (jobs) as a result. In the cold war we provided weapons and aid to Turkey and Greece which is why they are not in the "Soviet Sphere" today.
The argument for falling back to geographic spheres of influence has merit and risks, but also some moral and ethical considerations for how and how fast it's done. If everyone else despises you and distrusts you, you need a lot of autocratic power to keep your perch.
What we see so far in this administration is paring away
A similar comment to my own elsewhere in the chat, but from some very different angles. I love the question "Are we a good friend, answer Maybe" we are starting to face the political/societal version of Caregiver Stress Syndrome: caregivers who neglect their own health and well-being while prioritizing the care of a loved one, often leading to burnout and adverse health outcomes.
Since 2014 I've been telling any of my German friends that would listen that Europe needs to take care of it's own defence. It's usually been met with blank stares. I think Vance and Trump's behavior was disgraceful BUT I concede it was the bitter medicine Europe need to get it's collective a** in gear.
Having said this, there's a point is getting lost in the 'Freeloading Europe' narrative.
The US has *actively* encouraged NATO allies dependence. It's insisted Europe purchase American military hardware, much of it, like F-35s reliant on American software updates. The unspoken threat being the withdrawal of security guarantees. Among other things, this has deliberately kept the European defense industry fragmented and immature.
Again, I am furious by how these actions have been carried out, but I believe this will be good for Europe. Look at these stock prices after Feb. 12 (Hegseth's comments and The Munich Security Conference)
Regarding the F-35, I think there is a pretty good argument (and historical precedent) for the importance of interoperability between allied forces, and the F-35 is generally a better airplane than the 4.5 gen Euro fighters it competes with (at a similar, if not lower price point). The F-35 has also been a collaborative development.
Moreover, the US has done its share of buying from other NATO countries. (E.g. our tanks use Rheinmetall main guns, our next-gen frigate is based on a French-Italian design, our light machinegun is Belgian, our advanced jet trainer is a British design, one of our primary anti-ship missiles is Norwegian, and the airplane that the Marines replaced with the was also British-ish.)
You ask "are we in for a new period in which might openly makes right?" I assume this is meant to ask "are we going back to the period where might makes right?"
The so called world order has always been ruled by force, and Europe is surely no exception. This includes periods of peace.
I'm a consequentialist when it comes to politicians. I largely ignore their words and focus on the consequences. "What have they done?"
Hindsight also shows me that nothing is what it appears to be, and big changes take a long time to unfold. Reagan raised taxes 7 11 times. Clinton deregulated the banks. Nixon cleaned the polluted air.
Our tribal narratives are particularly misleading. We should ignore them.
So I will say this: nothing truly significant has happened yet regarding the so called world order. It's all mostly words. Theater.
The 2020 Abraham Accords agreement seems significant, continues to unfold, and does not get enough coverage in the US. This could be world order stuff.
We should recognize what we can and cannot control. Otherwise: Wait. Watch. Listen.
Wow. “Nothing truly significant has happened yet regarding the so called world order”? My feeling is quite to the contrary. David Frum describes my views in his article in The Atlantic entitled “At Least Now We Know the Truth.” It seems clear to me that America is throwing Europe and the Baltics into the wood chipper, and they are now trying to figure out how they respond to the consequences of America’s decision. America is off-loading responsibility for defending nations that Putin would love to have back, and might well take steps to take back during a Trump administration. That is consequential. No it hasn’t happened yet, but Russia won’t announce its intentions. And gee, America will get Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal in return. It’s hard to avoid imagining that there are tectonic shifts taking place that may be largely invisible but that are nonetheless potentially very significant. Americans should, without haste, begin figuring where its true interests are in all this change before the change itself overwhelms us.
My view is that “actions” have clearly been taken already. Taking the unprecedented action of berating the leader of an allied nation (Ukraine) in public is a very significant action that trumpets to Putin that America is caving after 85 years, that is an “action,” and one which should be alarming enough to cause us to demand that Trump inform us of where he intends to go with all this (if, indeed, he has any real idea—and I sincerely mean this).
What about the lack of appreciation and common sense from VZ? It is now apparent why Trump and all didn't want to involve VZ and the EU in the negotiations. Don't take barking dogs to a negotiation with a tiger who hunts for fun. For all of Trump's flaws, he understands both sides better than they understand themselves. All Trump did was to continue what Americans have been demanding, which is to show what goes on in the backroom that later lands at our doorsteps. The first thing I asked Yasha recently was whether he has ever lived anywhere in the U.S. not in the Northeast or California. It is clear Europeans have delusions about how the world works. The benevolence of Americans has been wasted at times at Europeans who are too concerned about where they are going to go on vacation. Nothing has been done yet and words have been interpreted as actions. Notice how Trump spoke about Poland. I wonder what the difference is.
I think the word berating misrepresents the conversation. The president of Ukraine has a lot to answer for in terms of his words and actions. He was very foolish and now is begging to sign the mineral rights agreement. He also missed a good lunch.
I agree - I said this to a trump supporter and he said he believes Putin could very well set off a nuclear bomb if he doesn’t get his way. So now we have 2 bullies in the ring & Trump’s the little guy with no b’s. Trump supporters didn’t like that & wonder what Trump would say?
The problem is that by the time there's an action it'll be too late. It takes a long time for states to make alternative security arrangements. Domestically, many wrote off DOGE as another blue ribbon commission saying it was all Trump bluster and BS.
Many - including one of Yascha's recent guests! Would love to have the guy who said Trump gave Musck DOGE to keep him busy while real things happen elsewhere back on ...
Indeed Richard, I agree that we should do our level best to determine our "true interests" which should include ridding ourselves if possible of the great debt we owe to other countries. But what interests should we have in Ukraine specifically? Aside from promises we made to "sort of "protect" them from Russian invasions, what's in it for us? How about access to critical minerals we may need for our ability to compete economically with the resources of other countries?
I largely agree with you, Demian. Actions vs words is wise, especially with Trump, who Word Vomits all the time. He contradicts himself often. He doesn't know what he's doing half the time. So let's see what actually happens. I do think his treatment of Z was terrible. That all should have occurred, if at all, off live TV. Btw I just read the new 880-page Reagan biography by Max Boot and I believe Reagan raised taxes 11 times, versus 8.
But it HAS led to a bad decision. At Friday’s meeting with Zelensky, Trump’s/Vance’s words led to—or made clear—the decision of the US to abandon Ukraine as a fighting force against Russia in order to re-establish the boundaries of Ukraine’s eastern border. In this decision, the US effectively said that its paramount interest was stopping the war, and to heck with Ukraine’s desire to get back the part of Ukraine taken by Russia three years ago. Stop the war . . . at all costs. Bye bye, Ukraine. Nice knowing you. And, oh, by the way, we’re taking as much of your mineral wealth as we want on our way out. And (probably), be sure to reserve a plot of land in Kyiv for the Trump Towers. Okay, this is a little embellished, but not much. And this spat between big boys is not the kind of thing that personally concerns you? Interesting.
Forget Trump - that is bracket for a moment his singular personality and style - and try to get a handle on the geo-political realities for a moment, which seem to me to include:
[1] Russia has failed miserably in Ukraine - minimal gain at great loss after a 3yr war with a 3rd level country - and has shown itself to be much less a threat than it was thought to be. The driving impetus behind NATO is effectively gone.
[2] Europe is - as they say - a place, not a unified force. Eight yrs ago Trump challenged them to take up their responsibility (they are more populous than Russia and also richer) or else, and they called his bluff by essentially refusing. Now he's followed through. Too many of the European populations have enjoyed a better life-style than the US - retirement, public benefits, etc. - and part of that has involved US expenditures on their behalf. American elites share that lifestyle so were untroubled. But Trump's attitude is in part a 'populist' response to being unfairly taken advantage of.
[3] The US is no longer a power that can police the world effectively or finance all the good guys and fund the response to bad guys. Our military adventures have been for the most part failures - we haven't gotten the job done, and we seem to have little appetite for winning.
[4] China remains a significant adversary, and to the extent that Russia - though badly damaged - remains one of the 3 superpowers, it makes little sense for us to essentially force them to align with the Chinese. Russia is at this point an expansionist threat, and they are not the exporter of an alien communist ideology. True, they are ruled by a bad dictator. But we have to think longer term. Other countries do not share our democratic system and we are quite happy to talk to them and reach understandings on all sorts of issues (China(!), Saudi Arabia, etc.). We cannot dictate the form of gov't others should strive for, but we can talk to them.
Given all this, what Trump told Zelensky - the 'deep diplomacy' - should have been delivered behind closed doors, and we should have given him some 'surface diplomacy' to take home to the Ukranians. But it's the 'deep' geopolitical realities - if I've understood them correctly - that will drive policy.
But the US doesn’t need to be the cheerleader, the piggy bank, the Commander in Chief, and the scapegoat for those allies. That is the problem. If you in Europe want to confront China and stop it’s spread, vote for politicians who tax you and build up defense and weapons tech spending, forego benefits and paid vacations and other welfare, recreate a culture of appetite for life and beauty and Christianity which produces big families and cultural pride. Build an alliance with India to stop them from siding with China.
These things can be done without the US. We need to pay down debt, get out of intractable conflicts like Israel-Gaza, close borders and assimilate the immigrants we already have. We cannot be the world’s charity org and policemen. And we aren’t that good at it. Our elites are naive and some are corrupt and poorly educated in the classic theories of international relations and virtue.
"Our elites are naive and some are corrupt and poorly educated in the classic theories of international relations and virtue."
Luckily we have Trump, Vance, Musk, and Putin to educate us in in the classic theories of international relations and virtue. Nothing says education and virtue like these folks.
Actually I think Vance is very bright and no doubt well read. Hegseth seems like a born leader by example, Gabbard displays strong critical thinking skills. Putin does not serve in the US government and has no influence over policy. Musk is tech support and knows a lot about teamwork, delegation, ambition and engineering.
No, I won't forget Trump for a moment. You have articulated Trump's own rationale, especially (2) and (4). The most important thing is pulling Russia back out of China's arms. All the dimwitted fools wearing their Ukraine flags can't understand the points you have made. Trump is a very intelligent strategic thinker, yet is called a fool by room-temperature IQ types in government and media. I guess this is not too unusual.
Re [1]: the US spent 20 years and 2+ trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, leaving with its tail between its legs and returning the country to the Taliban, so I'm not sure what Russia has done in Ukraine means it's army is feckless. Given the weaponry being used, isn't this more like a war between Russia and NATO (just with Ukranian troops)?
Trump has various primitive political instincts that pull him one way or another but fundamentally lacks any coherent plan or worldview. The people around him seem to hold to a variety of contradictory ideas, ranging from full on isolationist sphere-of-influence geopolitics to a “realist” pro-Russian but anti-Chinese position to just a more transactional form of Atlanticism.
None of these seem to be being pursued with any degree of consistency or seriousness, but they don’t need to be to cause chaos. I expect, for reasons of political inertia and incompetence alone that Trump will fail to fully disentangle America from her old alliances. Too much investment has been put into this relationship to destroy it completely in 4 years. But in trying to do so he will manage to wreck the image of the US as a stable guarantor of security.
I’m not in any position to prophesy the future, but I’m reasonably confident that whatever happens will be a series of confused half-measures that will follow no consistent political doctrine and will certainly not be in the actual material interest of America or the democratic world. Whether that’s permanent or not depends on whether or not Trump’s pro-Russian predilections have a lasting impact on the Republican Party going forward, which I have no way of knowing.
Yeah. Agree. My comment to Demian above was similar to this. Trump and his clan lack coherency. Actions are more important here than words. Let's see what he actually does in the end.
Yes, you could argue Angela Merkel was more pro-Russia than Trump and you only need to look at Europe's dependence on Russian gas to see the folly in that. Perhaps predictability and coherence is what has led the West here.
If you denuke your national power grid and burning coal is verboten, you have to go to your natural gas—oh, don't have any? Then you go to your nearest source of supply—oh, Russia? Should've thought about that before you denuked.
Merkel was a physicist and theoretically sharpest Chancellor I've read about. I assumed this was the reason her and Obama got along so well. A relationship of common goals.
The mainstream media is in total collapse. Their only response is to continue to lie more and faster. By the time they realize that they would be better served by humility and honesty there will be nothing left worth saving. western Europe has clamped down on its people, telling them they're free and punishing them for criticizing the leaders and bludgeoning their women physically with unvetted illegal immigrants. By the time they realize they would be better served by allowing their people to be free and protecting them they will be out of power. NATO and the EU is in collapse. Their response is to pretend they lead the world in defense against Russia and economic output. By the time they realize that they are feckless and their economies are in depression the people will have risen up and replaced them with better alternatives.
I watched Maher’s real time just now, mainly I still watch to see what the enemies of freedom are saying, same reason I keep tabs on the cbc here in canada.
Anyway Maher and his usual leftwing guests mischaracterized Vance’s speech in Munich as him telling Europeans that internal censorship is the worst issue they face but that’s not what Vance said.
He said that if Europe is going to totalitarian route of controlling speech then why would the USA spend any $$ or effort to protect Europe from external enemies?
Why should the USA exert itself to protect a country that jails someone for calling Halbeck a moron (he is a moron).
All Maher and the left have is gaslighting and mischaracterization.
Is Trump overreaching? Yes. I wish he wouldn’t but that seems not possible
This breathless "mainstream media is in total collapse" isn't a factual statement. It's a tribal one -- "hi I'm a Fox Newser (or whatever is your favorite flavor)". Enough of that silliness.
I’m a European. This would be amusing, if it wasn’t so serious for Americans.
You can all hear me, right?
We are entirely free to say what we like. We have much less immigration (which is generally a good thing) than America has had since your Revolution ( there are not many Native Americans, but there are lots of Americans of European descent).
The USA is currently at its highest level of non-native residents ever at 15%, though now just beginning to fall due to remigration (deportation, self- and assisted-). Peak foreign-born in the USA during the height of the Ellis Island era was around 14%.
Some European countries are above 20% today, and all of them are rising (except for some Scandinavians which have achieved zero net migration at huge cost). Note that differential birth rates between natives and foreign-born are still pushing Scandinavian countries' immigrant communities higher and will continue to do so ad infinitum (well, not infinitum, but until no natives are left).
Interesting. What percentage of the German population was not born in Germany? Do you know the answer? Also, how much has the German GDP grown in the last 2 years? It would probably be helpful to reestablish itself as a leader of this 'new world order ' with a strong and solid GDP with good investments and high employment and low consumption of social welfare services dragging on the economy to enable strong leadership. I am sure a powerhouse like Germany is in a great position to lead . What does Germany make? Cars? Steel? Who are Germany's biggest customers? I remember hearing an expression once... The customer is always right. Have you ever heard that?
As a matter of fact, I do know those numbers (through 2024, the latest available). I generally try to keep up on significant demographic changes in many countries, especially ones that make major contributions to the global economy, geopolitics, and cultural trends.
Hello European, your leaders sadly chose regulation over innovation. And virtue signaling over reality. And those two choices are what have brought us to the point today of talking about a new world order that Europe may not have a voice in.
I don't answer to you. I assume you are European. But you are welcome to see the ratings of the recently fired joy reid in the demo. ditto for r. Maddox. ditto for the trend of all of the so called major news networks in the demo over any long term of your choosing, ditto for any major news outlets of your choosing. I am not here to do your homework for you but if you have questions for where to look and how to understand what you are seeing I am happy to assist you as I am able. Happy to help people who are earnest. People who have an agenda are welcome to the bottom of my shoe.
There is a ton of misinformation out there. As St. Augustine said the truth doesn’t need defending set it loose and it defends itself!!!The side who’s worldview supported censorship, and suspended elections and money laundering on a scale that is unfathomable to most seems to be the side that is most upset about the old world crumbling. The side that censors and silences people as which we saw take place in western liberal “socialist” democracies during Covid Plandemic is the one screaming the loudest. The receipts of truth are stacking up and they have no answer. Frankly because they were caught. Buckle up more turbulence incoming.
It’s difficult for me to take seriously anyone who uses three consecutive exclamation points and the word “plandemic”, but let’s unpack your claim, such as it is.
I agree the the left has drifted toward a kind of censorial mode in the last fifteen years, but if you look at the right, it’s not like they’re sterling defenders of civil liberties either. Musk doesn’t tolerate dissent on his platform, and Trump is far too fragile to bear anyone disagreeing with him without throwing a tantrum. I guess if I were to look for a side that actually supported freedom of speech, I would like to see support for all speech, in the way the ACLU used to, before they became just another social justice think tank. But there is no one, right or left in power who shows that kind of principle anymore.
“ I agree the the left has drifted toward a kind of censorial mode in the last fifteen years”.
Kind of?
I recommend a good dose of Taibbi to grasp what’s packed into “kind of”. The USA (and canada with the awful Bill C63) was very close to implementing the insanity we see in Europe.
If you think that represents “kind of” then 5🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 for you.
I, for one, watched every word I wrote. I don’t do that anymore. I felt like the Feds could come knocking at my door any minute. I no longer feel that way. I would tell my friends, when I wrote about gain of function research and the J6 con, to look for a needle prick if I had a “heart attack” in front of Whole Foods. Even during the Obama years I had plenty of friends in business being audited who contributed to Republicans. I had a friend who owned a company that extracted pollutants from water used for agriculture under house arrest with an ankle bracelet. Don’t try to psyop the readers, they’re too smart for that.
Yes, because the U.S. has been willing to fund your happiness. That's the point Trump was also trying to make VZ realize. I'm an American that has lived in the EU for years and am always amazed at how ungrateful Europeans are. Americans have been funding your happiness for 50 years. However, that is unsustainable. DOGE is a great example of the waste here on the U.S but more importantly it is also an example of the suicidal generosity of the U.S.. would a thank you hurt you. Ukraine is not in NATO, why is the U.S. spending more than anyone else?
I am genuinely grateful for what the U.S. has done to protect Europe and promote peace, stability, democracy and directly or indirectly, liberty. The record was mixed during the Cold War (interventions in South America and Southeast Asia were particularly ugly) but the overall ledger by the 1990s undoubtedly resulted in a surplus of good. I mourn the trashing of the legacy our ancestors gave us by the degenerates voted back into the White House. We stand to lose so much.
And Trumpism is so obviously not the answer to that in anything other than an emotionally cathartic way. He’s just as, if not more censorial, he’s just your guy. Trump people aren’t principled about free speech, it’s just a meme. That’s the point I’m making. Prove me wrong.
Greg Lukianoff at FIRE is doing some important work here. If you don’t already follow FIRE’s work, it’s worth dipping in for some very centrist non-partisan protection of free speech.
Criticizing inconsequentials is not how to win an argument. Oh imojis, oh plandemic, oh your sentences are too long, too short, not punctuated properly. No good arguments, just attacks, CNN and MSNBC, you’ve learned the art of psyop, but you haven’t noticed it no longer works.
🤔 So I’m hyperbolic because I didn’t think your opinion countered anything I wrote. So people that disagree with you are Hyperbolic? I see. Some would say your statement of not being able to take me seriously may have been hyperbolic. In fact down right passive aggressive.
TBH my statement stands as is because all of what I said was truthful and there is plenty of evidence in the form of receipts in the public sphere to back up my assertion on censorship and the pandemic. Your statement of basically me having to prove you’re opinion wrong or admit I’m hyperbolic is the equivalent of me asking you how long you’ve been beating your wife? Hyperbolic is laid bare on your side friend. Have a good day.
I also don’t take adults seriously when they use emojis.
Let me re-phrase myself: how is the Trump right an effective and principled counter to leftist censorship? It’s not, because it’s not principled. It’s just bullshit. Prove me wrong or go back to your Fox News hugbox.
I pointed out that you’re wrong on issues of censorship. Prove me wrong or else admit you’re being hyperbolic. You’re not producing an argument here, you’re just contradicting me. I’m not sure you understand the distinction.
Have you proven your point? Or are you also just being hyperbolic? This could go on all day. You can’t prove an opinion. Personally, I agree both sides are guilty of censoring dissent to some degree. But it’s glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention that the left was openly and unapologetically censoring Americans to a degree that was far beyond what the current administration is doing. And they had the media on their side. Even abroad, it is still happening. People are being imprisoned for thought crimes, for chrissakes. And it’s not the right doing it.
So you don't think the US voting with Russia at UN is truly significant? I do. It made my heart absolutely sink on top of Vance going after Zelensky in Oval Office. I see it happening before my eyes and I will just speak for myself.
You don’t think there are spheres of influence? That countries have interests and that large countries protect those interests?
If Justin Trudeau in 2022 announced canada was going to join a Chinese military alliance you don’t think the Biden USA wouldn’t have removed the canadian govt within minutes? Even tho canada has never been part of the USA?
I don’t approve or support what Putin is doing in Ukraine, but he said this is what would happen, and here we are.
The US promised a security guarantee when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons.
And it doesn't actually take that much to honor it. Keep supplying Ukraine with good weaponry (even better than Biden did), hold the line with Russia, and their small, bad economy will catch up with them. And looking at their interest rate problems, that's actually been what's happening.
This facade of realpolitik that you've been trying to defend Trump's Putinization of the conflict is getting into the way of that, without good reasons. As transactional as Trump is with pretty much everything, it is important to dig under the surface of this beyond "America is tired and we shouldn't encroach on the Russian sphere of influence".
What is Trump getting out of echoing Russian media talking points about Ukraine? Given the Russian demographic catastrophe, which predated this war but is extremely exacerbated by it, is he trying to line up an eventual claim or relationship for Russian resources? Is that the reason for the $5M.gold card, to build a relationship with the oligarchs who control that?
I'm not sure he's that smart or forward thinking? His pro Russian sentiment is more easily explained by how much the Trump Organization has been subsidized by Russian money. (There are plenty of interviews out there from the early 2000s talking about this.)
Please provide a link so we can evaluate your contention here -- I am unaware of a NATO military presence in Ukraine, or maybe what you mean is that a promise was made that no support of any kind would be made by any member of NATO (U.S. included) -- that does make the Ukrainians extremely stupid -- almost as stupid as Zelenskyy would have been to hand over all of Ukraine's assets to Trump for free.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by a US ambassador among others, included promises to refrain from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan after they gave up nuclear weapons but did not include any promise that the US would provide military assistance against attack by another government.
My issue with the existing world order as it pertains to our policy in Ukraine is that we have been supporting the Ukrainians just enough to allow them to be slowly annihilated by the numerically and militarily superior Russian army. Leaving aside the issue of whether Putin regards Ukraine becoming a part of NATO as an existential threat, I feel our current level of support for Ukraine has in fact done them a great disservice. If we were really serious about supporting Ukraine we should have supplied them with massive firepower from the very beginning of the conflict.
As to our role in the developing world order we will have to prioritize where we spend our rapidly dwindling resources. With our massive and seemingly endlessly increasing National Debt we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are no longer a unipolar hegemon. Europe has been developing expansive social programs, allowing largely unsustainable immigration, gone headfirst into the Green New Deal, and trashed the German economy while spending the minimal amount possible on their own defense. They were able to minimize their defense spending because they regarded the U.S. military umbrella as a permanent fixture. Nothing in history is forever.
Our role in the developing world order has got to factor in our home situation as well. Globalization was great for those with adequate resources but it has been a disaster for the American working class. Combine that with very stubborn inflation and high prices, and an astonishingly obtuse focus on fringe progressive social policies by the Democratic Party and the coastal elites, we now have 4 more years of President Trump.-To my mind his re-election was a forgone conclusion.
Americans have been living in a period of relative peace since the end of the Vietnam War, have been consuming the world’s resources at a disproportionate rate, have experienced a level of general affluence unknown in world history, and have drifted into a period of secular anomie about who and what we are about. This whole scenario is unsustainable and our leaders, particularly the House and Senate of both Parties seem incapable of doing anything but more and more deficit spending while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense. This has got to change. Our leaders have got to face up to reality and start having an honest conversation with the American People about where this nation is headed.
I personally subscribe to Niall Ferguson’s version of Ferguson’s Rule. A nation that spends more paying interest on its national debt than its defense budget-however bloated that is, is an empire on the way out.
American’s undoubtedly have a big heart but at this moment in history we appear to suffer from a huge deficit of common sense and way too much hubris.
We won’t be able to help anyone if we go bankrupt as a nation or if we destroy ourselves from within.
To my mind, our prime focus has to be on getting our own seriously divided house in order.
"This whole scenario is unsustainable and our leaders, particularly the House and Senate of both Parties seem incapable of doing anything but more and more deficit spending while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense."
Hear!! Hear!! Finally, we will replace these corrupt politicians with the kind of leaders for whom using the government to line their pockets is anathema. Long live Trump and Musk, the two most honest politicians this country has ever known!!
If your system requires virtuous superhumans in order to operate effectively, you don't have a system, you have a shambles. A functional system works well even given the reptilian venality and selfishness at the core of every human being.
Trump is a zero sum guy because he’s a malignant narcissist; one characteristic of such dysfunctional personalities is black-and-white thinking, you’re either with them or against them, you’re either a winner or a loser. Some people say the personal is political; with Trump there IS no political, it’s all personal, including what happened in the Oval Office yesterday. This is what happens when you elect someone with a personality like this. Lots of people devote a lot of column space toward figuring out what Trump means, or why he does what he does. There’s an easy explanation. He does whatever he thinks makes him look like a winner, rather than a loser; he supports and aligns himself with those he views as winners, not losers; and he helps those he views as “with him” and not against him. A corollary is that all of this is always subject to change. And this is true whether he is considering who to keep in his cabinet, or which countries to favor with US aid. It’s no longer about US interests, it’s about the interests of one man. If you just accept this, it makes it a lot easier to cope.
Agree. Although I'd say sadly the Left broadly has become equally binary. If only they could resolve that on their side it would give centrists and independents someone to vote for over Trump or Vance in 28.
Let me be the first to invite you to join us in 2026 and 2028. The woke Left doesn’t have to run the show and I’m hopeful that a culturally centrist faction of Democrats can be raised up. It’s going to take a village, but it can be done, since it’s always been there, though it’s more quiet and doesn’t enjoy much media cachet.
Since the Trump message can be boiled down to "Hate!! Hate!! Hate!!", it isn't clear what message the left can propose that would attract those for whom hate is their only value.
But I don't believe that the nearly 80m Americans who voted for Trump all "Hate Hate Hate". What the moderate right, centrists and left in the US and Europe have all done is ignore the genuine concerns of the people who have been left behind by globalism and neo-liberal economics. The shouty right has spoken to their concerns and proposed solutions in a hateful way. The traditional liberals, in a broad sense not narrow US political sense, have responded by illiberally censoring/suppressing these hateful solutions, ignoring the underlying concerns and essentially telling the people with those concerns that they are evil. Since most of them know that they are not individually evil, and the liberals aren't offering alternative solutions, they assume that when the liberals say these parties/politicians are evil then they aren't either - the problem of crying wolf. The liberals need to acknowledge the real concerns and propose unhateful but realistic solutions to them and stop censoring alternative opinions and instead out argue them. Also the parties of the right in Europe would more quickly break down the fire walls if they followed Meloni's lead and stopped explicitly or implicitly supporting Putin. It takes longer to persuade people you aren't a fascist if you support one who is currently waging war with atrocities against a neighboring country that is somewhat democratic and moving in the right direction. Meloni is my favourite politician in Europe at the moment. I await other commenters politely and rudely enlightening me as to why she is terrible!!
This. I don’t believe every Trump voter, or even most of them, were motivated by hate. Caricaturing them this way does not foster the empathy necessary to actually help them, and it’s not going to get them to vote Democrat. Which would be fine if the Democrats didn’t need their votes. But they do, because their more extreme positions attract only a small slice of the electorate, college graduates in large coastal cities. That’s not enough to win.
Agreed. And that is why everything is transactional and inconsistent. There is no plan, there is no strategy, and there is no impulse control. (That is not to say that the fine folks at Project 2025 don't have a plan. They most certainly do. I can only imagine how challenging it is for them to partner with someone who is so capricious.)
Putin, on the other hand, has been playing the long game, and his investment (bailing out Trump) is starting to pay big dividends.
The scene in the Oval Office made all this clear while it established firmly that the new world order is one in which America, as of Friday, Feb 28th, has NO allies.
I, too, struggle to imagine how such a new world order will unfold.
Isolationism (or America First or American exceptionalism (“USA is the greatest country in the world”) seems to be the default position of USA)). It was prior to WW1 and again in rejecting the League of Nations and into WW2, prior to Pearl Harbor.
Most of us hoped that the absolute futility of Isolationism had been learned the hard way following US entry into WW2. It is even more obvious in the current globalized world, where actions in one place can impact on all of us.
The apparent extreme isolationist of MAGA is hard to understand in this context.
Leaving allies in Europe to fend for themselves seems to be based on a sphere of influence approach, which means other allies, such as Japan, sKorea, Saudi Arabia, etc must also fend for themselves, presumably including seeking nuclear deterrents.
Meanwhile China continues to strengthen its influence everywhere.
Surely the majority of Americans can see that this is counter to their interests?
Trump has always been transactional and his calculation seems to be that the US is not strong enough now and certainly won’t be in the future if it follows the previous plans of Obama and Biden. He’s cutting costs and calling in debts. The USA can’t act as the world policeman and end up the backstop or more in Ukraine, Gaza and Taiwan fighting against Russia and China with N Korea and Iran. He’s therefore sacrificing Ukraine to bring Russia back into Europe and away from an alliance with China. A side effect of this is that the Europeans will need to pay much more for their own defences or will need to find an accommodation with Russia over Eastern Europe. He’s also forcing a halt in Gaza so that he can realign the forces he has to defend Taiwan and protect the chip factories his economy and military needs until he can build facilities to make chips in Texas.
I don’t think any of this hasn’t been signposted, the Europeans have simply been navel gazing and wasting time especially since 2014 but really since the break up of the Soviet Union.
The Ukrainian president should have read the room better and did what Starmer and Macron did and avoid confrontation at all costs even at the expense of your dignity. The game has changed and is much more transactional now and the guy with the biggest economy has all the cards and isn’t afraid to use them for the first time in a while because he can see what’s on the horizon and it ain’t good.
The difference between Starmer/Macron and Zelensky is that they can come to the White House from relative positions of strength. They have not been charged with being a dictator and starting a war. If Vance (who I assume was not in the meetings with Starmer and Macron) had made the types of remarks to them that he made to Zelensky, I wonder if they would have accepted his condescensions.
"He’s therefore sacrificing Ukraine to bring Russia back into Europe and away from an alliance with China."
I didn't realize Trump was such a strategic genius -- but please, since you understand these things much better than us non-MAGA types, just how is surrendering to Putin going to break up his alliance with China?
That you didn't realize Trump was such a strategic genius, and are just waking up to the man's purpose is perhaps not surprising. To draw Russia out of China's arms it is necessary to engage in diplomacy with them, which is something Trump is seizing the opportunity to do. Can you understand this? Who has surrendered to Putin? Who has said that he or she intends to surrender to Putin? No one, of course, but the reason you can't see things that are obvious, about Trump and other things, is that you allow your mind to marinate in things that are untrue.
Great analysis! The sooner Trump can build chip factories in Texas the better and the sooner he can cut enviro regulations and let Dakotan woods be used for cheaper housing the better.
So Trump is now a semiconductor genius too? He will make sure the new fabs are up and running just like he lowered the price of eggs! Wow. And I’m looking forward to the dig, poison, and drill era!
I have no insight into what the future order might be that has for yasha S excerpt from the debacle on Friday and his touching defense of poor pooty poot, well cry me a river. My conclusion is that Putin really does have some Kompromat on trump. His defense of Putin goes way beyond a bromance.
The key to all of Trump's actions centers on the fate of Europe. Once you carefully consider that future in light of current trends, you will arrive at the same conclusion Mark Steyn did in his 2006 "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It." Mark was quite prescient in his writing at the time and these days makes a joke of his common refrain of "as I said 20 years ago..."
You'll see that decoupling from the fatal disease of Europe is essential to the USA's (and Western civilization's) survival. What Germany or France or the UK profess to believe and commit to doing is irrelevant. Demographics driven by mass immigration and cratered native reproduction rates make all European plans and commitments just so much hot air.
That the political systems all over the Continent cannot accommodate in any way the surge of anti-immigration nativist parties seals the fate of Europe and forces the USA to look to its own survival, perhaps one day to lead to a second European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
How is the new order any different than the old order? We didn't send our troops into Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. When we intervened in East Asia and Southeast Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, it didn't go particularly well, and the China we were facing (explicitly in Korea, and implicitly in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia) didn't have a real nuclear deterrence and was largely equipped with obsolete weapons.
The manner of the message in this case may be shocking to some, but it seems far more like an acknowledgment of reality than a real change in American policy. And it is well and good for Europe and Japan to point to the implicit benefits to the US, but: (1) the fact remains that we have subsidized their defense since the end of World War II; (2) with the debt we have racked up doing this while also maintaining our own 1930s and 1960s era social programs and fighting wars across the globe, we are in a world of hurt; (3) we turned a blind eye to the rise of China for far too long, and are now in second place in a race that we may not be able to win; and (4) because of all of the above, we may no longer be in a position to protect our own interests and subsidize the protection of everyone else's.
Are we a good friend? Maybe, maybe not. But even assuming that international relations are akin to friendships (dubious, but we'll roll with it), good friends tell you the harsh truths that you need to hear; not platitudes that you want to hear.
The only chance the US has in countering China is with the help of its allies. Only with them can it match China’s population, manufacturing base and overall economy.
Certainly demand that allies contribute fully, but don’t abandon them or drive them to the Chinese side.
Also, democratic values matter. The West’s great strength is that these values are attractive to people. Autocracy is not, whether it’s Russian, Chinese, or American.
So let's take the most frightening proposition. China decides to cross the Strait of Taiwan. Let's even grant that China makes the dumb decision to attack Guam as part of this plan. Even so, Article 5 would not apply.
Exactly which US allies do you expect to join the US if it decides to intervene? Latvia? Japan, after China has threatened to nuke them if they intervene? South Korea, knowing that intervening may precipitate a repris invasion from North Korea?
With or without allies, do you think the US has a reasonable possibility to stop China? Odds are that the preparation for an invasion will be done under the fig leaf of a military exercise, and will thus likely come with very little warning - certainly not a long enough time to sail from European waters. The US and any allies that come will be operating at the end of a very long logistics chain, at a location that is within range of China's land-based surface-to-surface and surface-to-air systems?
All of the advantages that our surface Navy has are negated when it is operating in a relatively known location within easy striking distance of mainland China. And our subs' primary advantages (underwater speed and endurance) are largely negated when they are operating in constricted, shallow waters like the Strait of Taiwan. Our Air Force doesn't have the ability to meet its tanking needs in peacetime. How are they going to operate over Pacific distances in a high-threat environment?
But let's say that the US and Taiwan manage to defeat a Chinese invasion, but at the cost of a decent chunk of our fleet and Air Force. Given the relative disparities in industrial capacity that post-1990 free trade agreements have brought, who wins the long game? Do we have the ability to rearm as quickly as China? Do we have the spare money to do so?
I agree that democratic values matter. I agree that they are more attractive, and I doubt I'd last long in an authoritarian regime. But there were an awful lot of countries during the First Cold War who didn't share that opinion, and who chose to ally themselves at least tacitly with the Warsaw Pact and/or China. They get a vote, and so do the authoritarian regimes.
Finally, how far should we be willing to go to defend these values? The destruction of our conventional armed forces? A general nuclear exchange?
I am not suggesting that it is wrong to care about these things, but we cannot simply wish away constraints.
All wargames by both the US and China indicate Taiwan could be taken in three days against any defense sans American involvement. If the US is involved it raises Chinese risk exceptionally:
A successful U.S. submarine campaign could help bring the war to a swift end, preserving Taiwan’s independence and blunting China’s global ambitions. A failed undersea campaign, by contrast, could invite Chinese dominion over Taiwan and the whole Western Pacific region.
Win or lose, the U.S. Navy should brace for heavy losses. Even a victorious USN sub fleet could suffer staggering losses in battle with the Chinese navy around Taiwan.
That’s one sobering result of a series of war games organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. In most of the 24 iterations of the game, subs were able to enter the Chinese defensive zone and wreak havoc with the Chinese fleet.
But even in the scenarios that were optimistic for Taiwanese and allied victory, the U.S. undersea force, which today numbers 53 nuclear-powered attack and cruise-missile submarines, lost up to a quarter of its boats and thousands of sailors.
The 40 or 50 submarines would organize in squadrons of four boats apiece and deploy to U.S. bases in Guam, at Wake Island and in Yokosuka, Japan. One squadron should be on station in the narrow Taiwan Strait when the first Chinese rockets fall and the invasion fleet sets sail.
In CSIS’s war games, those four boats sank Chinese ship after Chinese ship until their torpedoes and missiles ran out or Chinese forces hunted them down. The other nine or ten USN sub-squadrons meanwhile synchronized into an undersea “conveyor belt” attacking, returning to port to reload and return to the combat zone.
Yet even that decisive victory came at a high cost for the Americans. Chinese escorts, aircraft and subs sank a fifth of the deployed American subs every three or four days throughout the two-week war. In the end, perhaps a dozen or more American submarines lay wrecked at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, radioactive tombs for as many as 2,000 submariners.
That's why its called "deterrence". Deter the aggressors so that no one needs to go to war. We are relying on deterrence to keep Taiwan independent, China is relying on their deterrence to keep North Korea. The situation in North Korea is a much larger affront to world human rights standards than anything else I can think of - 26 million people living in a police state that can barely feed them with no political or economic freedom while the world looks on. Our dependency on China goes both ways - without our market they cannot continue to raise their living standards. Right now, it is simply not in anyone's economic interest to start a war for Taiwan or North Korea - China will only act if we send the wrong signals (like "I don't give a sh*t). So ... let's avoid sending those signals - it is free and only requires LEADERSHIP.
I don't entirely disagree. But effective deterrence requires a number of assumptions to be correct.
For example, one of the major assumptions the Europeans had in 1913 was that the major powers would never go to war with each other because their economies were too intertwined.
So what if China views "reunification" with Taiwan as a historical necessary, and only views avoiding the economic consequences of war with the US as desirable but unnecessary? Or what if China believes that - after the panic induced by toilet paper shortages during COVID - the US will lack the will to fight. Is that irrational?
Or, most dangerously, what if China believes that Taiwan presents a strategic fork vis-a-vis the US (i.e. if the US intervenes, an even trade in losses works in China's favor given the manpower and industrial imbalance; if the US doesn't intervene, other Asian countries see the US as a paper tiger and are forced to realign for their own security).
I think we can broadly agree that China will not want a general nuclear exchange, but then again, neither do we. So if they don't escalate, will we be willing to start dropping nukes to defeat an invasion? More relevantly, will they perceive that we'd be willing to?
Agreed with all points. As noted, the Strait of Taiwan is shallow and confined. Our subs - or at least the ones I am personally familiar with, perhaps the Virginia class are different - were not optimized for combat in shallow, littoral spaces.
I have not read the results of those games. Did the scenarios assume a lack of operational surprise? If those were the results without operational surprise, I'd hate to see what they would be if the defense of Taiwan is in actuality an attempt to recapture it. I think at the very least the assumption would need to be that the only air cover the Navy will have will be what it brings with it.
But win, lose, or draw, as you say, a defense of Taiwan will be bloody. This raises two questions in my mind: (1) No matter who's in charge, will we have the will to fight; and (2) what will the long-term consequences be if we lose at least 1/4 of our fleet doing so?
Back when we had industrial capacity to spare, relatively simple designs and construction techniques, and a large naval acquisition plan in place before hostitilities kicked off, it took years before we fielded our "fleet at flood tide." What about now?
I hate being pessimistic, but we are in a world of hurt when it comes to dealing with China in its own backyard.
Links to the Wargames? I for one would be interested.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan
Basic Google sleuthing will get you a few more, as well as a metastudy.
"With or without allies, do you think the US has a reasonable possibility to stop China?"
This is a moot point -- Trump has already surrendered to China and Russia.
Just as Britain is now the greatest economic power in Europe thanks to Trump's and Republicans' enthusiastic support of Brexit, they now intend to do the same for the U.S.
We can see that for the last 80 years, the U.S. has been horrifically stupidly led resulting in it being a third world "shithole", but now that we have the greatest mind the world has ever known in Trump in charge, we will rise to heights never seen before.
Our situation with China didn't just fall out of the coconut tree.
Nope.
Bill Clinton created the China problem with favored Nation status and high tech.
Bill Clinton created the Ukraine problem with NATO expansionism.
Bill Clinton created the Iraq War with the yellowcake lies he fed through Sidney Blumenthal, which is why Hillary had to commit chronic insubordination to keep him on her payroll despite orders directly from President Obama.
And Obama built on all that "policy" with Arab Spring.
Despite the fact that every single action by the Democrats was in violation of US and International Law.
The problem has been a long time in coming. Pun not intended.
At the end of the day there's only one way to "demand that allies contribute fully", which is to threaten to abandon them if they don't.
Abandoning Europe suits China. It's Christmas for China and Christmas for Russia. They couldn't be happier with that "world order". American isolationism was ideal for Hitler too. It is difficult to read this Trumpington nonsense. YOU ARE FOLLOWING TRUMP'S NARRATIVE!
So that's a no on calling an end to NATO free riders then...
I do not disagree with you and I have been making g this argument as nauseum to my Gaean friends since 2014 (well, really since Rumsfelds ‘Old Europe’ comment). I don’t at all like how it’s being done but I think this is good medicine for the EU. Having said all that, I don’t think ours strategically wise to look at alliances through a strictly transactional lens. Especially considering things like global supply chains: https://youtu.be/eUL8EvZkfEY
Category error. Now that Europe is raising its defense spending to 2% on average, Trump is demanding 5% spending. But it’s all bullshit anyway. The goal is to burn down relations with America’s allies. Threaten the Danish PM. Threaten Canada. Stop providing intelligence support to Ukraine. The first thing to do is stop letting them gaslight us about their actions. They hoodwinked half of America, the sooner at least a portion realizes they got conned and we’re all going to suffer… well, it won’t stop what’s to come, but we might still have a shot at some correctives in 2026 and 2028.
Can the threat be made “neutrally” without looking like a buddy to Putin
Vance in Munich tied it to EU censorship policies
A simple check with Perplexity shows the UK has spent over £12 billion supporting the Ukraine in the war. That is one country in Europe. We continue to spend and we have many Ukraine refugees. My brother's wife is one of them. What is the matter with you? Why have so many Americans accepted Trump's lying and criminal, malign narrative?
I'd disagree but I don't want to be arrested by UK police for wrongthink.
Because hatred "trumps" everything for much of this country. We see this throughout our history, whether it was hatred of blacks, "indians", Jews, Catholics, Irish, Muslims, Hispanics, Chinese, et al, our country's politicians have always used hate to generate political support -- no different than Hitler, Stalin, Putin, (insert the name of your favorite dictator here).
I guess Navalny, assassination attempts on Armin Pappenberger etc. are of no great concern.
Vance just encouraged Europe to embrace their Nazi past -- that would fix everything.
ah yes, the old "everyone who doesn't vote for open borders is a Nazi" canard.
My assessment of the top few fallacies permeating the discussion:
1) The contention that Pax Americana from WWII to today has "cost us" because we have given too much to freeloader Europe at high risk to us with nothing back. In fact, Pax Americana costs less now (reflected in military and foreign development spending) than it did up through Reagan; down from 7 -10% of GDP in the 50s and 60s to around 4-5% now. In return we got nuclear non-proliferation, containment of expansionist dictatorships, safe global transportation of goods leading to us having by far the largest economy in the world.
2) Notion that our military and foreign development spending has created a large national debt. Not a logical conclusion given point #1. Heightened economic inequality from 1980s on leaving many U.S. regions in various levels of decline/despair, financial crisis, pandemic answered with stimulus, infrastructure and safety net spending much more likely reason. National debt and interest are lower percent of GDP than at many points in last 70 years.
3) Idea that we're spending and risking a lot in Ukraine. Reality is no U.S. combatants, around $30B in humanitarian aid and $150B in sending aging U.S. stockpiled weapons - very small spend. The money actually being spent in the U.S. on replenishing with more effective modern weapons. WWIII? Stopping support with an appeasement rationale is safer? Really? Would it stop cyber and psychological, the so-called asymmetric/total warfare? Maybe "total" detente⁶ is Trump/project 2025 goal but how do you enforce?
4) Idea we owe nothing to Ukraine.
Part of nuclear non-proliferation was to recover Soviet nukes post the 1989 dissolution of the Soviet Union. We partnered with tenuous Russian and Ukraine governments to stop the disappearance of Soviet nuclear warheads to who knows for sure where. Ukraine gave them up voluntarily in return for U.S. security guarantees. No country will ever trust us again for any kind of agreement - if it gets bothersome we flee.
The statement that the United States’ national debt and interest payments are currently lower as a percentage of GDP than at many points in the last 70 years is inaccurate. In reality, both metrics are near or at historically high levels.
National Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
• Current Level: As of 2023, the U.S. national debt stands at approximately 119% of GDP. 
• Historical Comparison: This ratio has seen significant fluctuations over the past seven decades:
• 1950s-1970s: Post-World War II, the debt-to-GDP ratio declined, reaching a low of around 31.8% in 1974. 
• 1980s-2000s: The ratio began to rise, surpassing 50% in the 1980s and reaching approximately 60% by the early 2000s.
• Post-2008 Financial Crisis: The debt-to-GDP ratio accelerated, exceeding 100% in 2013 and continuing to rise. 
• 2020s: The ratio peaked at 130.4% in March 2021, largely due to pandemic-related spending, before slightly declining to the current level. 
Interest Payments as a Percentage of GDP:
• Current Level: In 2023, federal interest payments were approximately 2.4% of GDP. 
• Historical Comparison: Over the past 70 years, interest payments as a percentage of GDP have varied:
• 1950s-1960s: Relatively low levels, often below 1% of GDP.
• 1980s-1990s: Increased significantly, peaking at 3.2% of GDP in 1991. 
• 2000s: Declined to around 1% of GDP, partly due to lower interest rates.
• 2010s-2020s: Began rising again, with projections indicating that interest costs could reach 3.2% of GDP by 2026, surpassing the previous high from 1991. 
Conclusion:
Contrary to the statement, both the national debt and interest payments as percentages of GDP are currently near historical highs, reflecting significant increases over the past several decades.
I consider the 1980s and 90s to be "many points". Agree the stated time period was ill chosen given not a significant national debt until Reagan.
At last a rational argument. I also liked George Shay's response. The problem is that all of the current strife can be traced back to a single event- the NATO declaration at the Bucharest summit. Don't get me wrong. The decision to declare the NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine as inevitable, wasn't the first slight Russia felt impossible to resist. The illegal abandonment of the ABM treaty was a huge mistake, as was the decision to snub Putin during the period when he was far more amenable to partnership and cooperation, back in the early 2000s.
Most people don't understand the mindsets involved in the Munich Agreement. Hitler wanted war, and was enraged when France and Britain frustrated his ambitions. Britain in particular was desperate to avoid a war until they had built up their bomber strength. You should read some of the debates from Parliament during the period, particularly Churchill's speeches on the subject. Many were convinced London would become worse than Coventry a few weeks into the war. The Trenchard view that 'the bomber would always get through' was the prevalent theory in relation to aerial bombardment campaigns.
This view was probably correct, even if the supposition was probably a little hysterical. At the time, it likely would have taken the Luftwaffe six months to reduce most of non-suburban London to smouldering ruins. The first operational stations for Chain Home weren't completed until 1938, the first Chain Home Low stations weren't introduced until early 1940, and the deployment was rapidly completed by mid-to-late 1940. The reality was that Sir Hugh Dowding's technological miracle only materialised within weeks of the Battle of Britain. In at least the minds of the British Establishment at Munich, they were faced with the conventional equivalent of an atomic aged enemy, able to level cities with impunity, at a point when they had yet to shake themselves from the complacency of having little to no deterrence. The French military's lack of foresight was even worse than that of the British.
Trump's problem is that he is myopically focused on the NATO provocation. In his mind, he would have simply agreed to pull back from Ukraine before the invasion and probably agreed to end funding the provocative levels of Ukrainian military build-up. What he doesn't see is that NATO provocation wasn't the only issue for Putin- yes, Putin viewed it as an existential threat to Russian sovereignty, but it wasn't the only motivating factor. Putin has also had the long-term goal of reducing/destroying/damaging American hegemonic power for around 17-20 years, and he always considered the USSR's decision to separate Russia from Ukraine as an ahistorical strategic blunder of the first order.
Where almost everyone else goes wrong is in failing to understand why wars happen more generally. Quite apart from the superficial seeming contradiction built into 'qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum' there is a deeper paradox built into the statement, which hinges on the understanding that group dynamics differ substantially from those of individual actors. It's compounded by the inability of modern Westerners to distinguish between Nationalism (bad) and National Feeling (much better than its absence, or, indeed, the dystopian resort to supranational governance).
Isaiah Berlin was particularly acute in making this point- the British and Americans were able to avoid National Feeling turning to Nationalism during the unstable 30s because their patriotic sentiments hadn't been undermined by wounded national feeling. Italy was the old man out on the Axis side, in that many Italians felt aligning with the Germans placed them on the wrong side.
The West has made many mistakes in terms of diplomacy, for decades with the Russians, and more recently with China (although the seeds of the current dissent were sown when America made a Faustian bargain without the consent of the American people, in exporting so many jobs to China and elsewhere). In many ways, the observation that he who desires peace should prepare for war is still valid, but requires a caveat- to understand that group dynamics mean that those operating from a wounded sense of national pride will often decide to act expressly against their own interests in the face of perceived slight or aggressive posturing if the alternative is a state of continuing humiliation. In this sense, the Thucydides Trap is more of a Ledger of long-nursed grievance.
This also provides a chilling prognosis for Taiwan. Let's not forget that until the 90s, Taiwan was run by an autocratic junta. From the Chinese point of view, America's concerns over the sovereignty of Taiwan have always been a thinly veiled and cynical attempt to maintain a knife at China's throat.
Good points. I would only add that the Western Allies' "missile gap" in the late 1930s was a largely self-inflicted result of inaction in the early to mid 1930s. By the time they acknowledged the threat, they were playing catch-up in a race they couldn't win. I fear we are facing a similar situation in the Western Pacific.
I was looking at the distance between Taiwan and Mainland China this morning, and thinking of the infamous 2002 Millennium Challenge. I don’t think it’s an understatement to state that low tech mass produced drones have upended the conventional wisdom that small, well-equipped (hi tech), modern militaries will always outperform numerical superiority.
If I were influential in the Pentagon, I would be calling for a large number of simulations aiming to contingency plan the impacts of mass produced drone warfare…
Anyway, my whole problem with the Russia/Ukraine debacle was that Blue Team could have easily waited for Putin to die, rather than pushing the issue of Ukraine to the point of war, pre-invasion.
Two observations- first, a new Russian leader could have reset the relationship. Second, regardless of what people think about Putin on a moral level, it’s a difficult position to argue that any successor to Putin would be more capable. Why not just wait ten years, offering a ten year moratorium on Ukrainian membership of NATO or the EU, back at the end of 2021?
The problem was many in the Western Foreign Policy Establishment really believed there were realistic prospects for either a Russian economic collapse or an Internal Regime collapse. The best minds of the current generation are facile compared to their predecessors. The Soviet Regime’s demoralising effects on its citizenry were just as much to blame for the Soviet collapse as Afghanistan or Reagan’s genius on defence spending.
My position is one of concern over the Doomsday Clock. Chances of nuclear escalation are still relatively low- but a scenario in which Putin is assassinated probably raises the probability to well beyond that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I watch and read a lot of John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, as a balance against other observers on geopolitics.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/
Good God! Reason and evidence! Prepare to be shouted down.
The current debt:GDP ratio is extremely high by historic standards. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
It's true that spending on defense and foreign aid is not the main reason why we're so deep under water. Rather, the main fiscal problem is runaway entitlement spending, which elected officials, including Donald Trump, have been unwilling to acknowledge, let alone attempt to ameliorate.
I think I agree with the kernel of this answer (assuming I'm not misunderstanding), essentially that the US is (and has been) spread too thin, and it cannot continue to defend (and fund the defense of) liberalism against every threat everywhere, while at the same time keeping sufficient focus on the most critical threats of our time; China, Russia, and Iran - this reckoning has been a long time coming.
It's just unfortunate that the time is nigh and, rather than the deft hand of a Henry Kissinger-like diplomat to see the world through, we have a narcissistic child that can't help but quarrel with everyone; as such everything is stained in the hue of chaos.
You are hearing correctly. I may disagree with Trump's messaging, but I don't disagree with the message. We have constraints, and it is irresponsible (and potentially lethally dangerous) to pretend otherwise. It may already be too late.
I may be slightly less enthused about Kissinger, since it was the "opening" of China as a means of triangulation against the Soviets that sowed the first seeds for our current mess. On the other hand, maybe this was inevitable.
What a homerun? Trump sees threats that Europeans just don't want to admit to. Nigeria recently joined BRICS and almost no news about it. The threats to the U.S. are growing and the EU continues to live in a world where the U.S. has to do all the work.
LoL, point about Kissinger, fair. The first famous diplomat that came to mind, to make my point 😅
To be fair to Kissinger, it probably made a lot of sense at the time. And if we hadn't followed it up with a ruinous trade policy that systematically destroyed our domestic industrial base, I'm sure it would have worked out just fine.
But, to paraphrase, we have allowed evil to triumph because good has been very, very dumb. And now we are stuck with the consequences.
Yes, if only we still had that legendary statesman, Joe Biden (who I imagine you voted for) to save the Western alliance which he led to the brink of dissolution. His solicitous concern for corrupt international institutions (Davos, WEF, etc.) and “rules based norms” were worthy of his driveling senility. I’m sure Bismarck and Metternich would be envious.
I hereby assign you reading on the foreign policy of Metternich and Bismarck. Your exam question is, all things being equal, would you prefer you and your family to be living in the Austria of the Holy Alliance or Wilhelmine Prussia, or opt for the comparative peace and prosperity of Joe Biden’s America.
That begs a question: was the US relatively peaceful and prosperous between 1/21/21 and 1/21/25 because Joe Biden was the POTUS or in spite of it?
Oh, I think the virtues of “doing no harm” and even coasting are vastly underappreciated. Especially juxtaposed with a political actor who presents deep, systemic risks. The electorate is far too sanguine and unimaginative when it comes to thinking about whether their world can be significantly worse than it is today.
"... the US is (and has been) spread too thin, and it cannot continue to defend (and fund the defense of) liberalism against every threat everywhere ..."
As it has been since 1918 ...
It’s astonishing to hear a Trump opponent speak favorably of Kissinger.
I have no issue with asking our allies to pony up more - let them make hard decisions too - but the most successful strategy so far has been to grow a bigger pie and then to divide it more equally. War is an annoying distraction from all the better things we could all be doing with our time.
We didn't intervene in Eastern Europe because the cold war was better than a hot war given everyone's losses in WWII. We attempted to change that philosophy with our wars in Korea and Vietnam and learned that the Kalashnikov had done a lot to change warfare since WWII. Having an air force and a large army was no longer enough.
Every political philosophy in the US brings something to the table from which we can learn. I appreciate the isolationists desire not to go to war - because even just and noble wars are really bad for vast numbers of people and the planet. But there are a lot of things we can do short of going to war to protect our friends and OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNERS and I don't see us doing those things.
My points were around keeping the supposed cost in perspective with the supposed benefit of isolationism via abandonment. We are not at war. We are providing weapons, intelligence, human survival assistance, training and advice which cost us very little. Is that such a distraction? We're learning extremely valuable modern warfare lessons and modernizing our weapons cache and expanding our weapons manufacturing capacity (jobs) as a result. In the cold war we provided weapons and aid to Turkey and Greece which is why they are not in the "Soviet Sphere" today.
The argument for falling back to geographic spheres of influence has merit and risks, but also some moral and ethical considerations for how and how fast it's done. If everyone else despises you and distrusts you, you need a lot of autocratic power to keep your perch.
What we see so far in this administration is paring away
Our enemies are learning the same lessons we are. Russia is a stronger opponent today than the start of the war.
A similar comment to my own elsewhere in the chat, but from some very different angles. I love the question "Are we a good friend, answer Maybe" we are starting to face the political/societal version of Caregiver Stress Syndrome: caregivers who neglect their own health and well-being while prioritizing the care of a loved one, often leading to burnout and adverse health outcomes.
Hear! Hear!
Since 2014 I've been telling any of my German friends that would listen that Europe needs to take care of it's own defence. It's usually been met with blank stares. I think Vance and Trump's behavior was disgraceful BUT I concede it was the bitter medicine Europe need to get it's collective a** in gear.
Having said this, there's a point is getting lost in the 'Freeloading Europe' narrative.
The US has *actively* encouraged NATO allies dependence. It's insisted Europe purchase American military hardware, much of it, like F-35s reliant on American software updates. The unspoken threat being the withdrawal of security guarantees. Among other things, this has deliberately kept the European defense industry fragmented and immature.
More about this here: https://globaleurope.eu/europes-future/untangling-the-transatlantic-incentive-trap-europes-plan-and-americas-contribution/
and here:
https://www.stimson.org/2024/eu-defense-this-time-might-be-different/
https://www.undiplomaticpodcast.com/episodes/207
Again, I am furious by how these actions have been carried out, but I believe this will be good for Europe. Look at these stock prices after Feb. 12 (Hegseth's comments and The Munich Security Conference)
Rheinmetall: https://bit.ly/3QH6iEx
Leonardo: https://bit.ly/41qz41j
SAAB: https://bit.ly/3D1K9ha
Lastly, I would have more sympathy for the 'debt' argument if House Republicans didn't just extend the 4.5 Trillion tax cuts in their budget proposal.
Interesting points.
Regarding the F-35, I think there is a pretty good argument (and historical precedent) for the importance of interoperability between allied forces, and the F-35 is generally a better airplane than the 4.5 gen Euro fighters it competes with (at a similar, if not lower price point). The F-35 has also been a collaborative development.
Moreover, the US has done its share of buying from other NATO countries. (E.g. our tanks use Rheinmetall main guns, our next-gen frigate is based on a French-Italian design, our light machinegun is Belgian, our advanced jet trainer is a British design, one of our primary anti-ship missiles is Norwegian, and the airplane that the Marines replaced with the was also British-ish.)
You ask "are we in for a new period in which might openly makes right?" I assume this is meant to ask "are we going back to the period where might makes right?"
The so called world order has always been ruled by force, and Europe is surely no exception. This includes periods of peace.
I'm a consequentialist when it comes to politicians. I largely ignore their words and focus on the consequences. "What have they done?"
Hindsight also shows me that nothing is what it appears to be, and big changes take a long time to unfold. Reagan raised taxes 7 11 times. Clinton deregulated the banks. Nixon cleaned the polluted air.
Our tribal narratives are particularly misleading. We should ignore them.
So I will say this: nothing truly significant has happened yet regarding the so called world order. It's all mostly words. Theater.
The 2020 Abraham Accords agreement seems significant, continues to unfold, and does not get enough coverage in the US. This could be world order stuff.
We should recognize what we can and cannot control. Otherwise: Wait. Watch. Listen.
Wow. “Nothing truly significant has happened yet regarding the so called world order”? My feeling is quite to the contrary. David Frum describes my views in his article in The Atlantic entitled “At Least Now We Know the Truth.” It seems clear to me that America is throwing Europe and the Baltics into the wood chipper, and they are now trying to figure out how they respond to the consequences of America’s decision. America is off-loading responsibility for defending nations that Putin would love to have back, and might well take steps to take back during a Trump administration. That is consequential. No it hasn’t happened yet, but Russia won’t announce its intentions. And gee, America will get Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal in return. It’s hard to avoid imagining that there are tectonic shifts taking place that may be largely invisible but that are nonetheless potentially very significant. Americans should, without haste, begin figuring where its true interests are in all this change before the change itself overwhelms us.
I hear your concerns. I'm still waiting for actions. Political speech means very little to me.
My view is that “actions” have clearly been taken already. Taking the unprecedented action of berating the leader of an allied nation (Ukraine) in public is a very significant action that trumpets to Putin that America is caving after 85 years, that is an “action,” and one which should be alarming enough to cause us to demand that Trump inform us of where he intends to go with all this (if, indeed, he has any real idea—and I sincerely mean this).
We disagree on the definition of action in this context.
What about the lack of appreciation and common sense from VZ? It is now apparent why Trump and all didn't want to involve VZ and the EU in the negotiations. Don't take barking dogs to a negotiation with a tiger who hunts for fun. For all of Trump's flaws, he understands both sides better than they understand themselves. All Trump did was to continue what Americans have been demanding, which is to show what goes on in the backroom that later lands at our doorsteps. The first thing I asked Yasha recently was whether he has ever lived anywhere in the U.S. not in the Northeast or California. It is clear Europeans have delusions about how the world works. The benevolence of Americans has been wasted at times at Europeans who are too concerned about where they are going to go on vacation. Nothing has been done yet and words have been interpreted as actions. Notice how Trump spoke about Poland. I wonder what the difference is.
American taxpayers have provided well over $100B in military aid to Ukraine. I'd venture to say that constitutes action.
I think the word berating misrepresents the conversation. The president of Ukraine has a lot to answer for in terms of his words and actions. He was very foolish and now is begging to sign the mineral rights agreement. He also missed a good lunch.
I agree - I said this to a trump supporter and he said he believes Putin could very well set off a nuclear bomb if he doesn’t get his way. So now we have 2 bullies in the ring & Trump’s the little guy with no b’s. Trump supporters didn’t like that & wonder what Trump would say?
Putin will not go nuclear.
The problem is that by the time there's an action it'll be too late. It takes a long time for states to make alternative security arrangements. Domestically, many wrote off DOGE as another blue ribbon commission saying it was all Trump bluster and BS.
They were wrong, thankfully. A full scale system investigating govt efficiency and accountability was long overdue.
Many - including one of Yascha's recent guests! Would love to have the guy who said Trump gave Musck DOGE to keep him busy while real things happen elsewhere back on ...
Indeed Richard, I agree that we should do our level best to determine our "true interests" which should include ridding ourselves if possible of the great debt we owe to other countries. But what interests should we have in Ukraine specifically? Aside from promises we made to "sort of "protect" them from Russian invasions, what's in it for us? How about access to critical minerals we may need for our ability to compete economically with the resources of other countries?
Exactly, Richard!
Why does America have a “responsibility”?
I think I broadly agree more with Demian here...but I also see your point. Speech is to some degree a form of "action" and that went badly.
I guess I see words as tantamount to actions when such words have significant, often irreversible, consequences.
"The so called world order has always been ruled by force . . ."
Indeed. A point the Melians learned the hard way several millennia ago. There is nothing new under the sun.
I largely agree with you, Demian. Actions vs words is wise, especially with Trump, who Word Vomits all the time. He contradicts himself often. He doesn't know what he's doing half the time. So let's see what actually happens. I do think his treatment of Z was terrible. That all should have occurred, if at all, off live TV. Btw I just read the new 880-page Reagan biography by Max Boot and I believe Reagan raised taxes 11 times, versus 8.
Thank you for that fact correction! 👍
I'm personally not concerned about a public spat between big boys, unless it leads to bad decisions.
But it HAS led to a bad decision. At Friday’s meeting with Zelensky, Trump’s/Vance’s words led to—or made clear—the decision of the US to abandon Ukraine as a fighting force against Russia in order to re-establish the boundaries of Ukraine’s eastern border. In this decision, the US effectively said that its paramount interest was stopping the war, and to heck with Ukraine’s desire to get back the part of Ukraine taken by Russia three years ago. Stop the war . . . at all costs. Bye bye, Ukraine. Nice knowing you. And, oh, by the way, we’re taking as much of your mineral wealth as we want on our way out. And (probably), be sure to reserve a plot of land in Kyiv for the Trump Towers. Okay, this is a little embellished, but not much. And this spat between big boys is not the kind of thing that personally concerns you? Interesting.
Forget Trump - that is bracket for a moment his singular personality and style - and try to get a handle on the geo-political realities for a moment, which seem to me to include:
[1] Russia has failed miserably in Ukraine - minimal gain at great loss after a 3yr war with a 3rd level country - and has shown itself to be much less a threat than it was thought to be. The driving impetus behind NATO is effectively gone.
[2] Europe is - as they say - a place, not a unified force. Eight yrs ago Trump challenged them to take up their responsibility (they are more populous than Russia and also richer) or else, and they called his bluff by essentially refusing. Now he's followed through. Too many of the European populations have enjoyed a better life-style than the US - retirement, public benefits, etc. - and part of that has involved US expenditures on their behalf. American elites share that lifestyle so were untroubled. But Trump's attitude is in part a 'populist' response to being unfairly taken advantage of.
[3] The US is no longer a power that can police the world effectively or finance all the good guys and fund the response to bad guys. Our military adventures have been for the most part failures - we haven't gotten the job done, and we seem to have little appetite for winning.
[4] China remains a significant adversary, and to the extent that Russia - though badly damaged - remains one of the 3 superpowers, it makes little sense for us to essentially force them to align with the Chinese. Russia is at this point an expansionist threat, and they are not the exporter of an alien communist ideology. True, they are ruled by a bad dictator. But we have to think longer term. Other countries do not share our democratic system and we are quite happy to talk to them and reach understandings on all sorts of issues (China(!), Saudi Arabia, etc.). We cannot dictate the form of gov't others should strive for, but we can talk to them.
Given all this, what Trump told Zelensky - the 'deep diplomacy' - should have been delivered behind closed doors, and we should have given him some 'surface diplomacy' to take home to the Ukranians. But it's the 'deep' geopolitical realities - if I've understood them correctly - that will drive policy.
[1] check
[2] check
[3] check
[4] check
[Conclusion] check
Nailed it!
USA cannot counter China (with or without Russia) without its allies.
But the US doesn’t need to be the cheerleader, the piggy bank, the Commander in Chief, and the scapegoat for those allies. That is the problem. If you in Europe want to confront China and stop it’s spread, vote for politicians who tax you and build up defense and weapons tech spending, forego benefits and paid vacations and other welfare, recreate a culture of appetite for life and beauty and Christianity which produces big families and cultural pride. Build an alliance with India to stop them from siding with China.
These things can be done without the US. We need to pay down debt, get out of intractable conflicts like Israel-Gaza, close borders and assimilate the immigrants we already have. We cannot be the world’s charity org and policemen. And we aren’t that good at it. Our elites are naive and some are corrupt and poorly educated in the classic theories of international relations and virtue.
"Our elites are naive and some are corrupt and poorly educated in the classic theories of international relations and virtue."
Luckily we have Trump, Vance, Musk, and Putin to educate us in in the classic theories of international relations and virtue. Nothing says education and virtue like these folks.
Actually I think Vance is very bright and no doubt well read. Hegseth seems like a born leader by example, Gabbard displays strong critical thinking skills. Putin does not serve in the US government and has no influence over policy. Musk is tech support and knows a lot about teamwork, delegation, ambition and engineering.
Do you want John Kerry back? HRC? Samantha Power?
And those allies need to show a commitment to military investment. Otherwise what good are they against China anyway?
No, I won't forget Trump for a moment. You have articulated Trump's own rationale, especially (2) and (4). The most important thing is pulling Russia back out of China's arms. All the dimwitted fools wearing their Ukraine flags can't understand the points you have made. Trump is a very intelligent strategic thinker, yet is called a fool by room-temperature IQ types in government and media. I guess this is not too unusual.
Re [1]: the US spent 20 years and 2+ trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, leaving with its tail between its legs and returning the country to the Taliban, so I'm not sure what Russia has done in Ukraine means it's army is feckless. Given the weaponry being used, isn't this more like a war between Russia and NATO (just with Ukranian troops)?
Except Russia has left a wake of bodies about 6 billion times higher than our 20 years in Afghanistan.
Math doesn't math 😉
[1] - very myopic view, wrong.
Trump has various primitive political instincts that pull him one way or another but fundamentally lacks any coherent plan or worldview. The people around him seem to hold to a variety of contradictory ideas, ranging from full on isolationist sphere-of-influence geopolitics to a “realist” pro-Russian but anti-Chinese position to just a more transactional form of Atlanticism.
None of these seem to be being pursued with any degree of consistency or seriousness, but they don’t need to be to cause chaos. I expect, for reasons of political inertia and incompetence alone that Trump will fail to fully disentangle America from her old alliances. Too much investment has been put into this relationship to destroy it completely in 4 years. But in trying to do so he will manage to wreck the image of the US as a stable guarantor of security.
I’m not in any position to prophesy the future, but I’m reasonably confident that whatever happens will be a series of confused half-measures that will follow no consistent political doctrine and will certainly not be in the actual material interest of America or the democratic world. Whether that’s permanent or not depends on whether or not Trump’s pro-Russian predilections have a lasting impact on the Republican Party going forward, which I have no way of knowing.
Best answer so far. How much permanent damage all of this nonsense causes along the way is the big question mark
Yeah. Agree. My comment to Demian above was similar to this. Trump and his clan lack coherency. Actions are more important here than words. Let's see what he actually does in the end.
Yes, you could argue Angela Merkel was more pro-Russia than Trump and you only need to look at Europe's dependence on Russian gas to see the folly in that. Perhaps predictability and coherence is what has led the West here.
If you denuke your national power grid and burning coal is verboten, you have to go to your natural gas—oh, don't have any? Then you go to your nearest source of supply—oh, Russia? Should've thought about that before you denuked.
Merkel was a physicist and theoretically sharpest Chancellor I've read about. I assumed this was the reason her and Obama got along so well. A relationship of common goals.
The mainstream media is in total collapse. Their only response is to continue to lie more and faster. By the time they realize that they would be better served by humility and honesty there will be nothing left worth saving. western Europe has clamped down on its people, telling them they're free and punishing them for criticizing the leaders and bludgeoning their women physically with unvetted illegal immigrants. By the time they realize they would be better served by allowing their people to be free and protecting them they will be out of power. NATO and the EU is in collapse. Their response is to pretend they lead the world in defense against Russia and economic output. By the time they realize that they are feckless and their economies are in depression the people will have risen up and replaced them with better alternatives.
I watched Maher’s real time just now, mainly I still watch to see what the enemies of freedom are saying, same reason I keep tabs on the cbc here in canada.
Anyway Maher and his usual leftwing guests mischaracterized Vance’s speech in Munich as him telling Europeans that internal censorship is the worst issue they face but that’s not what Vance said.
He said that if Europe is going to totalitarian route of controlling speech then why would the USA spend any $$ or effort to protect Europe from external enemies?
Why should the USA exert itself to protect a country that jails someone for calling Halbeck a moron (he is a moron).
All Maher and the left have is gaslighting and mischaracterization.
Is Trump overreaching? Yes. I wish he wouldn’t but that seems not possible
This breathless "mainstream media is in total collapse" isn't a factual statement. It's a tribal one -- "hi I'm a Fox Newser (or whatever is your favorite flavor)". Enough of that silliness.
Breathless?
I’m a European. This would be amusing, if it wasn’t so serious for Americans.
You can all hear me, right?
We are entirely free to say what we like. We have much less immigration (which is generally a good thing) than America has had since your Revolution ( there are not many Native Americans, but there are lots of Americans of European descent).
Above all the USA and its allies need each other.
The USA is currently at its highest level of non-native residents ever at 15%, though now just beginning to fall due to remigration (deportation, self- and assisted-). Peak foreign-born in the USA during the height of the Ellis Island era was around 14%.
Some European countries are above 20% today, and all of them are rising (except for some Scandinavians which have achieved zero net migration at huge cost). Note that differential birth rates between natives and foreign-born are still pushing Scandinavian countries' immigrant communities higher and will continue to do so ad infinitum (well, not infinitum, but until no natives are left).
Interesting. What percentage of the German population was not born in Germany? Do you know the answer? Also, how much has the German GDP grown in the last 2 years? It would probably be helpful to reestablish itself as a leader of this 'new world order ' with a strong and solid GDP with good investments and high employment and low consumption of social welfare services dragging on the economy to enable strong leadership. I am sure a powerhouse like Germany is in a great position to lead . What does Germany make? Cars? Steel? Who are Germany's biggest customers? I remember hearing an expression once... The customer is always right. Have you ever heard that?
As a matter of fact, I do know those numbers (through 2024, the latest available). I generally try to keep up on significant demographic changes in many countries, especially ones that make major contributions to the global economy, geopolitics, and cultural trends.
Great! So what do what do you think will become of Europe?
You'd have to read your Mark Steyn to get the lowdown on Europe's prospects for the future. Warning/Hint: Mark's a realist, not an optimist.
Hello European, your leaders sadly chose regulation over innovation. And virtue signaling over reality. And those two choices are what have brought us to the point today of talking about a new world order that Europe may not have a voice in.
Just checking, you have been in western Europe lately, haven’t you?
Anders, if there is a point you would like to engage in the you are welcome to make it.
Just checking the factual base of your remarks
I don't answer to you. I assume you are European. But you are welcome to see the ratings of the recently fired joy reid in the demo. ditto for r. Maddox. ditto for the trend of all of the so called major news networks in the demo over any long term of your choosing, ditto for any major news outlets of your choosing. I am not here to do your homework for you but if you have questions for where to look and how to understand what you are seeing I am happy to assist you as I am able. Happy to help people who are earnest. People who have an agenda are welcome to the bottom of my shoe.
AI?
There is a ton of misinformation out there. As St. Augustine said the truth doesn’t need defending set it loose and it defends itself!!!The side who’s worldview supported censorship, and suspended elections and money laundering on a scale that is unfathomable to most seems to be the side that is most upset about the old world crumbling. The side that censors and silences people as which we saw take place in western liberal “socialist” democracies during Covid Plandemic is the one screaming the loudest. The receipts of truth are stacking up and they have no answer. Frankly because they were caught. Buckle up more turbulence incoming.
It’s difficult for me to take seriously anyone who uses three consecutive exclamation points and the word “plandemic”, but let’s unpack your claim, such as it is.
I agree the the left has drifted toward a kind of censorial mode in the last fifteen years, but if you look at the right, it’s not like they’re sterling defenders of civil liberties either. Musk doesn’t tolerate dissent on his platform, and Trump is far too fragile to bear anyone disagreeing with him without throwing a tantrum. I guess if I were to look for a side that actually supported freedom of speech, I would like to see support for all speech, in the way the ACLU used to, before they became just another social justice think tank. But there is no one, right or left in power who shows that kind of principle anymore.
“ I agree the the left has drifted toward a kind of censorial mode in the last fifteen years”.
Kind of?
I recommend a good dose of Taibbi to grasp what’s packed into “kind of”. The USA (and canada with the awful Bill C63) was very close to implementing the insanity we see in Europe.
If you think that represents “kind of” then 5🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 for you.
I, for one, watched every word I wrote. I don’t do that anymore. I felt like the Feds could come knocking at my door any minute. I no longer feel that way. I would tell my friends, when I wrote about gain of function research and the J6 con, to look for a needle prick if I had a “heart attack” in front of Whole Foods. Even during the Obama years I had plenty of friends in business being audited who contributed to Republicans. I had a friend who owned a company that extracted pollutants from water used for agriculture under house arrest with an ankle bracelet. Don’t try to psyop the readers, they’re too smart for that.
Living in Europe I have been very happy, in more than fifty years, to be far away from the insanity in usa.
Yes, because the U.S. has been willing to fund your happiness. That's the point Trump was also trying to make VZ realize. I'm an American that has lived in the EU for years and am always amazed at how ungrateful Europeans are. Americans have been funding your happiness for 50 years. However, that is unsustainable. DOGE is a great example of the waste here on the U.S but more importantly it is also an example of the suicidal generosity of the U.S.. would a thank you hurt you. Ukraine is not in NATO, why is the U.S. spending more than anyone else?
I am genuinely grateful for what the U.S. has done to protect Europe and promote peace, stability, democracy and directly or indirectly, liberty. The record was mixed during the Cold War (interventions in South America and Southeast Asia were particularly ugly) but the overall ledger by the 1990s undoubtedly resulted in a surplus of good. I mourn the trashing of the legacy our ancestors gave us by the degenerates voted back into the White House. We stand to lose so much.
The US has spent less than Europe in terms of help for Ukraine. Check your facts, don't repeat the felon's lies.
From deep in the heart of the USA (note all caps), I assure you the feeling is mutual with respect to Europe (note cap).
We're all better off without you around. See ya. Wouldn't want to be ya.
And Trumpism is so obviously not the answer to that in anything other than an emotionally cathartic way. He’s just as, if not more censorial, he’s just your guy. Trump people aren’t principled about free speech, it’s just a meme. That’s the point I’m making. Prove me wrong.
I have never been and never will be a fan of Trump but like many I agree he was probably necessary at this point.
Then one day we will deal with his mess.
Greg Lukianoff at FIRE is doing some important work here. If you don’t already follow FIRE’s work, it’s worth dipping in for some very centrist non-partisan protection of free speech.
YES -- they are principled and focused -- with none of the mission-creep that so many once fine organizations succumb to.
Gives me hope.
I can personally attest to the fact that both X and Meta still platform the full spectrum of political viewpoints.
Agree. Well said.
Criticizing inconsequentials is not how to win an argument. Oh imojis, oh plandemic, oh your sentences are too long, too short, not punctuated properly. No good arguments, just attacks, CNN and MSNBC, you’ve learned the art of psyop, but you haven’t noticed it no longer works.
🤔 So I’m hyperbolic because I didn’t think your opinion countered anything I wrote. So people that disagree with you are Hyperbolic? I see. Some would say your statement of not being able to take me seriously may have been hyperbolic. In fact down right passive aggressive.
TBH my statement stands as is because all of what I said was truthful and there is plenty of evidence in the form of receipts in the public sphere to back up my assertion on censorship and the pandemic. Your statement of basically me having to prove you’re opinion wrong or admit I’m hyperbolic is the equivalent of me asking you how long you’ve been beating your wife? Hyperbolic is laid bare on your side friend. Have a good day.
I also don’t take adults seriously when they use emojis.
Let me re-phrase myself: how is the Trump right an effective and principled counter to leftist censorship? It’s not, because it’s not principled. It’s just bullshit. Prove me wrong or go back to your Fox News hugbox.
Well you unpacked nothing. We’re waiting.
I pointed out that you’re wrong on issues of censorship. Prove me wrong or else admit you’re being hyperbolic. You’re not producing an argument here, you’re just contradicting me. I’m not sure you understand the distinction.
Edit: added the word “not”
Have you proven your point? Or are you also just being hyperbolic? This could go on all day. You can’t prove an opinion. Personally, I agree both sides are guilty of censoring dissent to some degree. But it’s glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention that the left was openly and unapologetically censoring Americans to a degree that was far beyond what the current administration is doing. And they had the media on their side. Even abroad, it is still happening. People are being imprisoned for thought crimes, for chrissakes. And it’s not the right doing it.
"Previous presidents insisted that any country should be allowed to determine its own fate"
That one line is so ignorant of reality it discounts everything else you have said.
Yes, that one is pretty bad
Biblical naivety
So you don't think the US voting with Russia at UN is truly significant? I do. It made my heart absolutely sink on top of Vance going after Zelensky in Oval Office. I see it happening before my eyes and I will just speak for myself.
You don’t think there are spheres of influence? That countries have interests and that large countries protect those interests?
If Justin Trudeau in 2022 announced canada was going to join a Chinese military alliance you don’t think the Biden USA wouldn’t have removed the canadian govt within minutes? Even tho canada has never been part of the USA?
I don’t approve or support what Putin is doing in Ukraine, but he said this is what would happen, and here we are.
The US promised a security guarantee when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons.
And it doesn't actually take that much to honor it. Keep supplying Ukraine with good weaponry (even better than Biden did), hold the line with Russia, and their small, bad economy will catch up with them. And looking at their interest rate problems, that's actually been what's happening.
This facade of realpolitik that you've been trying to defend Trump's Putinization of the conflict is getting into the way of that, without good reasons. As transactional as Trump is with pretty much everything, it is important to dig under the surface of this beyond "America is tired and we shouldn't encroach on the Russian sphere of influence".
What is Trump getting out of echoing Russian media talking points about Ukraine? Given the Russian demographic catastrophe, which predated this war but is extremely exacerbated by it, is he trying to line up an eventual claim or relationship for Russian resources? Is that the reason for the $5M.gold card, to build a relationship with the oligarchs who control that?
I'm not sure he's that smart or forward thinking? His pro Russian sentiment is more easily explained by how much the Trump Organization has been subsidized by Russian money. (There are plenty of interviews out there from the early 2000s talking about this.)
“The US promised a security guarantee when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.”
They also promised no NATO in Ukraine.
Not interested in cherry picked arguments.
Again, I don’t support Putin invading or destroying or annexing Ukraine.
"They also promised no NATO in Ukraine."
Please provide a link so we can evaluate your contention here -- I am unaware of a NATO military presence in Ukraine, or maybe what you mean is that a promise was made that no support of any kind would be made by any member of NATO (U.S. included) -- that does make the Ukrainians extremely stupid -- almost as stupid as Zelenskyy would have been to hand over all of Ukraine's assets to Trump for free.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
You're welcome!
Nice to know that you don't support Ukraine's destruction or annexation.
What do you support?
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by a US ambassador among others, included promises to refrain from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan after they gave up nuclear weapons but did not include any promise that the US would provide military assistance against attack by another government.
Putin has better standing to complain of a broken promise here. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
My issue with the existing world order as it pertains to our policy in Ukraine is that we have been supporting the Ukrainians just enough to allow them to be slowly annihilated by the numerically and militarily superior Russian army. Leaving aside the issue of whether Putin regards Ukraine becoming a part of NATO as an existential threat, I feel our current level of support for Ukraine has in fact done them a great disservice. If we were really serious about supporting Ukraine we should have supplied them with massive firepower from the very beginning of the conflict.
As to our role in the developing world order we will have to prioritize where we spend our rapidly dwindling resources. With our massive and seemingly endlessly increasing National Debt we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are no longer a unipolar hegemon. Europe has been developing expansive social programs, allowing largely unsustainable immigration, gone headfirst into the Green New Deal, and trashed the German economy while spending the minimal amount possible on their own defense. They were able to minimize their defense spending because they regarded the U.S. military umbrella as a permanent fixture. Nothing in history is forever.
Our role in the developing world order has got to factor in our home situation as well. Globalization was great for those with adequate resources but it has been a disaster for the American working class. Combine that with very stubborn inflation and high prices, and an astonishingly obtuse focus on fringe progressive social policies by the Democratic Party and the coastal elites, we now have 4 more years of President Trump.-To my mind his re-election was a forgone conclusion.
Americans have been living in a period of relative peace since the end of the Vietnam War, have been consuming the world’s resources at a disproportionate rate, have experienced a level of general affluence unknown in world history, and have drifted into a period of secular anomie about who and what we are about. This whole scenario is unsustainable and our leaders, particularly the House and Senate of both Parties seem incapable of doing anything but more and more deficit spending while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense. This has got to change. Our leaders have got to face up to reality and start having an honest conversation with the American People about where this nation is headed.
I personally subscribe to Niall Ferguson’s version of Ferguson’s Rule. A nation that spends more paying interest on its national debt than its defense budget-however bloated that is, is an empire on the way out.
American’s undoubtedly have a big heart but at this moment in history we appear to suffer from a huge deficit of common sense and way too much hubris.
We won’t be able to help anyone if we go bankrupt as a nation or if we destroy ourselves from within.
To my mind, our prime focus has to be on getting our own seriously divided house in order.
"This whole scenario is unsustainable and our leaders, particularly the House and Senate of both Parties seem incapable of doing anything but more and more deficit spending while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense."
Hear!! Hear!! Finally, we will replace these corrupt politicians with the kind of leaders for whom using the government to line their pockets is anathema. Long live Trump and Musk, the two most honest politicians this country has ever known!!
If your system requires virtuous superhumans in order to operate effectively, you don't have a system, you have a shambles. A functional system works well even given the reptilian venality and selfishness at the core of every human being.
"the reptilian venality and selfishness at the core of every human being."
yes!
i'm printing that on a mug
Hear! Hear! Excellent comment, well-argued, and drawing the correct conclusion. Go DOGE!
Trump is a zero sum guy because he’s a malignant narcissist; one characteristic of such dysfunctional personalities is black-and-white thinking, you’re either with them or against them, you’re either a winner or a loser. Some people say the personal is political; with Trump there IS no political, it’s all personal, including what happened in the Oval Office yesterday. This is what happens when you elect someone with a personality like this. Lots of people devote a lot of column space toward figuring out what Trump means, or why he does what he does. There’s an easy explanation. He does whatever he thinks makes him look like a winner, rather than a loser; he supports and aligns himself with those he views as winners, not losers; and he helps those he views as “with him” and not against him. A corollary is that all of this is always subject to change. And this is true whether he is considering who to keep in his cabinet, or which countries to favor with US aid. It’s no longer about US interests, it’s about the interests of one man. If you just accept this, it makes it a lot easier to cope.
Agree. Although I'd say sadly the Left broadly has become equally binary. If only they could resolve that on their side it would give centrists and independents someone to vote for over Trump or Vance in 28.
Let me be the first to invite you to join us in 2026 and 2028. The woke Left doesn’t have to run the show and I’m hopeful that a culturally centrist faction of Democrats can be raised up. It’s going to take a village, but it can be done, since it’s always been there, though it’s more quiet and doesn’t enjoy much media cachet.
Since the Trump message can be boiled down to "Hate!! Hate!! Hate!!", it isn't clear what message the left can propose that would attract those for whom hate is their only value.
But I don't believe that the nearly 80m Americans who voted for Trump all "Hate Hate Hate". What the moderate right, centrists and left in the US and Europe have all done is ignore the genuine concerns of the people who have been left behind by globalism and neo-liberal economics. The shouty right has spoken to their concerns and proposed solutions in a hateful way. The traditional liberals, in a broad sense not narrow US political sense, have responded by illiberally censoring/suppressing these hateful solutions, ignoring the underlying concerns and essentially telling the people with those concerns that they are evil. Since most of them know that they are not individually evil, and the liberals aren't offering alternative solutions, they assume that when the liberals say these parties/politicians are evil then they aren't either - the problem of crying wolf. The liberals need to acknowledge the real concerns and propose unhateful but realistic solutions to them and stop censoring alternative opinions and instead out argue them. Also the parties of the right in Europe would more quickly break down the fire walls if they followed Meloni's lead and stopped explicitly or implicitly supporting Putin. It takes longer to persuade people you aren't a fascist if you support one who is currently waging war with atrocities against a neighboring country that is somewhat democratic and moving in the right direction. Meloni is my favourite politician in Europe at the moment. I await other commenters politely and rudely enlightening me as to why she is terrible!!
This. I don’t believe every Trump voter, or even most of them, were motivated by hate. Caricaturing them this way does not foster the empathy necessary to actually help them, and it’s not going to get them to vote Democrat. Which would be fine if the Democrats didn’t need their votes. But they do, because their more extreme positions attract only a small slice of the electorate, college graduates in large coastal cities. That’s not enough to win.
Agreed. And that is why everything is transactional and inconsistent. There is no plan, there is no strategy, and there is no impulse control. (That is not to say that the fine folks at Project 2025 don't have a plan. They most certainly do. I can only imagine how challenging it is for them to partner with someone who is so capricious.)
Putin, on the other hand, has been playing the long game, and his investment (bailing out Trump) is starting to pay big dividends.
The scene in the Oval Office made all this clear while it established firmly that the new world order is one in which America, as of Friday, Feb 28th, has NO allies.
I, too, struggle to imagine how such a new world order will unfold.
Luckily, you've got a front-row seat. Hopefully, you'll remember and learn from what you see. Like historians do.
I was hoping you'd help me understand it! 🤣
Sorry! 🤣
Isolationism (or America First or American exceptionalism (“USA is the greatest country in the world”) seems to be the default position of USA)). It was prior to WW1 and again in rejecting the League of Nations and into WW2, prior to Pearl Harbor.
Most of us hoped that the absolute futility of Isolationism had been learned the hard way following US entry into WW2. It is even more obvious in the current globalized world, where actions in one place can impact on all of us.
The apparent extreme isolationist of MAGA is hard to understand in this context.
Leaving allies in Europe to fend for themselves seems to be based on a sphere of influence approach, which means other allies, such as Japan, sKorea, Saudi Arabia, etc must also fend for themselves, presumably including seeking nuclear deterrents.
Meanwhile China continues to strengthen its influence everywhere.
Surely the majority of Americans can see that this is counter to their interests?
Pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining. Knock it off.
That's telling him!! A well thought out and intelligent response. Please, post more!!
Trump has always been transactional and his calculation seems to be that the US is not strong enough now and certainly won’t be in the future if it follows the previous plans of Obama and Biden. He’s cutting costs and calling in debts. The USA can’t act as the world policeman and end up the backstop or more in Ukraine, Gaza and Taiwan fighting against Russia and China with N Korea and Iran. He’s therefore sacrificing Ukraine to bring Russia back into Europe and away from an alliance with China. A side effect of this is that the Europeans will need to pay much more for their own defences or will need to find an accommodation with Russia over Eastern Europe. He’s also forcing a halt in Gaza so that he can realign the forces he has to defend Taiwan and protect the chip factories his economy and military needs until he can build facilities to make chips in Texas.
I don’t think any of this hasn’t been signposted, the Europeans have simply been navel gazing and wasting time especially since 2014 but really since the break up of the Soviet Union.
The Ukrainian president should have read the room better and did what Starmer and Macron did and avoid confrontation at all costs even at the expense of your dignity. The game has changed and is much more transactional now and the guy with the biggest economy has all the cards and isn’t afraid to use them for the first time in a while because he can see what’s on the horizon and it ain’t good.
The difference between Starmer/Macron and Zelensky is that they can come to the White House from relative positions of strength. They have not been charged with being a dictator and starting a war. If Vance (who I assume was not in the meetings with Starmer and Macron) had made the types of remarks to them that he made to Zelensky, I wonder if they would have accepted his condescensions.
Relative positions of strength?? How have you reasoned out that they are in any position of strength at all?
Maybe Starmer and macron funny have a history of being ungrateful. Maybe thats the difference. Ukraine is no France or Britain.
"He’s therefore sacrificing Ukraine to bring Russia back into Europe and away from an alliance with China."
I didn't realize Trump was such a strategic genius -- but please, since you understand these things much better than us non-MAGA types, just how is surrendering to Putin going to break up his alliance with China?
That you didn't realize Trump was such a strategic genius, and are just waking up to the man's purpose is perhaps not surprising. To draw Russia out of China's arms it is necessary to engage in diplomacy with them, which is something Trump is seizing the opportunity to do. Can you understand this? Who has surrendered to Putin? Who has said that he or she intends to surrender to Putin? No one, of course, but the reason you can't see things that are obvious, about Trump and other things, is that you allow your mind to marinate in things that are untrue.
Great analysis! The sooner Trump can build chip factories in Texas the better and the sooner he can cut enviro regulations and let Dakotan woods be used for cheaper housing the better.
So Trump is now a semiconductor genius too? He will make sure the new fabs are up and running just like he lowered the price of eggs! Wow. And I’m looking forward to the dig, poison, and drill era!
I have no insight into what the future order might be that has for yasha S excerpt from the debacle on Friday and his touching defense of poor pooty poot, well cry me a river. My conclusion is that Putin really does have some Kompromat on trump. His defense of Putin goes way beyond a bromance.
The key to all of Trump's actions centers on the fate of Europe. Once you carefully consider that future in light of current trends, you will arrive at the same conclusion Mark Steyn did in his 2006 "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It." Mark was quite prescient in his writing at the time and these days makes a joke of his common refrain of "as I said 20 years ago..."
You'll see that decoupling from the fatal disease of Europe is essential to the USA's (and Western civilization's) survival. What Germany or France or the UK profess to believe and commit to doing is irrelevant. Demographics driven by mass immigration and cratered native reproduction rates make all European plans and commitments just so much hot air.
That the political systems all over the Continent cannot accommodate in any way the surge of anti-immigration nativist parties seals the fate of Europe and forces the USA to look to its own survival, perhaps one day to lead to a second European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Perhaps.
Trump's focus is on weakening China. Europe does a great job of weakening itself just by leaving them alone.