If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs. Time to stand up, realise the US is no longer a reliable ally, and start building (on all fronts - military, manufacturing, tech, etc). Given the American people voted for this guy twice - the second time in spite of Jan 6th and multiple indictments against him - there's no reason to believe the next person they vote in won't be worse.
We just had the leader of a Swedish party saying that non-US nuclear armament plans are needed, this is very significant since it's been basically unthinkable to say as far back as the 1960s or so when our own nuclear program was dismantled (The program was discontinued partly due to internal pressures but also rumored longstanding US guarantees for being under a nuclear shield).
I'd openly appreciate Sweden doing a nuclear test, preferably with almost plausible deniability (like Israel).
I'd also count support for this from any of our politicians as a plus for any party in our election this fall.
We have lots of money, the Swedes has nuclear power, know how, industrial expertise and probably a few guys left that still remember last time (they could have done it a number of times) they covertly almost built a nuke.
Hey look, a NATO founding member with a backbone, congratulations!
> After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels
France and the UK are the obvious candidates, as both are nuclear powers.
Ideally there would be some coordination at the EU level, but really hard to see that short term.
It is not a new idea, but France would love to have others pay for their nuclear weapons, without giving up control. So yes, it will be a while to sort this out, but the box is open now. It is clear that own nukes are the only thing, the big powers respect. So many countries will pursue them now.
And building a simple nuke is not that complicated - when you have the nuclear material. Europe does.
It's not all "very likely" the next president of France would be far right.
The 2024 French legislative (not Presidential) snap election was Macron calling the electorate's bluff that even though they disliked low growth, carbon taxes, inflation, unemployment, immigration, they still wouldn't vote for a FN govt (in the second round; view the first round as a protest vote where some voters for FN are tactically expressing discontent with the govt).
The 2027 French presidential election is a long way away yet and Polymarket doesn't even have a prediction market open for it yet, but Oddschecker puts Le Pen as frontrunner but not "very likely"; and that's before Bayrou emerges as Macron's successor [0]. Macron stands to gain a lot of influence in Europe if he can forge a good relationship with Germany's Merz.
Anyway, obviously a European nuclear deterrent would have to firewall against any of the large member-states or their leaders going rogue. Rutte and NATO haven't commented publicly yet on Trump's recent stance. See what happens at the next G7 summit in Canada, 6/2025. And of course the Ukraine settlement and who provides security guarantees for it.
Evangelical American Zionism hates Jewish people with a thin facade of support. A disturbingly large amount of Americans believe that it's prophecy and God's will that the Middle East be "cleansed in fire" and that Israel's role as the Jewish state is an essential part of the plan. It is the same support a farmer offers to pigs when they fill their trough with slop. They want Israel so they can see its destruction through nuclear war.
It is a disgusting viewpoint and essential to understanding American Zionist support of Israel. My (lifelong far-right conservative jack-Mormon) father shared this with me 25 years ago.
Trident, the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons program is dependent on Washington for the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines. The nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.
If France can keep Sweden from resuming their own nuclear weapons program, they don't have to worry about getting into a nuclear war with Sweden 40 years from now. (Unthinkable? So was Sweden joining a mutual defense alliance like NATO.)
Drones make nukes obsolete anyway. After you nuke a country its generals no longer have any incentive to surrender; they have nothing to go home to when they leave their bunkers.
There's a significant difference between Fat Man (21 kilotonnes TNT yield) and Little Boy (15 kT) and 400 Minuteman IIIs each carrying a W87 (300 kilotonnes each, 120 000 kilotonnes total). And that's one third of the US's current nuclear triad. The second leg is 14 submarines, each carrying 20 Trident II missiles, each armed with an average of four warheads in MIRVs, for a total of some 1100 deployed independently retargetable warheads, which can be 475-kilotonne W88 warheads or something smaller. I'd look up the gravity-bomb numbers, but I think I've had enough already.
The effects on a country of 1000 or 2000 radioactive mushroom clouds seem like they'd be quite a bit larger than the one or two we've seen previously. You could see a billion people dead within an hour.
But they're very unselective weapons. The reason for the trend toward these sub-megatonne warheads is that it makes them more selective so they have more strategic value. But they really can't compete with simple precision weapons there. The US's force of 2800-some warheads costs about US$60 billion per year to maintain, about 20 million dollars per year per warhead. US$200 million will buy you 200 000 commercial drones with which you can kill almost 200 000 individually selected people with grenades. That's enormously more strategically valuable than the million random people you can kill with the warhead.
You need people to arm and deploy 200k drones. With nukes you just press a button. They're also a lot cheaper if you skimp on maintenance and make up for it in quantity.
What? Nobody has been nuked since the first atomic bombs in Japan, and those were devastating, convincing them to fully surrender. A lot more powerful and effective ones have been developed during the cold war. A couple megatons dropped on a major city could cause a massive firestorm. EMPs could be generated high up in the atmosphere knocking out the grid and unshielded electronics.
Also, Thomas Nilsson, head of Sweden’s military intelligence service (MUST), said that Sweden must be ready for any eventuality [with Russia from the Finnish border to the Arctic] after a Ukraine settlement.
> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots
They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia
Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants. In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early, but looking at the rise of renewables it’s just a matter of time until nuclear will just be irrelevant (1). In addition, this will allow true energy independence while for example the German nuclear plants relied partially on fuel rods produced in Russia …
(1) Yes, there is the challenge of dark days with little wind, but there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)
> In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early
What hindsight? Everyone knew at the time that it was premature. It was a deliberate choice to bear the burden of increased pollution and to make the country more dependent on the whims of a foreign dictator, because nuclear bad.
Yes, some of the consequences could have been seen at that time, but I cannot remember that they were really part of the wider discussion. It was mostly nuclear safety vs nuclear‘s low CO2 emissions and alleged low costs. My memory might fail me, but I cannot remember that energy dependence was a big topic. Rather the opposite, nuclear was seen as „bridge technology“ that would eventually pave the way towards full renewable energy. Even the utility companies did not argue for a permanent place for nuclear in the power mix, but a slower switchover to lower the costs of the transition. I think most were already picturing the future 20 years down the road when decentralized renewables would create a green, independent, … future
There was no discussion. It was a knee-jerk decision by then-chancellor Merkel in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident, and constituted pretty much a 180 (relative to the maybe-phase-out-not-clear-when-definitely-not-now that was pretty much the bipartisan consensus at the time). It was clear to observers at the time that it would make Germany more reliant on coal and gas and, by extension, Putin, that it would threaten the energy-intensive German industry and it was criticized for that at the time. Calling this a hindsight debate is just silly.
The phase out of nuclear had already started. Merkel reversed that, than in the wake of Fukushima reversed that once again, paying the nuclear companies hundreds of millions of damages in the process.
First, nuclear power has been discussed intensively in Germany since the 1970s. While political moods shifted somewhat over the decades, in practical terms there was less and less willingness to maintain or even expand nuclear power: maintenance issues, rising costs, lack of consensus on permanent waste storage, lack of political direction, … would have resulted in a transition away from nuclear power in any case. Yes, the decision by Merkel was sudden but it didn’t emerge from nowhere. Nuclear power was already doomed in Germany and it was just a question of when it would die. And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side
> And despite all the discussions, I still cannot remember (or find) that dependence from Russia was even in the top-5 of arguments from either side
The Nord Stream pipeline was completed in 2011, the same year Merkel decided to accelerate the phase out of nuclear. The US had repeatedly warned against constructing the pipeline because of energy dependence on Russia.
Everyone knew that apart from coal Germany has no energy resources. Given that it wouldn't be possible to meet climate goals with coal the energy would need to come from either the newly constructed pipeline or renewables.
That the newly created energy dependence would give power to dictatorships may not have been at the forefront of the public's mind. But treating it as something unknowable without hindsight lets the politicians who caused this travesty off too easy. If Merkel had been honest to the public about the potential consequences of her decision, perhaps it would've been a part of the debate.
> more dependent on the whims of a foreign dictator
You do realize that Germany is not allowed to do any uranium enrichment or waste processing? All of this was outsourced, partially to France, but primarily to Russia.
How is that not "dependent on the whims of a foreign dictator"
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was a lot of fearmongering due to the Fukushima incident which started that wave of anti-nuclear in Germany. A bad decision, for sure.
> Europe still produces more than 20% of its electric power from nuclear plants.
That's technically true, but France's representation is completely outsized in that, as the one country which went hard on nuclear it's got more than half the nuclear production of the continent: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
And that's being down 25% from its historical peaks because a significant fraction of the park was offline for unscheduled maintenance due to corrosion issues (I believe the park's been ramping back up and should be back to full).
IIRC France is the number 3 nuclear electricity producer on the planet behind the US and China.
With time being relative, nuclear might become irrelevant, though that's very far off into the future. It's very important to have stable baseline power generation that you can depend on, and not the whims of the weather. Wind turbines don't do constant production even off-shore, as there are periods where it's either too windy or not windy enough so they can't work, even though it's more rare than on-shore wind.
We don't need stable baseline power generation, we need a stable power line frequency. I know there are grid engineers here that could explain it better than me, but FWIW, nuclear power plants are sloooow, and thus terrible at reacting to fluctuations in the line frequency. Even if there are nuclear power plants, you use hydro-, gas-, or (hypothetically) battery-power in so called dispatch power plants to maintain the frequency.
Add on top the insane costs of building, maintaining, and waste disposal, nuclear power plants are, without subventions, just not economically viable. But keep on researching, there is interesting stuff happening in this space, and -- who knows -- maybe something moves the equation around.
> there are many, many avenues to solve this one (better grid interconnections across Europe, green hydrogen backup plants, overbuilding cheap capacity, …)
All those options are currently non-viable because they are too expensive.
The problem is that the few dark days with little wind cost as much to produce as all remaining days of the year (and may even surpass it). Interconnections added to the problem, with worse long term allocation of hydro storage and increased volatile in the energy market. Market forces has been a direct hindrance, with citizens in practically every EU country demanding government subsidizes to solve the issue of energy shortage, rather then reducing demand.
Looking at a typical energy bill from northern Europe, you almost don't pay anything for hours when wind production is optimal. The cost of those hours are basically a rounding error and all you pay are grid fees. The issue is the average price are more than 20x of that, and the peak price are well over 100x.
> In hindsight, it was premature by Germany to shut down theirs so early
This is a widespread talking point that is more wrong than correct:
Germany did not shut down its nuclear reactors early. In fact, those reactors should have been shut down decades ago. They had been well past their intended shelf lives.
The decision to finally shut them down also dates back to Merkel during the Fukushima incident (2011). So the timeline to shutting them down wasn't exactly short either. The last nuclear reactors were shut down well more than ten years after the original decision was made.
What you can blame Germany for is not building new nuclear reactors. Germany hadn't built new nuclear reactors since Chernobyl - the last reactor to come online was in 1988. The influence of the anti-nuclear protests was strong enough to prevent the construction of new reactors but not enough to phase out the ones that existed. Instead Germany continued extending their runtimes over and over again because this was easier to justify politically (or rather because it was less obvious than building new ones).
So in other words: it took Germany from 1986 (Chernobyl) to 2023 to shut down its reactors. But it did so in an extremely irresponsible way. And it still didn't have proper plans in place like investing in grid infrastructure and storage necessary to expand renewables.
That said, nuclear power is overrated as the one thing it does well is constant stable energy production. But the problem in the modern grid is not not having enough energy, the problem is not having enough energy on demand. Renewables can provide enough energy but they are unstable. You need something to cover those dips and nuclear doesn't work for that because you can't really scale it up and down much. Storage would be ideal but for the majority of time since the reunion Germany has been under a conservative government which doesn't want to spend money on infrastructure maintenance let alone investments (let's see if this conservative government will do things differently as Black Rock Merz has been promising in between his anti-woke populism). But for the time being the only option Germany has is fossil.
Germany spent 1 trillion euros on renewable energy, has the most expensive electricity in the EU and emits much more than nuclear France. Can we just move on and accept that renewables do not work at larger scales?
First they aren't, which is why Germany and other countries need to provide massive subsidies to producers. Also a source of energy that produces only when wind blows is quite useless, even if it's free. Your source of energy should produce when you have the need for it.
And storage is typically something thay doesn't scale, which is why Germany needs coal or gas to complement renewables. Polluting the rest of Europe while doing so.
Even the term of "renewables" is untrue, given the relatively short lifespan of most windfarms and solar panels. After 25 years you have to trash them, with no real way to recycle it.
Germany spent a lot on renewables but next to nothing on actual grid infrastructure and storage. Energy prices depend on the most expensive option in the mix at any given time. In Germany that means energy prices are dictated by the gas price. No amount of renewables helps with that unless you can eliminate gas entirely.
Because storage and grid infrastructure are immensely expensive and don't scale. Storage alone has negative returns above a certain capacity. You ask a country to rebuild its whole electrical infrastructure. It's a massive waste of capital.
Grid infrastructure requirements alone likely negates any ecological benefits given the amount of copper needed and the abysmal ecological conditions of copper mining.
You're misattributing the issues entirely. The issues right now are caused by the markets not reflecting reality.
If Germany were to split its electrical grid into two (north and south), as economists and the EU demand, things would be clearer.
The northern grid would produce more renewable energy than is required in total (hovering between 120-300% production vs usage). It'd have electricity prices around 10-15ct/kWh
The southern grid would have more pollution than even poland, as it's primarily fed with lignite, and would end up with an electricity price above 90ct/kWh.
The issues in Germany are not caused by technical or economical challenges, but by political ones. The southern states have passed laws to restrict renewables and limit construction of new power lines to gain favors with conservative NIMBYs and newage NIMBYs.
Look into the German Chancellor that shut down the nuclear power plants and brought in natural gas from Russia is up to these days. It wasn't "Europe" being ok with it, just classic grift.
Merkel might have followed his idea but she made the final decision. It was Merkel (after Fukushima) who declared an end to nuclear power in Germany - pandering to Green voters.
The idea might well have come from the Schroeder Government but he did not make the final decision. In fact, the idea of nuclear exit is an idea of the Greens, Schroeder was pandering to the Greens in his coalition government back in the day. (Schroeder being SPD ("socialist"), Merkel being CDU ("conservative") and the Greens being the king makers back in the day - 2002 elections).
One has to remember that it was different times: the Greens were a serious alternative to SPD and CDU, one of their main ideals (since their foundation) has been an exit from nuclear (generally). So once they came into power with the SPD and Schroeder, they were naturally keen on asserting their influence.
Schroeder needed an alternative power source so he started looking to Russia. Russia was a serious partner in Europe, not only for Germany but all of Europe. After the fall of the wall, the policy of Europe was Russian integration into Europe. Why? Because this policy of interdependence of nations within Europe brought peace to Europe. Interdependence is - within capitalism - best achieved via trade amongst nations. Hence Germanys (not only Schroeder but german industry too) decision to accept (more) cheap gas and oil from Russia. The Russians were keen to bypass Ukraine and deliver gas directly to Germany, hence the idea of building the Nordstream 2 pipeline - an idea supported by the Schroeder Government and most probably german industry.
The Nordstream 2 pipeline was completed in Merkels times but it was never brought online. Olaf Scholz (SPD) made the final decision not to take the pipeline online because of Russias official recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as Russian. It was bombed - destroyed? - by unknown persons during the current war in 2022.
The result of these events has been raising energy costs in Germany. Which has lead to disenchantment in the political system, which in turn has lead to a shift to the right in Germany and a raise in the AFD. Ironically, it has now come full circle with a CDU suggesting an easing (if not removal) of the "Schuldenbremse"[1] ("brake on debt") - meaning that Germany is not allowed to borrow money above a certain limit. A policy that has destroyed investment in the country and lead to an evasion to risk-taking. A policy introduced by the CDU back in 2009.
In the end, it is all rather academic since we're now here and pointing fingers at the past is pointless. We're now facing a populist president in the USA, a populist Kanzler (prime minister) in German and chaos in Europe and the World.
For me, it seems that good ideas are always the success of those that commit to those ideas, never those that actually had the ideas. Bad ideas, on the other hand, are always the fault of those that had the ideas, never those that committed to those ideas. Unfortunately hindsight decides between good and bad ideas.
I was thinking about this recently, and wondering the EU will start moving away from the USD, further weakening the global strength of USD and America. They are already dealing with BRIC, and the potential of crypto (likely Bitcoin) to remove any single currency as providing power to any country.
The US has benefitted hugely by being the reserve currency, but that strength is also a weakness that can be used against them, but only if the other countries collaborate, which the EU is most capable of.
The benefit of the reserve currency is our ability to run huge deficits and the result is a loss of our industrial base. It's a double-edged sword but one that ends up leaving us vulnerable. If we had a major non-nuclear conflict with China, for example, they would out build us the way we out built the Germans in WWII.
I see it the precise other way around, essentially the position parodied by Yes Prime Minister with Hacker's Grand Design.
Basically, there's never a sensible reason to use the nukes. Let's suppose the EU invades Russia. We seize Pskov, should Russia use its nukes? Of course not, we will nuke them in turn. If we take Novgorod, should they use them? Of course not, it'll be nuclear annihilation. St Petersburg, Pskov, Novgorod? No. Moscow? No.
There's never any reason to fire the missiles, and if they respond with a limited nuclear strike, we just match it with one causing, let's say, 10% more damage and keep pushing.
As long as you have nukes yourself nukes are irrelevant and won't be used other than in a limited way even as your conventional forces march through your enemy's capital.
If it was a non-nuclear conflict Russian would have been mowed down long time ago. The only reason why Russia is still in the game is defensive plans involving tactical nuclear weapons.
Both sides do have nuclear weapons. Europe has France.
While there are no European armies in Ukraine, we are not neutral and thus in principle in some way at war with Russia. Presumably this is why our PM here in Sweden has said that we are neither at war nor not at war-- i.e. we're legally at war with Russia, but it's a sort of phony-war á la 1938.
As a US citizen horrified by the people that voted for Trump, this is my big fear too.
We have never had a weaker president that caused so many self-inflicted wounds.
This administration is shaping up to be self-immolation covered by the veneer of strength, for people that don't understand what strength is.
The small fraction of Silicon Valley that bent the knee to this narcissist wanna-be-king have shown themselves to be unbelievably weak too. It's surprising. I have lost so much respect for so many people over the past 6 months, but I fear much more for the future prosperity that we have needlessly destroyed.
"As a US citizen horrified by the people that voted for Trump"
Congratulations, you've been successfully propagandized to a point where you view people who don't vote the way you do as morally inferior. I'm sure that will help you persuade them in the future.
"This administration is shaping up to be self-immolation covered by the veneer of strength, for people that don't understand what strength is." Oh, so you know what strength is huh? Did you ever serve in the military? Do you even have friends who did?
Interesting that you ignore the fact that the previous president was mentally incapable of the job for increasingly long intervals as his term progressed, and was so incompetent on the Afghanistan withdrawal that he projected tremendous weakness that acted as an invite for Putin to launch a full scale assault less than a year later.
Biden did nothing for Silicon Valley, other than try to regulate AI to a point where only a small handful of massive companies had foundation models. Marc Andreesen didn't support Trump until AFTER the Biden administration bureaucrats met with him and told him they would ensure that they would only allow a small handful of foundation AI companies that they tightly regulated to exist. He was so horrified that he switched over.
The moral inversion it takes to claim that the people willing to stand agains the Valley's intense social conformity "weak" is also revealing about how brainwashed you truly are. You're just part of the mob, and if you lived in a super conservative place, you'd be part of that mob too. Freethinking requires courage, and I see none of it in the typical SV limousine liberal. Just a bunch of millionaires who hate the billionaires they envy.
You elected a mad king who is intent on tearing down the alliances that have made the US prosper over the last 80 years. I don't think your parent is the one who is brainwashed. Embracing tyranny is only "courageous free thinking" in a fever dream.
You don’t think there has been mad kings in the last 80 years? You think the Iraq/Afghanistan dalliances were not inherently domination oriented? JFK was killed for specific reasons that you can look up if you at all curious.
Nixon's administration is sill within 60 years old, so of course this isn't the only attempt in 80 years. Sad part was we were actually good at shaming corruption back then. Not sure what happened to make us complacent to daily Watergate+ level scaandals.
JP, the tone of your answer actually jumps to all the conclusions, and name calling. Epi just said "he was horrified", he did not in any way suggest that the people who voted for Trump were inferior.
Having said that, Biden was a pretty crap and useless leader. That doesn't mean the opposite of Biden is doing better. At least Biden did fairly minimal damage with his inaction.
Do I disagree with Biden's take on AI? Sure, but did they actually have any teeth to stop progress? China's progress in AI proves not.
You were very quick to blame others for being successfully propagandized. I suggest you point the same magnifying glass on yourself.
I have no clue why people keep saying Biden was useless. He had to handle the COVID pandemic at its worst (after Trump 45's early actions made things worse) and managed to ease the economy to avoid (or at elast, delay) a recession compared to most other countries. He had to handle the decisions with the Ukrainan war which let the stand strong for 3 years, and unlike Trumps false promises he was starting to bring in local American production in light of realizing we were losing to China. He may not take full credit, but he also had an incredibly effective FTC/FCC that was harkening back to the days of attacking Robber Barons.
He was a good (not great) president in unprecedented bad times. He's no FDR but "inaction" would have had America in a truly awful situation. So where did all his "useless leader" narrative come from? Did people really get that brainwashed from one bad night as the proceeding precedent is spouting nonsense on the daily?
Where Biden really failed was messaging, and the failure was at least in part related to his age.
Trump does an amazing job messaging. Sure, 99% of what he says is either a lie senile ramblings, but he’s out there all the time. A social media POTUS indeed.
It is depressing to think that future presidents will probably follow Trump’s lead. I liked having a boring president for four years who didn’t feel the need to be the center of attention all the time. I get that disciplined restraint must be balanced with communicating to Americans, like maybe the best kid was with Obama or Clinton, who communicated often but never did with so much bluster or arrogance.
I’m hoping the American people don’t require that level of bluster. I think a younger Biden who could have effectively communicated his empathy, accomplishments, challenges with inflation and etc… could have won again. The election really was very close.
Another data point is when many other politicians have tried to be like Trump, they have lost. We’ll just have to see what happens in 2 and 4 years.
Wow, politics really doesn't belong here. I have no idea why your comment would be downvoted. I disagree that Biden was effective, but should you really be downvoted because people disagree with you?
You kinda make a good point regarding Covid, but at the same time, I think the action he took there was basically what any non-lunatic would do. It wasn't like he had some massive amazing plan and he actioned it. He just stopped the ignorance of previous administration.
WRT Ukraine, "letting them stand strong" wasn't strong enough. The delays and lack of significant support is, I believe, what has caused the war to drag on. It's like there being a person with cancer, and rather than giving them enough chemo to kill the cancer, you give them just enough that the cancer has difficulty spreading.
What was necessary was a conclusive coordinated action among allies, so that isn't entirely Biden's fault, but everything did seem haphazard.
Also, being in Australia, I think from an economic standpoint, you are overstating the easing of the economy. Everyone has faced some level of inflation, but when I go to the US, it seems to me that "real" inflation has hit you more than other countries I've visited.
Can you explain either of your points? What do you mean? Do you have evidence?
For example, whatever one thinks about US immigration policy (I think it’s utterly broken to the point of absurdity), a cursory attempt to figure out the approximate net number of illegal immigrants added during Biden’s tenure comes suggests that the net change was pretty small. It seems that there
has been a trend toward net addition of illegal immigrants in the last few years that (a) is small compared to the total number in the US and (b) started well before the end of the last Trump administration.
I did find plenty of partisan sources trying to shock me with numbers of border encounters that contain many digits, but there doesn’t seem to be much explanation of why this is a useful statistic or to what extent Biden’s administration had much to do with it. (There was a program derisively referred to as “catch and release” that seems likely to have resulted in a temporary increase in “border encounters,” but I don’t see evidence that it had much effect on net illegal immigration.)
As for graft, I genuinely have no idea what you’re referring to.
The illegal immigrant numbers aren't really meaningful anymore since we moved to a policy where anyone who crosses the border and says "asylum" gets to stay for years as a legal immigrant awaiting a court date.
You are correct finding numbers can be a bit hard. Here is what I have found.
Since President Biden took office in January 2021, the U.S. has experienced a significant increase in illegal border crossings. Reports indicate that there have been approximately 8 million "encounters" at the U.S.-Mexico border during his tenure, a substantial rise compared to previous administrations.
This surge is notably higher than the figures recorded during the Trump administration, which saw approximately 2.4 million encounters over four years.
For graft I was referring to the continual mismanagement of funds by Federal Departments.
- An estimated $236 billion in improper payments were made, encompassing over-payments, underpayments, and payments lacking proper documentation.
- The DOD hasn't passed an audit in in 7 years! We can not account for our spending or our military assets.
- The whole US Aid thing is also part of that graft. US dollars going to questionable endeavors to enrich a few.
There are many more examples from FEMA and other organizations. The examples illustrate a systemic issue with the federal governments financial management.
Can we recognise how bad of a look it is to be calling people "illegals" while your leaders are giving Nazi salutes, opening concentration camps and referring to people on welfare as parasites? I don't think any of us should be engaging with such violently charged language anymore. By all means have the discussion respectfully but it's distressing to see people continue with this dehumanising language while the rest of us look on in horror.
I don't agree that it is a bad look. People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal. People who look at such things with "horror" dehumanize the conversation by refusing to admit the harsh truths of the world. It is like they bathe themselves in weakness and virtue signaling. They hide from how cruel the world is and try to bring everything down to some tame level that doesn't exist solely so they can control the discourse.
> People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal.
They are taking from the system, yes. They are people who receive welfare, not parasites. People who emigrate illegally have committed a crime, they are not themselves a crime , they are not themselves illegal. The most we could stretch to would be "illegally present people." But going further and calling a group of people "illegals" removes the human aspect from the conversation and is therefore quite literally dehumanising.
> People who look at such things with "horror" dehumanize the conversation
A conversation is not a human so this point comes across as absurd. Could you rephrase it?
> It is like they bathe themselves in weakness and virtue signaling.
This point comes across as a vaccuous ad hominem, could you rephrase it?
> They hide from how cruel the world is
I can speak for myself and say that I am very much not doing that. I couldn't be more conscious of the fact that the last time language like this was normalised it lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people. This cannot happen again. It is purely the incredible cruelty of this world that drives me to say what I am saying.
When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd. Literally every illegal immigrant has committed a crime, by definition, and that crime is immigrating illegally - "illegal" describes the mode of immigration. The previous administration used "undocumented immigrant" (and often shortened it to "undocumented") as a sort of "softening" language game.
You're talking about the term "illegal immigrants" but I was responding to the use of the term "illegals." The term you're using includes the word migrant and is therefore not dehumanising in the same way. The difference is between using illegal as an alternative or a noun. Sorry if that wasn't clear from what I said
I'm sorry but these are the word games that drive the right. In essence, no one gives a shit. You are only signaling to other liberals and accomplishing nothing. Why not focus on a fight that matters.
You've made a good example of the danger of using words like this to group people. You've made an incorrect assumption that I am a "liberal" and you've made no argument beyond that I am serving a boogeyman in the nebulous concept of "the right," perpetuating a black and white idea of us-and-them politics and shoe-horning every possible opinion into one of two camps.
If you genuinely want to change my behaviour then please substantiate your claims, give arguments for the points you're making and speak to me like an individual rather than a hologram of whatever group you're projecting onto me.
I don't care about political labels. These niche arguments are useless - they don't change anyone's mind. Both sides use these debates as examples to portray the other as extreme. I'm tired of discourse that claims to enlighten but only pushes people further apart, regardless of intent.
You don't care about political labels but your entire argument was that my position "drives the right" -- no reasoning was offered, only the claim that your boogeyman of choice was somehow being strengthened. You don't care about labels but you made sure to accompany your claim by pointing out that I was "only signaling to other liberals" making again a point with no content other than the boogeyman and now with the addition of now placing me within that group on the basis of my position.
I've read back on this exchange several times. I see that I am positing something about language and explaining my reasoning, then you're responding with cries about "word games" without saying anything of substance. Do you see the same thing? What are you trying to say and why?
The word games I was referring to were your overly technical analysis of the term "illegal." In everyday conversation, people don't care about logical breakdowns of words. They find such arguments absurd and view those making these claims as out of touch. While you might see it as a justified position, most people perceive it as someone being pedantic/elitist with too much time on their hands.
I'm sorry that I assumed you belonged to a group on a political thread where everyone was trashing Trump. It was a dumb mistake to assume you are worried about the rise of the far right.
If we should call things what they are, we should definitely start by calling Americans who emigrate to other countries what they are: immigrants in the other country. Of course most choose to cutely refer to themselves as "expats".
Sure, I agree you should call them that. "Expat" is short for "expatriate" which is about where they come from. They are both expatriates of America and immigrants to wherever they go.
I'm just pointing out that the most plausible reason your fellow countrymen choose to call themselves "expats" wherever they go, is because the rhetoric in your country has dehumanized or made the word immigrants/illegal "dirty".
Not hard to imagine such rhetoric can lead to nastiness all around, ending even in violence against said group. If you don't mind that and see no problem with that, then of course there's absolutely no common ground for us to have any discussion on :)
I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Also, "immigrant" does not carry a negative connotation in most uses as far as I can tell. The negative connotation comes from the word "illegal," which marks someone who commits a crime (illegal immigration) as a criminal. Of course, aside from arrest and deportation, they do not deserve to be subject to violence or maltreatment. That is how every country in the world treats people who immigrate illegally.
I am a second-generation American and actually have been told "go back to your country" and been given the "you don't belong here" before, too. The people who say that shit are assholes and are worth ignoring (it's very easy). But thank you for informing me that disliking the people who jump the line invalidates my perspective.
When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd
I think you're missing GP's point. It's "illegals" that's arguably dehumanizing. Similar to "blacks" or "the blacks" versus "black people".
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with GP, but I've definitely picked up on racism from people who talk about "blacks" instead of black people, and the homophobia from people who talk about "the gays" instead of gay people.
Who says it isn't? If you want my opinion, it's the same habit creeping into the new language. Whether or not that's dehumanizing, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm fine with the term "illegals". I was just explaining what I understood GP's point to be.
I really don't want to get into de-railing the conversation away from the very real concern of the rise of facism in the US, but "undocumented" here is a factual adjective whereas using the term "illegals" as a noun is a clear scare-word. The more neutral equivalent would be "illegal immigrants" and the more charged version of "the undocumented" would be "undocumenteds."
The real problem is the totality of it. We've gone far past calling them "illegal" to saying "they're poisoning the blood of our country", which incidentally is also language used by Nazis.
The things they say consistently ratchet toward justifications for genocide rather than away from it, and that's how it works - one small step at a time, where people explain each one away as not that bad.
But each step is toward the day when you can say "... and therefore we must implement a final solution for the problem of illegals. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but they forced us to by poisoning and invading our country."
It's a long way to go from the word "illegal(s)" and large-scale deportations to Nazism and genocide. Deportation of illegal immigrants is a good thing. Illegal immigration is a violation of the law, and it is routine for people who overstay a visa to be deported (and usually banned from entry to a country for 10-20 years).
There are people who wait decades to legally get a visa, and all of the people who saunter over the border thinking they are above the law make a mockery of the people who do it the right way. While you keep imagining an unavoidable slippery slope to genocide, I will celebrate the return of the rule of law to immigration while making sure that it goes no further.
We're far past "illegals" tho. Like I said, we are at "vermin poisoning the blood of the country". We are past "detention facilities", and we are on to "military controlled black site known for torturing terrorists where media can't see". And the political climate has moved from "we need to build a wall" to "we need to deport 11 million people and challenge the constitutionality of citizenship".
We are closer than you think. All they need at this point is to start defying court orders and there are no more guardrails. None. They have the authority. They have the social permission structure. They have immunity from laws. They control the police and military. What's left?
If you disagree, please point to what would prevent this administration from carrying out a "final solution" against immigrants?
As I said in my initial comment those are all points that can be made respectfully. I have no issue with someone arguing in favour of deporting those who have illegally emigrated. That argument is indeed a far way away from Nazism.
Where it becomes concerning is when this dehumanising language begins to creep in. When the administration begins talking about people as "vermin" it becomes very concerning.
Where the fear of Nazism comes in is when we see Nazi salutes and plans to move "the illegals" to purpose built camps outside of normal American jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, but making the world a less cruel place requires strength—strength of purpose, strength of character, and intellectual strength to have hard conversations about hard realities. We don’t reduce cruelty by ignoring the harm done by those who break the law. The people you defend are not victims—they are the ones making life harder for others, whether it’s overwhelming social services, committing crimes, or undercutting legal immigrants who followed the rules.
We don’t fight cruelty by sanitizing language or pretending reality isn’t what it is. We fight it by acknowledging hard truths and having the courage to address them honestly, not emotionally.
You realize that tons of industries directly support illegal immigration by hiring said illegals right? All of agribusiness, nearly all restaurants, warehouses, meat packing etc. etc. Have you ever stopped to wonder why we don't throw the business owners in jail for this? We would stop illegal immigration overnight if we jailed the actors driving the demand but we never do, and this is bipartisan.
Capitalism is addicted to cheap labor, and it benefits from the demonization and criminalization of the immigrants as it makes them even cheaper and easier to exploit. So sure, demonize illegals all you want, you're playing the exact role the oligarchs want you to to deflect attention from them.
> Marc Andreesen didn't support Trump until AFTER the Biden administration bureaucrats met with him and told him they would ensure that they would only allow a small handful of foundation AI companies that they tightly regulated to exist. He was so horrified that he switched over.
a16z investments are mostly Cryptos and some AIs.
Andreesen loves Crypto and he hates that it's being regulated like mad (cause tons of scamming going on).
>>> Marc Andreesen didn't support Trump until AFTER the Biden administration bureaucrats met with him and told him they would ensure that they would only allow a small handful of foundation AI companies that they tightly regulated to exist. He was so horrified that he switched over.
That is the claim from Andreessen, and the way he told it sounded rather far-fetched. Has anyone else confirmed it?
Andreessen also claims (see Joe Rogan interview) that the US nuclear weapons testing program was some elaborate fake complete with fake movies of nuclear bomb tests. When someone makes such ludicrous claims, I tend to doubt anything else they say.
The Biden admin tried to shut them down by suing them for being an unlicensed security exchange. And they did this even though the only time the issue has been ruled on by a judge it was determined that crypto is not a security.
I thought Andreesen on the surface publicly "heel turned" because the Biden administration and SEC made some really weak motions at regulating cryptocurrencies. I believe Andreesen's words were "CRYPTO REGULATION TERROR REGIME", or something like that. Every day there is a bigger and bigger crypto token scam becoming public, not always but sometimes involving the most powerful person in the United States.
Thanks for giving a different perspective here. Unfortunately, I have to respectively disagree.
> was so incompetent on the Afghanistan withdrawal
That was based on a deal Trump made with the Taliban. I don't know if Trump would have botched it too. I would put that on Bush who f*ed up that war completely.
But ultimately it boils down to the moral inability of Americans to fight an uneven war. The problem here is the appeasement policy that unfortunately both sides suffer from.
> projected tremendous weakness
I think that's overblown. There are cases where it was true and others (such as Ukraine) where Biden showed how he can hold back Russia without risking a single US soldier. That was pretty good.
> Biden did nothing for Silicon Valley
The CHIPS act? Intel etc. got a ton of money. Battery manufacturing moved back to the states with multiple factories opening up.
He brought back manufacturing to the USA and gave a lot in that sense. The fact that he kept policies going (no tariffs etc.) was a huge benefit to tech which relies on stability and globalization.
> Freethinking requires courage, and I see none of it in the typical SV limousine liberal.
I think using language like that goes counter to free thinking. I despise Trump as a person, but I accept that some of the policies and stances aren't wrong. Unfortunately, discourse is at a level where we can't even have adult conversations on the issues without name-calling.
If you wish to discuss the topic, I'll happily explain every reason I hate the current administration. Of which there is many, and of which is bound in ojective stories I can point to with sources.
If you wish to instead accuse me of propaganda with no basis, thanks for justiying one of the reasons I hate the administration and their supporters. Mud slinging doesn't interest me in this day and age and your entire rant is not only baseless but has so many holes and inaccuracies that I'd recommend reading your history before trying to re-write such statements. .
It's wild seeing life imitating art, but the recent Civil War movie had the sitting president serving his 3rd term as to what probably caused 19 states to secede, and Trump has talked about somehow finding a way to serve a third term. One could argue that's just typical Trump bluster, like him telling people they won't have to vote again, or blue states might disappear in year. But I'm becoming more convinced he actual intends to do these things.
Biden 2020 was supposed to be civility prez, I don't think anybody thinks Trump is civil? Zelenskyy personality cult did need a dressing down but I also think it was a piece of a performance art, in all likelihood.
Ukraine could have been trivially avoided by Russia, as Ukraine did nothing to provoke the war except perhaps by the mere fact of its existence as a an independent country. But I assume you mean “avoidable by Biden.” How would Biden have avoided it?
What’s the second? Gaza? I give Biden approximately zero credit for competent handling of the situation, but that war was started by a surprise attack by one non-US party against another non-US party. Nobody asked the US’s opinion. I very much doubt that the US could have prevented that war by announcing a desire to annex Gaza.
Those are Russian bot talking points. Best to just ignore. Just like saying Ukraine started the current conflict and not so subtly removing all responsibility from Russia.
Good of you to get the correct talking points back on track! Curious how well this strategy will work? Is there a single Pro Russian perspectives allowed in a critique of a war we pay for? Almost seems like a problematic monoculture. Alas this is primarily a tech site but I would expect SOME debate.
“whataboutism” is a weak and recent phrase that means literally nothing. Please engage with specifics.
Most Americans would not agree with a 1939 “ascendant dictator in America” narrative and yet you do. I wonder how the “you people” strategy works in your brain? I do not think of HN audience as separate to “my” people. Silly that you do the inverse.
>Most Americans would not agree with a 1939 “ascendant dictator in America” narrative and yet you do.
Yes, I'm sure of that. Just as Germans in 1939 would also not agree with an "Ascendent dictator of Germany". `People are pretty good a rejecting inconvinent realities when they're moral compass is on the line.
>I do not think of HN audience as separate to “my” people.
And this is just a dishonest argument. Let's not play coy, thank you.
Fascist prez didn't really ring well with USA voters during Kamala loss so I expect "you" people to just kind of burn out on the whole strategy. Simply the most likely scenario. The majority of the US voted for a fascist? Just reeks of midwit thinking to most people.
People are waking up now to the reality Trump is an aspiring autocrat. His core base might be so blinded by the cult of personality that they will follow a dictator, but the rest of us won't.
some of us are woke :) we looked at all his living years, he’s been a public figure his entire life so easy to review his entire life&legacy. upon this review one can only conclude that he was sent down by God from heavens - a living messiah :) all ends up well as long as it is in his hands
> Congratulations, you've been successfully propagandized to a point where you view people who don't vote the way you do as morally inferior.
Where did they say anything about moral inferiority?
> I'm sure that will help you persuade them in the future.
Why does this argument only work in one direction? Why can the conservatives mock liberals, "coastal elites", blue cities and states, and more than half of America endlessly and still win? Why
> Interesting that you ignore the fact that the previous president was mentally incapable of the job for increasingly long intervals as his term progressed, and was so incompetent on the Afghanistan withdrawal that he projected tremendous weakness that acted as an invite for Putin to launch a full scale assault less than a year later.
Ironic you talk about "successfully propagandized" earlier and are regurgitating right wing talking points.
> The moral inversion it takes to claim that the people willing to stand agains the Valley's intense social conformity "weak" is also revealing about how brainwashed you truly are. You're just part of the mob, and if you lived in a super conservative place, you'd be part of that mob too. Freethinking requires courage, and I see none of it in the typical SV limousine liberal. Just a bunch of millionaires who hate the billionaires they envy.
It takes special kind of mental gymnastics to end up supporting murderous dictators while talking about "free thinkers", "moral inversion", and "brainwashing". What did they teach you next, whatabouttism?
It's been US policy for years to beg NATO members to increase military spending, it took the war in Ukraine for them to finally do it.
Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.
But honestly I don't know why this entire comment section has turned to NATO NATO NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO. And if the Budapest Memorandum is what you're referencing, France and UK signed too. It's not as if the US hasn't contributed to the war already.
> Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.
No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself.
To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states
Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance.
It comes back again in 2014 [3], where they agree to:
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade
A decade after 2014 is 2024, and most, but not all, countries managed.
That's just more transactional thinking. NATO is not a deal but an alliance, a mutual pledge of support by people in the same boat. A pledge, I might remind you, the NATO members upheld when the USA invoked article 5 in 2001 and provided troops, material, and logistics in supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan and the resulting occupation.
This narrative that all NATO members are just freeloading of the USA is a fiction.
An alliance is a deal. The fact that the balance of NATO members are all rapidly and publicly stating “wow we need to increase our defense spending” is an admission that they cannot currently shoulder the security burden without the United States. I didn’t use the word “freeloading” but I suppose you could call it that. “The United States manages security for all of continental Europe” is not a mutual defense pact. It’s a contract.
If you frame any kind of agreement as a "deal" you are obviously right. However, a treaty is not a contract in the sense of civil law, it is not an agreement about you doing X is compensation for me doing Y. It's not tit-for-tat. It is a promise to keep and hold up a certain pledge, ie. you get in trouble, I help you. I get in trouble, you help me. If it weren't, some nations would be preparing charges against the USA for breach of contract right now and I think we can agree that's not what is happening.
Furthermore, your argument that one partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ie. the USA, is shouldering all of the work falls flat, because the only member of the NATO ever invoking the pact defense clause, ie. article 5, was the USA and ALL OTHER members responded by honoring the treaty, ie. supporting the USA to the best of their abilities in invading Afghanistan and maintaining an occupation force for 21 years. Even if you think not much of the abilities of US' NATO allies, most of the time the effort of the other NATO members at least matched the US effort. The USA couldn't have done it all by itself, just consider the range of transport vehicles. I can't change if you think that's nothing, but that's on you.
Speaking from experience here ... some, certainly not all, NATO partners in AFG were additional security burdens with arcane stipulations and ROE (no night ops, can't go outside the wire). I certainly acknowledge that many nations sent troops for that war, but we should not forget the political context in which that happened. European opinion was decidedly against participating. Bush and then Obama had to beg NATO members to increase their levels of support post-invasion (only the Aussies, the British, and I think Canada participated in the invasion, could be wrong), and then again during the occupation. This is part of why we ended up with the famous "caveats" that would make one ask ... why are you even here? The Europeans insisted on putting large safety constraints on their forces, and honestly I understand why. They weren't attacked, it was the Untied States' (bad) idea to pretend it was possible to build AFG into some kind of democracy, and their body politic had good reason to question their country's involvement.
>The USA couldn't have done it all by itself, just consider the range of transport vehicles
Not sure how to parse this. No one has the transport capabilities even close to ours.
Frankly, this issue has been percolating for a while now and it's better that we rip the band aid off and get it over with. We should've done this 25 years ago, but 9/11 happened and we got distracted. The AFG Campaign was extremely telling, both in terms of what a post-Soviet Union NATO could bring itself to do and the actual capabilities of the non-US partners. For what it's worth, Robert Gates (SECDEF at the time) was making some similar points back in 2011[1]:
>Today, I would like to share some parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year old transatlantic security project, to include:
>Where the alliance mission stands in Afghanistan as we enter a critical transition phase; NATO’s serious capability gaps and other institutional shortcomings laid bare by the Libya operation; The military – and political – necessity of fixing these shortcomings if the transatlantic security alliance is going to be viable going forward; And more broadly, the growing difficulty for the U.S. to sustain current support for NATO if the American taxpayer continues to carry most of the burden in the Alliance.
>The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
>Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
Emphasis added. This was 14 years ago. Pity that it took the reality of a land war in Eastern Europe and the possibility of no American security presence for the Europeans to take this point seriously.
What word do you want me to use here, rule? Regulation? I honestly don't care, I thought you could describe this as an update to the charter. I'm sorry if that offended you.
You came out pretty strong, stating that something was "literally part of the charter", and thats just wrong. And sometimes I think it is worth pointing out glaring errors.
Instead of "2%" beeing in the charter, it was a goal to have it done by 2024, and most countries managed. Which is very different from even the most charitable interpretation of your post.
> Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be.
The US wants increased spending because many small European countries spend that money in the US.
Honestly, the interesting thing question here is:
(A) Does the EU have to political will to bankroll Ukraine.
(B) Will the US keep selling weapons the Ukraine, if funded by the EU.
I suspect (B) is a hard YES. Anything would end US military industry.
On (A) I'm less certain, the EU has had a hard time finding consensus. The EU can do big things, even when it's hard, the EU did so under covid.
I didn’t mention NATO, Ukraine, or the Budapest memorandum… Defence is only a part of this. The economy is a big part. Europe is far too reliant on US tech for example. Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic the US should no longer be relied upon in any capacity.
Tell me about ways your life in the US was ever seriously negatively impacted by who got elected to the EU commission? Complaining about cookie popups or the GDPR doesn't count.
France enstated a very unpopular ruling of raising the minimum retirement age to 68 IIRC. This sets precedent and started having the US discuss the same thing. So potentially that decision will affect me long term via precedent.
The flip side of this is that the NATO countries have traditionally toed the U.S. stance on diplomatic matters, even on issues that are quite unpopular at home. The understanding abroad is that the U.S. can dictate what it wants, but then the Allies will simply drag their feet.
Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.
Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there.
It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.
Similarly to the U.S., European countries are also democracies and it is a fact of life for us that administrations and leadership change. Today it’s the U.S. that’s not a reliable partner, yesterday it was Poland or someone else. Authoritarian regimes like to criticize this as unstable, but it’s worth noting that this surface level lack of stability also means frequent recalibration and stress testing. In consequence there is a deeper stability and fitness.
The point of a democracy is to also have guardrails by splitting up executive, legislative and judicial powers - the U.S. is still not a dictatorship. European leaders know this, and professional politicians know that you can go hot and cold very fast. Today there is drama - tomorrow might rapidly turn over and flip.
And to get even more practical, “stability” is a comfort word rather than proof of a local optimum. We are not surprised when a dictatorship subdues an uprising because we are not surprised there was an uprising.
It seems that this was a very cold and unexpected shower for all of us in Europe (maybe except Hungary) and now there is a big focus on working together against our common enemy and finding other more reliable partners.
It's a pity we were relying this much on Americans for so long... Now we have motivation to change approach. And do it fast!
They could've understood this in 2014 when Nuland said "Fuck the EU"[0], and the US pressed on with the coup in the Ukraine setting off the chain of events that has led us all to where we are now.
>Given the American people voted for this guy twice
American people voted twice for George W. Bush, the second time after the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. This might have given a hint.
I know this is pedantic, but the system selected Bush in his first election. Vietnam veteran and Southern Senator Al Gore won the popular vote. Only in his second election, as a wartime President, did Bush win the popular vote.
This is important -- as in, history books important. Two things: whomever won was going to inherit a balanced budget, and (in hindsight) be able to claim wartime priorities due to a pair of terrorist attacks. Those are highly influential for Gen-X and later generations, and not honestly impactful at all for Boomers and prior generations. Bush did not carry younger voters in either election.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that Florida, counting too slowly yet not carefully-enough, could not fully count their ballots. Every other state had successfully counted, but the Court sat through Florida's legal arguments, even though the state was a poster child for inadequate election planning. So, the popular vote would not matter. Statistically, if you don't count Florida, Gore's districts accounted for 60% of American GDP, and Bush's only 40%. This statistic becomes only more lopsided: in 2024, Biden would lose and election even though Trump represents only 30% of American productivity.
Anyway, in 2004, today's median American was still a minor. Giuliani would give the convention address for Republicans in New York; he re-used then-Senate candidate Barack Obama's catchphrases. It was the highpoint of his career. He would only be noteworthy among the unusually-named group "white ethnics" of the Republican Party from then on.
I hope that changes soon. America is marching towards becoming kings of the world or completely isolated until this admin goes out to pasture. I hope nobody wants to go back to kings.
We can do both: prepare for a future without the US, while at the same time trying to make the best of the relationship with the current madcap US government. I don't think there's a conflict between those two. Completely burning bridges at this point seems unwise.
It's not a matter of taking control. For many reasons, starting from ww2 and later the U.s. summarized the west population common values and ethics, in a very simple and sharable way. In Europe this is not possible because there is too much cultural distance between the countries, but we are all equidistant from the U.s. That's why we are all NATO allies and why fundamentally for the u.s. eveything is possible. It's something that we all agree upon because otherwise we would be arguing with each other.
They weren't bending the knee. They were treating Trump like a toddler because that's the best strategy to get concessions from him.
Look at the theatre of the UK giving him the "unprecedented" letter from the King.
Talk of "bending knees" just makes macho idiots think they're winning. It's more like distracting your really drunk friend with something shiny to stop him starting a bar fight or walking into traffic while hoping when he sobers up he'll change for the better, not continue his slide into becoming an permanent asshole.
The historic strategic opportunity is for all of what remains of the free world to join the EU and become the 'rules based order' hegemon. Doesn't need to be literally the EU, a similar kind of organization would work.
As I said personal freedoms. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms off the top of my head. These may not be important to other countries so they may not feel their lose of them as anything important. Hence my statement we may in fact view freedom differently one from one another.
To be fair, the US is also talking about annexing territory from non-allies, too. Maybe we need to annex territory comprising widely varying climates and degrees of strategic value?
I said allies because, although I don't personally agree, I can see all argument for why the "leader of the free world" would be taking on tyrants and dictators, whereas no such argument can hold water when they're threatening countries that rate higher than themselves on the democracy index
I don't equate personal freedoms with conquests. If you are a threat to our country I give no cares for what we do to you. If your nation has to be thrown on the pyre of Americas freedom..so be it.
Alec I can't respond to your response. But no it wasn't a parody. I don't actually think we are cozying up to Putin. Europe keeps throwing money at him, we are just trying to end a stupid war. The "purge" is more of a fact finding to see who is wasting our money and how. No one is being killed, jailed, or tortured. I would however not mind if many politicians end up in jail. People forget previous presidents have fired over 350,000 federal employees, the sky didn't fall. But the national debt did for a time...just saying...
That’s not even remotely comparable. The United States and Ukraine are vastly different in terms of military capability, geographic positioning, and strategic importance. Putin annexing a couple of U.S. states is a laughably unrealistic scenario—he can barely hold the territory he's taken from a country bordering his own.
The war in Ukraine is tragic, but it’s not our war. The idea that we must commit endless resources to it just because it’s happening is not a rational foreign policy stance. A stronger America means prioritizing where we spend our strength, not blindly throwing resources at conflicts that don’t directly threaten us.
Personally most Trump supporters I know can only hope for a more Trumpian successor to Trump. Basically if JD Vance continues on his path he is looking like a sure thing for the Republican nomination obviously, but if any of Trump's tactics work he has a decent chance overall to ride that wave.
It’s clever to pick the word “prosper” rather than grow, or stabilize, or build, or strengthen. It’s also clever to slip Vance into it, which assumes either he wins the ongoing succession, or loses it and moots your bet.
JD Vance, and Elon Musk for that matter, and really everyone else lacks the one thing even Trump haters admit Trump has: charisma. Even my feminist ex-wife loved him on the apprentice. Even to this day she think's he's a funny guy and is entertained by him. Fact of the matter is his charisma has formed a cult of personality around him.
JD Vance, Elon Musk, Ron DeSantis, all of these guys who think they'll be able to take over the cult lack the key ingredient - the personality. Musk has a sort of cult among specifically the HN crowd, but we are small and generally people clock him as a weirdo creep.
There is no successor to Trump, his movement dies with him. His age is our saving grace.
I have a feeling your dislike of Trump and possibly even conservatives is clouding your judgement. Vance is well liked by basically all Trump supporters.
If Joe Biden has proven anything, it's that voters will vote for someone they barely like if they think it's helping their cause.
The only issue in play here is how many voters think lower crime, less wasteful spending, less racist hiring practices, and less illegal immigration is something they like. If they decide those things matter to them, JD is more than likable and capable enough for them to get behind.
I'm actually more conservative in my politics than conservatives these days. What's happening in government now is not conservative in the least, it's incredibly radical. US supporting Putin over Ukraine is not a conservative position, for instance.
JD Vance has nowhere near the charisma of Trump. Being "well liked" within the context of Trump isn't sufficient to maintain the personality cult of Trump. Ron DeSantis had more solid conservative support than JD Vance and he also was unable to get control of the MAGA cult.
> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and stave off tariffs.
European leader are desperate because they realize obvious truth - US will soon implement regime changes all across Europe... European elites are simply not up to task of dealing with this new revolutionary era.
The elephant in the room though is Europe. Trump wants Europe to step up and act more independently. Pay their fair share for NATO. Increase their active militaries.
Here's another fact to remember: Trump told Europe to kill Nord stream pipeline during his first term. He didn't want them tied economically to Putin. He didn't want Europe to depend upon Putin! Why? Because he's Putin's ally? Or maybe he is trying to make strong, independent countries that act as a deterrent.
That would be a hell of a deterrent, instead of old people with no kids droning on endlessly about NATO.
It is not that people do not realize it is just not something you can do overnight.
But once independent security system gets put in... I am sure there will be much less oral appeasement.
Merz (CDU) is the new chancellor-elect, Scholz (SPD) was the previous chancellor (although really hed of a weak, unstable three-party "traffic-light" coalition). Weidel (AfD) also doubled voteshare to 20.8%. The SPD and also the Greens lost at last week's election, Habeck (Greens) quit, and they will both have less influence, and the Greens might not even be in the next coalition. Merz/CDU will be a main factor in the next coalition govt's position on Russia-Ukraine.
Clearly each of the above parties have differing views on Russia-Ukraine, just like Obama/Biden/Trump. That's how coalitions work. It's very different to the US two-party presidential system, where you can directly measure a leader's power by their majority in seats or voteshare.
I'm confused at what you're trying to say or how it relates to GP, but the very first statement is wrong, Merz isn't "chancellor-elect", that's not even a term anybody uses in Germany. He's merely the leader of the party that got the highest share of votes during the recent elections.
It is of course extremely likely that he'll become the next chancellor in a coalition with the SPD, but technically it could all still fail and lead to new elections. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Out of the parties you mentioned, mainly only CDU and SPD are relevant because it's the only realistic coalition (apart from decisions that require a 2/3 majority like reforming the debt brake). They're both pro-Ukraine although to different degrees (Scholz was dragging his feet quite a bit). Merz in particular has been rather vocal about this and as the chancellor he's probably going to be setting the tone. I don't like or trust the guy particularly, but I believe him in that respect. So I think the video got it essentially right.
He has veto power as Hungary is part of the EU. It might sound strange from the point of view of the big guy that doesn't even recognize the International Criminal Court, but in the EU small countries have a voice too, although in this case it sadly works against the common good.
We (Germany) don’t need Hungary to order a thousand Taurus and a hundred thousand Drones and hand them to Ukraine. We don’t need Hungary to negotiate a nuclear umbrella with France. We don’t need Hungary to cancel F35, which will probably never be delivered anyways.
Hungary, on the other Hand, needs Germany to pay most of their bills. It’s time to give Orban a taste of his own style.
You, Germany, need Hungary selling you Russian LNG, as you, Germany put your head up into your ass with sanctions against Russia.
You either change your position or your economy will continue to degrade and more of your factories will get closed and you will lose more positions on the market of automobiles and will get higher unemployment rate and higher unrest levels. And given your multicultural policy of welcoming Muslim immigrants - the unrest may get accelerated with just a few more "incidents" where someone rides into a crowd again or decides to start a jihad on some street in one of your cities.
Depends on whether Germany wants to participate in a war or prefers peace and good relations with countries important to their economy (either as one that sells them something or as one whose territory could be used as a market for the goods you produce and sell).
It's no more "strange" than US Senators from Wyoming or N Dakota or Vermont or Alaska having a veto. To pick one example, the US Senate veto is why the US consistently refused to recognize the Armenian genocide for many decades.
Hungary by no means has a veto on everything. The 27 EU member states vote on most issues by qualified majority (55% of member states = 15 countries, and >= 65% of total population). Only on a narrow set of issues (foreign, defense, finance, treaties, EU enlargement) they have a veto.
Who absorbed 5 million Ukrainian refugees? Europe, not the US. (Even Canada took more). And there could be millions more yet depending on the ceasefire/settlement arrangement.
Who paid € billions more in energy costs since 2022? Europe, not the US. [0][1] Germany in particular got crucified, and its manufacturing base fled to China (also in part due to the German Greens' historic Cold-War opposition to nuclear, nut that's a long story).
Funding Ukraine is not the "heavy lifting". The heavy lifting is when Putin invades Finland after taking Ukraine, and Germany and France are forced to respond militarily against a Russia aligned with the US.
He can but it’s not a huge issue because the countries that want to act can do so outside of EU structures, which would be necessary given the UK isn’t in the EU.
Yeah, good luck with establishing that. The 27 EU member states are still separate sovereign nations, and nationalism has been on the rise in recent years.
You’re referring to the nationalism I presume. That’s true, but it doesn’t help the overall situation, unless you believe that we should just let Putin do what he wants with Ukraine.
We need a constitutional convention to fix the legislative branch. People in Wyoming should not have 10x the representation as people in California. Without the complicity of the legislative branch Trump's power would be limited much more.
We need mixed-member districts and eliminate the senate<->state connection and/or repeal the 17th amendment. Bicameral is no longer suited for the world we live in.
Unfortunately short of a revolution, there is no realistic way to pass any kind of meaningful constitutional amendment in the US. And it's hard to imagine that fact changing, which makes me pessimistic for the long term future of the country.
You must have missed the visit from the French president. Macron whooped Trump harder than Stormy. That's probably why his fragile little ego needed someone to tell at.
A lot of Americans missed that cue. I think that old-fashioned Americans avoid applying psychoanalysis to politics because they’re afraid to fit in with cynics.
More like the europeans acted like adult gentleman. Not like a frustrated and insecure imbecile, as the trend seems to be for representatives of the people in some places. Do not mix up handling a dangerous child with loaded weapon in the hand nicely with relying on him. They go home and organize the way the situation deserves. Trump is a dumb loser anyway, riding the waves of mass frustration without comprehending much beyond whistles and bells and shiny shiny things, a child would find center of the life.
That's why I voted for Harris. I hate her guts, but she would have at least tried to not sink her ship. Trump seems to think that a fire in the engine room will make it go faster...
You are aware that Trump has _not_ stopped this war right? He has floated certain some possible agreements with Ukraine, but his terms have not been agreeable to the Ukrainians. If Trump actually wants Ukraine to come to an agreement with the US, he'll have to come up with a deal that is acceptable to them.
So yeah up until now Trump has done _nothing_ to stop this war. He's really only proved to all the US' supposed allies, that the US is not trustworthy. At this point, Trump should just shut up and stop pretending like he's trying to reach some peace agreement. He should just stop sending funds to Ukraine as he obviously wants to do and just leave the discussion because he's really no longer relevant.
I don't think Trump will bring peace to Ukraine and he seems to be operating on an "America-First, forget about Europe" policy.
However, if by "genociding Ukrainian people" you mean eradicating the population of Ukraine that considers itself distinct from Russia, Trump could conceivably stop the war by letting Russia hold onto territories it owns, while having the rest of Ukraine as a protectorate of various European powers that may eventually bring it into the EU.
This might result in a populatin exchange as Russian speakers get sent to the Russian-held parts of Ukraine and vice-versa. This would not be good but it would not be a genocide either. You can also look at the Indian partition for an example of how this could go horribly wrong.
Russia does not care the slightest about the territory, it is purely a war about ideology and influence.
The only acceptable outcome from a Russian perspective is a Russia aligned government in Kiev, or a peace deal where they will rebuild their army and end up stronger than Ukraine followed by restarting the war.
Problem is I don't think Russia is ever going to agree to to the point of Ukraine becoming a protectorate of the EU without having legal authority to veto EU military intervention in Ukraine. And I severely doubt Ukraine's is going to agree to give up to give up those lands without a security guarantee that Russia can't veto.
Sides, Russia's got nukes. It's nuke's are the whole reason why the US and Europe has been reluctant to intervene. If, in this scenario, Russia invades Ukraine again and then simple say that it will launch it's warheads at any nation that attempts to intervene, what then?
> Zelensky isn't just a dumb clown, he got tricked into starting a war
How do you have a political discussion with someone whose reality is completely upside-down to your own? With someone whose grasp of reality is also factually wrong?
> Facts are usually universal and rarely disputed.
The parent poster claimed that Zelensky started the war.
How do you even begin having a conversation with someone who disputes the main fact on how this war started: Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia, invaded the neighbouring sovereign nation of Ukraine.
Crimea was a disputed region. Russia had claims for it right after the Soviet Union got dissolved, as Crimea was always a Russian territory, not Ukrainian. But secretary general of Soviet Union acting as an individual, without any referendums or something alike decided to just give Crimea as a present to Ukraine. That even happened in the times when it didn't mean much: Russia and Ukraine were the save country - Soviet Union, that's why no one bothered to correct him then and there. It was more of just a gesture. And how can it not be? There was a Russian military base on that peninsula! Who lives on that peninsula? like >90% are Russian nationals. It was Russian de-facto, but just not de-jure.
Granted by United Nations - every nation has a right for self-determination, so Russia did some not-so-legal actions by holding a referendum there, just so that the people of Crimea could exercise their right for self-determination. Which they then successfully did and overwhelming majority voted for being with Russia, rather than with Ukraine.
These were just the facts, not opinions.
Now there is the place for some opinions: you think (as far as I understand) that this is when Russia started a war.
And I say I don't see these events as Russia starting war, since the annexation of Crimea was voluntary and happened without a single shot.
I don't know of any examples of wars happening without a single shot.
I think the consequential actions of Ukraine (that got mad by the fact that it just lost some part of their country due to separatism) is when the war started.
That's when a few other regions claimed they'd like to join Russia as well and that's when Ukraine attacked them.
A referendum carried out by an occupying force means nothing. That's a fact.
If Russia were serious about self-determination of the Dombas and Crimea regions, they'd have first proposed a referendum audited by international observers, and pressured Ukraine diplomatically to accept.
Instead, Russia chose to invade. They started the war, and they can stop it and withdraw at any time they choose. Every death from the Ukraine war is entirely on Russia's head.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Because the sentence isn't detailed enough: means nothing to whom? If the vote results are this definitive, where the majority is so overwhelming that it simply can't be forged - what is even the point of having a referendum? It was merely a formality: no one disputes the results, after all. The international independent observers were invited to said referendum, but they decided not to come. And it is obvious why: because they aren't really that independent after all.
Personally I realized that if you dig deep enough you realize that all those documents, formalities, treaties and agreements - they don't mean much, as we aren't some tenant entities with an overlord above us who could judge us in case of disputes. International (I don't even know what's the right word here) situation happens mostly as a consequence of who's more powerful and who controls what.
U.S. invades other countries whenever it likes.
Why can't Russia do just the same?
> They started the war, and they can stop it and withdraw at any time they choose.
The comic part of the situation is that Ukraine can stop it any time they choose as well.
But neither side wants to stop it THAT way. Each side wants to win in this situation.
If Ukraine feels so lucky as to fight a Goliath - let Zelensky be that David and send as many soldiers to death as he please until the unrest inside his country ends his presidency or the other side's forceful actions lead to the same result. Harsh, but kinda fair. Know your fights. Don't fight with a Goliath alone, if you are a tiny David, and if you are - group up with others and bow to them if the success of your very existence becomes dependent on their help.
Zelensky didn't bow low enough and now gets what he deserves.
It's a fact. A free and fair referendum cannot be held by an occupying force, because their very presence biases the results.
This is true even if the occupiers are honorable. It goes double for a leader like Putin, who imprisons and assassinates his political opponents.
> U.S. invades other countries whenever it likes.
>
> Why can't Russia do just the same?
In both cases it's wrong. But if you want the realpolitik answer, it's because the US has a competent military.
> If Ukraine feels so lucky as to fight a Goliath - let Zelensky be that David and send as many soldiers to death as he please until the unrest inside his country ends his presidency or the other side's forceful actions lead to the same result. Harsh, but kinda fair. Know your fights. Don't fight with a Goliath alone, if you are a tiny David, and if you are - group up with others and bow to them if the success of your very existence becomes dependent on their help.
David won against Goliath, remember? That's the whole point of the parable. At least find a metaphor that supports your argument.
Besides, isn't finding support exactly what Zelensky's been doing all this time? The US may be withdrawing its support, but European support is increasing. And in terms of population, economy, and military spending, Europe is a lot bigger than Russia.
You say Ukraine should know their fights, but doesn't that apply more to Russia? They expected the war to be over in 3 days, and it's been 3 years. Putin vastly overestimated the strength of his own army, and underestimated the resistance Ukraine would put up.
How much longer can Russia's reserves actually last? Those steadily rising Russian interest rates indicate an economy that's edging ever closer to collapse.
No, facts can't contain undefined properties like "free and fair".
Who should decide whether a referendum is free and fair?
No one.
It's basically the question of whether people of that region agree or disagree with the referendum enough as to defend their position with force.
As you can see - Crimeans are quite content they are part of Russia and not in ruins under a nazi regime.
(That's also an opinion, the fact is that there's just no unrest.)
> But if you want the realpolitik answer, it's because the US has a competent military.
If Russia's military is so incompetent - Zelensky is going to win ~ soon, let's wait.
> David won against Goliath, remember? That's the whole point of the parable. At least find a metaphor that supports your argument.
You missed the point: Zelensky sees himself as a David from the metaphor, but reality is that he is a clown, not a leader, not even a politician, but rather a parody to one.
> And in terms of population, economy, and military spending, Europe is a lot bigger than Russia.
Yep. But Russia is at war and Europe is only cuckoldily fighting right now. Let Europe get into full blown war if they want to participate so much.
> You say Ukraine should know their fights, but doesn't that apply more to Russia? They expected the war to be over in 3 days, and it's been 3 years. Putin vastly overestimated the strength of his own army, and underestimated the resistance Ukraine would put up.
They got Ukraine military in the chokehold at the start of the operation, then Zelensky agreed to proceed with diplomacy and Russia pulled its forces back.
But then Ukraine got some spoken assurances from US and EU of receiving money and military help from them. And then Russia had to start liberation from the border again. It goes quite slow for a few reasons: first of all, Russia isn't in a hurry: it gets really valuable first hand experience in modern warfare, the kind that almost none gets (even US hasn't fought a real war (without bombarding the area to the smithereens first) for quite a long time). Another reason is that Russia successfully mobilized its economy for war time. Just in case it has to go into a bigger war now/later, but it needs time to produce more new weaponry. Another reason for going slow is that Russia isn't really fighting a genocidal war, where everyone on the other side is seen as an enemy, they just demilitarize Ukraine, fighting just its soldiers, trying not to harm civilians, and that's not so simple, actually.
> No, facts can't contain undefined properties like "free and fair".
Free and fair are very much defined. It's why in democratic countries we have election observers and secret ballots, to remove or at least reduce possibilities of voter coercion.
> If Russia's military is so incompetent - Zelensky is going to win ~ soon, let's wait.
It remains to be seen whether Russia is incompetent enough to fail completely. They still have 4 times the population as Ukraine.
> You missed the point: Zelensky sees himself as a David from the metaphor, but reality is that he is a clown, not a leader, not even a politician, but rather a parody to one.
He's done remarkably well defending his country for a clown, don't you think?
> Yep. But Russia is at war and Europe is only cuckoldily fighting right now. Let Europe get into full blown war if they want to participate so much.
In that, we agree. Russia's barely making progress in a war with an opponent that, on paper, shouldn't have lasted a week. I'd be very interested to see how they do against a military with 4 times their funding.
> They got Ukraine military in the chokehold at the start of the operation, then Zelensky agreed to proceed with diplomacy and Russia pulled its forces back.
Oh, is that the Kremlin's reason for all those humiliating retreats in the initial months of the war?
> It goes quite slow for a few reasons: first of all, Russia isn't in a hurry: it gets really valuable first hand experience in modern warfare, the kind that almost none gets (even US hasn't fought a real war (without bombarding the area to the smithereens first) for quite a long time).
Ah, I see. So the 700,000 casualties Russia has incurred so far was worth it to get valuable, first-hand experience. Presumably the first lesson is: don't incur 700,000 casualties when fighting against a country a quarter your size.
> Another reason is that Russia successfully mobilized its economy for war time.
A "war time economy" comes at the cost of the civilian economy. Every man sent to Ukraine is one who can't work at home. Every piece of ordinance, every destroyed tank and plane, represents wasted investment that could be used to create civilian goods and services.
You need only look at the steadily rising interest rates to see the signs of an economy that's spending more than it's earning. Russia has poured billions into the Ukraine war; so has Europe, of course, but Europe's economy is 14 times larger. Europe can afford to outspend Russia.
> Another reason for going slow is that Russia isn't really fighting a genocidal war, where everyone on the other side is seen as an enemy, they just demilitarize Ukraine, fighting just its soldiers, trying not to harm civilians, and that's not so simple, actually.
Given the devastation to cities in Ukraine, they're very bad at avoiding civilian infrastructure. I know the Russian army's weapons are outdated and inaccurate, but are they really that inept?
But there's no genocide in Ukraine towards Ukrainians even now when "cannons speak": liberated civilians aren't killed or imprisoned, instead, criminal Russia dares to give them homes, pensions and employment (and not a forced one)!
Weird how the Ukrainians don't seem to want to be "liberated". They're acting almost as if they're being invaded by a warmongering dictator who wants to conquer and plunder their country.
Funny how you finally regurgitate the Kremlin's talking points...
Ukraine had 0 chances from the start? But how come Russia couldn't get Kiev in 3 days as announced in Feb 22? How come Russia needs to ask North Korea for soldiers to supplement its own troops?
Chances of what? Of winning in a war against a far bigger country with bigger military complex? It could just avoid the war (if followed Moscow's demands (and Moscow didn't demand much)), but I think it had no chances in winning a war.
As for the 3 days - you seem to be uninformed, just google how fast Russian forces captured Gostomel airport near Kyiv.
Then Zelensky threw white flag and peace talks started, but then Zelensky changed his position and now it's a war to the last militant Ukrainian.
As for NK - they were just on an excursion to learn from Russian battle front, since NK is now Russia's ally and this was done just for the case if/when this war changes into a WW3.
Oh, no. Don't do that. Europe footing its own bill for its own defense and increasing their industrial output is the last thing Donald Trump wants. Really.
Donald Trump just turned the USA into a liability. I don't know how anyone can think this is a good idea.
Like people thinking killing USAID was a good idea. Guess who is going to pick up to collect the good will USAID gave? China, or possibly some other country that thinks the US hegemony was a bad thing.
How can people not see that Trump is weakening USA?
If China wants to start paying for queer theater in Lesotho, I say they are more than welcome to! But I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen... Have a Nice Day :)
Don't be silly. Have a look at all the waste that is being claimed and you will notice that the things that are questionable (apart from the irrigation in Afghanistan, which had some unfortunate effects) all sin up to less than a half percent of the USAID budget.
Plus that the people doing the cutting have no clue what they are doing. First the 50 millions dollars for hamas condoms and then not even knowing how government contracts work. It is like watching the evening of amateurs, but where the stakes are people's lives and the world order.
If there's any mineral, water, or food supply advantage to doing so they'll be there with Pink Yuen before the undrunk US coffees cool on the table.
China is nothing if not pragmatic and there's central party policy vs. China's regulated but somewhat free market here.
It was the US after all that forced the sale of Grindr by the Chinese Beijing Kunlun Tech to San Vicente Acquisition for ~ $600 million. I dare say fear of communists having a direct line to toe tapping Republicans drove that.
If X is encroaching on Y and you're all the way over in Z, you're not defending yourself; you're deliberately getting getting involved in someone else's problem. Maybe the numbers are in your favor, or it's "the right thing to do," but Europeans have been using similar rationale to destroy their continent over and over again for centuries. I'm not judging at this point—it's probably just in your blood. The rest of the world just wants you to pay for it from here on out.
This sounds a lot like being pro-bully. Also, it sounds like you dont unserstand what saber-rattling is. Putin is the one who is saber rattling. We are helping him pay for it by helping him steal land from Ukraine.
They could soon realize China and Russia may actually make better allies. Might not be what the consensus on HN prefers, but maybe it’s time to look east.
We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit
Ukraine was Russia's ally. Russian businesses operated in Ukraine. Russian entertainment was made in Ukraine. There was effectively no borders between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine was one of the most pro-Russian countries among the post-Soviet countries.
That’s not really accurate. Ukraine was not a member of either defence or economic blocs, like CSTO, or Customs Union, headed by Russia. Also some of the Ukrainian governments were effectively against relying on Russia, Yuschenko 2005-2010.
Yet, there were extensive economic ties up to 2014, and some cultural ties up to 2022. Its not black and white.
Syria rolled over because HTS improved the quality of life in Idlib. Ukraine resisted because russia turned donbas into a corrupt mafia state. People overlook the importance of the little things. Most people are fence sitters but are very aware of the facts on the ground.
Wait who would ally with China/Russia, Europe or US? I mean either of those are a deathknell for Europe. China will not defend them against Russia. Heck I am not sure China can keep its hands off of Russia's oil fields as they lack their own resources. It would be fun to watch though.
What collective benefit are you referring to exactly that isn't going to be profit? You think Russia and China care about your ideologies? China will exploit you and Russia will do what Russia always does. They all want to gang up and invade America?? They would have better things to do then that if Europe became their pet.
