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.
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.
It's also important to factor in the necessity for Japan to join in here. The Strait of Taiwan is a core, vital interest for Japan for this basic reason: "$2.45 trillion worth of goods—over one-fifth of global maritime trade—transited the Taiwan Strait in 2022." (Excellent interactive explainer also from CSIS here: https://features.csis.org/chinapower/china-taiwan-strait-trade/). And of that trade, a hugely disproportionate share is coming to/from export-dependent Japan, including the energy imports which keep the lights on. If the Taiwan Strait were to become an inland waterway of China's, Japan is *permanently* vulnerable, alongside South Korea.
Yes, Northeast Asia-bound shipping could opt for the less direct/economical Luzon Strait (between Taiwan and the Philippines) instead, but even there you'd again be dealing with an extended Chinese EEZ via Taiwan, along with a far easier power-projection ability into the East and South China Sea using Taiwanese naval and air bases. The only other alternative is looping the long way south between Malaysia and the Philippines via the Sebu/Celebes Seas and up again through the Miyako Strait (which is also in a contested area off of Japan with islands that China has designs on), which adds a huge amount of distance (and is similar to the impact on shipping that the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea caused by diverting shipping from the Suez).
So Japan would almost certainly opt to fight now instead of being permanently vulnerable to China's utter dominance of East and South East Asia. Especially given that American basing in Japan would already make it an initial target in any conflict. It's a decent bet that the parties to the South China Sea conflict would also decide that now is the time to push back to the neighborhood bully, if any, so even if they didn't commit military assets, they would make available basing, logistics support, etc.
The addition of allies like Japan (and maybe South Korea) gives the USM far more resilience in the conflict because it overcomes the "tyranny of distance" for naval power projection across the Pacific, it gives far more layered basing options for counterattacks, and it also gives access to far more shipbuilding capacity to replace lost materiel, as South Korea, in particular, is the largest shipbuilder in the world by far, accounting for 40% of global hulls!).
Those are all interesting points. One suspects that if/when the balloon goes up, China will use both carrots and sticks to discourage South Korean and Japanese participation.
For example, China has previously threatened to use nuclear weapons on Japan if it intervenes. How confident does Japan need to be that this is an empty threat before it decides to intervene? (If I were Japan, I'd be thinking hard about proliferation.)
You may want to double-check whether South Korea builds more ships than China.
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?
More relevantly, will they perceive that we'd be willing to?
Up to now, it has been clear that the US Administration is willing and able to assure mutual destruction.
With a President Harris, President Newsome, or President Buttegieg that assurance comes into question.
Worse, foreign decision makers might perceive that it is unacceptable to the Democratic Party base to assure mutual destruction.
Should that occur, the decisiveness even of a Republican President would be a matter for doubt, and the result could well be a Chinese lunge toward Taiwan.
If the PRC think that the USA intends to defend the ROC by conventional means, they are 1.5 billion against 400mm(Taiwan and America) at the location fighting a force with a 5,000 mile supply line.
There is no doubt who wins that.
Mutually Assured Destruction is still a potent deterrent.
"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.
It's hilarious that you're placing the blame entirely on Democrats and totally eliding the major role in all of that played by Republican presidents over the decades. Like Bush, for example, who actually waged that Iraq War and the GWOT. Or even Nixon, who famously went to China! This shows a blinkered negative partisanship.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the structural inevitability of China's rise. Americans could have maybe managed it better, but China's rise was happening no matter what the policy was in Washington, DC. "The problem has been a long time coming," indeed, like centuries or millennia coming!
Continuing the futile Russo-Ukrainian War violates all the codes USA professes to adhere to. Do we believe our principles apply only to Putin?
The STALEMATE in Ukraine offers a chance for a cease fire, and perhaps for substantive negotiations.
Zelenskiy has demonstrated his unsuitability for negotiations. Z pissed off the POTUS and now is scrounging around Europe for someone to send him ammo. None of them will step up.
Let's stop the killing seek a cease fire in place and let the EUros solve the problems of EUrope among themselves.
I think you hit on an important distinction. You - and a lot of other American servicemen- were in Germany. To invade, the Soviets needed to kill an awful lot of Americans. My guess is that the nuclear deterrence calculus is a but different for tens of thousands of dead GIs than 39.
Even so, a lot of our NATO allies weren't sure that the US would use its nuclear weapons to defend Western Europe.
The Soviets may or may not have been deterred by MAD.
One could forcefully argue that the Soviets continual upgrading of their nuclear triad, their anti-missile systems and their nuclear weapons shows that they were far from being deterred.
The combination of ground and nuclear forces gave NATO credibility, and the Soviet leadership appeared to need only a credible reason for reining their expansionism.
Our situation now is vastly different.
If Ukraine is accepted into the EU, in spite, of its deep corruption and otherwise unsuitable candidacy for EU membership, isn't it tantamount to a military conquest of Ukraine by the EU?
You use Taiwan China war as an example to promote your original more general policy post. However, you have chosen what is widely acknowledged as the most difficult to militarily defend conflict (among known tensions) to defend your original (and defensible) post. In perhaps the opposite extreme, should USA start a back out from NATO obligations?
Good questions. I did not choose that situation randomly, but rather in response to what I perceive as wishful thinking about international relations: In that case, the role that Europe will play vis-a-vis China. I should probably have noted earlier that there is often a gulf between what I believe is moral, and what I believe the US can or should do.
With this in mind, I chose China/Taiwan exactly because it is the most difficult and intractable foreign policy problem the US is currently facing, and also the problem most likely to result in: (1) a general nuclear exchange, and/or (2) the accelerated decline of American power. Moreover, unless China really bundles things, I do not believe that an invasion of Taiwan will be likely to trigger Article 5 or result in more than low-key support from our allies in Asia. (I hope I'm wrong, but Japan and South Korea will have a lot of pressure not to intervene.)
And while I understand that many around the world may disagree, I believe that the Pax Americana has been - as far as empires go - more benign and beneficial than most, at least when judged against a standard other than perfection. And I do not believe that China's ascendancy into the dominant global power will be better by any standard that I would care to use.
So to answer your question. No, I do not believe that the US should back out of its NATO obligations. If anything, I would prefer to live in a world with more robust protections against wars of aggression and greater guarantees of individual rights. But I fear that is not the world we inhabit, and so I believe that Europe should prepare for conflict with Russia on the assumption that the US will not be willing to trade Washington for Berlin.
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 thought the Elon “nazi salute” was pretty obviously not innocent, especially coming from the most famous troll in the world, whose favorite target is the boy who cried Nazi (i.e. the Left). The only thing awkward about the gesture was there was no subtlety to it.
Not saying I think he is a secret nazi, but I do think at the very least he (and others—Bannon, eg) have decided that it’s in their interest to keep the left crying “nazi” and “white supremacists” because they’ve been doing it for so long, and the majority of Americans are sick of it. All it does now is make people stop listening to any argument that makes use of it.
The frightening part is, this actually emboldens the nazis and white nationalists, and there’s no way Elon & Co don’t know this. That’s the crucial bit to understand, in my mind: they are either true sympathizers, or they’re just playing with that fire.
Clearly a government with a forty percent operating deficit needs help.
But the federal work force has been stable for almost fifty years, a strong indication that they perform valuable work.
Musk's chain saw approach strikes me as the antithesis of efficiency as all the efforts of DOGE are subject to litigation and a growing list have been rescinded as the mastermind of DOGE discovers what particular agencies do.
I realize Musk has as much a hold on Trump, as he did on Biden, so, he won't be fired.
But a bipartisan DOGE consisting of a Republican former governor, a Dem like former PA treasurer and Senator Bob Casey and a real businessman of stature could probably still pull DOGE's fat out of the fire.
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.
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
Think of it in its larger context not just in those limited "if, then.." terms. Trump has sided with Russia. He has ended NATO. He is behaving as if on the instructions of Putin's highly experienced propaganda machine, with each move more deadly than the last. Mass deportation of Ukrainians from the US. If you can't see his ostensible rationale as part of that then you are inside his narrative.
First of all, who appointed you commissar and gave you power to dictate what we should think?
There is no evidence to support your contentions that Trump sides with Putin or that he has 'ended' NATO. Such remarks are argumentative and display a disrespect for truth.
How can a cease fire in place not be neutral? Crimea was clearly under Russian control before the Special Operation and the territory which the Russians now occupy was AT BEST contested before the invasion, and NOT under Ukrainian control.
Ending the conflict serves us ALL, if you are unwilling to end a conflict with Russia on terms based on the military status quo, it is YOUR narrative that requires amending.
NATO is a monster. The only instance of article five being invoked was to INVADE AFGHANISTAN. There is no justification for continuing it.
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.
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.
Absolutely excellent and thought-provoking comment. I think you also need to look at the deeper, structural reasons why Russia might desire Ukraine and China might desire Taiwan. I keep seeing these personality-based explanations for everything, like Putin is crazy or Putin is an innocent victim of scary NATO.
But the reality is that Russia has basically always wanted the warm-weather ports in Ukraine. Crimean War... ring a bell? Anyone remember that Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014 and only claimed Crimea. Was that just random, you think? And there are tons of other reasons that Russia might see Ukraine as a whole as a core interest, including some of the best farmland in the entire world, access to tens of millions of people to prop up collapsing Russian demographics, those mineral interests that we've been talking about in the last few weeks, the ability to turn the Black Sea into more of a "Russian lake," some of the best value-added manufacturing capacity in the world (Ukraine was the only country that could make things as magnificent as the massive Antonov An-225 cargo jet), etc.
And there are very good structural reasons why China wants Taiwan, which are much more discussed among Western pundits and news outlets, thankfully, since the likes of advanced-chip-fab monopolist TSMC directly impact American companies and consumers so much more obviously. Taiwan's extremely strategic location on the other side of the Taiwan Strait means that with it China could control a choke point through which $2.5 TRILLION worth of goods transit through yearly to/from China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Taiwan is also another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that allows China to project power easily into the East and South China Sea, consolidating claims against all its neighbors and denying access in the Western Pacific to American hard power. With Taiwan, all other impediments to Chinese domination over East Asia fall and the Chinese Century is consolidated.
Neither of these situations, structurally, have much to do with who is in the White House or the Kremlin or Zhongnanhai. It's been true for centuries that Russia wants (or has) Ukraine and China wants (or has) Taiwan.
Great stuff! It's all strategic, in my view. The personalities and moral dimensions are only relevant in terms of political will and defining modus operandi and ad hoc moral justifications. Sachs, in particular, is fond of citing Palmerston as the essential playbook America adopted during and after the Cold War in relation to Russia.
My point would be this- if anyone on the EU side actually gave a shit about Ukraine, they would have allowed a one-time exception for Ukraine to be able to establish itself as a Free Trade Zone, equally able to trade and transfer goods for both Russia and the EU. From a security perspective, it would have secured Europe's eastern flank, it would have been great for Ukraine and it would have allayed Russian fears over an inability to trade into the Mediterranean. Putin would have probably contented himself with the process of slowing eroding the solidarity Turkey feels towards the West and NATO (militarily, Turkey are a power to watch at the moment- some of their exercises point to growing the facility to project regional power).
Sure, things might have got tricky over transfers through Ukraine, but let's face it that's molehill vs. the mountain of human suffering which has arisen as a result of the German's inability to see that financial leverage (in relation to Russian nat. gas) is sometimes less relevant to others than it is to the Western mindset- I actually apologised to my readers back in 2022 (like many, I really didn't believe Putin would do it).
I also agree with you on the Taiwan issue, especially in terms of the greater Asian strategic implications, but I think their motivations are far more contingent upon a deep-rooted paranoia over the possibility that other powers might restrict their access to resources and global trade routes. For example, at first glance the String of Pearls strategy looks like an aggressive move, until one considers it also protects their own access to trade, oil, gas, coal and other vital materials.
It's also worth noting that the Chinese tend to be far longer term thinkers in strategic terms. Some of their energy plans, particularly in relation to nuclear, extend to 2080. It's not that they don't believe in climate change, but they don't possess the Western hysteria towards hyperbole and gross exaggeration- they see climate change as one of many issues confronting the world, and by no means the most important. They can probably foresee a moment by 2060, when the West tries to restrict their access to energy or export markets- at which point India will align with China and most of the rest of the world against the West. It's my view that this is the central reason why they've been cultivating popularity within the UN and through BRI.
In this sense, China is on the right side of history (but not necessarily for the right reasons). It would only take 7% of the world's 'carbon allowance' for electrical energy for Africa to have the resources to industrialise and massively improve the standards of living of the continent. I get sick to death of UN or Western sources glorifying 'traditional' (subsistence) farming in Africa. Young people in Africa were fleeing in droves to the emerging megacities long before the effects of climate change began to be felt or the term climate refugee had been coined. Combined renewable plans for China only extend to 2030, include an ambition of 30% and don't extend beyond that figure- although big hydro and pumped hydro storage appear to be the exceptions.
I think the West tends to underestimate the psychological cultural memory of the Chinese. Mass starvation is not yet too far to the rear view mirror, and stability is their number one priority. The Aksai Chin border flare ups are likely to increase in the next few years- China is hugely dependent on Tibet for water, and equally India is likely very paranoid over the Medog damn project.
It's highly likely that the attempts to restore bilateral relations will continue. I wouldn't be at all surprised if India and China sign something similar to the Anglo-Dutch Commercial Treaties, but with real teeth against anyone who attempts to restrict their mutual trade. I looked at India's commitments during COP29 with an AI- I think it's fair to state that they are becoming increasing sceptical of the West's preference for degrowth and renewables.
In terms of likely invasion dates for Taiwan, it's the year of the Fire Horse in 2026 and the year of the Fire Dragon in 2036. If Trump settles Ukraine and rebuilds American military manpower, they will likely wait until 2036. Trump's astrology is a bad omen for war over Taiwan in 2026. He's a fire dog and won't back down. If anything, Vance is a bigger problem for China in 2026- the astrology suggests he could be their biggest strategic headache since Nixon, although they will likely believe he will avoid a war over Taiwan.
As I stated earlier the players are more important in terms of political will, and the Chinese certainly take this stuff seriously.
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.
Why is Nigeria joining the BRICS material to this discussion?
Also, who cares about the BRICS? The BRICS were an investment fad of the late 2000s, when "Emerging Markets" were the new hotness. How did that go!? And that grouping, in practice, has always been the "briCs," anyway, with China using the others as patsies or clients.
Nigeria, in particular, is no threat to the United States (except insofar as it collapses as a state, causing the usual mayhem, terrorism spill-over, and impact on energy prices). Nor are the other members of the BRICS, aside from the R and the C. Brazil isn't a threat. India isn't either. And South Africa certainly isn't, and barely deserves to be grouped in the same league as the others, economically or politically.
I don't think anything was said about Nigeria being a threat to the U.S.. The point is that there is an anti-U.S. alliance growing and just because some of us don't see it as material doesn't mean Trump doesn't either. The U.S. is gearing for what it considers material threat.
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
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.)
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.
Good friends do not behave like Tony Soprano, only offering help when there is something it it for their cronies. A nice mineral deal etc.
The implication is Trumps morality is for sale to the highest bidder, or with the greatest demonstrable power. And f*can the 46m Ukrainians who might get in the way. They are after all expendable in that universe. Shame....
Agreed about friendship. But what does that have to do with foreign policy?
To the extent that you would like to discuss foreign policy rather than friendship, have you considered that intertwining Ukraine's future with a vital US interest such as rare earth minerals gives the US far more skin in the game in Ukraine in the long run? In other words, that the US would be more likely to intervene in the event of a Russian breach if the US has a vital interest at stake, and that - just as importantly- Russia would perceived that the US would be more likely to intervene. What you view as extortion may be ugly, but it may also be the key to enforcing a lasting peace.
It is worth remembering that the UK did not finish paying off it’s WW2 war debt to America until the 1970s and in effect sacrificed its great power status expending colossal number of lives and treasure to defeat Nazism. The USA in contrast entering the war after Pearl Harbour witnessed massive expansion of its industrial power which powered America into global dominance.
The UK was in secular decline LONG before its entrance into WWII. By the late 19th Century, it was already clear that the United States would dominate the next century, first economically and then geopolitically. And that's for very obvious structural reasons.
What's most extraordinary, in retrospect, is that a small island was so dominant globally for so long because of certain very fortunate variables that fell into place at the exact right time. Ditto with the likes Netherlands and Portugal with their globe-spanning empires, before it.
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 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.
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 ...
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?
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.
It's fair to say that the era of great American statesmen ended around the time the Cold War did. And I don't think that's coincidental: Since we enjoyed a generation of unparalleled peace and affluence, we have lived in a frivolous time, our politics are frivolous, and the bench on both sides of the partisan aisle are VERY weak.
If you think of Vance as an intellectual just because he went to Princeton and knows how to put a sentence together, that says more about our deficit of political talent and leadership than anything. I went to an elite school, too, with a lot of smart-ass, careerist cynics like Vance, and I wouldn't trust them to lead a bake sale.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That was the idea that the Framers had with their balance of power design, but the problem is that they didn't foresee that "faction" would evolve into actual partisanship. Which seems foolish, given that the British political party system was already developing at that time in the UK Parliament.
They also took for granted that the evils of faction would be exorcised by the newly emergent mass literacy, universal public education, and rise of a higher-quality Anglo-American journalism that would create a People and democratic citizens who didn't just traffic in the rumor and slander that you saw in Early Modern Europe, even up through the ostensible Enlightenment: "Fake news" and scandal-mag type pulp and slander and conspiracy theories about the Royal Family did at least as much to spur on the French Revolution as any deeply held beliefs about the Rights of Man, something that we forget, in retrospect. And that's where we're at again now.
We have the perfect storm of faction since around 2010, when social media, hyper-partisanship, the decline of traditional news media, and a world that is just too dizzyingly complex and increasingly unstable gives rise to the worst mob instincts and manias.
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.
It is a truism of American politics that presidents lead on foreign policy. But historically, presidents have worked hand in glove with their party in pursuit of a widely agreed upon set of foreign policy objectives. And more often than not in the period after World War II, America's foreign policy has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. One of the most shocking things about Trump's reversal of the foreign policy America has pursued for the past eighty years is that it repudiates what, up until the start of his second term, had been the prevailing consensus within his own party and within the conservative movement. Yes, Trump's "America First" rhetoric had proven popular in his first and subsequent campaigns, and its success on the hustings nurtured a reexamination of internationalism within the party. But who would have predicted that Republican "hawks" in the House and Senate would stand by silently while an American president embraced Russia's dictator and echoed Russian disinformation about its war of aggression against Ukraine?
In the not so distant past, it would have been unimaginable for an American president to reverse the nation's course so dramatically. The domestic political cost for such a betrayal of the nation's allies would have been enormous. Several questions immediately present themselves. Why did Trump do it? Why has the initial reaction by formerly hawkish Republican legislators been muted? Will Trump be able to create a new foreign policy consensus within his party, one that allies the US with former adversaries and distances the US from former allies? If so, what will become of the rules based international order that the US did so much to build?
Trump is not a deep thinker or an avid reader. It seems unlikely that his reversal of American foreign policy is based on a profound understanding of its history or underlying logic. More likely, it reflects his personal worldview that all competition, be it among business rivals or rival nations, is zero sum and outcomes are determined by the relative strengths of the competitors. Moreover, it likely also reflects his extreme egoism and proclivity to see himself as a superior individual. Simply put, Trump probably sees himself, as president of the world's superpower, deciding the fate of lesser men and nations. In his own mind, his peers are men like Vladimir Putin. And he relishes the idea of sitting down with them at the negotiating table to carve up the world. Never mind that,were he to sit down with them to negotiate, the likes of Putin and Xi will eat his lunch.
The silence of Republican legislators with vastly greater knowledge of foreign affairs than Trump possesses and a history of championing the pre-Trump foreign policy consensus is puzzling. The explanation might very well be political cowardice. Trump commands the loyalty of the party's electoral base. And Trump has shown time and again that he will not tolerate disloyalty. If the public were to rebuke Trump, however, at least some of these legislators might find the courage to oppose the new course on which he has set the nation. Unfortunately, the right-wing propaganda machine is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. It seems unlikely in the short run that there will be a groundswell of opposition to Trump's embrace of Putin and abandonment of Ukraine among Republican voters. That might change over time should the world slip into chaos and ordinary Americans begin to fear for their safety and prosperity.
The consequences of Trump's foreign policy will likely determined whether or not it becomes the basis for a new Republican consensus. If chaos results, the odds are it will be repudiated. If, however, fortune favors Trump and his version of great power politics does not generate chaos, his vision of America's role in world affairs could become the new common sense so far as the GOP is concerned.
Does this mean that we return to an era when might makes right? Well, in truth, might has always had a finger on the scales when it comes to deciding what's right. We've never lived in a Kantian world where right is might. A better question is, what becomes of the rules based international order if Trump undercuts it? America's outsized role in world affairs makes this a problem for the nations that want to maintain the rules based order. They will need to develop plans for compensating for America's defection. The survival of the rules based order will depend on how successful they are at devising and implementing these plans. The US has long thought of itself as the indispensable nation. Trump's America will put this notion to the test, And for the sake of the world, we must now hope that it isn't true, that a a just and peaceful world can be created and sustained without the help of the US and possibly in the face of its opposition.
I would actually argue that Republican leadership during the Bush era was out of step with the Republican base, while Trump is closer to it. If you look back at the Nineties, you see the exact same frustration with Europe and unhappiness with our having to intervene (in the civil wars that tore apart Yugoslavia) as you do today with Ukraine.
The Mid-Century period was a historical anomaly when it came to bipartisan consensus on various things, especially foreign policy. That fact is both depressing and somehow consoling, since it makes clear that there's nothing really unusual about our current, chaotic political reality.
It's more useful to ask, instead, *why* was the American political class more cooperative and seemingly principled in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and (maybe) 70s? My simplest answer is that when there's a very real, credible, existential threat in the air, people get serious. We don't feel that threat and haven't for most of my entire four decade on this earth. And that has made us complacent and frivolous.
We can point to Trump and Vance and the rest as the idiots. But we are the idiots, too. We are the ones who vote for it. Who tolerate it. Who normalize it. We are rendered idiotic by our peace and our affluence.
The Ukrainians are not idiots. They are close to death and oblivion. It has made them serious. American deign to either feel sorry for or condescend to the Ukrainians, but they have something to teach us which is unacknowledged. Their example is maybe the scariest to us when it suggests that we might be next, and are FAR from ready...
The Ukrainians are certainly far more serious than their Western European allies, too, who are also rendered into idiots by complacency and geographic and historical distance from danger. Trump isn't the only completely unserious leader in the West. Some of them are more "polite" about it, but the entire German political class today are prime examples of well-dressed un-seriousness.
My optimistic belief is that our times are dire enough now that we will learn again to be serious people. My dad, born in 1933, the peak of the Great Depression and the year that Hitler came to power, was a very serious person. So was my grandmother, born the year before WWI and a girl as the "Spanish" Flu ravaged even the smallest communities in America, plastering them with death. They both understood the deep facts of life that I could only learn vicariously (and incompletely) from them. My generation wasn't (and still isn't) serious. How could we be? Our lives were so good that we think the worst thing that happens is student loan debt or not being able to buy a house! But we are learning to become more so. And I think my own son will be a very serious person. He's only 4 and knows who Trump is. He also forbids his parents from talking about him or looking at him. He knows how to survive this stupid reality. And it's not by passively doomscrolling and hand-wringing.
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?
It's not just Americans. Europeans are extremely complacent here, too. Especially the Western Europeans furthest from the action. Most of us in the Western world are rendered idiotic by our generation-long stability, affluence, and peace. And now we reap what comes after. And we are completely unprepared.
It seems that in a polite society, it is not considered acceptable to seriously entertain the notion that Donald Trump is Russian agent of influence and is simply orienting US policies to support the interests of Russian elites. Since this is a free-for-all discussion, my question for you is two-fold:
1) If you do not accept this premise, do you have good (consistent with Occam's razor) arguments against it?
2) If we do accept this premise, what does it tell us about the future? Can there be a patriotic backlash that reminds Americans that their fathers and grandfathers sacrificed in the Cold War not to re-create the world of kings and sultans? Or Americans are now fundamentally OK with the Putin/Stalin/Ivan the Terrible worldview?
The world is full of incredibly smart people who feel the largest and most important geopolitical task we face is to pull Russia out of China’s sphere.
"The world is full of incredibly smart people who feel the largest and most important geopolitical task we face is to pull Russia out of China’s sphere."
Gee, who are these "incredibly smart people"? I haven't heard/read anything about this.
And, just curious, how does surrendering to Putin pull Russia out of China's sphere?
Trump is trying to broker a compromise between the belligerent parties. Equating that with "surrendering" to one of them when you don't know what concessions Trump will propose for each is idle blather.
There’s an unstated economic element to this. The current world order allowed America to expand its markets all over the world, thereby bringing greater prosperity and American good will all over the world. What happens when those markets close down? We see the immediate effects in the shutting of USAID and the threat and implementation of tariffs. This morning I saw photos of a Canadian grocery store where all the American apples were left surrounded by empty shelves. Does Trump really believe that Russia will be a trading partner that can match what is lost in other places? I seriously doubt it.
Trump doesn't have much to offer Russia and I'm afraid he doesn't realize that. Our trade with Russia is miniscule. More sanctions? Already done it! Tariffs? Who cares!
He just doesn't have the leverage.
Even geopolitically, the alliance between Russia and China makes so much sense structurally. So are we going to make the same mistake Bush did, thinking we can "see into [Putin's] soul" and press "reset?" Good luck!
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.
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.
It's also important to factor in the necessity for Japan to join in here. The Strait of Taiwan is a core, vital interest for Japan for this basic reason: "$2.45 trillion worth of goods—over one-fifth of global maritime trade—transited the Taiwan Strait in 2022." (Excellent interactive explainer also from CSIS here: https://features.csis.org/chinapower/china-taiwan-strait-trade/). And of that trade, a hugely disproportionate share is coming to/from export-dependent Japan, including the energy imports which keep the lights on. If the Taiwan Strait were to become an inland waterway of China's, Japan is *permanently* vulnerable, alongside South Korea.
Yes, Northeast Asia-bound shipping could opt for the less direct/economical Luzon Strait (between Taiwan and the Philippines) instead, but even there you'd again be dealing with an extended Chinese EEZ via Taiwan, along with a far easier power-projection ability into the East and South China Sea using Taiwanese naval and air bases. The only other alternative is looping the long way south between Malaysia and the Philippines via the Sebu/Celebes Seas and up again through the Miyako Strait (which is also in a contested area off of Japan with islands that China has designs on), which adds a huge amount of distance (and is similar to the impact on shipping that the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea caused by diverting shipping from the Suez).
So Japan would almost certainly opt to fight now instead of being permanently vulnerable to China's utter dominance of East and South East Asia. Especially given that American basing in Japan would already make it an initial target in any conflict. It's a decent bet that the parties to the South China Sea conflict would also decide that now is the time to push back to the neighborhood bully, if any, so even if they didn't commit military assets, they would make available basing, logistics support, etc.
The addition of allies like Japan (and maybe South Korea) gives the USM far more resilience in the conflict because it overcomes the "tyranny of distance" for naval power projection across the Pacific, it gives far more layered basing options for counterattacks, and it also gives access to far more shipbuilding capacity to replace lost materiel, as South Korea, in particular, is the largest shipbuilder in the world by far, accounting for 40% of global hulls!).
Those are all interesting points. One suspects that if/when the balloon goes up, China will use both carrots and sticks to discourage South Korean and Japanese participation.
For example, China has previously threatened to use nuclear weapons on Japan if it intervenes. How confident does Japan need to be that this is an empty threat before it decides to intervene? (If I were Japan, I'd be thinking hard about proliferation.)
You may want to double-check whether South Korea builds more ships than China.
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?
More relevantly, will they perceive that we'd be willing to?
Up to now, it has been clear that the US Administration is willing and able to assure mutual destruction.
With a President Harris, President Newsome, or President Buttegieg that assurance comes into question.
Worse, foreign decision makers might perceive that it is unacceptable to the Democratic Party base to assure mutual destruction.
Should that occur, the decisiveness even of a Republican President would be a matter for doubt, and the result could well be a Chinese lunge toward Taiwan.
This gets tricky.
If the PRC think that the USA intends to defend the ROC by conventional means, they are 1.5 billion against 400mm(Taiwan and America) at the location fighting a force with a 5,000 mile supply line.
There is no doubt who wins that.
Mutually Assured Destruction is still a potent deterrent.
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.
It's hilarious that you're placing the blame entirely on Democrats and totally eliding the major role in all of that played by Republican presidents over the decades. Like Bush, for example, who actually waged that Iraq War and the GWOT. Or even Nixon, who famously went to China! This shows a blinkered negative partisanship.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the structural inevitability of China's rise. Americans could have maybe managed it better, but China's rise was happening no matter what the policy was in Washington, DC. "The problem has been a long time coming," indeed, like centuries or millennia coming!
COME ON, Michael Larson!!!
Continuing the futile Russo-Ukrainian War violates all the codes USA professes to adhere to. Do we believe our principles apply only to Putin?
The STALEMATE in Ukraine offers a chance for a cease fire, and perhaps for substantive negotiations.
Zelenskiy has demonstrated his unsuitability for negotiations. Z pissed off the POTUS and now is scrounging around Europe for someone to send him ammo. None of them will step up.
Let's stop the killing seek a cease fire in place and let the EUros solve the problems of EUrope among themselves.
I was in Germany in the sixties and seventies.
We, (NATO), never had close to the air and land forces needed to defeat the USSR, let alone the entire Warsaw Pact in a land invasion.
Mutually Assured Destruction was the quarantee against the invasion of GERMANY.
The same will hold true of Taiwan.
I think you hit on an important distinction. You - and a lot of other American servicemen- were in Germany. To invade, the Soviets needed to kill an awful lot of Americans. My guess is that the nuclear deterrence calculus is a but different for tens of thousands of dead GIs than 39.
Even so, a lot of our NATO allies weren't sure that the US would use its nuclear weapons to defend Western Europe.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Josh.
The Soviets may or may not have been deterred by MAD.
One could forcefully argue that the Soviets continual upgrading of their nuclear triad, their anti-missile systems and their nuclear weapons shows that they were far from being deterred.
The combination of ground and nuclear forces gave NATO credibility, and the Soviet leadership appeared to need only a credible reason for reining their expansionism.
Our situation now is vastly different.
If Ukraine is accepted into the EU, in spite, of its deep corruption and otherwise unsuitable candidacy for EU membership, isn't it tantamount to a military conquest of Ukraine by the EU?
You use Taiwan China war as an example to promote your original more general policy post. However, you have chosen what is widely acknowledged as the most difficult to militarily defend conflict (among known tensions) to defend your original (and defensible) post. In perhaps the opposite extreme, should USA start a back out from NATO obligations?
BillB, we should have DISBANDED NATO when the Soviet Union fell.
I can't see how an alliance which causes a four hundred percent increase in ARMS production in Europe is beneficial.
The EU needs to play catch up and build their own army, air force and navy.
Uncle Sam needs to pay full attention to improving our international trade competitiveness and STOP SUBSIDIZING the defense of Europe.
Good questions. I did not choose that situation randomly, but rather in response to what I perceive as wishful thinking about international relations: In that case, the role that Europe will play vis-a-vis China. I should probably have noted earlier that there is often a gulf between what I believe is moral, and what I believe the US can or should do.
With this in mind, I chose China/Taiwan exactly because it is the most difficult and intractable foreign policy problem the US is currently facing, and also the problem most likely to result in: (1) a general nuclear exchange, and/or (2) the accelerated decline of American power. Moreover, unless China really bundles things, I do not believe that an invasion of Taiwan will be likely to trigger Article 5 or result in more than low-key support from our allies in Asia. (I hope I'm wrong, but Japan and South Korea will have a lot of pressure not to intervene.)
And while I understand that many around the world may disagree, I believe that the Pax Americana has been - as far as empires go - more benign and beneficial than most, at least when judged against a standard other than perfection. And I do not believe that China's ascendancy into the dominant global power will be better by any standard that I would care to use.
So to answer your question. No, I do not believe that the US should back out of its NATO obligations. If anything, I would prefer to live in a world with more robust protections against wars of aggression and greater guarantees of individual rights. But I fear that is not the world we inhabit, and so I believe that Europe should prepare for conflict with Russia on the assumption that the US will not be willing to trade Washington for Berlin.
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 thought the Elon “nazi salute” was pretty obviously not innocent, especially coming from the most famous troll in the world, whose favorite target is the boy who cried Nazi (i.e. the Left). The only thing awkward about the gesture was there was no subtlety to it.
Not saying I think he is a secret nazi, but I do think at the very least he (and others—Bannon, eg) have decided that it’s in their interest to keep the left crying “nazi” and “white supremacists” because they’ve been doing it for so long, and the majority of Americans are sick of it. All it does now is make people stop listening to any argument that makes use of it.
The frightening part is, this actually emboldens the nazis and white nationalists, and there’s no way Elon & Co don’t know this. That’s the crucial bit to understand, in my mind: they are either true sympathizers, or they’re just playing with that fire.
I am very dissatisfied with DOGE.
Clearly a government with a forty percent operating deficit needs help.
But the federal work force has been stable for almost fifty years, a strong indication that they perform valuable work.
Musk's chain saw approach strikes me as the antithesis of efficiency as all the efforts of DOGE are subject to litigation and a growing list have been rescinded as the mastermind of DOGE discovers what particular agencies do.
I realize Musk has as much a hold on Trump, as he did on Biden, so, he won't be fired.
But a bipartisan DOGE consisting of a Republican former governor, a Dem like former PA treasurer and Senator Bob Casey and a real businessman of stature could probably still pull DOGE's fat out of the fire.
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.
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
The EU has more people, more money than we and is as technologically advanced as the USA.
It is COMMON SENSE that the EU defend themselves, not a Trump narrative.
Think of it in its larger context not just in those limited "if, then.." terms. Trump has sided with Russia. He has ended NATO. He is behaving as if on the instructions of Putin's highly experienced propaganda machine, with each move more deadly than the last. Mass deportation of Ukrainians from the US. If you can't see his ostensible rationale as part of that then you are inside his narrative.
First of all, who appointed you commissar and gave you power to dictate what we should think?
There is no evidence to support your contentions that Trump sides with Putin or that he has 'ended' NATO. Such remarks are argumentative and display a disrespect for truth.
How can a cease fire in place not be neutral? Crimea was clearly under Russian control before the Special Operation and the territory which the Russians now occupy was AT BEST contested before the invasion, and NOT under Ukrainian control.
Ending the conflict serves us ALL, if you are unwilling to end a conflict with Russia on terms based on the military status quo, it is YOUR narrative that requires amending.
NATO is a monster. The only instance of article five being invoked was to INVADE AFGHANISTAN. There is no justification for continuing it.
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.
Why do we need to match the Chinese?
The Chinese economy would have to quardruple or quintuple for their per capita GDP to match ours. That will never happen.
Why don't we take a position like Italy or Belgium, trade cooperatively and enjoy our high standard of living?
Why this drive to compete?
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.
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.
Absolutely excellent and thought-provoking comment. I think you also need to look at the deeper, structural reasons why Russia might desire Ukraine and China might desire Taiwan. I keep seeing these personality-based explanations for everything, like Putin is crazy or Putin is an innocent victim of scary NATO.
But the reality is that Russia has basically always wanted the warm-weather ports in Ukraine. Crimean War... ring a bell? Anyone remember that Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014 and only claimed Crimea. Was that just random, you think? And there are tons of other reasons that Russia might see Ukraine as a whole as a core interest, including some of the best farmland in the entire world, access to tens of millions of people to prop up collapsing Russian demographics, those mineral interests that we've been talking about in the last few weeks, the ability to turn the Black Sea into more of a "Russian lake," some of the best value-added manufacturing capacity in the world (Ukraine was the only country that could make things as magnificent as the massive Antonov An-225 cargo jet), etc.
And there are very good structural reasons why China wants Taiwan, which are much more discussed among Western pundits and news outlets, thankfully, since the likes of advanced-chip-fab monopolist TSMC directly impact American companies and consumers so much more obviously. Taiwan's extremely strategic location on the other side of the Taiwan Strait means that with it China could control a choke point through which $2.5 TRILLION worth of goods transit through yearly to/from China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Taiwan is also another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that allows China to project power easily into the East and South China Sea, consolidating claims against all its neighbors and denying access in the Western Pacific to American hard power. With Taiwan, all other impediments to Chinese domination over East Asia fall and the Chinese Century is consolidated.
Neither of these situations, structurally, have much to do with who is in the White House or the Kremlin or Zhongnanhai. It's been true for centuries that Russia wants (or has) Ukraine and China wants (or has) Taiwan.
Great stuff! It's all strategic, in my view. The personalities and moral dimensions are only relevant in terms of political will and defining modus operandi and ad hoc moral justifications. Sachs, in particular, is fond of citing Palmerston as the essential playbook America adopted during and after the Cold War in relation to Russia.
My point would be this- if anyone on the EU side actually gave a shit about Ukraine, they would have allowed a one-time exception for Ukraine to be able to establish itself as a Free Trade Zone, equally able to trade and transfer goods for both Russia and the EU. From a security perspective, it would have secured Europe's eastern flank, it would have been great for Ukraine and it would have allayed Russian fears over an inability to trade into the Mediterranean. Putin would have probably contented himself with the process of slowing eroding the solidarity Turkey feels towards the West and NATO (militarily, Turkey are a power to watch at the moment- some of their exercises point to growing the facility to project regional power).
Sure, things might have got tricky over transfers through Ukraine, but let's face it that's molehill vs. the mountain of human suffering which has arisen as a result of the German's inability to see that financial leverage (in relation to Russian nat. gas) is sometimes less relevant to others than it is to the Western mindset- I actually apologised to my readers back in 2022 (like many, I really didn't believe Putin would do it).
I also agree with you on the Taiwan issue, especially in terms of the greater Asian strategic implications, but I think their motivations are far more contingent upon a deep-rooted paranoia over the possibility that other powers might restrict their access to resources and global trade routes. For example, at first glance the String of Pearls strategy looks like an aggressive move, until one considers it also protects their own access to trade, oil, gas, coal and other vital materials.
It's also worth noting that the Chinese tend to be far longer term thinkers in strategic terms. Some of their energy plans, particularly in relation to nuclear, extend to 2080. It's not that they don't believe in climate change, but they don't possess the Western hysteria towards hyperbole and gross exaggeration- they see climate change as one of many issues confronting the world, and by no means the most important. They can probably foresee a moment by 2060, when the West tries to restrict their access to energy or export markets- at which point India will align with China and most of the rest of the world against the West. It's my view that this is the central reason why they've been cultivating popularity within the UN and through BRI.
In this sense, China is on the right side of history (but not necessarily for the right reasons). It would only take 7% of the world's 'carbon allowance' for electrical energy for Africa to have the resources to industrialise and massively improve the standards of living of the continent. I get sick to death of UN or Western sources glorifying 'traditional' (subsistence) farming in Africa. Young people in Africa were fleeing in droves to the emerging megacities long before the effects of climate change began to be felt or the term climate refugee had been coined. Combined renewable plans for China only extend to 2030, include an ambition of 30% and don't extend beyond that figure- although big hydro and pumped hydro storage appear to be the exceptions.
I think the West tends to underestimate the psychological cultural memory of the Chinese. Mass starvation is not yet too far to the rear view mirror, and stability is their number one priority. The Aksai Chin border flare ups are likely to increase in the next few years- China is hugely dependent on Tibet for water, and equally India is likely very paranoid over the Medog damn project.
It's highly likely that the attempts to restore bilateral relations will continue. I wouldn't be at all surprised if India and China sign something similar to the Anglo-Dutch Commercial Treaties, but with real teeth against anyone who attempts to restrict their mutual trade. I looked at India's commitments during COP29 with an AI- I think it's fair to state that they are becoming increasing sceptical of the West's preference for degrowth and renewables.
In terms of likely invasion dates for Taiwan, it's the year of the Fire Horse in 2026 and the year of the Fire Dragon in 2036. If Trump settles Ukraine and rebuilds American military manpower, they will likely wait until 2036. Trump's astrology is a bad omen for war over Taiwan in 2026. He's a fire dog and won't back down. If anything, Vance is a bigger problem for China in 2026- the astrology suggests he could be their biggest strategic headache since Nixon, although they will likely believe he will avoid a war over Taiwan.
As I stated earlier the players are more important in terms of political will, and the Chinese certainly take this stuff seriously.
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 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.
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.
Why is Nigeria joining the BRICS material to this discussion?
Also, who cares about the BRICS? The BRICS were an investment fad of the late 2000s, when "Emerging Markets" were the new hotness. How did that go!? And that grouping, in practice, has always been the "briCs," anyway, with China using the others as patsies or clients.
Nigeria, in particular, is no threat to the United States (except insofar as it collapses as a state, causing the usual mayhem, terrorism spill-over, and impact on energy prices). Nor are the other members of the BRICS, aside from the R and the C. Brazil isn't a threat. India isn't either. And South Africa certainly isn't, and barely deserves to be grouped in the same league as the others, economically or politically.
I don't think anything was said about Nigeria being a threat to the U.S.. The point is that there is an anti-U.S. alliance growing and just because some of us don't see it as material doesn't mean Trump doesn't either. The U.S. is gearing for what it considers material threat.
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.
It seems to me that none of these discussions adequately explain
the necessity to trash all of our allies.
As I stated elsewhere, I disagreed with the messaging even if I agree with the message. Reasonable minds may differ as to both of these points.
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 ...
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
Not that you are looking for or need my validation, but that's a valid, well-considered policy position.
Our enemies are learning the same lessons we are. Russia is a stronger opponent today than the start of the war.
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.)
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.
Good friends do not behave like Tony Soprano, only offering help when there is something it it for their cronies. A nice mineral deal etc.
The implication is Trumps morality is for sale to the highest bidder, or with the greatest demonstrable power. And f*can the 46m Ukrainians who might get in the way. They are after all expendable in that universe. Shame....
Agreed about friendship. But what does that have to do with foreign policy?
To the extent that you would like to discuss foreign policy rather than friendship, have you considered that intertwining Ukraine's future with a vital US interest such as rare earth minerals gives the US far more skin in the game in Ukraine in the long run? In other words, that the US would be more likely to intervene in the event of a Russian breach if the US has a vital interest at stake, and that - just as importantly- Russia would perceived that the US would be more likely to intervene. What you view as extortion may be ugly, but it may also be the key to enforcing a lasting peace.
Hear! Hear!
We racked up debt by the war in Iraq and Trump's first term increased the overall debt by 20%. We did not rack it up by supporting Nato.
It is worth remembering that the UK did not finish paying off it’s WW2 war debt to America until the 1970s and in effect sacrificed its great power status expending colossal number of lives and treasure to defeat Nazism. The USA in contrast entering the war after Pearl Harbour witnessed massive expansion of its industrial power which powered America into global dominance.
The UK was in secular decline LONG before its entrance into WWII. By the late 19th Century, it was already clear that the United States would dominate the next century, first economically and then geopolitically. And that's for very obvious structural reasons.
What's most extraordinary, in retrospect, is that a small island was so dominant globally for so long because of certain very fortunate variables that fell into place at the exact right time. Ditto with the likes Netherlands and Portugal with their globe-spanning empires, before it.
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 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.
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 ...
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?
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?
It's fair to say that the era of great American statesmen ended around the time the Cold War did. And I don't think that's coincidental: Since we enjoyed a generation of unparalleled peace and affluence, we have lived in a frivolous time, our politics are frivolous, and the bench on both sides of the partisan aisle are VERY weak.
If you think of Vance as an intellectual just because he went to Princeton and knows how to put a sentence together, that says more about our deficit of political talent and leadership than anything. I went to an elite school, too, with a lot of smart-ass, careerist cynics like Vance, and I wouldn't trust them to lead a bake sale.
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.
[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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol. Bye Felicia.
🤔 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.
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.
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.
"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
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
That was the idea that the Framers had with their balance of power design, but the problem is that they didn't foresee that "faction" would evolve into actual partisanship. Which seems foolish, given that the British political party system was already developing at that time in the UK Parliament.
They also took for granted that the evils of faction would be exorcised by the newly emergent mass literacy, universal public education, and rise of a higher-quality Anglo-American journalism that would create a People and democratic citizens who didn't just traffic in the rumor and slander that you saw in Early Modern Europe, even up through the ostensible Enlightenment: "Fake news" and scandal-mag type pulp and slander and conspiracy theories about the Royal Family did at least as much to spur on the French Revolution as any deeply held beliefs about the Rights of Man, something that we forget, in retrospect. And that's where we're at again now.
We have the perfect storm of faction since around 2010, when social media, hyper-partisanship, the decline of traditional news media, and a world that is just too dizzyingly complex and increasingly unstable gives rise to the worst mob instincts and manias.
Hear! Hear! Excellent comment, well-argued, and drawing the correct conclusion. Go DOGE!
They just extended deficit busting tax cuts.
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
It is a truism of American politics that presidents lead on foreign policy. But historically, presidents have worked hand in glove with their party in pursuit of a widely agreed upon set of foreign policy objectives. And more often than not in the period after World War II, America's foreign policy has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. One of the most shocking things about Trump's reversal of the foreign policy America has pursued for the past eighty years is that it repudiates what, up until the start of his second term, had been the prevailing consensus within his own party and within the conservative movement. Yes, Trump's "America First" rhetoric had proven popular in his first and subsequent campaigns, and its success on the hustings nurtured a reexamination of internationalism within the party. But who would have predicted that Republican "hawks" in the House and Senate would stand by silently while an American president embraced Russia's dictator and echoed Russian disinformation about its war of aggression against Ukraine?
In the not so distant past, it would have been unimaginable for an American president to reverse the nation's course so dramatically. The domestic political cost for such a betrayal of the nation's allies would have been enormous. Several questions immediately present themselves. Why did Trump do it? Why has the initial reaction by formerly hawkish Republican legislators been muted? Will Trump be able to create a new foreign policy consensus within his party, one that allies the US with former adversaries and distances the US from former allies? If so, what will become of the rules based international order that the US did so much to build?
Trump is not a deep thinker or an avid reader. It seems unlikely that his reversal of American foreign policy is based on a profound understanding of its history or underlying logic. More likely, it reflects his personal worldview that all competition, be it among business rivals or rival nations, is zero sum and outcomes are determined by the relative strengths of the competitors. Moreover, it likely also reflects his extreme egoism and proclivity to see himself as a superior individual. Simply put, Trump probably sees himself, as president of the world's superpower, deciding the fate of lesser men and nations. In his own mind, his peers are men like Vladimir Putin. And he relishes the idea of sitting down with them at the negotiating table to carve up the world. Never mind that,were he to sit down with them to negotiate, the likes of Putin and Xi will eat his lunch.
The silence of Republican legislators with vastly greater knowledge of foreign affairs than Trump possesses and a history of championing the pre-Trump foreign policy consensus is puzzling. The explanation might very well be political cowardice. Trump commands the loyalty of the party's electoral base. And Trump has shown time and again that he will not tolerate disloyalty. If the public were to rebuke Trump, however, at least some of these legislators might find the courage to oppose the new course on which he has set the nation. Unfortunately, the right-wing propaganda machine is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. It seems unlikely in the short run that there will be a groundswell of opposition to Trump's embrace of Putin and abandonment of Ukraine among Republican voters. That might change over time should the world slip into chaos and ordinary Americans begin to fear for their safety and prosperity.
The consequences of Trump's foreign policy will likely determined whether or not it becomes the basis for a new Republican consensus. If chaos results, the odds are it will be repudiated. If, however, fortune favors Trump and his version of great power politics does not generate chaos, his vision of America's role in world affairs could become the new common sense so far as the GOP is concerned.
Does this mean that we return to an era when might makes right? Well, in truth, might has always had a finger on the scales when it comes to deciding what's right. We've never lived in a Kantian world where right is might. A better question is, what becomes of the rules based international order if Trump undercuts it? America's outsized role in world affairs makes this a problem for the nations that want to maintain the rules based order. They will need to develop plans for compensating for America's defection. The survival of the rules based order will depend on how successful they are at devising and implementing these plans. The US has long thought of itself as the indispensable nation. Trump's America will put this notion to the test, And for the sake of the world, we must now hope that it isn't true, that a a just and peaceful world can be created and sustained without the help of the US and possibly in the face of its opposition.
A good-faith effort at actually responding to Yascha’s question, unlike so many of the other axe-grinding comments here. Thank you.
I would actually argue that Republican leadership during the Bush era was out of step with the Republican base, while Trump is closer to it. If you look back at the Nineties, you see the exact same frustration with Europe and unhappiness with our having to intervene (in the civil wars that tore apart Yugoslavia) as you do today with Ukraine.
The Mid-Century period was a historical anomaly when it came to bipartisan consensus on various things, especially foreign policy. That fact is both depressing and somehow consoling, since it makes clear that there's nothing really unusual about our current, chaotic political reality.
It's more useful to ask, instead, *why* was the American political class more cooperative and seemingly principled in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and (maybe) 70s? My simplest answer is that when there's a very real, credible, existential threat in the air, people get serious. We don't feel that threat and haven't for most of my entire four decade on this earth. And that has made us complacent and frivolous.
We can point to Trump and Vance and the rest as the idiots. But we are the idiots, too. We are the ones who vote for it. Who tolerate it. Who normalize it. We are rendered idiotic by our peace and our affluence.
The Ukrainians are not idiots. They are close to death and oblivion. It has made them serious. American deign to either feel sorry for or condescend to the Ukrainians, but they have something to teach us which is unacknowledged. Their example is maybe the scariest to us when it suggests that we might be next, and are FAR from ready...
The Ukrainians are certainly far more serious than their Western European allies, too, who are also rendered into idiots by complacency and geographic and historical distance from danger. Trump isn't the only completely unserious leader in the West. Some of them are more "polite" about it, but the entire German political class today are prime examples of well-dressed un-seriousness.
My optimistic belief is that our times are dire enough now that we will learn again to be serious people. My dad, born in 1933, the peak of the Great Depression and the year that Hitler came to power, was a very serious person. So was my grandmother, born the year before WWI and a girl as the "Spanish" Flu ravaged even the smallest communities in America, plastering them with death. They both understood the deep facts of life that I could only learn vicariously (and incompletely) from them. My generation wasn't (and still isn't) serious. How could we be? Our lives were so good that we think the worst thing that happens is student loan debt or not being able to buy a house! But we are learning to become more so. And I think my own son will be a very serious person. He's only 4 and knows who Trump is. He also forbids his parents from talking about him or looking at him. He knows how to survive this stupid reality. And it's not by passively doomscrolling and hand-wringing.
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!!
It's not just Americans. Europeans are extremely complacent here, too. Especially the Western Europeans furthest from the action. Most of us in the Western world are rendered idiotic by our generation-long stability, affluence, and peace. And now we reap what comes after. And we are completely unprepared.
It seems that in a polite society, it is not considered acceptable to seriously entertain the notion that Donald Trump is Russian agent of influence and is simply orienting US policies to support the interests of Russian elites. Since this is a free-for-all discussion, my question for you is two-fold:
1) If you do not accept this premise, do you have good (consistent with Occam's razor) arguments against it?
2) If we do accept this premise, what does it tell us about the future? Can there be a patriotic backlash that reminds Americans that their fathers and grandfathers sacrificed in the Cold War not to re-create the world of kings and sultans? Or Americans are now fundamentally OK with the Putin/Stalin/Ivan the Terrible worldview?
The world is full of incredibly smart people who feel the largest and most important geopolitical task we face is to pull Russia out of China’s sphere.
Something that we blew decades ago.
Is that what Trump is attempting?
I have no idea
Neither do you.
It could be as simple as you say, but I doubt it.
Yes, this is what Trump is attempting.
"The world is full of incredibly smart people who feel the largest and most important geopolitical task we face is to pull Russia out of China’s sphere."
Gee, who are these "incredibly smart people"? I haven't heard/read anything about this.
And, just curious, how does surrendering to Putin pull Russia out of China's sphere?
Trump is trying to broker a compromise between the belligerent parties. Equating that with "surrendering" to one of them when you don't know what concessions Trump will propose for each is idle blather.
There’s an unstated economic element to this. The current world order allowed America to expand its markets all over the world, thereby bringing greater prosperity and American good will all over the world. What happens when those markets close down? We see the immediate effects in the shutting of USAID and the threat and implementation of tariffs. This morning I saw photos of a Canadian grocery store where all the American apples were left surrounded by empty shelves. Does Trump really believe that Russia will be a trading partner that can match what is lost in other places? I seriously doubt it.
Trump doesn't have much to offer Russia and I'm afraid he doesn't realize that. Our trade with Russia is miniscule. More sanctions? Already done it! Tariffs? Who cares!
He just doesn't have the leverage.
Even geopolitically, the alliance between Russia and China makes so much sense structurally. So are we going to make the same mistake Bush did, thinking we can "see into [Putin's] soul" and press "reset?" Good luck!
Your Left/Right comment is accurate.
I was hoping you'd help me understand it! 🤣
Sorry! 🤣