Macron Push to Drop CIA Code Quickens as Trump Calls EU Foe | Hacker News Reader

Macron Push to Drop CIA Code Quickens as Trump Calls EU Foe

bloomberg.com

Intelligence and counterintelligence among the allies of NATO is a complex business. It can't be stopped entirely and it's too lucrative to renounce, but at the same time there have to be invisible barriers of "norms" that prevent it getting out of hand. Especially now there's a president who wouldn't recognize a norm if he fell over it in the street.

France spy on Boeing and pass it to Airbus, while the NSA do the same for Boeing, but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32542140

>but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections?

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

The CIA have been known to try to influence the elections in foreign countries. Declassified documents show they were doing it in the 1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#US_involvemen...

Obviously, things require a more subtle strategy these days.

Even before that (in 1953) they seem to have been directly responsible for the trouble they're now getting from Iran, by deposing a democratically elected government and installing a friendly puppet (to whom they supplied the nuclear technology that is now frowned upon) that quickly got overturned by the current regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_ajax

There’s actually quite the list here[1] but basically we’ve been very prolific at that:

> The U.S. has executed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

>France spy on Boeing and pass it to Airbus, while the NSA do the same for Boeing, but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections?

Yes, undoubtedly. From postwar Operation Gladio to 2012's revelation that they were spying on elections[1], the CIA has maintained a hand in French elections.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58a75f43e4b0fa149f9ac5a3

I'm having trouble tying Operation Gladio[0] to election interference. Also, spying is not the same as interfering.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

Staging terrorist operations against the standing President's policy and employing an influential figure on the left for fourty years isn't interference?

Spying on all the candidates serves what purpose that doesn't involve interference? To maintain a nice database of their positions? At best, they didn't interfere as things were already going their way.

I can call something bad without also calling it election interference.

Regarding spying, of course that serves purposes other than interference. Think of insider trading - you get the insider info not so that you can change the outcome if you don't like it, but so that you can make a profit on that outcome when it actually occurs.

>I can call something bad without also calling it election interference

That doesn't stop it from being interference. Major events like terrorist actions change voter opinion, and someone in control of a party's platform and agenda has a massive influence on an election.

What information are they profiting on? Does it seem like politicians spend the election period preparing their policy for when they win?

It’s actually not that unusual for allies to spy on each other.

Which doesn't stop it from being interference. Having that kind of information on every candidate makes it difficult for someone to support any position the CIA dislikes.

You have yet to prove the interference claim. You’re just hand waving away the gap between spying and interfering, and it’s not convincing.

The spying is interference, they don't have to do anything else. Having access to that information alone is enough to limit the potential positions any politician can hold. This isn't hand waving, people change their actions when they know they are being watched.

No, that’s hand waving. You’re asserting that spying = interference because reasons. Politicians always know they’re being watched by friend, foe, and constituent alike, because they’re politicians.

If you really believe that spying is interference, then you also believe that there’s never been a fair election ever.

Blackmail isn't unambiguous reasons, and you only need to look at the CIA's actions throughout the world to understand the threat. Very few elections even include anti-American candidates, and the few times that those candidates have won have led to regime change like the 1953 Iran coup, or constant threats of regime change, like post-Chavez Venezuela.

And no, I don't think many elections are overly fair.

Okay, blackmail is absolutely interference. But you need to actually prove that blackmail is happening. There are plenty of other reasonable explanations for why so many of our allies elect pro-American politicians: namely that we're their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers. Even when we go off the reservation a bit (like Iraq), it's still much easier for places like France to stick with us than ditch us.

>their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers.

"Do what we say, if you don't we'll punish you or you'll be forced to do what they say."

None of what you're describing particularly sounds like "free choice by the people." It's just been normalized so you don't see it as unusual or call it interference. As you say, the US is a super power. They aren't tasked with the burden of dealing with other super powers, they exert their power to maintain and further their position.

Oh, and when you look at the sheer volume of regime changes the CIA has been involved with, the blackmail becomes obvious. You know they're spying, you know what they're capable of and willing to do.

This has not much to do with NATO, but much more with Five Eyes [0]. You either with 'em or you are one of their targets.

Out of curiosity: Do you have any evidence for France spying on Boing and passing it on to Airbus? I mean, where's France's equivalent of ECHELON? [1]

Especially in the context of US dominance of the social media sphere, it's hard to imagine any other country having similar access and capabilities to the US's.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm

Supposedly Frenchelon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon

Industrial espionage is old news:

France v. US, 1993: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...

The bungled outcome of the US tit-for-tat, 1995: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-11/news/mn-55816_1_cia-o...

Another thing it’s going to take decades to fix.

It's hard to have soft norms around new things.

"Interference in its elections" is a new thing. It existed, of course, as a thing intelligence does. There was "Freedom Radio," for example. That was an old war time propoganda mission which continued after.

Obviously, there were more secretive versions of that. They may have involved info/intel landing on selected deaks, at select times, that promote one of the US' goals. Maybe there were even journalists/public figures recruited as "assets" in attempt to sway public opinion.

These days though... two big new things are on the agenda. The first is leaks. Leaks play a very big part of political journalism, and did so especially during the last US elections. This isn't just happening in the US, but it's a good example. The second, is social media. Social media is effectively wide open to manipulation. Social Media manipulation seems to have played a significant role in the last US elections. It also plays a big part in any sub-war conflict. Russia-ukraine, israeli-palestinian, basaue separatism... It works especially well during a frenzy (like an election) when there's a ton of buzz, many sources and information/misinformation spreads fast within various social media bubbles.

For example. Take Germany this week. There is an upcoming election. Germany's "alt right" is very active, expecting strong support. A recent murder of an ethnic German by a migrant has brought protesters out onto the street. Counterprotesters. Subsequent violent incidents. Think of Ferguson, for an American context.

Details, photos, political statements are all actively informing people's political stances. All this is happening on social media. Its not hard to impact this stream of information to an agency's benefit.

Maybe Trump would like to see the far right strengthened. Maybe Macron, Erdogan or May do... all NATO allies. I'd actually bet they all have specific dogs in this race.

These sorts of activities (as opposed to eg gaining detailed knowledge of Germany's air defence systems) are/were considered "soft" intelligence. How much damage could one CIA asset writing for Der Spiegel do? That's no longer the case. A a solid social media "operation" could really change political outcomes in 2018. There are no norms for this.

I've been somewhat surprised for a long time that the EU hasn't done more to foster local tech companies and seemed content to rely on foreign suppliers.

Dependence on other countries will always leave a risk that they can leverage that against you, either by allowing for spying or backdoors, or by threatening to withold supply.

Obviously for smaller countries it wouldn't be practical to use homegrown technology, but the EU should have sufficiently deep pockets to do so, at least in strategically sensitive areas.

> hasn't done more to foster local tech companies

The rules against state aid make this hard to do, and it's also something that has been tried in the past with limited success. Quite a lot of EU ""neoliberal"" policy exists because the dirigiste policies of previous years were expensive and unsuccessful.

There are a few attempts such as https://atos.net/en/products/defense-mission-critical/hoox-s... ; that was actually developed by former state-owned computer company Groupe Bull.

Atos themselves are, like Serco, one of those "privatised functions of the state" companies that do public sector work but without public sector unionisation.

I agree that in the past this has been done poorly, and also state aid rules are problematic.

To me though, that doesn't rule out the concept so much as suggest different approaches to the same issues are required.

Assuming the US continues the trade approaches of the current administration, it seems prudent for the EU to rely less on US based corporates in the long run.

Yet less than two months ago many HM commenters though Europe should give up on building space launch rockets, and just buy from SpaceX:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17575635

In a global world one thing you always have to keep in mind is that companies, as they become successful, can simply relocate to where the best opportunities are. And opportunity is going to encompass a wide array of things such as minimal tax obligations, minimal regulations, maximal funding, maximal talent availability, minimal talent costs, so forth and so on. You can weight all of those in some way or another and come up with n. Without some notion of nationalism, which the EU is rather less than interested in fostering, a company working in their best interest is simply going to relocate wherever n is maximized at the earliest opportunity.

And then there's also the issue of mergers and acquisitions. Imagine some country goes out of their way, likely at great cost and rule 'flexibility', and helps foster a new tech company. Then e.g. Facebook perceives this company as a potential threat and initiate their borg routine -- you will be assimilated. Fortunately in this case that just translates to throwing a ludicrous amount of money at the founders and then scrapping the company, marking it up as an acquihire. The taxpayer in whichever EU nation is probably not going to be terribly thrilled about their money being used to achieve little more than turning Facebook into even more of a behemoth.

But countries can, and do, overrule "global" corporates on a regular basis.

For example the USA blocks M&A activity relating to Chinese companies taking over strategic US companies. Will those US companies simply relocate to China to get round this, I doubt it.

There is realistically a balance to be had between enabling global commerce and protecting national interests. At the moment the EU seems keen to move that balance more in the direction of their regional interests, no doubt partially related to the current trend for more national interest based policies from the US

That's because China just isn't good enough for these corporations. If it were, they'd go there faster than you could say "quarterly report".

That used to be true. The US switched to taking an aggressive captivity approach to its strategically important corporations. That changed when Pfizer tried to flee to Ireland in an inversion due to high corporate tax rates.[1]

Apple, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Walmart, Pfizer, Amazon, Amgen, Merck, Facebook, Qualcomm, AT&T, Verizon, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, Visa, GM, Ford, Disney, Comcast, Procter & Gamble, etc.

If any of those companies attempted to leave the US as their corporate domicile (whether to Canada, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, or China), they would likely be blocked by the Treasury. They'll change whatever rules are necessary to maximize the pain. There are a few exceptions to allowing companies to leave. Germany for example, via Bayer, was allowed to buy Monsanto - which is a strategically important corporation - because they're an ally and it's expected that when the US wants to buy an EU company there will be reciprocity (eg the failed NXP Semiconductor acquisition).

Smaller companies may slip under the acquisition restrictions for countries not named China (or Russia). For example AMD would be allowed to be acquired by a tech company from Canada or Britain. Celgene or Regeneron would be allowed to be purchased by Takeda Pharma.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-aller...

Problem with the EU/Europe it is still the old companies from more than 100 years ago that is dominating the economy and they influence the legislative process, education systems & job markets etc.

This is at least true for Sweden. Take a look on the OMX Stockholm 30 index, consists of the 30 most-traded stock on the Stockholm stock exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMX_Stockholm_30

If you trace the origins of these companies the youngest was created in the 80-thies for Comviq that later became Tele2 (created in 1997)

Basically all of the others are from the 50-ies or before, many founded in 19th century.

Problem in Europe is that there’s always a chase against rich people, too. One could not build Apple in France, they would get mugged – at best you get laws against the concentration of money.

Meanwhile you get benefits if your startup is in one of the approved sectors and employing doctorates. You don’t get money if you are just reusing proven tech like Apple does; You have to do research. That means we fund research a lot, while we tax implementation. I guess it’s mostly great for competing countries.

And thus, the economy is mostly guided in Europe, as opposed to innovative.

Yes, and I think we can sum it up with Europe = old money, US = new money.

It is hard to become rich in Europe, families that are rich became rich a long time ago.

tajen, the vast majority of your comments are marked [dead] and thus invisible -- it looks like you were shadow-banned two months ago.

Any non-US government using Palantir software or services is basically handing over their intelligence infrastructure to the US, now a declared foe of the EU for a start. Nice job Peter Thiel.

This is also a natural consequence of globalization, and the increasing complexity of digital layers. At one point, it becomes impossible to have a 100% home grown solution, except maybe if you are really big, like the US or China.

> except maybe if you are really big, like the US or China

Or, potentially, the EU...

The point is that we are a long way to have a common EU intelligence service. Even if services are cooperating, every nation state wants to keep some cards in hands.

EU is not a unified entity in terms of defense. Thought they might try to stay away from a close tie with US under current administration, I doubt that they can or want to get rid as an ally as whole.

Not being disrespectful but the country that is a lot against unification or more EU collaboration is leaving in March next year.

So while I'm not particular pro-brexit but I do think this could have also a positive impact to the EU in regards of more unification or more EU collaborations.

It's not going to happen. The Nordics are skeptic against a more federal EU. Most of Eastern Europe is too. Italy has flipped now.

Hell, even Germany are rolling their eyes at a lot of Macron's proposals.

Unified defense usually requires a unified identity, commonly, under umbrella of a nation. EU is still quite far from getting there, maybe never

Well, the EU is just the largest economy in the wold.

Actually, the US is still the largest economy, with the EU closely behind and China a runner up. [1]

Note though that the US will have a significant lead again next year when the UK leaves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy

Hold on a second.

Which is larger depends on if you use nominal GDP or PPP GDP. Your link has tables for both, and the US and the EU swap positions in the two tables.

Well, I to me larger means in absolute terms.

Purchase price parity is of course a valid view but not what I would consider in this context.

To elaborate a bit:

Nominal statistics take into account the current exchange rate, while PPP ignores exchange rates and instead normalizes it in terms of things like Big Macs (albeit expressed in dollar terms instead). PPP is essentially an adjustment for cost of living, and so it generally makes more sense to use PPP when you're referring to per capita statistics (since you're generally trying for a sense of cost living anyways). Conversely, for comparing the size of economies or trade, you want to use nominal, as trade is conducted in nominal terms. There are reasons to go the other way, but these choices should be your first inclinations.

Thanks for that explanation, which is much better than what I would have written. ;)

Palantir isn't "CIA code". Palantir received seed funding from In-Q-Tel. Don't they have fact checkers and technical consultants at Bloomberg news?

One funds the startups for the other. Perhaps they were drawing a conclusion based on funding. I am just guessing.

They weren't drawing conclusions. It's right there in the headline: "CIA Code".

Based on https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/, Sonatype was funded by In-Q-Tel. Does this mean nexus is "CIA code"?

Or apache spark?

https://www.iqt.org/databricks-secures-strategic-investment-...

But you get more visitors with "CIA code" in the title...

In-Q-Tel's customer is the US government. It is a VC company whose own funds come from the Letter agencies. VCs have outsized influence on what companies do, being investors (and in In-Q-Tel's case, BIG investors). Saying that Palantir has been influenced by the CIA is not that huge of a leap.

> [In-Q-Tel] invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.

- Wikipedia

> IQT is the not-for-profit strategic investor that accelerates the development and delivery of cutting-edge technologies to U.S. government agencies that keep our nation safe.

- In-Q-Tel's About Page

You're absolutely, completely right! In-Q-Tel is publicly owned and controlled by the CIA.

With that said, it's worth knowing that the US government tends to use established systems as vehicles for doing arbitrary things with money. So In-Q-Tel winds up investing money for any government agency that wants to do it.

So while In-Q-Tel spends what is technically always CIA money, it's very possible that it could have come from anywhere in the federal government to serve purposes that might have nothing to do with any of the CIA's goals.

I didn't know about https://www.qwant.com , an alternative to Google. Any feedback on it from personal experience?

The fact is that the cyber world is under the hand of the new colonialists.

We, the USA, is not going to have any friends left... Seems like Trump is pissing off Canada, Mexico, NATO, and EU.

I (a EU citizen) still hope that Trump - and his peers over here - isn't going to last long enough as a president to do permanent damage.

I'm getting more and more worried that it doesn't help just waiting for the world to get back to its senses. US is not the only country where leading politicians have seemingly lost their minds - and there I'm not as naive to think that it will be over when the current politicians leave office.

It wasn't Trumps administration that openly spied on Merkel... and she didn't do anything.

Five Eyes will be never a friend of continental Europe, no matter what administration.

Western countries have always spied on each other, jostling for position and influence. That is nothing new. Openly declaring hostile intent against an ally - that's new. I'm not sure if people in the US really understand how horrified everyone, of every political stripe are about Trump's behaviour towards us and the elected Republican leadership's complicity in it.

It's not just about Trump anymore. He could be kicked out of office at the next election, sure. But the elected republican leadership, who have their own democratic mandate, are just rolling over and letting all this happen. If they can't be relied on now, they can't be relied on after Trump either. As a conservative Brit, that grew up politically during the titanic partnership between Reagan and Maggie, this is all bewilderingly horrible.

I still remember the Falkland war and the way that, while it took the US a while to realise what was happening, in the end here was never any real question over here that we would be able to rely on the US in the end. I don't think that would have been substantially different under any subsequent US president even right up to Obama. But now? I don't think there is any such confidence. Can you imagine a British Prime Minister worrying about what Trump might tweet after we sank the Belgrano?

EU is not really the same as the UK, especially if UK is leaving the EU.

Trumps criticism is against the EU, Trump is a nationalist, something he is scolded for by the left, but everyone wants to forget his nationalism when it fits the argument that he is anti-UK (or any other European country)

And not to mention, Trumps "foe" comment was in regard to trading with EU, not a military conflict.

I'm perfectly aware he's a nationalist, why do you think I'm forgetting it? I'm concerned principally with what he's doing because of it.

Trump's trade actions against the EU, including Britain, and other allies were on national security grounds. He's publicly sided with Putin against his own national security agencies. None of this is encouraging from a European perspective.

Nobody is anticipating military conflict between the EU and US, but hostile acts via security agencies? Especially targeting trade and economic activities? Operations on that front that would have been inconceivable just a few years ago cannot be discounted.

> I'm not sure if people in the US really understand how horrified everyone, of every political stripe are about Trump's behaviour towards us and the elected Republican leadership's complicity in it.

Is this a factual statement? What is the source?

And I don't mean this in a snarky way, I mean it in a literal, epistemological sense.

I regularly read, both in forums and in the headlines, that "everyone" believes certain "things", but whenever I did just a little into the details I almost inevitably find that in reality, there is an extremely wide variety of opinions. After all, life is extremely complicated. So, likewise, I am interested interested in reading a bit deeper into this particular fact so I can be a more informed voter.

Fair enough, loose terminology. Trump does have support over here, that's a fact, but bear in mind those quarters tend to be the nationalist end of the spectrum. Where in their priority list do Britain First people put Trump or the US? Not in first place, that's for sure. They're no happier with steel tariffs, cosying up to Putin, etc than anyone else. The best they can say is that he doesn't really mean it. But he's doing it, so that argument is really wearing pretty thin.

And to all of this, I will once again ask the very same question:

Are these statements factual? What are your sources? In a literal, epistemological sense, by what means did you obtain the information you have written in your comment?

EDIT: And it appears I have once again deviated from the acceptable narrative and had my commenting privileges suspended for the day. This is how perceptions are managed.

I didn't down vote you or censure you, and I'm not trying to score points with this post. I suspect our fellow commenters are reacting negatively to what is perceived as pedantry. Every post here is implicitly representing the opinions and perceptions of the poster. My post was based on my immersion in British and European political culture and meida, and the opinions I read and hear through many different channels - newspaper and web news articles and opinion pieces, TV news and interviews, radio, etc.

We are having a conversation, not posting peer reviewed fact checked academic papers. If you doubt or disagree with a post then it's much more effective and useful to others to provide reasons for your disagreement or counter-arguments and evidence. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, this thread is off the home screen and effectively dead. We're just communicating with each other at this point, so I'm just trying to explain how the commenting culture works, as I understand it. Best regards.

Agreed. Perhaps this will shed some light on where I'm coming from (see my last reply, particularly the part about motivation): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17952440

And Merkel...Oh

"Between 1999 and 2006, Germany’s federal intelligence service BND spied on around 2,000 targets at political institutions, international organizations, banks, companies and weapons producers in Austria, said daily Der Standard and weekly Profil."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-germany-spying/au...

"A number of US businesses and government entities were being monitored by the German foreign intelligence agency, according to documents received by the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

Between 1998 and 2006, several White House emails, phone, and fax numbers were reportedly tracked using a set of 4,000 keywords."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Rule of thumb - never trust spy agencies.

Schröder was chancellor during that time. But still - never trust spy agencies.

Correct, he was chancellor until 2005, Merkel was responsible for one year only.

I’m not sure what she could do, openly. Demand an apology? Or work silently so that it wouldn’t happen again. I feel the later is the more likely action taken.

From Willy Wimmer interview in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faL4zRUdQTA, segment from 1:03:28, very loose translation):

---

Ken: Mr. Wimmer, can you imagine headlines "Vladimir Putin has listened to cellphone of the German chancellor for ten years"?

Wimmer: That would lead to revolutionary situation in Germany.

Ken: And if they would say "China runs a flat spy operation in Germany"?

Wimmer: They are accused of that anyway.

Ken: But why nothing happened after NSA affair? At first they said "we don't do such thing", then "we do it a will do it further".

Wimmer: That's a question of national dignity.

Ken: Do we still have it?

Wimmer: You already answered that.

Ken: Did I?

Wimmer: By asking the question. If it happened anywhere else, we would definitely cut the contact. But the reality is, as you just described. Business as usual.

---

Based on information from interviews like this, I think that nothing has happened, and no action was taken. US (correctly) assessed, that Germany can do nothing, and did what they wanted/needed/whatever. Germany can't do anything from it's position of weakness.

If Germany wants to change that, the steps necessary do not take into account the past, current or future US administration. Only German interests.

Ken Jebsen is an anti-American, right wing conspiracy theorist

Both he and Willy Wimmer toe the Kremlin line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KenFM

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/juergen-elsaesser-und-sei...

Tagesspiel is a part of the Lügenpresse network.

See how easy is to label someone? Address the points, do not ad-hominem the messenger.

Wimmer spent decades in CDU, with results to show. He "toes the Kremlin line" because he disagreed with the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we cannot have that.

My comment is by definition not ad hominem. The part of the interview you quoted is low on facts and consists mainly of opinion. I would like to help the non-German audience on Hacker News to be able to classify the positions of the persons involved. That is why I also provided links with sources. Ken Jebsen and Willy Wimmer are part of what we call in Germany the “Querfront”: that literally translates to “cross-front” and in the historical sense is the term used for anti-democratic strategies to combine the opposing ideologies of nationalism and socialism in order to assume political power in the Weimar Republic. Internationally the modern iteration is known as “Third Position”. Today you can find those positions in every political party. They have in common that their positions are anti-American, anti-NATO and pro-Putin. So Mr. Wimmers CDU membership doesn't come in to play.

My translation from the introduction of “Rechte Hetze im Netz - eine unterschätzte Gefahr” by Patrick Gensing: “This heated atmosphere is fired by pro-Russian strategists who propagate a close alliance with Putins Russia. The result is a cross-front that wants to impose an authoritarian-nationalist system.”

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querfront#Rechtspopulismus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

That may be, but what matters is whether the above conversation is a reasonably accurate representation of what has actually transpired. Is what they say true or false, generally speaking?

Like I just wrote in another comment: the quoted part of the interview is low on facts and consists mainly of opinion. Yes, the U.S. tapped Merkel's phone. Russia and China spy on Germany as well, though I don't know how good their phone tap capabilities are. That headlines like “Vladimir Putin has listened to cellphone of the German chancellor for ten years” “would lead to revolutionary circumstances in Germany” is total nonsense in my opinion.

I assume Jebsen and Wimmer try to suggest that Germany is not a sovereign state. Points like that are often made in their circles and link to the “Reichsbürgerbewegung”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbürgerbewegung

Sorry to break it to you, but with control of the Supreme Court, the GOP has done real, significant damage to the United States long term, even if they're (the politicians) all voted out in Nov 2018 or 2020.

Trump isn't the problem, he's just the populist enabler that is allowing the GOP to undermine American institutions. Even if Trump and his cronies are thrown in jail (wishful thinking), remaining in power will be the republicans who have actually done the most damage and will continue to do so as long as American's stay silent.

I fear he already has done permanent damage. We in the US will need to work hard to repair the damage done.

trump is shaping the country towards his view of the world. A view where there are no such things as friends. Either people are there to inflate your ego while trying to get power or people are there to be used and have their power subjugated. For countries, regardless of how brash and abrasive international relations go, weaker countries will try to win favor by showing support and powerful countries (that were friends) are now being pummeled and face the decision to ride out the crassness or break ties.

you can live a life with that world view but what a hollow hollow inhuman life. and those people will desert you the moment you cease to have power.

You should write for the NYT.

The USA has been callously dropping bombs on innocent people for decades. Don't kid yourself that this is all Trumps' fault - he's just the latest rung in a very long ladder into oblivion...

Many have always been annoyed but there was still a united front against the "opposition" parts of the world, whether militarily, economically or culturally. That united front is being actively dismantled.

I think it's slightly more subtle than that ... he's playing to a feeling amongst certain demographics that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright" has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies, and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.

He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance. He's turning over the tables of the moneychangers and running at the world with a sourge... or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.

> America's political, cultural and economic "birthright" has been stolen from them

Hasn’t it? Imagine if the trillion+ spent in Iraq+Afghanistan had instead been invested in infrastructure in the US.

> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal

What makes you think that?

That's his populist position that gets him the cheering crowds, but his trade position is based on his complete misunderstanding of how international trade works, how tariffs are a tax on US consumption, and his misconception that trade is a zero sum game, that for every "winner" there is a "loser".

Ford isn't going to import the Focus from China, because of Trump's misguided policies. They will sell the production elsewhere. The US is deprived of an efficient small car, but it hasn't gained any employment, production or anything else.

Harley Davison will move production of motorcycles to be sold in the EU to the EU and elsewhere. This deprives the US of manufacturing and the associated jobs. It doesn't deprive the EU of Harley Davisons.

I find this sort of comment very frustrating. Indeed there is some truth in it, but my frustration stems from a complete lack of any indication of the degree to which it is true, or the degree to which Trump supporters believe these things. There is no really good way of knowing what individual people are thinking in their minds, yet an alien reading forum comments might conclude we've mastered mind-reading technology.

> he's playing to a feeling

Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion. Sometime in the last 10 years or so did we decide The One True Proper Way To Run The World, but it wasn't reported in newspapers?

> that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright"

They think certain things are a "birthright", as opposed to thinking (correctly or incorrectly) that it is something they have earned?

> has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies

Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?

> and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.

Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"? I see the debate over nationalism vs globalism as little different than capitalism vs socialism. The US tends to be somewhat more towards the capitalist end of the spectrum, which yields some good results and some bad, I don't agree with the notion that any of that necessarily "belongs" or must necessarily be shared with the overall world. Demanding "charity" is extremely offensive to me. To be clear, I believe charity is very important and by my morality I essentially consider it a near obligation if things have worked out very well for you in life, but I simultaneously believe that it should be absolutely voluntary.

> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance

This sounds lovely at first glance, until you put a little thought into it. Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate? Would you have us believe it is an accepted and widely practiced norm to negotiate in a manner that does not accentuate your strengths, in order to best achieve an agreement most beneficial to your goals?

> or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.

Speculation on my part, but this seems fairly inline with the popular notion that Trump lacks or has lost his mental faculties, and his supporters are all motivated purely by uninformed emotions. Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?

>Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion.

No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic. If you can provide an argument that Trump's behavior has been primarily based on logic, I would like to read it. I have read his tweets and listened to his speeches though, and found plenty of evidence to the contrary.

>Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?

Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist", its use seems to have become so diluted and diffuse as to have lost any practical meaning.

>Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"?

That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."

>Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate?

I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him.

>Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?

I did say some. You're talking about one camp, and I'm talking about another.

I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.

I can only assume that people who voted for Trump on some intellectual or rational political basis can only have done so because he was the only option afforded to them... but I do assert that the reason that became the case was his appeal to emotion, almost in spite of intellect. Those people should be more disappointed in him than anyone.

Hmmm, on one hand what you've written seems perfectly reasonable, but on the other hand I remain triggered. Perhaps breaking up your sentences into constituent parts was not as illustrative as I thought.

Let's see if I can figure out why I'm still triggered. For productivity, I will try to steelman your words.

- "No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic." - Agreed.

- "Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist"" - I see the point, yet at the same time, I wonder if you sincerely acknowledge that there is a genuine spectrum between nationalist and globalist preference. To me it seems obvious and no less controversial than capitalist vs socialist.

- "That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."" - Here I disagree. Now, there's no doubt this statement, and the schtick around it is deliberately vague in order to nicely fit into a wide variety of world views (some racist I imagine). But where I (seem to) disagree with you is I don't detect a belief that it could be anything but a return to ~the good ole slave owning days. America, and the whole world, has changed drastically in the last few decades, there are all sorts of completely unoffensive things that it would be beneficial to return to. I wonder if this is psychologically similar to the "racist dog whistle" some people hear everywhere.

- "I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him." - here I mostly disagree (other than the belligerent & insulting part), but I suspect this one would be irreconcilable.

If you're wondering why I go through the effort to write the above nonsense, it's because I agree with your next statement:

> I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.

I have a feeling if we don't identify what the root causes (ie: your words, which I suspect seem perfectly appropriate and accurate to you, "trigger" me in a psychological manner that isn't a simple disagreement, and undoubtedly this occurs on the other side of the spectrum) of the incredible political polarization, this problem is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better. A Trump can likely only get elected in this type of environment (see: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/), and if the same environment exists two years from now, it vastly improves his chances for reelection.

What realistically has changed with the relationships? Renegotiate a few trade deals, chastise countries for (probably) not meeting guidelines they agreed to, slap countries on the wrist when they try to side-step international trade norms...these aren't earth-shattering things, and have all happened in the past. The only difference was that there was not the hysterical air in the media surrounding POTUS.

I think it's two-fold. One thing is the message, regardless of your personel point of view any government has the right to adress any topiuc they wish with other countries. And then there is the communication part. There are long established diplomatic standards which are ignored and even violated on a constant basis.

The last part is in itself a serious problem, flawed reasoning behind the messages are a compounding factor.

A lot has changed. People simply don’t see the US as a reliable ally anymore.

And this isn’t just the same as before. Past Presidents don’t claim that NATO partners owe the US money based on a misunderstanding of how NATO works (they have complained about NATO partners not pulling their weight which is why all of them have set concrete targets for increasing involvement which are set to take place over a few more years, for which of course Trump will try to take credit ignoring that these were negotiated by Bush/Obama).

They also didn’t pull out of treaties such as the Iran deal or the Paris climate accord the way Trump did, or constantly threaten countries about pulling out of treaties that the US pushed for and drive such as NAFTA or TPP.

They also didn’t try to wreck other countries’ economies based on the fact that they need to placate their base such as with NATO ally Turkey.

They also didn’t spread lies and misinformation about partner countries based on the latest Fox News conspiracy without first checking with the largest intelligence operations in the world which is available to them like he did with falsehood about London and the U.K. before visiting.

They also didn’t have allied intelligence agencies basically stop sharing sensitive information with their US intelligence counterparts because they leaked (inadvertently or deliberately) it to Putin.

There is a lot more than just “media hysterics” that make things different.

> Past Presidents don’t claim that NATO partners owe the US money based on a misunderstanding of how NATO works (they have complained about NATO partners not pulling their weight which is why all of them have set concrete targets for increasing involvement which are set to take place over a few more years, for which of course Trump will try to take credit ignoring that these were negotiated by Bush/Obama).

Can you explain your differentiation to me on how past presidents complaints about NATO members not meeting obligations is based on a proper understanding of how NATO works, but the current president's same complaints are based on a misunderstanding of how NATO works?

What conspiracy was Fox News part of, in your sentence?

Or did you mean conspiracy theory?

Ebb and flow. I'm elsewhere in the world, but I imagine whoever is next in the position will fix what Trump got wrong, and there will be some things which prove to be better, even if by luck. I think of it as a bit of tree shaking, pen testing, chaos engineering, maybe anti-fragility. Considering the term is only four years I've not understood all the fuss, an awful lot of which seems to have been aimless hysteria, achieving nothing, distracting people from getting on with things.

Ok so the next president fixes up relations, but what about the president after that? The US just demonstrated that they can become a declared hostile power in the scale of a couple of years, and does not have the popular, political or institutional will to stop that happening. Who is going to trust their security infrastructure to US interests in a world where that has already happened?

Well that was part of what I was referring to with chaos engineering. But I think your "declared hostile power" is part of the hysteria I was referring to.

If a country isn't with you, they are against you. So if the U.S. doesn't want to stay on good terms with the EU, the EU should assume they are going to be on good terms with their enemies. Russia is destabilizing democracy, that is a fact that the EU already knows. Now they see that the US isn't willing to stand with them. Thus they are a hostile power.

"I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe.”

Is it hysteria to believe his words?

Since it's Trump we're talking about, yes, it is hysteria.

Next week/month/year he'll declare the EU are our best friends, likely timed with a trade deal. See: how he behaved with Macron, or how he snap pivoted with Mexico and was lauding them.

He blatantly isn't representative of much of anything, even in his own administration. We're seeing that demonstrated on a daily basis.

You have to understand that Trump operates by an obnoxiously simplistic - often antagonistic - method in every single thing he does. It starts with lambasting and overreach, which he uses as a tool to stake a far out position/demand that isn't expected to be realized. In his approach, that is used to get something closer to what he really would like out of a negotiation. Every action and word Trump says on these fronts is part of a negotiation as far as he's concerned. One may plainly find his negotiating tactics poor or disagreeable, of course.

So to explain the EU statement by his approach: why call the EU a foe? He wants the EU to recoil and respond that they are in fact not a foe. He's trying out that statement to see if that pushes them to give ground. The idea is likely that they would find that terrifying, to have the US as an actual foe, or to consider that the US may now view the EU as a foe. Give me a great trade deal or we're not going to be friends any longer.... Don't push us any further, or else. There are few proclamations off the table as far as this process goes for Trump. He'll keep it up all the way to burning the house down. In that negotiating strategy, as far as Trump is concerned, the worst thing you can do is give ground. Outrageous statements are preferable in his approach, than to soften and give ground.

I think you are right, but people think Trump is insane and can't tell if he is bluffing or not.

This is off the main page so just for conversation if you pick this up.

I really don't think he's insane. I think he's a narcissistic man child and an idiot. I'll expand on that. Just look at his behaviour on The Apprentice. He would routinely favour ineffective sycophants over effective, successful independent minded candidates, and that's what he does in office.

Being an idiot doesn't mean you're completely useless. There are some things he's very good at, his father prepared him well for success in the real estate world. However he has a very simplistic view of the world and doesn't have the intellectual skills to change that. This leads him to actions that seem insane to anyone who understands their context and implications, but he doesn't understand those so from his perspective his actions are rational. Combine that with his instinctual preference for the appearance of success over actual success, and you've got a recipe for real trouble.

It is not "hysteria" to take the actions of the US head of state seriously. The man has the power of the world's largest military and nuclear force at his disposal.

He has the power of the US dollar and the US banking system to force other countries to his will.

He has abandoned allies of 70+ years standing, has abandoned positions regarding the US influence in Asia, the Pacific and Europe.

He does not appear constrained by diplomacy and is engaging in a zero-sum game of bullying.

Any nation that doesn't take this seriously is in danger.

I agree with your assessment of his approach, but it's not up to us to "understand" how Trump operates. It should be up to your Congress to rein him in and enforce checks and balances on his behavior. They have abdicated that responsibility completely.

“He'll keep it up all the way to burning the house down.“

But taking him seriously is hysteria!?

Trump called the EU a "foe". He may have meant only in a trade sense, but he didn't say that.

Trump introduced tariffs against Canada under the rubric of "national security". He may not have meant that Canada was a security threat, but he didn't do that.

Diplomacy is a requirement of any nation-state. Trump has hollowed out the State department and has issued proclamations that overturn 70 years of US policy on international norms of relations with allies in NATO, regard for WTO rules, and opposition to autocrats and criminal nation-states.

It's not "hysteria", it's a practical reaction by nations to the perceived and actual changes in US foreign policy.

My guess would be the the next president will take a very hard-line against Russia, which will prevent a repeat of 2016.

The GOP lead that hard line against Russia (remember when that was a common criticism about Obama’s?) until Trump reversed that at the convention and it wasn’t much later before someone was printing those “better Russian than a Democrat” t-shirts.

This is going to be a big deal for many years: until now U.S. foreign policy was based on the assumption that we took agreements seriously. The casual attacks on long-time allies are going to take generations to undo.

It's more complex than that.

Many of the wackier conservatives felt that Obama had done a terrible wrong to Russia in the 2010/2011 timeframe after Putin's election. I recall hearing a similar message for a period of time on radio shows. They felt that the US/NATO had benefited from Russia's gracious offer to use Russian controlled railways to supply Afghanistan instead of the expensive and problematic road routes through Pakistan.

It sounded really strange at the time; in retrospect it was probably the early phases of the Russian influence campaign that peaked in 2016.

It was happening way before Trump. He's just giving you guys cause to think about it, finally.

Trump just signed a new NAFTA deal with Mexico and has improved relations with N. Korea more than any other president in history. His domestic policies might be a wreck but he's actually doing pretty good with his handling of foreign policy.

2 small ineffective wins, that basically mean nothing weighed against a Trade War with China, almost entirely destroying relations with the EU and Nato, deeply damaging relations with the 5 eyes countries - who are the US's closest allies. Worsening relations with Iran. And of course a FAR too familiar relationship with Russia. How is that doing ok?

I wouldn't call N. Korea a "small ineffective win", I'd also put improved relations with Russia high on the list of good things but I know how unpopular that sentiment is with the left.

Putting pressure on our allies? Good. No relationship should be above examining and reevaluating. The EU has been imposing its will on the entire internet, I'm glad the US president is not in lock step with them.

You're right, it was a big win. For the Koreans, finally having gotten the international recognition they wanted for three generations.

And they got that recognition not through threats or displays of might but by opening up diplomacy and talking to the US and China. North and South Korea are actually talking about a united country and all of the neighboring countries see this as a positive step.

It may not mean much to westerners (although it should, nuclear non-proliferation is a big deal), but large portions of the world see this as a good thing.

Ok, the North-Koreans shot ICBMs how often across Japan? On trjectories that showed to everyone that they can reach the US mainland? With nukes? Ok, by that regard the whole cold war, including the Cuban Missile Crisis was profound Display of pacifism by everyone involved.

Not saying that easing tensions isn't a good Thing. But Trump doesn't deserve any credit for it besides giving away a lot in Exchange for a poor PR stunt.

Doesn't seem like non-proliferation actually happened here:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cheery-trump-tweets-stark...

> U.S. intelligence reportedly estimates that the North Koreans are on track to create five to eight new weapons this year, figures apace with the average of six weapons a year that they were constructing before the Trump-Kim summit.

> Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, already deeply doubtful that inroads could be made with the North Koreans, has become disillusioned with the process when faced with the evidence, per NBC.

> President Donald Trump, on the other hand, continues to tweet messages like “we will get it done together!” and “we will prove everyone wrong!” displaying his affection for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his desire to keep foreign policy messaging positive before the midterms.

Improved relations with Russia should not involve a) defying your own intelligence organizations conclusions regarding election interference, b) not wanting to impose sanctions on oligarchs and high government officials that have engaged in obvious criminal behavior (money laundering etc), c) not condemning face-to-face, the Russian governments actions of assassinations on an ally's soil (UK), or its disgusting actions to stop democratic involvement in Russia, or the suspicious deaths of opposition political leaders, or the oppression of LGBT people, etc.

Russia is a two-bit crime organization that happens to hold land. Its GDP is less than Italy and its controlled by a dictator that has consolidated power using patronage.

There is no need for "improved relations" with that nation until it has reformed.

Russia is a two-bit crime organization that happens to hold land

Posting like that is a bannable offense on HN. It's not ok to slur another country—any country—regardless of how you feel about geopolitics.

More generally, HN is no place for nationalistic flamewar, so please avoid nationalistic flamebait when posting here. It may be upticking on the rest of the internet, but that makes it more important to avoid here.

The most favorable possible view is that the North Korea talks was a small ineffective win. They were recognized, the president of the United States went to them on their terms, and it's done absolutely zero to slow the building/testing of nuclear bombs. It's more honestly a epic disaster in the making. Also the five eyes have almost nothing to do with the EU and have been the closest most important allies and partners the US has. Harming those relations is good? In what world? Sure ever relationship should be evaluated but there is a huge difference between that and publicly shaming a close friend over minor bullshit reasons.

> It's more honestly a epic disaster in the making.

I don’t see how you can say this. What’s disastrous about a more open and unified Korea? Tensions have been steadily decreasing since the Trump meeting and if you follow Asian news, you’d see he is getting credit for helping the situation.

> Trump just signed a new NAFTA deal with Mexico

No he didn't. He reached agreement in principle with Mexico on NAFTA reforms that Mexico decribes as requiring Canadian agreement to even turn into an actionable concrete deal.

> and has improved relations with N. Korea more than any other president in history.

Granting more visibility and prestige to NK for no concrete results than any other President since NK existed isn't a win, it's getting played.

> His domestic policies might be a wreck

They are.

> but he's actually doing pretty good with his handling of foreign policy.

No, that's a wreck, too, and the second thing you try to cite as a win is a big example.

N. Korea just held a military parade where they didn't display nuclear weapons for the first time in years. The reality is Trump and Kim are taking steps to bring N. Korea into the modern world. It won't happen overnight, but real progress has been made and Trump does deserve credit for that.

The reality is that NK has played Trump by fluffing his ego. By making non-committal "desires" and by a few publicity stunts (eg exchanging family visits, done previously), NK has managed to a) defuse the tensions raised by their nuclear developments, b) continue to develop and hold their now nuclear-nation position, c) put the US administration in the position of having to "lose face" when negotiations fail, and d) now have "equal nation" status with the US in negotiations, completely defanging the 6 nation approach that has been the US policy for containment of NK.

Help me out, how exactly did the US - North Korea relations improve? I must have missed the de-nuclearization deal they signed...

It's not an instant change but there's been continuous improvement since they met. This just happened for instance:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/09/north-korea-leaves-missiles-...

Not giving him credit for improving this relationship is dishonest.

No he hasn't signed a new NAFTA deal with Mexico. He signed an MoU with an outgoing Mexican President. Canada has also continued to refuse to engage with the US on further NAFTA negotiations, given the offensive tariffs for "national security" that Trump has imposed.

The agreement was about tariffs between the US and Mexico (not Canada) regarding automobile parts and assembly and relative wages.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/8/27/17786020/usa-mexico-naft...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com