Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting
bbc.com
bbc.com
You can't force people, you can't trick people.
I may be wrong, but I think enough voters were deceived by Donald that the election was no longer well-informed.
That's how he got into power.
To the extent that's true, USA no longer had genuine elections.
Seems more like "Putin followers"
It would eliminate the "Orban" problem.
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.
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.
They were doing the bare minimum under Biden, and are now actively helping Putin.
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).
[0]: https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/02/24/three-years-on-...
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more...
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.
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.
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.
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.
We dislike in others what we see in ourselves.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Embarrassed to be an American today. You're on the wrong side of history.
> 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 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. .
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.
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.
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
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_balanced_budget_amendme...
(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, …)
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.
Started? The anti-nuclear movement has been around since the 70s.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Power in Germany is expensive mostly due to gas and lack of storage capacity. Check back in four years when the storage capacity has gone up tenfold.
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.
Grid infrastructure requirements alone likely negates any ecological benefits given the amount of copper needed and the abysmal ecological conditions of copper mining.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
0. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af...
I mean, that's true for any democracy. The EU has its fair share of them elected to high offices.
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.
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade
1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm
3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
It's much better to acknowledge that the deal the United States signed up for was to cover security for the entire European continent until 2024.
This narrative that all NATO members are just freeloading of the USA is a fiction.
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.
>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.
[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-spe...
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.
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.
We need more cooperation for collective benefit instead of cooperation for the sake of profit
And you think that will happen with China and Russia as allies? Jesus. This thread is brigaded to hell by trolls.
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.
Look what being an ally with Russia brought.
More like what becoming an ally of the US in 2014 brought.
In this picture Crimea is conspicuously absent.
China needs to export to the West to survive. The Russian market is not able to absorb what China needs to sell.
China has already distanced itself from Russia. China’s happy to sell Russia what it can buy, but there is no real upside to that relationship.
Why wait that long?
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.
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.
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.
I've seen the contrary from Germany
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.
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.
And building a simple nuke is not that complicated - when you have the nuclear material. Europe does.
The last we want, are Nazis with nukes on top of it all.
If they don't hate Jews it isn't nazism, just ordinary facism.
Also russia already beat the us to becoming nuclear armed facists.
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.
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.
[0]: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/european-politics/frenc...
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.
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.
Instead there is NATO, totally dominated by the US.
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.
> 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
https://bsky.app/profile/osinttechnical.bsky.social/post/3lj...
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.
[0]: https://www.sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/prime-minister-open-to-...
"Swedish nuclear weapons program" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
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.
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.
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.
The only hope I have, is they want bolster their ego with a strong EU.
They don't seem to give an impression of being able to work out a coherent policy or show any initiative.
The EU leaders, include Ursula Von Leyen speak big noble sounding words, but do very little.
Btw, EU spent more than USA, both military and financially.
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.
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.
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.
Just doing this in front of the world’s media … it’s hard to understand
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1895618072905384351
The whole thing was just sad to watch. Politics have hit a level of inanity unimaginable..
I wouldn't be very surprised if there was some thaw in relations that comes with an apology, smiling and making nice for the cameras. But I wouldn't be at all surprised at the reverse, particularly considering that Trump tendency to come down in Putin's corner.
It's not. If you're a remotely rational American right now you are experiencing large amounts of grief.
This is just the denial stage of grief.
Make sure you cover your traces.
yeah that didn't really work out that well with Kamala.
Problem is, over half the country just doesn't give a shit. Its easy to lose yourself on places like Hacker News and Reddit and think this is the general sentiment, but in reality, on the average 8/10 people around you in US either didn't vote or voted for Trump.
I'm just blown away that even after the first Trump presidency, and now during the second, that the left still has no serious intention of addressing any of the legitimate grievances that working class has. It's genuinely bananas to see so many people fleeing California for Texas and hearing "good riddance." I'm basically broken at this point, and I feel like fighting for basic, practical and sustainable policies, policies that just make sense, is pointless.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
Austin is basically the only city with dropping housing prices right now and that's happening in large part in spite of city policy, not because of it. Yes, the Republicans are creating tons of new sprawl there, and that's bad, but it's a crisis, not some long term concern we can fiddle with the knobs over. Obviously, the sustainability parts of me don't like sprawl (especially from a Strong Towns perspective), but it's not like the Dems there are upzoning anything more than a token number of corridors.
I've had a perpetual criticism of my fellow Dems since my days of naive urban-enviornmentalism: as long as "the bus is for other people" we won't have good public transit. The same goes for housing. As long as lefties don't actually want to live in a multi-unit European-style townhouses in walkable neighborhoods, we're not going to actually do anything substantial about housing or climate change, but with token projects we can pretend we will... and proceed to keep failing working people.
Bernie lost the popular vote in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries.
For example, we all know, left and right, that the healthcare system in the US is broken. End of, no debate. It’s broken. But, even the slightest hint of a reasonable single payer system like the rest of the west is met with immediate and severe backlash.
We’re at a place where we’re not even willing to humor, let alone try, any solutions. The conservative approach is “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”, but the left is really not far off from that either.
That doesn't mean I don't think they have any good policies, they certainly do, the issue is that the structure of their policies typically does not have feedback loops that incentivize change when change is needed. There is a reason Stockholm has a 20 year wait list for getting an apartment. With the exception of the Vienna model, which I wholeheartedly support, but that American progressives have all rejected in practice (even if they pretend they don't), every single far-left housing policy system seems to be captured by incumbent electorates, based on seniority, without any willingness to make sacrifices for the next generations.
I hope I made clear from my post that I think these policies come from problems that do not align neatly with political parties, and one of the main reason I see the American political system failing is that incumbent electorates are unwilling to make any sacrifices to help each other.
You mention healthcare…I lived in Colorado in 2016 and we had a ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to establish universal healthcare. Great!
However, in the months leading up to that vote there were so many questions about details that the organizers of the ballot measure just met with some form of, “We’ll let you know after the amendment passes.”
I was a federal employee at the time, with an FEHB plan, and I was concerned that I would wind up paying for both the FEHB plan and the state tax that would come with the state plan. I sent multiple emails and asked at an information session but no one involved in organizing the ballot measure would even entertain the question.
Is it any wonder the measure failed 80-20?
Cliché at this point, but worth remembering the Democrats are not a leftist party by any means.
Until America sheds the anti-communist gene and produces an actual, bold left-wing movement rooted in Socialist thought, all you'll have is chauvinism wrapped in politeness optics.
Also, the fact they talk down to him about the war in Ukraine of all things is pretty shocking, like he wouldn't be there if he didn't understand the situation in Ukraine (it's not like he was there being extorted for minerals because he thinks things are going amazingly). It seems weird from a global policy perspective but on brand if you're just an asshole. Either way, truly an embarrassing day to be an American.
We already have a "third party" now in the sense the GOP is unrecognizable from 20 years ago; the old GOP died out, like the Whig Party.
As a Brazilian, I think it's unfortunately more likely than you think. Here in Brazil, we got a completely rewritten constitution (the 1988 constitution) after our USA-backed military dictatorship ended. So if the current USA government becomes a dictatorship (which unfortunately does not seem unlikely enough right now), there's a good chance the USA will also get a brand new constitution after all that mess ends, hopefully one with better electoral mechanics.
That's not always true. Proportional representation in the House would help a lot, and that could be done by passing a regular law. (The current "one member per district" law is only from 1967: [0])
[0]: https://act.represent.us/sign/proportional-representation/
The only way that can happen is if several red state legislatures agree to the Compact. This Compact is useless to replacing the Electoral College if only blue states sign up; these states would have voted blue in an election, anyway. It tips over to 270 if several red states sign up and allocate their electoral votes against the wishes of their own red state constituencies. Would that be democratic? It is obvious why the growth of the compact has stalled at 209 votes; it is irrational for a red state to join it. It is also true in the mirror image if it were a "red state 270 vote compact," no blue state would join it.
It is more possible now than ever though with unprecedented communication. But to paraphrase Warren Buffet a bit: "We (the rich) are a lot better at this and we're kicking your ass right now". Imagine if we could have even a fraction of the youth anger from Tiktok aimed at such issues above.
For his base, they won't care, and this event will justify the next few actions that the US takes.
I actually do not care one bit where the line on the map is drawn between Ukraine and Russia and I find it very weird that so many of us claim to. Think what could have been done instead, with all the wasted lives, time, and money. THAT, is embarrassing!
Realistically it’s not possible to hold a free and fair election while:
- A foreign power would bomb polling stations
- An invading power would try to interfere in other ways
- Millions of voters are displaced (within and outside the country)
- Millions of voters are in the armed forces at the front line
- Voting districts are occupied by an invading force and can’t really vote
That last point is pretty key, too. How do you ensure only Ukrainian citizens vote and aren’t doing so with a gun to their head? What if you manage to do this and Russia refuses to recognise your election because “you counted votes from legally Russian citizens” (which Russia claims the occupied regions are)? Then if you don’t count those votes, those Russian oblasts suddenly become Ukrainian and Russia claims you disenfranchised legitimate votes to rig an election.
All of this is why Russia (and by extension the USA) position of holding elections in Ukraine is complete nonsense.
It worries me that no-one in the Republican Party looks at it and says: Russia is our enemy right, why are we doing exactly what they want and benefits them?
Why would they? GOP senators literally spent independence day in russia a few years back. Multiple GOP congressmembers voted against various resolutions to support the people of ukraine[0], condemn russia for its kidnapping of ukrainian children[1], or direct the administration to collect evidence of russian war crimes[2].
The GOP has had a strongly pro-putin wing for a decade, and Trump has been in russia's pocket for longer than that: ignoring claims that he's a hard KGB asset, the trump family has been reliant on russian money (investments and loans) for at least two decades. With trump being the uncontested leader of the GOP, the party is very much pro russia.
[0]: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202251?Page=3
* Russia will betray the GOP in an instant if it serves their geopolitical goals
* Russia is increasingly allying with Iran, North Korea and probably China
* Russia doing well out of the Ukraine invasion will embolden China to move in on Taiwan and potentially other Pacific territories
But none of these are anything new. This is all years old stuff. It does not make sense that it "worries", either you've never cared before and things have not changed, or you should be several steps beyond "worry".
Personally, I think all Western nations need to be in partnership-with and promoting Democracy in a relatively-sane and ethnically-white country like Russia. Short of a few eastern-European countries and Israel, Russia has until recently been the only such country that hasn't fallen prey to "pretty please invade us we'll even pay you" kind of left-wing socialism that's fallen upon most of the west. A movement that oddly hasn't fallen-upon any non-majority-white country around the world.
I think it's a step in a larger plan to start moving the Republican foreign policy platform into include a greater emphasis on diplomacy. Since diplomacy's been seen as the "weaker and less effective" path for so long it needs a rebrand in order to sell it to a strength-worshipping constituency.
Trump is a pathetic fuck, but this lines up with how he only ever plays to the domestic audience in advancing protectionist interests. We're feeling that dissonance because this kind of protectionist thinking is extremely rare, basically unheard of these days for world leaders.
The death of the post cold war neoliberal world order and the death of the American century. to be replaced by... ?
Mind-blowing, except, kinda-sorta, for the fact that the effort is helmed by a (short-term thinking) businessman rather than a seasoned politician with familiarity with, or even the ability to consider, long term consequences of actions and decisions and the interplay of other countries and their leaders.
And it always fails long term. We lose so, so much and then we just ignore it and do it again. We’re getting to a point where we don’t even remember where we started.
This has been a long time coming, IMO. You can only be selfish for so long before you implode. If everyone is selfish, you’re living on borrowed time.
If this is genuinely what is happening, this can only be some sort of hostile takeover enabled by the legitimate grievances in the domestic depoliticized populations. Neoliberalism made itself vulnerable to be destroyed from within, it's greed went too far, the inequities to much to be sustainable, the post-political ideology became so extreme that it forgot the old lessons of empire, bread and circuses.
Or as Merkel and Thatcher said, "There is no alternative". Wanna bet?
I agree. It seemed to me like Zelensky initiated the public display. Both trump and jd Vance we also commenting on his inappropriate public statements.
There's that old saying about best friends and worst enemies...
Here's a rundown:
- Rare earths:
I've mentioned the MP Minerals, Mountain Pass, CA mine before. The US doesn't have enough rare earth refining capability, and China won't export the technology. So US ore goes to China for processing. Or did, until DoD paid for a separation plant at Mountain Pass. That problem is close to being solved. That new separation plant is running. A plant for the final step, making magnet-ready metal, has been built in Texas, again by MP Minerals, and it's about ready to open.
What's happened with rare earths is not that they're rare. It's that China undercut US prices so much that the Mountain Pass mine went bankrupt. Twice. In 2015, there was a rare earths glut. Look at WSJ rare earths articles back to 2011.
There are large un-mined rare earth deposits in Colorado and Wyoming, with startups talking about mining them. Whether this makes economic sense is unclear. If all those start up, the price will crash again and they all go bust.
Three years ago, the US rare earths situation looked bad. Not today.
- Uranium
The US has plenty of uranium resources. Canada and the US are historically the biggest producers.
- Titanium
Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in Tennessee. See https://iperionx.com/ Are those guys for real? Not clear.
- Lithium
The US produces about 75% of the lithium it uses. New deposits have been found in Arkansas:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/unlocking-ar...
And in Nevada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCWeZiVsotc
- Graphite
China is the leading producer, but Canada and Norway are ramping up. There hasn't been US production of natural graphite since the 1950s. US production of synthetic graphite satisfies most US demand. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp1802J) Several new synthetic graphite plants are being built in the US.
As we've seen in rare earths, when the cheaper sources raise their prices, domestic production increases. It seems to take about three to five years to get a big mining operation going.
Quietly, during the previous administration, there was funding for US mineral projects in rare earths, graphite, and lithium. It's no secret, but most coverage is from sites that cover mining and minerals.
So far at least, these are under our own control and we still have the free will to decide how they are traded.
Unless the new regime in the US really wants to show its true hand, I guess.
Maybe we can toss a 25% export tariff on them, since the US is trying to strangle our economy anyways.
Need's got nothing to do with it. Bullies don't take what you have because they need it, they take it because that's what you have, and they want to take it away from you, just to be taking it away from you.
For Trump, it is not enough that (as he perceives the situation) he wins, rather than (as he perceives) everyone else loses. Even people's whose backs are up against the wall. Especially people whose backs are up against the wall. If you don't exploit the weakest player at the table, why are you even playing?
(Not that Trump knows anything about gambling... who the fuck loses money running a casino... on multiple separate occasions...)
Trump isn't making deals based on carefully considered advantages and concessions. He's just grasping his tiny hands at whatever comes in reach, whether or not he needs it, like the half-wit schoolyard thug he is.
Germany, not Russia, broke that one.
Worth watching: Neville Chamberlain's famous "Peace for our time" speech. "I have here a paper signed by the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler."[1] And the crowd cheers.
Trump signing a comparable agreement with Putin is all too possible.
It was about mutual occupation of Poland. Now Trump is talking with putin how they want to divide Ukraine.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...
Here's the Sierra Club report from 2011.[1] They were OK with the mine. So was the state of California and the US EPA. Problem solved.
Then in 2015, after all this was working, China cut the price of rare earths.[2] Mountain Pass mine shut down, and Molycorp, the owner, went bankrupt. But the equipment was stored and maintained. When the price of rare earths from China went back up the next owner, MP Minerals, bought the assets and restarted operations.
This time, the new buyers made long-term deals with the US DoD and General Motors to guarantee a market at a price at which they could operate. That seems to be working.
Much news coverage of mineral issues tends to lack background. Better info is available, but it's on mining industry sites, in USGS reports, and in places most people don't read. Punditry is cheap. Reporting is expensive.
[1] https://www.desertreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DR_S...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2015/05/15/chinese...
1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.
2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US.
I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.
What was actually going on?
We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this".
That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.
I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.
Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.
In any event, USA is now out of the game.
A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete.
All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.
I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.
On the face of it, it's not obvious that he's doing a bad job.
Ukraine was Victoria Nuland's project. Her CIA had a huge hand in the protests against Yanakovich (who was, in turn, an asset of Putin's GRU), and she personally had a hand in negotiating with Yanakovich on behalf of the protestors. You should read about the events in Ukraine in 2014. That overthrow led to the retaliatory capture of Crimea, where the US and EU apparently did not learn their lesson about how much of a madman Putin is.
As for the Biden Ukraine connection, I'm sure Hunter Biden is just secretly very talented at managing oil companies, which is why he was put on the board of Burisma in 2014, after Nuland's little coup. I believe the "10% for the big guy" quote was in reference to this deal, too.
As for this being an existential threat to Europe, I'm not even sure you need to be given the facts about having a madman like Putin edging closer to your borders, while also depending on him for energy.
Finally, on supporting your puppet governments: it's basic game theory that you should do this. Otherwise all the other ones (see much of Latin America) get overthrown.
There are other recent cases too (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163494), and it unfortunately goes back a long time:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227833 (Oct 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522959 (Dec 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28979071 (Oct 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16017108 (Dec 2017)
I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, that would be good.
Among other things, that means no more personal attacks regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...
The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.
Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.
> 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there.
> 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
But you are correct that without security guarantees there will be no development, no reconstruction, no investments. The deal just does nothing.
I may be wrong, but I understand it was "joint control", not "50% in USA".
Small correction: 50% of Ukraine's government revenue from natural resource extraction (minus some expenses).
> Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.
You're right. There may be some options when the fund is actually formed, but the current deal almost exclusively benefits Ukraine (financially).
> In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment
It's up to the US how much they want to invest. If they put a lot of money into the fund, they get a lot of control over how Ukraine starts rebuilding. But due to how the fund is financed, the US will be bought out in the long run and the fund will turn into a Ukrainian sovereign one.
> It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
The idea probably being to allow US oversight. Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and its government is fighting a loosing battle against this.
If a corrupt construction contracter pockets 80% of the money given to him and Ukraine tries to prosecute him, he'll just move to Portugal and nothing is ever going to happen to him.
On the other hand, if the US files charges, that contractor is going to have a really bad time.
Combined with the much superior talent pool in finance and international business available in the US, a lot more money should find its way to its intended purposes.
I hear this of this. I lived there for a year, fairly recently, in Kyiv. I didn't particularly see it, hear of it, or encounter it. I remember one or two stories of people being convicted of taking bribes, that's it. I didn't see it around me, or hear it from locals.
I may be completely wrong, but I think this isn't any more of an issue than any other post-Soviet country, and with the war on, UA doing an awful lot now to sort it out, because it relates to survival.
First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people.
Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)
If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
After all, why would the US get involved when they don't need the minerals they'd have to lose?
Sad to see how Trump is dismantling USA from it's role as a global superpower.
2. US France UK has made it very clear that they can occupy and establish military bases in non nuclear countries without repercussions, especially in Middle East and Africa.
3. Memorandum was signed by multiple nuclear countries and none of thier troops are deployed in Ukraine. Besides US was the largest supplier of weapons in Ukraine.
US is hardly affected by Ukr situation. For them to get involved, there should be something at stake. If they owned something in Ukr, they would have reason to defend it with US troops. Russia won't escalate by attacking US troops or resources.
And if getting involved will escalate to ww3, what difference does those resource deals make? Either american involvement (via NATO or this mineral deal logic) forces Russia to back down or it doesn't.
We're talking about someone who appears to believe a trade deficit means you're somehow being screwed or getting the short end of a deal. That's mercantilistic nonsense. It's economical thinking on par with a child who believes Scrooge McDuck is a good capitalist.
Titanium is very common (ninth most common crustal element IIRC). Generally there are always deposits. It's more important to have the infrastructure already in place because it's obtained in such large quantities.
Steel has the nice property of turning into any product with but a stern look, titanium torches your factory down if it doesn't like the air quality during its massage sessions.
Is that not a supply issue? I admit I only know a bit about the topic, but it’s the only one without a linked source.
If you buy a Russian nuclear power plant, Rosatom takes care of absolutely everything.
If you buy a powerplant from anywhere else, you've got to juggle hundreds of various contractors and companies at various stages.
So if you've built your system, there will be only very few fuel suppliers left, whose fuel product is approved for usage with all the components.
And if one of those suppliers has problems or goes bankrupt (since nuclear fuel is an aweful product to make money with: Very low numbers, extremely strict regulations, very expensive handling and processing, a very unstable and slow growing market, constantly new requirements and all of your customers have huge legal teams and deep pockets), you're going to have a lot of difficulty finding a replacement.
Well, either I'm outdated or just plain dumb.
Over the years I have amassed solid evidence that it might be the latter, tho.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/index.html
[2] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/
[3] https://nuclearinsider.com/reviving-the-atom-charting-the-co...
Remember reading that sometime on here when the war started I think.
I wonder if there's a carry on effect of advocating for domestic steel production to get that benefit without drawing a lot of attention to it?
Trump also claimed he had no intention of implementing Project 2025, but that’s what he’s doing.
I’m not sure what the correct response is, but anyone that doesn’t think Trump constantly lies is willfully ignorant.
The only explanation I can come up with for this administration’s actions is intentional sabotage of the US economy and democracy. It matches 100% of the actions they have taken so far.
The Trump administration doesn't give a single shit about truth, it's always about power grabs for them. If I were you I'd digitize any copy of school books I can find on the internet, because they will be gone very soon.
It's all about establishing a semi-sovereign fund for Ukraine (slowly turning fully sovereign, due to how it's financed), focused on reconstructing Ukraine.
I recall various sources saying that we’re just about to have a revolution in titanium processing, kind of like how aluminum went from being more expensive than gold to being cheap. It hasn’t happened yet, and I wish Iperion luck!
It's really just a Ukrainian sovereign reconstruction fund, with the option for the US to buy its way in. Also the fund is financed through Ukraine's natural resource extraction.
The crux being:
No one else can buy into the fund. So if Ukraine is rebuilt and then disappears from the map, the US pretty much owns the fund, together with whoever is recognized as Ukraine's exile government, and with it a huge portion of Ukraine's industries.
So even if Russia were to take over Ukraine, all the money making stuff is still co-managed by the fund.
And since Ukraine is the exclusive financial benefactor of the fund, whoever takes over Ukraine ends up facing an exile government with an utterly ridiculous budget.
And if they wanted to just expropriate the fund, they'd have to expropriate the US gov, too. Good luck with that.
.
The fund is a REALLY good idea, but the way it's sold to the public and Ukraine refusing to agree to it is ... odd at best.
1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this just buying time for someone to depose Putin?
2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice? If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2 right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let Russia rearm.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
Did I miss anything?
The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from getting what he wants.
My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.
We know this given how close even Trump got to having discussions with both parties. His competence was not there to finish any deal and took the worse turn possible.
Russia knows that time is on its side. It can just pause enough to rearm and then attack again. What will we do differently then?
Plus, at some point Russia will start using nukes and then we will be forced to back down. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine.
Russia has a greater population, but has been relying largely on conscripts among the poor, the incarcerated, and third world nations likes North Korea. Thats a resource that is far smaller in number than their total population. As soon as it’s tapped out, they either have to give up are start conscripting people in the middle and upper classes, and that will turn the Russian population on the war and their leaders faster than anything.
In this war the only winners are US/EU weapons manufacturers, there is no winning scenario. Something Trump cannot understand and Putin cannot accept.
It _is_ possible with the combo of weapons and economic sanctions. Ukraine (had) more economic support, so it is both a war of blood and endurance, endurance which Ukraine could have by being a porcupine with next-gen weapons and non-stop bleeding for Russia until things start hitting the oligarch's pocketbooks too far and the people of Russia begin to demand regime change.
Russia is a glorified gas station. You can hurt it dramatically with economic sanctions because its whole GDP is concentrated into one sector.
Imo if Trump really cared about America's long term security, he would be trying to fund research into cheaper / easier to produce next-gen weapons for Ukraine to test for us, instead of complaining how much our HIMARS and tanks currently cost, firing top military brass, cozying up to a dictator, and trying to exploit a ravaged democratic ally.
Economic sanctions won't affect Russia as long as China is behind them. And if the West is against Russia, they will do anything to keep China as an ally.
And this was a mistake, one that they slowly tried to reverse once they realized Ukraine wasn't going to be a pushover especially with modern weaponry.
It would have been in the US best interest to have done this twenty years ago, but some greedy bastards thought there would be untold riches in breaking up Russia, to have "two, three, many Ukraines". They failed.
But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine, and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with nukes).
Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and we will have to back down.
We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do?
No one want it, Putin and especially China. Current atomic weapon are no more the little Nagasaki Firecrackers.
They are not going to risk their security for Ukraine. They wouldn't risk starting a nuclear war over Ukraine, it's stupid, even for their standards
Think about it. They support Ukraine by sending them surplus or aged weapon systems while modernising and funnelling money to their military industrial complex (with public support!). In return Ukraine uses those weapons systems to keep Russia tied up in a war, exposing Russia's most modern weapon systems and providing a huge amount of information on how to fight a drone war.
This is a great investment independent of what happens in or to Ukraine, basically they turn weapons they needed to replace or get rid of anyway into intel, new weapons, political brownie points at home and a weakened adversary.
China doesn't mind it that much either, though they enjoy it less because they had invested fairly heavily into Ukrainian infrastructure that is being destroyed. Keeping Russia isolated makes it easy for them to extra cheap oil & gas, push for pipelines that flow to China instead of towards Europe and also offload a bunch of their industrial surplus now that their requirements are winding down and the rest of the world is trying to tariff them for dumping.
So basically the problem is 1. is good for almost everyone except Ukraine and Russia. Trump for whatever reason can't understand that and just wants to throw a tantrum as is befitting for someone of his intelligence.
EU (germany) gets increasingly deindustrialised, to a big part due to energy costs associated with the war, and the related sanctions and sabotages. This war would not have even started if the previous US administration(s) had not pushed to that direction, europe was up to that point signing energy deals with Russia, they had no incentive for a full blown war. EU was following, and now they run around like headless chicken with no purpose, goal and prospects while Trump is basically trying to cash out of the situation. But I agree with you that, whatever this has to do with, the least is about Ukraine itself and democracy. Sadly we are never gonna move on from this false narrative until it is too late.
That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.
NATO must always act as a cohesive unit so any direct confrontation significantly increases the risks.
Western countries including my own have demilitarize heavily since the 1990s + rebuilt armies for counter terrorism, so sending more weapons to a land war isn't straightforward at all (as we've seen).
Western power is mostly centered around air and sea power and you can't easily transfer that to a 3rd party...especially three years late.
If neither Biden or now Trump is going to promise mass Tomahawks and IFVs galore then all we're left with is perpetuating a stalemate, not recovering sovereign land nor sufficiently punishing Russia. A couple more Storm Shadows and Leopard tanks from dwindling supplies aren't going to cut it.
In order to do that they need to have a defined leader, not twenty some people each one pursuing their own interests
Who would that leader be? Certainly you don’t want Trump because in that case things would hardly be any different
I mean on paper that's not really true. The US or whichever leader can't tell Poland to send troops, warships, or pilots into Ukraine because if Russia then sends a cruise missile into Warsaw it violates the NATO treaty which would require them all to react. There's no minor conflict exception, it moves as a unit. So the only option on the table is full NATO vs Russia, or status quo proxy war where weapons are funneled through it.
For Europe to properly defend Ukraine's sovereignty on their own they would have to break NATO commitments. Because I don't see continued supply of weapons from their small pool as sufficient to make a big difference... only to extend the war for a few more years, after which a very similar DMZ will be established.
To fight this war you need real military power: on the ground logistics, protected supply lines, large troop reserves to support offensive operations, etc. Weapons only get you so far.
Does this imply European nations should be contributing to the war effort more than the US? Does this shift match what the current situation leads to?
They are contributing more than the US.[1]
Maybe we get lucky and Putin dies or is deposed (and the successor is less hard-line). That's a lot of rolls that have to come down the right way.
More likely, Ukraine continues to bleed men until they can't defend Kyiv, then Russia takes all of Ukraine anyway except you've lost a lot of soldiers and weapons.
No matter what EU leaders say, I think they are beginning to realize that Ukraine will not win this war and time is not on their side. The EU may or may not continue to support Ukraine with weapons, but it will be half-hearted at best.
The EU will pressure Ukraine to freeze the conflict, but without any hard guarantees. In a few years, Russia will then begin the attack again and probably take Kyiv then.
I hope I'm wrong.
A successor (even a dictator and/or hard-liner) has a lot more manoeuvring space here, at least initially, because he can just blame it all on Putin.
Remember this all started with "we'll conquer all of Ukraine real quick, back in a jiffy". Putin pivoted to "no, we just wanted the eastern provinces" but everyone knew that was complete bollocks. The entire war is already a massive loss of face for Putin.
Of course, it would be great if defending democracy was free. However, with politicians already talking about cutting Medicaid spending, it was only a matter of time until defense spending came under scrutiny
Historical cases, such as the U.S. in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, suggest that prolonged external backing can lead to drawn out conflicts with high costs and unintended consequences.
Is there a point at which the costs/economic, political, or humanitarian of indefinite support outweigh the intended benefits? How do you think such a threshold be determined?
I think one should _at least_ consider alternatives pathways to achieve a resolution.
For Option 2 I actually don't see a lot of downsides except dead European soldiers replacing dead Ukrainian soldiers. Russia would absolutely stop if being stopped in their tracks more ferociously. In fact, Russia is already fighting this war all out. If they could they would do more (or at least I can't phantom why they would not).
You do realize Russia has nuclear weapons and a leader who has already hinted at using them if necessary?
Now these were conventional weapons, guns, tanks, trucks, etcetera. Stuff that you could imagine being used at some point, so there was some risk of being found out.
Now imagine you are a Russian general in charge of maintaining the nuclear stockpile. Weapons that you can reasonably expect never to be actually used. Even better, if you ever get in a situation where they would be used, it's basically the end of the world and no one is going to be alive to care if you pocketed the maintenance money anyway. How much of the allocated maintenance budget do you expect to have been spent on actual maintenance?
I think it goes in tandem with your number (3). Like you say, why would Russia not violate the agreement? I think maybe the move is "well now we have citizens in there working so don't blow us up". It's one thing for Russia to attack the Ukraine, but another if they have collateral damage that takes out Americans.
I don't even know how valuable the actual underlying resources are, so much as a bit of "kayfabe" between the Ukraine, US, and Russia, that things are different.
Anyway, that's my hope.
Trumps issue is he knows the lack of guarantees is a better deal for the US because we gain much and risk nothing. He wants to make a deal and get credit, i dont think he really cares what happens after. Maybe he does, i wish that to be the case. But i dont believe it.
This could escalate the war, but Russia does not appear to be in a position to escalate right now.
Russia will respond with either strategic bombing of Kyiv or tactical nukes. And then what do we do? Nuke Moscow? Send NATO troops in? More sanctions?
Russia knows that we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine, which means escalation always ends with us backing down.
Therefore, ending the war as soon as possible is the moral thing to do.
US most certainly has anti ballistic missile tech, however wasting exposing it on Russia is something that is not worth it when there are more capable nations on the line.
They have a much lower defense budget, and have been forced to actually be creative and clever about problems, as opposed to our throw-money-at-problem-ergo-win approach.
tl;dr Russia is not a fun opponent, and they culturally really enjoy statecraft so best to stick with statecraft.
no
>are laser-focused on hypersonic tech
no
>and we don't officially know how good their missile defense is
we do know. Its mediocre at best.
The thing about Russia that most people don't get is that even before all of this happened, there was no money to be made in terms of talent for stuff that requires engineering. Everyone who was smart was leaving the country so they could make much better salaries elsewhere.
They are a full scale paper tiger, none of their stuff even from cold war era is as good as the propaganda claimed.
Their only real playing card is nukes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)
And the S550 prototypes are looking great.
> They are a full scale paper tiger
This is a bad approach to take, even if you're right.
Sure there is a 0.1% chance it may be able to hold 2 circle or one circle against F22, considering that no F22 has ever flown publicly within its full maneuverability envelope, but it sure as shit would lose to the flying supercomputer that is the F35 because BVR missiles that are smart enough to avoid countermeasures are a thing now. Some even use optical tracking.
As far as ICBM defense goes, we did this back in 2002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
And you better believe that we have way more advanced shit now.
All you need to know about capability is to look at defense spending of a country in totality. Nothing beats US.
Nukes would likely drag Europeans into the war formally, which Russia cant handle. They dont have resilience, and their oligarchs dont want a nuclear war any more than we do. At the end of the day they are cowards; once their actual livlihood is at stake they will cut and run to save whats left.
Russias only actual card is political division. Biden effectively gambled the US would be more politically resilient than it actually is, and appears to have been wrong. Putin gambled he could manipulate enough in the US to turn the tide.
Now that Trump has exposed it, imo it actually increases the risk because now one warning Nuke can maybe whip his followers into line.
Ultimately today Z played new cards. He saw the writing on the wall, knowing agreeing to Trumps current deal would likely be the (eventual) end of his country. So he appealed to the US voter. This bypasses Trump so it was never going to end well. Now the next phase plays out. Trump tries to discredit z; if he wins its over. If he loses we go back to the Biden plan, rebranded as the Trump plan one way or another.
Strategic victory for Putin in the meantime. JD isnt cut out for the big stage is my main take away.
My own sense is that Putin waited Biden out to see what might happen in the 2024 elections, and now that Trump is back and conciliatory there is no need for him to escalate to limited nuclear war. And my sense is that Trump understands Putin's limits and that is why Trump is keen to make peace on terms vaguely approaching a complete capitulation to Russia -- for Trump it's not his war anyways, so for him it's not so much capitulation but something that can be sold as another domestic political victory over the Democrats and the Washington establishment.
Sanctions escalation should have happened already. Too many parts of Europe are comfortable trading with an enemy.
But that doesn't change the underlying problem. How do we stop Putin getting what he wants? If you're saying, there's nothing we can do but the US should be nicer about it, well, I guess that's right, but somewhat useless.
Russia easily calls the bluff.
This sort of gullibility is very dangerous, especially if it manifests in folks in DC who could help your scenario happen.
With what? Left over nukes from the cold war that haven't been maintained in decades? I would be surprised if Russia had 1 working nuke left.
1st one isn't really about "buying time". The prolongation of conflict is not a "side-effect" here, it's the whole point. And IMO it's a solid plan, honestly. If I was a citizen of the USA without any morals or inclinations to travel abroad, I would probably support it. This isn't a 100% solid plan, there are actually some questions if it works as it was supposed to work, but the incentive here seems blatantly obvious to me: war weakens Russia, weakens Europe, and nobody cares about Ukraine anyway, so by investing into the war carefully USA ends up winning, same as after WW1 and WW2. To me, the game plan is obvious here. It's just cynical, and that's why Biden (and other public-speaking supporters of the plan) would never say it as it is. No real politician would.
As to Europe wanting that... well, I would say it seems current EU leadership wants that, and I have pretty hard time explaining why, so I'll leave it aside. If you want some random data point: I, as a European citizen definitely don't want that. I don't doubt the majority of my fellow EU citizens would say they "support the support of Ukraine", but I don't find it surprising, given all media outlets chant 24/7 about how horrible Russia/Putin is.
I mean, yes, that's kinda saying "I think I know better than these guys", but I just don't see any benefits for the actual people (not governments) living in EU. This war hurts the economics, it hurts the relationships, and I personally have relatives in Ukraine, so I just want it to stop. I don't care on which terms, and obviously it cannot be the terms on which the war started. It's way too deep into the conflict and too many lives lost to call it a good outcome, but it's the best outcome.
So, not being a citizen of the USA, I am in favor of that alternative which is "as stupid as it sounds", the last one. I mostly have problems not with the option itself, but with the fact that for Trump to want it is not enough for it to happen. Because, as stated, a lot of people don't want this to happen, and it almost seems like Trump is mistaking being POTUS for being God. Meaning, the way he is doing things is stupidly blunt. It might work, it might escalate things more. In any case, having all of HN whining about how ashamed they are of their president is not a good start. And that product he helped BBC to make works awful for him and his plan.
The whole liberal-democratic world should be all-in on Ukraine assistance.
Instead, Trump just made it clear that the optimal time for PRC v ROC round 2 is within the next 3 year 10 months.
They had this "huge opportunity" for last 4 years.
The Ukraine is also very difficult to defend, especially since it seems like such a touchy issue for Russia. I doubt that Russia would go to full-scale nuclear war over Ukraine but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small scale use of nuclear weapons on -say- Brussels. And if Russia makes enough of those Oreshnik missiles they could easily take out most of Europe's air forces in one go without going nuclear, and thus change the balance of power in Ukraine.
The question really is: at what price Ukraine?
Your (1), (2), and (3) are no solutions. Pausing the war now simply means escalating it later.
Depending on Trump's understanding of Russia's limits (I say Trump's because he might have a better understanding that the public), (4) may be the only workable option.
The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide.
So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.
Nobody outside of the US has seen the US as that since at least the gulf war. US involvement since the 90s in foreign issues has been primarily for selfish purposes.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.
that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
To be more specific, you give Ukraine what it needs to freeze the current lines, a cease fire is signed, Russia gets to stop fighting while saving face, and the unoccupied part of Ukraine gets what would amount to NATO membership without formally joining .
The status of the occupied territories remains ambiguous, with the West and Ukraine banking on a change in leadership in Russia at some point in the future.
As far as I can tell, this is the type of deal that Zelensky thought he came to DC for.
So keeping it up might destabilize Putin, without further escalating the conflict. Seems like the sanest of bad options to me.
If Russia invades a NATO country, then you guys can worry about WW3. Until then, leave it be. We could have avoided a million deaths by now if we weren't adamant to "stick it to Russia". Either Ukraine is a part of NATO, or not.
If the world let it be back in 2022, Russia would have finished invading Ukraine in a week, and then would have been stuck dealing with incredible amounts of terrorism and guerilla warfare coming from a very large Ukrainian population. What exactly would that outcome have helped them in this supposedly-dangerous "invasion of Europe"? More balls and courage to invade another country?
Same outcome if they win tomorrow after 3 bloody years of war. You think they want another European country? What for? You think Putin can continue to convince his populace to keep subsidizing more wars at this point?
Russia is expending its soviet cold war materiel. Its trade embargo is seriously undermining its ability to continue to fight. It may be sooner than we think that they'll run out of weapons and equipment so long as Ukraine has support from its allies.
This should have been retaliation of the western world years ago.
Most of the nations were woefully slow to act with Ukraine (hey let's send some token helmets). They've got a totalitarian regime invading democracies in their back yard but don't seem all that united about it ....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra...
it's not Europe United, it's Europe Unionized.
The US should keep its commitments, but there is no reason Germany cannot step up to the plate - especially given that France has a similar defense budget as Germany yet has an outsized impact on global security.
German political leadership needs to either stop blocking France+UK and defer to their security policy or build it's own domestic capacity.
Ukranians are dying. We're donating cash and materiel. We're getting the better end of the deal there, and then some.
Of course they are, what did you expect would happen in war? Fighting with pillows? However it's not my responsibility to bear financially. My responsibility is caring for my own.
>We're donating cash
People are dying here as well as politicians are saying the healthcare is underfunded so clearly we need the cash back home.
The Ukrainian GDP is 179 billion USD (https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=euro...); they're a market smaller than Greece (244 billion USD) or Hungary (212 billion USD). If they succeed in driving the Russians out, they'll have to rebuild their country and will probably be in debt for decades.
Democracy in Russia is a pipe dream; they have nuclear weapons and Putin isn't about to give up power. I guess it's possible that his successor could hold elections, but that's highly unlikely at best.
Loans are the way to do it because of the way most European budgets work. But you can’t call them regular loans in good faith, and no politician in Europe does so. The language towards the public is that Europe is giving money.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ukraine-peace-talks-donal...
At the end this may be good for us, since Germany's stance has been pretty much retarded re defense to keep things polite. 4 superpowers instead of 3, albeit maybe Hungary and Slovakia should be kicked out to not sabotage it from within.
It seems an era is ending. Just like it did with 9/11, even outside US. All due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will but he is a symptom of current times IMHO, not a cause.
> The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen.
is false.
Democratic policy has done plenty to benefit average citizens, in a long tradition (at one point bipartisan) going back to WW2.
And it's never been centered around any idea more "radical" than taking seriously the words of the declaration of independence about equality, inalienable rights, and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for people who are doing something others think is weird.
It's even pretty clear that Democratic policies have strong electoral popularity:
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-t...
https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/22/harris-ca...
But "swing" voters (assuming they really exist in any form as popularly understood) among others are often not really clear on who supports the policies they prefer. My suspicion is that this comes from Democratic underinvestment and poor investments in media and culture while their opposition has been doing this aggressively, which allows others to define them as radical.
A++ gaslighting, great job.
If I can get something inherently valuable for essentially nothing but an empty promise? That's an extremely comfortable position to be in..
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no significant mutual defense treaty with America. We intervened nonetheless, to protect Europe. I think we should continue intervening, but I also think it's ludicrous for the EU to threaten to not support America, when they've allowed their military infrastructure to rot away at our expense.
However, that is an "if" statement that has not come to pass.
^which by-the-by is difficult to achieve on a practical level. Notifications of withdrawal have to be handed in to the US government
But they are asking for that; I think you should consider why.
https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...
Anyway voting is not about recording a talley for every 18+ year old human with a pulse. It’s citizens selecting a leader and policy from their community. Getting your people out to vote is part of the event.
Nobody in the last election got over 50% of the vote tally.
Still nowhere near 50% of Americans.
But that still does NOT mean anywhere near half of Americans actively chose the current situation. To say so is wholly, maliciously, egregiously disingenuous.
EDIT - Showing my work:
US Census in 2020 - 331,449,281
2024 Trump votes - 77,284,118
Even skipping any possibility for growth since 2020, 77.3mil/331.5mil is not “>50% of Americans” by any possible mathematical definition.
Many voters are voting for the lesser of two evils; they don't like either candidate. Non-voters are simply taking that to the next level: they can't decide between two evils strongly enough to value casting a vote.
Bikeshedding over the difference between active vs passive votes in a single-winner first-past-the-post election is fruitless.
“voted for by >50%” is what I’m refuting. It’s literally, factually untrue.
GP's point was that far less than 50% cared enough to vote against Trump, which was their only real option if they didn't like him.
You're right that my numbers were of the voting eligible population, though, and not the total population. Okay, so let's work that out.
244,666,890 total eligible voters - 156,336,693 total ballots cast = 88,330,197 passive votes for Trump
88,330,197 passive votes for Trump + 77,284,118 active votes for Trump = 165,613,316 total votes for Trump / 331,449,281 total US population = 49.9% of the total population figure
That is, indeed, just shy of 50%. So I'll concede that Trump did not have >50% of Americans supporting him. Just >50% of American voters.
Which means they cancel out and no, “>50% of Americans” still don’t support the current regime.
Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a remarkably easy decision to understand - people go to WWII because every single war since then has been a disaster for US interests and outcomes (I think every single, certainly most). The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. Since then all the warmongering has made America poorer, they don't achieve anything good and generally make the US worse off.
They made a call that they don't trust the military industrial propaganda and they want to see some peace happening for once. Pretty solid decision too; if we can all have normalised relations with the US after Iraq then we can stomach Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. Escalating a land war in Europe is stupid and its been a mistake every other time the Europeans tried it; even in WWII where they claim to be justified. The blood-lust left everyone closely involved broken and it'd have been better if they found a more peaceful route to ending the violence. The fact that they failed to negotiate something doesn't mean it was impossible.
"... Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars. Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical."
A well placed network of foreign aid has also generated influence in other parts of the world.
The United States has now irrevocably destroyed this position.
There will be enough time for the Trump Family and Elon to make out like the bandits they are, but the US position long term is diminished.
Yes, you have a ton of money to buy stuff that is much cheaper for you than for anyone else in the world because of the global reserve currency being in dollars, not to mention smooth trade guaranteed by the existence of the US navy.
Every thing you do is positively benefited by America's ability to project its military might across the globe.
The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late.
Ukraine needs the same kind of support, but instead, they got misguided "de-escalation" that only boxed Ukraine in and gave the initiative to Russia. By knowing that the US would force Ukraine to throttle back every time the Russians made a large misstep, Russia was encouraged to keep escalating without the fear of triggering an overwhelming response.
There's nothing preventing Ukraine's allies from setting up air defenses and fighter patrols to shoot down drones and missiles. A number of countries did just that when Iran launched a missile attack on Israel last year.
And Russia would go back to planes if other countries were shooting down their missiles, because they know that other countries would hesitate to declare war by shooting down one of their planes. Other countries taking over this responsibility neutralizes the air defense against planes.
This was one of the factors that guided Putin's thinking when he took Crimea.
Can't argue with NATO forces effectiveness in that operation though.
The campaign was valuable to everyone involved. The US got to assert itself as a global moral authority, also finally getting to build Camp Bondsteel[0] after decades of trying to build a base in the region (the largest US base on foreign soil since Vietnam, and it was built and managed by KBR meaning Dick Cheney and his shareholders also profited considerably; they've since lost interest so nowadays it's just a mini Gitmo). For the allies that backed them and helped justify the war, they received carte blanche permission to do what they like and settle their own scores. Their Dutch friends, for example, got to brazenly violate international law from the start by dumping their out-of-date depleted uranium cluster bombs on my densely populated home town[1], choosing to target the main building of our university, the main building of our city hospital, and the biggest civilian central steam heating plant that kept half the city warm.
The campaign did have some negative effects though. In the east it was interpreted as a deliberate provocation toward Russia at a time of particular weakness (their president getting hammered and falling out of planes etc), and Putin used this extensively as an example of Russian embarrassment at the hands of the US, helping him rise to power as PM in August '99, acting President in December '99, and President in March '00.
I'm not particularly emotional about any of this btw - I just thought you'd appreciate the geopolitical perspective and the ripple effect that war had on Russian politics & subsequent opinion towards the West.
Granted, not every war was a net win but that war machine is uniquely expensive and it may be sacrifice the public is willing to pay. But it probably wouldn't hurt to see how contemporary books on history differs from propaganda.
I was saying that for years, since the war started! People thought it is some kind of joke. But that was the only way to win!
Might be a hard sell.
You know what's not fair? The lady's government invaded a sovereign nation, committed genocide while doing it, and continues to do so. If that lady lost her fortune from it, then she should be vocal about justice for all parties.
But did America ever pay reparations for centuries of enslaving its own people? Where is the accountability?
Most republics are democracies. You seem to think "democracy" is equivalent to "direct democracy," but a direct democracy is only one type of democracy. A republic is another form of democracy.
America is certainly a democracy (for now; who knows what will happen in two years)
Russians are responsible for their government too! They just have way less they're able to do to steer it, but it still their government.
(I do not understand your example with the lady that sold her house when the conflict erupted. Lots of people sold their houses at that time and somehow their money is not being frozen....)
I believe you'll find a lot of Ukrainians found their entire towns suddenly "donated" to the war effort, not just a downpayment on a house.
War's hell, they can get bent.
I'm aware that there have been significant amounts of armed conflict in the mean time, but the last conflict between states that ran similar to historic wars was the Korean war (which technically hasn't ended). Most wars the US was involved in where more similar to colonial expeditions (seizing local resources, defending local bases)
There are two sides in this war: Russia and Ukraine. Neither is holding the money.
(I'm a strong supporter of Ukraine, host refugees in my house, and have donated to Comebackalive.ua, so this is not because I'm neutral in this war.)
At this point who cares about US dollars? I'm sure Europeans care more about Euros.
The bank needs to somehow hold US dollars to back its US dollar deposits, but there are various ways of doing that – e.g. put the money in its own account(s) in a US bank, hold physical US dollars in a vault somewhere, purchase US treasuries, use the deposit to fund lending denominated in US dollars (huge market for US dollar loans outside the US) – likely it is using some combination of those
So probably some of these Russian assets in Europe are euros, some are US dollars, some are other financial assets such precious metals, stocks and bonds, units in managed funds, etc – and they are just all being converted to euros for reporting purposes
[0] https://www.dunham.com/FA/Blog/Posts/triffins-dilemma?utm_ca...
But Americans don’t understand history?
Macron is off his rocker going down that path given the history around it.
Now, how that is related to freezing assets from Russia I do not see. Even if interpreted as some kind of reparations, the lesson of that time was not that all reparations lead to a later war. Rather that humiliation will lead to resentment which can lead to war later. Huge and unjust reparations can be a part of that, but that's hardly the scenario we see today.
Macron is (understandably) deeply unpopular in France right now, seems like that seeps into the judgement of his actions here.
But that's not a valid discussion topic for here.
What's next, making Italy pay reparations for the roman empire? Making Turkey or other arab countries pay reparations for their empires?
At this point, while there's still no consensus as to the degree of German responsibility, most historians would weight it significantly higher than that of the Entente. The notion that reparations (and the Treaty of Versailles in general) was particularly onerous and punitive has also been largely debunked. However, the popular understanding still mostly reflects the inter-war consensus and not the later developments.
If he cross the line ("freezing" foreign assets was already a big blow at property rights) I'm relocating and bankrunning whatever I have because it means property rights don't exist anymore in the country.
It’s called Ukraine. It would be particularly prudent to avoid using the Soviet-era nomenclature given the context of the conversation you’re participating in.
> "The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London.
That doesn't really make any sense. There is no magical deity that arbitrates rules of English. It is merely a tool invented by humans to use as they please. The only semblance of "incorrectness" that might be found is in failing to communicate with the reader, but in this case you clearly had no trouble understanding what "the Ukraine" meant and I suspect nobody else has either.
> and politically
This makes more sense and is a much stronger point, but political correctness is bound to intent. There is no evidence I can see that suggests "the Ukraine" was previously used with intent to offend or marginalize the people of Ukraine. Even if "the Ukraine" can be used as a politically incorrect device, that does not imply that all usage is politically incorrect.
> It’s called Ukraine.
Officially that is true, but there is typically nothing official about a casual comment made on Hacker News. As before, context is significant, and there is nothing in the context that I can see that suggests that the comment was made in some kind of official capacity.
The politically incorrect usage here is not bound to intent, because unaware readers will subconsciously lower Ukraine's status in their minds regardless of whether the writer intended them to do so.
The official status, or lack thereof, of the comment doesn't matter either. There is no compelling reason to not use the accepted name. If your friend was called James, would you intentionally call him "the James" just because you're not making an official statement? That doesn't make any sense.
It is grammatically atypical, perhaps, but not incorrect. It is fundamentally impossible to use English 'incorrectly'. The closest you can get to any semblance of 'incorrectness' is failing to communicate with the reader. But that is certainly not the case here. Everyone is well aware that in the above comment 'the Ukraine' refers to Ukraine.
> The politically incorrect usage here is not bound to intent, because unaware readers will subconsciously lower Ukraine's status in their minds regardless of whether the writer intended them to do so.
A faulty lowering of Ukraine's status may be politically incorrect, but the words are not to blame. That's your fault for thinking about its status improperly. There is no onus on the writer to worry about a failing mind. If there were, communication would be out of the question.
> If your friend was called James, would you intentionally call him "the James" just because you're not making an official statement?
I personally would not be intentional when writing casually. That defeats the purpose of writing casually. If I happened to put "the" down on paper I certainly wouldn't put in the effort to remove it. Who cares? Assuming the context is otherwise clear, nobody is going to be confused about who "the James" is.
It's "Ukraine," not "the Ukraine." "The Ukraine" is a Russian imperialist term because it's rooted in the idea that Ukraine is a mere territory (akin to "the Great Plains" or "the Midwest") that belongs to a larger political entity.
The fact that it's just the US doing this is indicative of the overall military posture of the EU. It's reasonable to question whether they are prepared to do their part to defend themselves should Russia penetrate further west.
As an example sweden has given Strv-122, CV90, Archer, Saab 340 AEW&C and has offered Gripen fighter jet (but Gripen has been blocked by US/France). All of those are up to date weaponry, and besides that much from older stockpiles has been given.
That's just one example from one small country with less people than one city in the US.
The same scenes must be playing out in various industries across Europe and the rest of the world. Such wheels turn very slowly, but they now turn away from the US defense industry.
The US has burned a lot of capital today.
"but the shiny new weaponry all comes from US contractors" is not true.
It is true that the US has spent far more on it's military and made it far more global than any other country. It is also true that the US acted as a guarantor for west Europes security for most of the last 70 years and that should not be understated. That era seems to have come to an end.
US also blocked awacs, no Saab for Ukraine.
Or is it the thousands of Javelins that annihilated the Russian tank columns so that the Russians are currently mounting assaults in Chinese golf carts?[1]
There were only a few M1s given. MANY more M1s were used against the Iraqi Army!
The stream of weapons has been more of a trickle of weapons. The Javelins have good PR with the nice Saint Javelin but the British-Swedish N-LAWs are wicked and the tens of thousands of the Bofors AT4 did a lot of the initial grunt work.
The Ukrainians seem to prefer the Bushmasters. This kind of makes sense, given it seems a lot of what Ukraine is doing is guerrilla warfare then equipment that is easily serviceable likely is more useful.
It was 31 M1s donated, last time I looked. And they survived a helluva lot longer against the droneless Iraqi Army, which helps explain the low number. A $500 drone can ignite a $5M tank. Drones have changed the calculus of tank warfare.
Maybe the AT4 and NLAW didn't have the same effectiveness of Javelin? The Javelin has had a pretty good PR campaign with it's point and destroy videos.
No. What you see in Ukraine is the 20th century war with some drones. Active defense system can take out RPG and anti-tank missile. It can easily take out a much slower moving drone. Unfortunately, the Western tanks and IFVs came to Ukraine without ADS (and many even without reactive armor). And for whatever reason Ukraine was pretty slow to put passive drone defenses onto the armor - you can see on the videos of the Ukrainian 2023 counter-offensive that the Western tanks and IVF are mostly "naked", just the bare base armor.
There are stories - videos - from recent decade how tanks correctly "dressed up" with passive defenses and reactive armor would survive direct hits from Javelin, RPG, etc., in some cases it would even survive multiple hits from RPG. And active defense system is a huge step up even from that.
If anything, with the next generation of active defense systems being able to shoot down even incoming artillery/tank gun round, the tanks will continue to rule the battlefield, especially in autonomous version.
The Super Tank™ you've described sounds cool, though. Can Ukraine order 1000 of the upgraded version with lasers for Spring delivery?
watch the videos from the war - the tanks are mostly without ADS, and the ADS that Russia has is really a crappy one. You can also watch videos how soldiers shoot down the drones with shotgun or just using some stick/stone. Drones are much easier to shoot down than RPG, and nobody has been able to shoot down RPG with shotgun (a great baseball player probably would be able with some non-zero probability to bat an RPG out though).
>Can Ukraine order 1000 of the upgraded version with lasers for Spring delivery?
No. Even the existing ADS with shrapnel warheads are not sold to Ukraine.
Now compare that to the hundreds of thousands of drones manufactured every month for far less and adapted monthly.
We've already seen mothership drones used in Ukraine.[0] How long do you think it will be until we see fire and forget multiple attack baby drones that overwhelm any whizzbang ADS? 6 months, a year? As the old saying goes: quantity has a quality all it's own.
Sorry tankies, your time is over.
[0] https://interestingengineering.com/military/ukraine-forces-t...
> A total of 110 PrSMs are expected to be procured in fiscal 2024 and 190 in fiscal 2025, Inside Defense wrote, citing the Department of Defense documents.
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision-str...
In November 2023, the Army delivered the first four Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) as an early operational capability (EOC). The Army shot two PrSM EOC missiles at a maritime target in June 2024. Between November 2023 and August 2024, the Army executed three production qualification test (PQT) events. The Army intends to complete a limited user test (LUT) with the fifth PQT test event in 1QFY25 and the remaining four planned PQT test events by 3QFY25.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/army/...
US needs somewhat strong Russia as a scarecrow for Europe and everyone else in the world, so that people would join NATO and pay 4% of GDP to the American military industrial complex: Lockheed Raytheon and friends.
The goal is to scare people and force them to shell out dough for overpriced US weapons.
If Russia becomes too weak, there are two risks:
1. Nuclear/Biowarfare proliferation due to instability inside RU
2. Europe won't spend a dime procuring US weapons because Russia would not be a threat anymore
3. China can increase influence in Russia
The target is 2%, most of NATO doesn't hit it, and there's plenty of European arms manufacturers.
Bradleys waiting for scrapping at Red River Army Depot, Texas
expired ATACMS https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/10/05/m39a1-atacms-for-uk...
3 million DPICM waiting for expensive disposal
Sounds like the opposite of what you said.
Are you referring to Government support for Ukraine chart?
That shows the EU institutions made mainly loans but there is also money from countries of the EU.
And for some loans Ukraine isn't expected to pay anything, with repayments coming from revenues from frozen Russian assets.
Also, please do think long-term: A victory for Ukraine and a second try for democracy in Russia will mean that the EU will regain huge markets right at its doorstep that need rebuilding and in the case of Russia some diversification would be sensible.
That's not quite right, either. A large portion if not a majority of the financial aid from the US is--and tacitly required to be--spent on purchase of weapons and services from US defense contractors. That's in addition to direct military aid where the Pentagon directly purchases and transfers weapons, and transfers old weapons--I think the replacement cost is what's calculated as the US "contribution" for that portion.
This is how military aid packages are structured for Israel and Egypt also. I don't mean to insinuate anything negative, but the reality is that the majority of all this aid is effectively a direct subsidy to US defense contractors.
The EU does the same thing, but the structure and pretense is different--loans tacitly required to be used to buy EU weapons and services, the loans forgiven after the public stops paying attention. Though in the case of Ukraine I think a much larger portion (relative to US) of aid is intended for civilian programs, at least early on, on account of the EU's squeamishness.
"War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.
The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly military support from the US accounting for a bit more than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of which it is number one, of course).
When comparing dollar values for military equipment with other types of support, we should keep in mind that they are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition, vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many (perhaps all) donor countries.
Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero. Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-before date does not incur much real cost on the donor, but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of true, as they will be used in their full capacity by Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace them anyway.
It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it.
Then you find out that everything is priced insanely high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more.
Then you find out that billions have been spent in private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the planet).
Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people to feed with those contracts.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
Trump's a bully, but he's a bully that exists because the lowest common denominator keeps getting lower.
Russia wouldn't have thought it had the leverage to invade Ukraine if not for their control over European petroleum supplies, leverage the Europeans gave them of their own free will.
Markets do not solve everything. Trump is the ultimate expression of this so far, but he is not the first.
Psyops doesn’t just work to incite… an equally powerful goal is to normalise. Like normalise how a country that has unlimited sun and wind elected to use oil and gas from Russia.
A different nuclear energy policy would have changed Europe’s fate. It will do so again…
Still is. That Germany continues to leave their nuclear fleet fallow in the face of this is absolute insanity.
I don’t know enough about local politics to categorise the reason why though. But a lot of the damage is now irrevocable, and residual for millennia.
Terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations can be dealt with via the standard security services.
German aversion to a functional army and nuclear energy has had consequences for the country and the EU.
But the rollout was slow, they seemed reluctant, some countries didn't want to be involved at all, and they waited for the US for a long time...
Individual member countries range from having done a lot fairly quickly to active sabotage. We have member countries like Hungary and Slovakia, who are firmly aligned with the Russian side, as if 1956 and 1968 and the entire iron-curtaint-thing never happened.
Many if not most Slovakians want to be like Fico, earn money like him and be like him.
It can be beaten, but it is not an anomaly. Not even historically, slovakia was quick to collaborate with nazi and communists.
It's Europe's backyard. Europe should be contributing 5x what the US contributes. They can afford it. It's the richest (per-capita) continent on earth. They outproduce Russia 5-10x.
I have been a strong supporter of US support to Ukraine and I think this meeting was gross and unbecoming, but Europeans need to wake up and understand that this is a problem they can, and have to, solve, not just as a supporting player to the US.
"We did as much as the US" doesn't matter. Give enough support to solve the problem. You have the economy and can, if you make even minor commitment — 5% of GDP would vastly outproduce Russia, for a small cost to living standards. The alternative is giving up.
Many of us no longer feel the juice is worth the squeeze in supporting Europe. We have done enough over the last 100 years. Yes we have benefit some from their troubles, which they caused, but that doesn't mean we have to continue to support them.
You never considered it was just a story to justify shaking "allies" ? I don't know what the truth is, but it smells like it.
And so far there's no announcement about investing in education or health, it seems quite the opposite, isn't it ?
I sincerely don't understand how there can be any trust invested in Trump and his speeches. So far all he's done is creating meme coins and reviving the ruble.
thanks for your answer nonetheless
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/21/clint...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-trump-federal-work...
Dismantling everything in the hope of finding alleged problems is witch-hunt level of political action.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/21/clin...
Not random shotgun immediate firings. Your weather forecasts are about to become less accurate because of some of these firings and planned improvements in them are not going to happen:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/01/weather/noaa-weather-forecast...
Go ask a farmer or pilot how much they depend on weather forecasts.
All the destruction sown by DOGE (outside of USAID) represents (favorably) 0.2% of the US budget. Including USAID it's closer to 1.3% of the US budget.
At the same time Republicans are proposing reducing revenue by 4500 billion dollars.
We need more oversight and less people imho. I am actually hopeful that they will have the ability to push through better software systems to track initiatives and spending. It isn't the number of employees it is where was all the money going, it was/is the lack of insight/transparency which has eroded my confidence in the federal government.
My true wish is they have the guts to pass legislation outlawing campaign contributions. It isn't just parts of the house that need a thorough purging to be honest.
And on the other hand, the immense asymmetry of (non-nuclear) military power between the US and the rest of the world should ring alarm bells across every nation right now. Especially so in the EU, UK and Canada.
Why is this massive military budget and complex supported by sacrificing public services, healthcare, education, and social services, and through higher taxation of the relatively poorest? And why is it not supported through taxation of corporations and the richest of the super-rich?
And for me, the most important reason for why I found today so upsetting:
What is true dishonour if not to betray a friend in need?
There is nothing immoral about getting paid for services or products. If you don't like it go somewhere else. Why is it that everyone expects hand outs from America but never once ask what can they do for America? It is Ukraine who is exploiting the American people for free arms. Finally an America stood up to their ridiculous behavior, the petty dictator was kicked out of the White House.
Great Powers don't have friends. Nor do they have enemies. They only have eternal Interests. (paraphrasing a quote often attributed to Henry Kissinger)
As I was looking for a more exact source for this quote, I stumbled upon this interesting piece in Time Magazine....from 1955:
https://time.com/archive/6798908/no-friends-no-enemies-just-... IT is high time the United States quit throwing money and materials around the world like a drunken sailor and settled on a foreign policy clearly consonant with our national interests first and foremost. We pile deficit on deficit until we threaten ourselves with bankruptcy.
Ukraine is not and has never been an friend or ally to America. We were one of many parties to an assurance that we wouldn't level them if they turned in their nukes. We have given them aide in their time of need. There was a deal in place for more aide and the President of Ukraine came in, in athletic gear mind you, and reneged on the agreement and started grandstanding and threatening the US President in the Oval Office! This was a HUGE mistake, he basically said to America I do not respect you and spit in our faces. I know many people do not see it that way around the world but if a world leader comes to ask for aid from the country they are completely dependent upon for their survival and their plan is threats and leisure attire how is that not disrespect?
I mean fair play for being bold and all. Yet that was unwise in the extreme.
Not that you might care about the moral aspect of it, but we also finished Nazi Germany and prevented that horror from taking over the world.
What we got out of expanding the alliance to Eastern Europe was a further bulwark against Russia, which has always been an expansionist totalitarian empire that enslaves or kills anyone who disagrees with the dictator. It's no different now than it was under the czars.
Europe is basically America's backyard now, and Russia wants it. Giving up your backyard because your violent neighbor threatens you for it, doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak.
No matter what happens America will be blamed and shamed, we didn't spend enough, we didn't xxxx enough, if only America had done yyyy zzzz wouldn't have happened, and on and on. So I am all for putting Americas interests first.
Also I find your last sentence to be the antithesis of what I am talking about. Why does America look weak? Wouldn't Europe look much weaker??? It feels like gaslighting, like someone will call you names so you need to come and die for us! It gets old.
I understand the parent last sentence differently. Considering America's might, giving in to a mediocre aggressor seems weak. It's not that you have to do it, but it was the previous foreign policy / aura of the USA. Leader of the free world IIRC. Now you're free to change course. But it would be wise to operate smoothly.
Some of the countries in Europe to take a cue from Finland and not outsource its defense.
Finland always seemed to be very sensible when it came to its country’s security. I realize “Finlandization” may have had a negative context but during that time Finland made sure it was prepared as militarily as possible if its political “non-alignment” approach failed. It didn’t assume anything.
My point was their approach to their security vs outsourcing defense was a more pragmatic approach considering where we have ended up in 2025 and one that other countries in Europe should have probably followed. If and when your “strong” partner moves away from your interests, you still need internal strength. To a degree Europe (save for a few countries) never expected their strong partner to get wishy-washy on their interests.
Territory lost by the USSR/Russia since the Cold War began: The entire Soviet Union dissolved—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all gone. The entire Warsaw Pact flipped to NATO—Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Germany, the biggest Cold War prize, reunited under the West.
Territory lost by the U.S. and its allies? Zero.
Russia isn’t a rising empire—it’s a wounded animal lashing out, terrified of its own irrelevance. They’re afraid, backed into a corner, and desperately trying to hold onto power. They don’t dictate world affairs.
And as for negotiating with Russia? The U.S. has been doing that for 80 years—and it never made us weak before. Why should it now?
America dictates terms not Russia, and certainly not Europe. If Europe wants to keep playing games, let them but America chooses when, where, and how we engage.
From their point of view, USA being unable to handle both internal and foreign policies like it used must surely be a signal.
ps: and btw, I don't believe that the border thing is not inflated by this camp to distract the american people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9CJmvBXNTc
apparently they're expert at this
Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad.
Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.
America is powerful because it operates as a global empire. Not by holding land, but by maintaining alliances. Everything you think is wrong at home right now would be infinitely worse if we didn't control global trade, force the rest of the world to buy our debt, and use soft/hard power to shut down every other actor from the Chinese Communist Party to ISIS - over there, not over here.
A lot of people in America, on both left and right, loathe the fact that we are this gargantuan empire. But the reality is, once you're at the top of the food chain, there is no easy exit. If America stopped being the world's only superpower, it would become a third world country immediately. You point out that America will get blamed for X,Y and Z. Of course. It already does. The only reason you don't experience the immediate consequences of that is that America (until today) held a lot of global sway. You can't just opt out of your alliances and still expect to have the preferential treatment you have, or the power you had.
We live in a republic that functions as a global empire. If we weren't that global empire, we would be Argentina or Brazil. You want to give up generations of investment in American supremacy for... what, exactly? Problems at home will not get better if America withdraws from the world. They will get much worse, because the only thing keeping this country from being a disaster is the fact that it is central to the world order.
And the only people who want it to not be central to the world order, who want to destroy the functions of government and weaken us on the world stage, are the autocrats who find America to be a beacon that they wish their populations didn't have to look at.
America is not perfect and you can be Bernie or Tucker or Trump and argue that we have no business doing it, but it's a lot better for you, me, and the rest of the free world that America is in charge of maintaining order than to have no one in charge of that.
So my statement was not that Europe looks weak, but that Europe is already America's plaything. Only a traitor would hand it over to the enemy.
Not really sure I care if the neighbors across the water think we look weak just because we don’t want to defend them because they don’t want to be strong.
And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak…
Claiming to be strong without any displays of actual strength, both in soft and hard power, is a very typically weak behavior.
There's a lot of research on how the Allies helped move many Nazi war criminals to safe havens in other countries, help the remaining Nazis into positions in government and business in West Germany, used the remaining Nazis as intelligence networks, helped them organize into wild-eyed anti-Communist cells all over the world, and of course absorbed several Nazi scientists into research institutions in the US.
In a moment of madness Churchill put out a plan to hire the Wehrmacht after their defeat to go invade the real enemy, the Soviet Union.
Not helping Ukraine won’t solve any of that, though. Regardless of the US policy regarding Europe, I am willing to bet that military spending will keep ballooning now that the broligarchs are in power and fighting to redirect public spending to their pockets. Ultimately, I understand your sentiment, but this course of action will not lead to what you hope. If anything, everything will get worse because the people in power have no interest in fixing the issues you mentioned.
Why would you think that military spending would go up, given the tasks the executive has currently issued, and diplomatic direction indicated vis-a-vis other world military powers:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-pentagon-cuts-8-troops-budg...
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/13/trump-china-russia-military...
Representatives and senators get a lot of political credit for the military-industrial complex, as well.
I agree now things really matter but why should America be on the hook for wartime sacrifices when Europe couldn't be bothered to do the easy part in peace time? No one ever answers this simple question. They all just down vote me which is fine but if there is a rebuttal to this let me know.
I watched the Trump Zelensky show today. I dunno about you, but I detected a possible calculated confrontation. I don't think Vance is a good actor. He took it to 11 too quickly.
These days the media demands wartime strategy be played out in real time detail. How is that beneficial for actual strategy? To counter this, Trump may be leaning into the media circus by playing some sort of ambiguous good cop bad cop card. Smacking Zalensky while buttering Putin's muffins and arguing against world leaders, might be what's needed to penetrate Putin's emotional bubble. A kind of Trumpian trojan horse. Fascinating stuff. I know many here wouldn't give Trump such tactical credit, but if he were short on tactics he wouldn't have won two presidential elections.
It really looks like a carefully crafted narrative was planned and carried out to intentionally smear the current US administration.
I don't think there's any smearing attempt on Zalesky's part though. Contrary to Vance and Trump's assertion, Zalensky has thanked the US a lot of times. He wouldn't be wanting to smear the US. Trump did begin the meeting diplomatically, it was going fine, he even complemented Zalensky's outfit. Then JD opened his mouth!
It's hard to know for sure what's going on, which may be the point. The theatrics of argy-bargy is like a smokescreen.
I get that people got into this narrative.
What I don't get is that you're now supporting a new groups of tech billionaires influencing policy to get access to rare earth, to the point of threatening to annex USA allies like Canada, and Greenland, and doing deals with Russia to capitulate Ukraine.
Yet Americans seem to be cozy with this idea, and support it, when in reality it's the same. In fact, it's worse because it's not even a conspiracy theory, it's out in the open.
Imagine if Biden or Obama had the Black Rock folks behind them when they took the presidency, it would drive some folks up the wall. The same folks don't mind having the Twitter Guy, Bezos, Zuckerberg... Can you help me understand why?
He writes prolifically about Russia at https://www.intellinews.com/eastern-europe/
(and other places, at a lower URL path)
He believes that Russia's economy is not doing wonderfully, but not nearly as bad as the Western press says it is, and that whoever runs Russia is probably willing to put up with some pain a lot longer than Ukrainians can put up with no power no water no food, etc.
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40bneeditor%20russia%20...
Hard to tell, and I am not convinced if even the Kremlin has a good overview. In the end it does not matter that much. If Russia is really that robust then they wont stop attacking and if they are bluffing then Ukraine should not stop defending itself.
What fraction of foreign owned land is Chinese?
With Trump now in office, the US seems to be willingly breaking, or at the very least withdrawing from, the NATO alliance. With that they give up their position as hegemon, and sacrifice their influence on Europe.
To me, it seems like Russia is now winning the cold war, 35 years after it "ended".
SU lost, here we feel some ripple or aftershock. US enjoyed years of prosperity, its people lived in much higher living standards for a long time.
What’s a shame for the US is the innovators dilemma that it was not able to improve its system after the pressure of competition was gone, and now inequality brought you Trump II.
Britain, Germany, and France alone have the military production and economy to win the war. Doesn't matter if Hungary or Ireland or whoever back out of the consortium.
These three countries have been a bit unstable politically during the last couple of years. This did not help. At least they are going in the same direction and not shooting each other’s foot.
Other American administrations have been spending decades begging NATO allies to keep their militaries up to a higher standard. Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order.
Can you list the in service equipment that is a generation ahead of M777 and ATACMs? I sure wish we could get some of these wiz-bang fires assets out here in the First Island Chain.
> November 2024 BAE announced the opening of a new artillery factory in Sheffield during 2025 to resume production of complete M777 artillery pieces for Ukraine and to help fulfil orders for fresh titanium cast spare parts from the US supplementing its US parts factory which also resumed production during 2024.
Similarly, ATACMs production was also halted.
Really, your question, tone and phrasing really indicates that you are not really looking for an actual conversation but rather a gotcha moment.
It’s worth noting that variants of weapons and exist, and sending older ones to Ukraine does not imply that it is getting access to newest and greatest.
The weapons were either sold to Ukraine or other countries, and it was only after Ukraine requested more of them that production started again, which implies the US had no need to produce them because they were superseded in US’ arsenal.
Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon.
Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used.
Do better.
No, it does not imply that they were superseded. It means that the stockpile of weapons and spare parts was considered large enough to support the US's expected burn rate of material. Supplying Ukraine in a peer conflict changed that calculus, requiring new production to keep parts supplies above a certain desired threshold. The M777 is proving to be....not that reliable in the harsh conditions of the Eastern Front.[1][2]
>Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon.
This is supposition on your part....and it's WRONG. That's my point. You're simply stating things that are factually incorrect. Ukraine received M777A2s[3], the most modern variant of the M777 in service with US forces.[4]
>Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used.
>Do better.
It's not a question of "variants", it's not a question of whether systems "might change", and it's not an issue of grammar errors. You made a false statement, perhaps unknowingly. I asked you to clarify with specifics, perhaps you know some weapon system I'm not aware of (despite having a rough idea of the IOC fielding plan for Marine fires assets in my AO over the next several years), and you've now made 2 posts bereft of details or references to obfuscate the fact that your original post was completely wrong and baseless. All this does is lower HN's already-low signal-to-noise ratio on military subjects.
US Army and USMC towed Field Artillery batteries are equipped with M777A2, the same weapons platform and variant we sent to Ukraine. We are not "a generation ahead" of the equipment sent to Ukraine. Period.
[1] https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-is-burning-through-155mm-m7...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-brea...
[3] https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/m777a2-howitzer-proves-to-be...
One reason for this mix is that the Russo-Ukrainian war has defied some US expectations of what future wars it might need to deal with might look like, making previously-retired equipment relevant again (the drone war has made a lot of retired anti-aircraft tech more relevant, because relative cheap short-range missiles and short range anti-aircraft guns are a lot more useful against drones than they are against modern fighters, for instance) and, in other cases driving new weapons development.
It's proven to be perfectly adequate for the job.
I would think, the US going against the International Court of Justice, threatening allies over land and making deals with a official emperor is doing worse.
And the share of NATO members meeting a 2% of GDP target is now a majority, after recent marked increases. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
It's not like one side just lies and the other side just tells the truth. This isn't a movie.
That is partially true, but the world order would be in tatters because of Trump, regardless of the military spending of the rest of NATO.
The Western acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for a good deal is what got us here. It's not just the US; it's Europe too. Putin did what he did because he knew that Europe was willing to exchange the end of Russian subordination to the post-Cold War world order for cheap gas. Middle Eastern countries have seen their awful human rights records punished by the granting of a World Cup by FIFA and European tourism to Dubai. Both China and Russia were made Olympic hosts in the last 20 years. Russia hosted a World Cup in 2018, four years after the invasion of Crimea and ten years after its invasion of Georgia.
The message? Authoritarianism pays.
Russia's economy is on such a war footing regardless of if it wins or losses in Ukraine, the economic shock of the end of the war will bankrupt the country. See Dutch disease.
And no one wants to host the Olympics, it's a huge money sink.
So it doesn't really pay, it's just bankrupts you. Even Trump's America is having massive stock sell offs and other countries dumping the dollar.
And let's face it, the EU can easily afford it. Sure it hurts a bit. But more war with Russia hurts a lot more. The cheapest way out is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not give him the opportunity to try again in a few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Peace_Treaty
Finland fought exceptionally well, which shocked the world, but they still lost the winter war.
This is magical thinking. Russia is near bankrupt.
First, I've been hearing it all my life. More often after 2014, and very often since 2022. In 2022, it was "russia has days left of reserves".
Second, nationalism was always (since 1300s?) strong in there. It always united russians against the enemy even if they hated the goverment. That's why every incrusion attempt always failed.
We need to keep applying pressure until something breaks. There's a constant refrain of "Sanctions don't work. Please stop the sanctions." from the Kremlin.
Examples? All I can see is majority of russians living their life as usual. Sure some transplants in Moscow are sad that their consumarism routine got distracted, but that is it.
As for money frozen in EU, IIRC most of it aren't realted to the goverment and just happened to be in trasit when sanctions started.
Every oligarch knows that Putin is the hand that feeds and biting it at best gets you in prison at worst an express descend to the ground.
but sanctions clearly destroyed Syria.
That's not saying anything about their offensive capabilities, which as whole world sees are a fraction of what was thought about them. They really are supremely ineffective, corrupt and lazy in numbers and levels that cripple whole war for them. They can't produce enough new armed vehicles and their stockpiles from cold war are running very thin as per independent satellite analyses, they use stolen motorbikes, donkeys and golf karts for troopers now (with corresponding death rate). Their nuclear weapons are just a guarantee they won't be attacked on Moscow conventionally or nuclear in any way, nothing more. As we see all other 'doctrines' and 'red lines' fell apart with long lasting incursion in Kursk so that was just an empty bullshit.
They know all this, their country is falling into inflation spiral which can easily end up with people's revolt and I believe puttin' realizes how fragile his relatively soft power grip on russia is. Plus he has positioned himself as an arbiter between various power clans within his hierarchy, not as a single supreme single ruler whom everybody fears for life like in North Korea for example. He desperately needs to finish this war within a year or two since he is an extremely paranoid person. But he has some sort of effective reach or control over orange man and we saw what we saw, who knows why.
So did the UK, so what’s your point?
During WW2, for example, the Soviets lost a total of 20-27 million dead. Only China, a country almost three times as populous, came close at 15-20 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_...
The British Empire lost less than 500,000.
The situation isn't quite that bad in either Russia or Ukraine which was also one of the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. But it's certainly closer in Ukraine, even if most Russians hold an irrational level of enthusiasm for the war
That's the important bit. Russia needs to source soldiers from prisoners and North Koreans.
In Russia. In fact it was Russia's winter the one who did most of the work. The Russian army was always very bad.
Now Putin is Napoleon or Hitler invading other countries.
Yes the winters did help, but they were still outnumbered, and outproduced.
The only reason they could make all those tanks in the first place was because of American trucks.
Russia has the economy of a medium-sized EU nation. The EU is vastly more powerful. If the EU wants to, they can give Ukraine everything they need to win. Only they're divided and unwilling to believe in their strength after 80 years of dependency on the US.
> EU’s top diplomat: ‘The free world needs a new leader’
They were going to use them if Ukraine entered Russian soil!
Then they declared that parts of Ukraine was Russia. Ukraine took back some cities on supposedly "holy Russian soil" and nothing happened.
Then Ukraine took a chunk out of (actually) Russian Kursk. Suddenly no talk of nukes for a while.
What would they do with the nukes? Suicide?
This is why GDP is a useless metric. Last year it was reported Russia was manufacturing 3x more artillery shells than the US and whole EU combined.[1] Billion-dollar cosmetics and luxury goods industries don't translate well into battlefield success.
>If the EU wants to, they can give Ukraine everything they need to win.
Except manpower, which Ukraine needs and doesn't have.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery...
And perhaps a tiny bit cautious about escalating a conflict with a neighbouring country that happens to have the world's second largest nuclear arsenal?
With (almost) fully autonomous weapons and systems it comes down to simply who has the better economy and production lines.
They don't even have enough 155 shells, long range drones, body armour, training facilities, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missiles, tanks, howitsers. The list goes on and on. It's exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
They had to develop their own long range drones instead of getting off-the-shelf stuff. Germany blocked Taurus, Tomahawks were a no-go.
(The US gave 31 M1 tanks! That's pitiful...)
Says Ukrainian soldiers, reported by Western and Ukrainian media outlets.
https://archive.is/Pzxl2 (Economist, Feb2025)
https://english.nv.ua/nation/generalsyrskyi-says-he-banned-t... (NV Ukraine, Jan 2025) However, certain categories of Air Force personnel, after preliminary training in training centers, are reinforcing the Ground Forces and Air Assault Forces due to a shortage of personnel on the front.
https://archive.is/YGR00 (WSJ, Oct2024)
https://archive.is/WKqxz (Financial Times, Oct2024 but updated) The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.
So if they don't have manpower OR enough weapons, maybe when their head of state comes to ask for support from their biggest benefactor, he should, I dunno....not piss off his host? Wouldn't that help him get what he wants?
It's really grim.
I don't think the EU thinks it can afford it at this time.
If you consider what EU countries pay besides arms and aid, for example on housing the millions of refugees from Ulraine or buying stockpiles of arms to be used on behalf of Ukraine in the future the numbers are much higher, between twice and triple the US budget. Even the sanctions against Russia and their weapon suppliers China, India, North Korea and Iran add to the costs of this Russian conflict. Also consider the EU pledges to rebuild Ukraine should be counted.
Today I estimate 1,234 trillion Euro's, part of which was spent as dollars, some as loans with the estimated 300 million of confiscated Russian bank accounts and assests from Russian oligarchs as collateral.
Where is that now?
I think, nations with bad historic experience with Russia support Ukraine significantly more.
(Edit, this is from late 90s and the NATO action in Yugoslavia)
I thought this was an interesting take. And it's sad that the US has a man giving away our leadership. The world is in a dangerous place.
I'm not saying this means we shouldn't defend Ukraine. We should. But I am saying the outrage from the international community is a little hypocritical considering what Putin has been doing for decades. It's either because it's a little closer to our borders (and thus Europe is more worried about itself) or because they have valuable resources that our politicians suddenly care. I find that very sad. We should have cared before. Then we'd have saved many lives and this wouldn't have happened.
It's really got a very strong smell of "let's bring freedom to the middle east! Of course only where they've got lots of oil for us".
The problem with this zero sum thinking is there is another player outside of the countries if the world; nature itself. Think natural disasters, climate change, diseases. No one can negotiate with it or form alliances. It does not care about our survival. The only choice we have is to come together to make sure we don't get screwed over.
Sprinkle a little cryptocurrency backed money laundering here... some tax cuts there... Make sure your closest friends are well taken care of...
Then hole up in armed compounds with plenty of fresh water and air conditioning ... and say "f you" to everyone else.
Now you understand the rationale of America's new ruling class.
If they did that, you'd be outside being happy or something happy-adjacent.
> if things go bad their 20 security detail won’t protect them later.
That's... very optimistic, to say the least. Historically it's not been the case.
I don’t know if they’ve considered all the logistics but they do rather seem to be at the point where society’s ability to either ignore or impede them is to be done away with.
Which means are these?
if things go bad, what is the dork zuckerberg going to pay his burly security force in?
facebook stock? dollars?
not exactly useful
Same as every other autocrat: food, housing, not getting shot yourself.
> not exactly useful
And yet it usually works.
(Edit fixed a typo in a word. Sorry I am on mobile)
This is, in fact, how the end of the western Roman empire looked. No bang, just a long series of whimpers as the elite retreated to armed estates with private armies, taxes stopped being collected, overall trade declined, cities declined, and the agrarian peasantry became bound to lords and estates out of need of protection, etc. etc.
When civic institutions and the taxes that support them are openly attacked and predated upon, weakened and then combined with environmental, disease, or security crisis, one needn't think hard to picture the kind of eventual world that results.
The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.
Realpolitik is, first and foremost, about (arguably ruthless) pragmatism. What's going on — the US antagonising all its allies and forging new alliances with unreliable partners —— is not pragmatic in the least.
That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world.
The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.
The US was sending old equipment. To replace it they were and spending money on R&D and manufacturing of current and next-gen equipment for the US military, not Ukraine. The US got to observe and study the use of it's older equipment in an actual land war against a geopolitical adversary. The war has demonstrated US equipment superiority over Russian equipment.
The US did not send any troops, only old equipment and some money.
Regarding "hopes to end the killing". The killing can end today if Putin withdraws. He is the aggressor who attacked without any justification or provocation. If somebody invades your neighbour's apartment and starts looting and hurting them, do you just say "give up, it's easier"?
Some might but those are not people we respect.
The history of war is full of unhappy truces and compromise. WW2 type victories are extremely rare and take massive sacrifice.
And keep in mind, we're not doing the sacrificing. It is Ukraine who is doing the fighting and should be calling the shots here, with our material support since we don't want to send troops (until now).
From what I've read I think the only plan put forward is to have Europeans run the DMZ? The US having troops there would probably be a no-go since that's the primary power-conflict (even above NATO). I don't think there's any other option as historically there's always a third party regulating it. Maybe a subset of UN where possibly even China could have troops there.
Not sure what guarantees would exist for breaking the ceasefire though, besides the usual full sanctions/weapons/maybe troops. Who knows what happens now though :/
See the "spring offensive".
The reality is more or less a stalemate at this point. While the Trump administration treatment of Zelensky is a disgrace the reality is that some sort of ceasefire around the current borders is going to be the outcome that ends this war. We can work on forcing Russia to withdraw via economic and other pressure after the hot war is over. Just like we broke up the Soviet Union.
This idea of one more year and Russia will break is just a dream with no connection to reality. Putin is going to send a million man to fight with sticks before Russia breaks. And they will.
> We can work on forcing Russia to withdraw via economic and other pressure after the hot war is over. Just like we broke up the Soviet Union.
You think Trump plans to maintain sanctions? You sweet summer child.
My statement had nothing to do with Trump maintaining sanctions or not. If he doesn't some future administration will. US relations with the Soviets also fluctuated during the cold war.
This simply isn’t true.
> China is pretty much supplying all the goods that went away due to western sanctions
This is not correct. Some countries are being used to bypass sanctions, including China, but this isn’t happening with government support and the extra costs of evading sanctions are putting inflationary pressure on goods in Russia.
> buying all the exports that the west is trying to sanction.
Barring oil and gas, there’s nothing Russia has that China wants. And even then, they don’t have the infrastructure to buy the volumes to replace European purchases, thus the black hole in the Russian budget.
If Xi wanted Russia to stop the war, Russia would stop the war. The war is useful for China because it splinters the west, they get leverage over Russia, and it normalizes the kind of actions that it wants to take in Taiwan.
If China objected to North Korea sending troops to Russia then North Korea would not be sending troops to Russia. Pretty much all of North Korea's trade is with China. For sure North Korea has some degree of independence but sending soldiers to die for Russia is not worth it if it upsets China. This is clearly a nod, nod, wink, wink situation here.
"Most of Russia's exports to China originate from the mining and petrochemicals sectors.[64] More than half of Russia's exports to China come from mineral fuels, oil, and petroleum products (60.7%), followed by wood and wood products (9.4%), non-ferrous metals (9%), fish and seafood (3.5%), and chemical products (3.3%). China is also gradually becoming a major consumer of Russian agricultural products.[24]: 64
The main categories of imports to Russia from China are machinery and equipment (35.9%), clothing (13.7%), chemical products (9.1%), fur and fur products (5.6%), footwear (5.3%), and furniture (3%). Chinese electronics are steadily expanding their presence in Russian.[24]: 64"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations...
Financial and economic weaknesses are also working against Putin and his team from _within_ Russia.
> Just like we broke up the Soviet Union.
It was not entirely broken, since we have the living proof of it today in the Kremlin - same operating mode.
> Putin is going to send a million man
Why is he resorting to North Korean soldiers then? (which even then aren't infinite). Obviously, he has a problem at recruiting/training his own. Which puts him at odds with his own population.
So whose soldiers will it be next? China? not likely willing to deal with that. Iran? same. African countries? Not their war, they tell it themselves.
The issue is that Putin has cornered himself and his country, willingly, knowingly, into a no-way-out road. He had other options of both perspective and action.
You're applying western thinking here. The same sort of western thinking that thought Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine because what's in it for him or imagine some red lines or whatever. Russians aren't western. They don't think like us. The west always does this.
There isn't such a thing of at odds with his own population in Russia. Again you're applying western thinking to Russians. Check out some Russian jokes.
Not sure if this is what you meant by logistics.
If you're thinking about supplying and maintaining their physical presence in Ukraine it doesn't look like that's a problem either.
"As of 2024, Russia produces about 3 million artillery shells a year, nearly three times the quantity from the US and Europe." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry_of_Russia
They're also still exporting weapons though significantly less than they used to export.
Maybe they can't sustain 10 years of war with the west continuing or increasing their level of support, assuming Ukraine can, but they are nowhere near being forced to stop [the] war.
Alledged population. Or are we also to believe their election results?
The failure of the initial 3-days invasion was a demonstration that the « great Russian army », even with the support of Wagner and Tchetchenia, was unable to plan, execute and sustain a flash attack.
Yes, they may improve in the meantime. But that takes years of discipline and continuous training. So while that’s an option for them, that’s also a weakness that can be decisive.
The problem with a ceasefire is that Russia has an endless history of accepting negotiations only to use them to get a tactical advantage. It is standard practice for them. So of course Ukraine is very wary unless that can be prevented.
No, it won't. With sufficient outside political pressure on Ukraine, it might happen, but (like many ceasefires) it would only be a brief pause, not an end to the war.
> We can work on forcing Russia to withdraw via economic and other pressure after the hot war is over.
Sanctions almost never work without someone actually fighting on the ground. If they are not tipping the balance of an active internal or external conflict, they can be endured basically indefinitely.
(Not that Trump seems inclined to either try to force Putin to withdraw or to maintain sanctions, in any case.)
> Just like we broke up the Soviet Union.
We didn't break up the Soviet Union, the republics of the Soviet Union broke it up, largely because of a crisis of legitimacy resulting from a hardline coup against a mildly reformist leadership. The main immediate US contribution, though, was bogging the USSR down in the long war it fought in Afghanistan by aiding the forces opposing the USSR there, the outgrowth of which was both the disatisfaction that provoked the reform efforts and the strong negative reaction to the subsequent hardline coup, not sanctions imposed without an ongoing armed conflict.
Some discourses are just propaganda. Specially at war time.
On top of it all, it’s extorting Ukraine into giving up it’s minerals while giving no assurances in return.
And finally, most important for long term, it’s a complete policy reversal to its NATO allies, which will have a long term impact on US transatlantic relations for decades to come. Before, US was the only country to invoke Article 5. Now its recognising a weak moments for its allies and is exploiting that opportunity.
> it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.
There is currently no funding for Ukraine from the US. Trump has dangled offers of assistance “with conditions” but nothing concrete. Even this minerals deal didn’t actually include any security assistance or funding for weapons.
Why did suddenly "end the killing" become a talking point for the people supporting this/Trump? "End the Killing of *american soldiers*(outside US)" seems like an consistent message but when this group didn't give 2 shits about Iraqi, Afgani, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, and even essentially justify warcrimes and killings, how can the movement stay morally consistent to "Oh we are doing this to save Ukrainean life" as a slogan?
"We don't want to spend our money on other nationals, but we are ok in having colonies or natural resource exploitation at your expense" is the only sensible interpretation of current presidents behavior.
A stance that seems pretty aligned with every war since 9/11, just more explicit and any pretense such as "spreading democracy" or "WMD", and less willing to commit (american lives) for profit. Wasn't support for Trump against deepstate and all this "benefiting deepstate at the expense of the common people" wars? Why can't the movement just own up to it all.
There also was no forced conscription in those. The military members knew what they were getting into and made a choice to sign up anyway. That's no longer the case in Ukraine, the border is closed, citizens cannot leave, they are being rounded up and forced into a few weeks of bootcamp then to the front-lines to die. That's the antithesis of freedom.
This it the end of an 80 year era. The US will never have as much influence and prosperity again.
Without US, EU cannot fulfill Ukrainian needs with their current arsenal.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refuge...
Like my comment, it's technically true and completely not worth discussing, because it will never happen.
There is a legitimate debate as to what cost is worth paying, if any (as well as what cost comes from not doing anything - ask the Baltics), but to present the situation as fait accompli?
2. Learn how we are funding the war. It is helping us instead of costing a bunch of money.
It _was_ also their war, because it's Europe that's attacked through Ukraine, and... Europe (and Ukraine, actually) used to be allies.
Well, here we are: the USA is _not_ anymore an ally to Europe, and is objectively becoming, as a state, an adversary, so here is the most likely survival plan available to Europe now:
1/ find new partners (Canada/Australia of course; as for the big one, will be India and/or China);
2/ increase its own defence and technologies to be more independent from US ones (will hurt, for sure);
3/ close its market to USA (will hurt heavily on both sides);
4/ not even talking about the cultural reframing that will happen.
It's not a matter of "if the USA doesn't fix its course within 4 years", it's happening now.
And no one wins at this. Certainly not the USA. Trump will be gone and forgotten in a few years. USA will take, at the very best, 40/50 years to fix the damaged trust towards Europe, but also towards any future partner: how do you expect to sincerely partner with a country that behaves so erratically every 4 years, and now even ambushes guest state representatives in front of the media?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-fut...
e.g. I watched American Psycho last night, in which there's some 'is that the Trumps', 'why would Ivanka Trump be here'.
> idolizes above all others. Bateman talks about him constantly, citing incredibly specific details of his life of luxury, and is often distracted by the thought of seeing Trump or his wife Ivana out in New York City.
E.g. that's the case for Home Alone 2, where he demanded the cameo for the use of The Plaza Hotel:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/real-reason-d...
2. He's taking advantage of anchoring bias: he makes a completely outrageous first offer which then makes any subsequent offer seems more reasonable, even if it was higher than you would otherwise accept. He does this all of the time, and it's a standard negotiating tactic in general, but it sometimes works well for Trump because of how people see him (see point 1).
It's also not at all obvious that the US has been more secure in its role as world police. Arguably, it led directly to 9/11 and decades of pointless death in the Middle East.
All of the arguments that the status quo was more secure and better economically are weak, at best, given the complexities of the counterfactuals.
If people conflate their current economic misfortune with a US foreign policy of encouraging global cooperation and participation, then they haven’t thought much about cause and effect.
Someone who cared to address the newfound lack of upward mobility in our society would insist on domestic policies that ensured economic surplus was explicitly invested toward the public good.
While globalization certainly has advantages that have been espoused at length, little thought has been given to their clear downsides, like decimating domestic production and the vulnerabilities inherent to distributed supply chains.
As for the "transition to a knowledge economy", this too entails similar problems. The previous trajectory was simply untenable.
If you want to see truly prosperous societies then you have to maximize peaceful international cooperation through shared democratic values. That takes educated citizenry with post-material values who will be invested in the stability and longevity of such an international system.
And they need to cooperate against authoritarian bad actors like Putin, who seek to divide and conquer.
Oh please.
But whether he's serious or not about a claim really comes down to whether someone likes it or not. Regardless, I'd argue that's a really poor way to lead.
He's also very sensitive to public opinion of him, and he knows public opinion is against military conflict. People are sick of it.
So war is the complete antithesis of everything he's ever demonstrably cared about. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence that lets you distinguish what seems reasonable, but that gets conveniently ignored by people that let their feelings about him influence their judgment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43219380
I don't like it, but I can't deny that he's made it work more often than expected. Possibly with some negative downstream effects we haven't seen yet. Time will tell.
He's threatened Panama, Denmark, and Kanada (his supposed allies) with military action.
He's stated that he would let Putin "do whatever he wants".
He's now abandoning Ukraine and doing Putins bidding (Putin who is one of the biggest warmongers and dictators in modern times).
He plans to "level Gaza" (which means genocide) so he can build luxury hotels.
Even if you take him for his words, which you shouldn't, he's a warmonger not a peace lover.
This is exactly the kind of unhinged take on Trump that drives me crazy, and I'm not even a fan. On the one hand you say he's a liar and you can't believe anything he says, but when it's convenient for you, suddenly everything he says is completely literal.
The fact of the matter is that Trump has never initiated any serious military action, and he has a deliberate and predictable tactic of making outrageous offers and threats to put people off balance to make them compliant and accept worse offers than they otherwise would have (anchoring bias). This is a standard negotiating tactic, Trump just does it bombastically like no one else.
> He's stated that he would let Putin "do whatever he wants".
The US is not the world police. Other people being warmongers doesn't make Trump a warmonger because he "lets them".
> He plans to "level Gaza" (which means genocide) so he can build luxury hotels.
No, he didn't suggest killing anyone, he explicitly said they would be relocated. That's closer to ethnic cleansing, but decidedly not genocide.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160312080447/http://europe.new...
Doonesbury and Bloom County, popular comic strips running in most newspapers, had arcs involving him, too:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160306081734/http://doonesbury...
Historically, China is probably the single least ocean-focused country of any country to have a coast.
No, that has absolutely nothing to do with "maritime power".
But WW2 ended colonialism and 90s globalization spread industrialization worldwide, leaving us all in the slow roll of reverting to the mean now. At the end of which, the ancient civilizations of China and India, with nearly 3 billion people between them, will return to global dominance.
That's what we're headed towards. The 'dark enlightenment' fascists think they can accelerate a switch of global banking moving towards cryptocurrency. Good fucking luck trading a bitcoin when normal finance is blowing up, grocery stores are going to struggle with stocking their shelves.
Also, if crypto would be to become any money, then it would not produce any yield in average. So it would not be interesting to hold, the whole scenario makes no sense.
All of the dark outcomes you describe are possible while a certain class has profitted already so much they don't care and will happily retreat into their bunker.
A good example of an effective peace treaty was the Camp David accords that put an end to the Yom Kippur war of 1973. That used interest based bargaining instead of distributive bargaining.
The outcome that Russia is interested in this conflict is:
- annexing territory (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc)
- help Ukraine facilitate the international recognition of that annexation
- Ukraine should not join NATO (this makes another invasion viable in the future)
In this deal, Ukraine gets:
- a ceasefire
- some peacekeeping help
These terms are pretty mediocre for Ukraine. This administration seems to be inclined to think that's the best Ukraine can get and they should take the offer to prevent further losses.
Oblasts like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc. have a high percentage of ethnic Russians living there. That would remain a barrier for Ukraine to achieve peace even if Russians retreat to pre-2014 borders. Nobody knows exactly what percentage of Russians live there because the last census was long time ago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
Idk if he came up all on his own with the idea of becoming president by first playing one on TV, but I've got to admit it's absolutely brilliant.
The logic seems to be that if he's played good guys on TV, it means he already knows what common decency looks like to regular people, unlike the hardline nomenklatura gangsters who live by their own sort of thieves' honor.
Fascinating approach, and one common to East European worldviews: "these people are evil because they don't know how to be good". It's a supremely compassionate view, even if it's proven more than a little counterproductive over and over.
I think it’s a safe assumption their deal sucks.
[edit] I don’t care about downvotes but if anyone downvoted because they think I made this up… watch the video.
Trump got impeached for asking Zelensky to fabricate evidence against Biden by threatening to withhold US support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Tr...
> The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden, and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine– not Russia– was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.
And one of the objectives of this whole situation was to frame the discussion as a humiliation ritual or character destruction to show what happens when you are not aligned to deter others from doing the same in the future. Shaming individuals who are not aligned is a recurring theme in rallies. e.g.: "Do you see this? Do you want to be seen treated like this? don't campaign for our opposition".
Have you heard about "Eurasianism"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism https://www.jstor.org/stable/4400555
Alexander Dugin? https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/aleksandr-dugin-vladimir-...
And please, don't forget China and the ideology if Tianxia (天下) and the revisionism on the 100 year humiliation (百年国耻).
Once you start talking about hierarchies among nations and ethnicities, you are starting to establish connections with other concepts that relate to one type of people being exceptional and entitled to rule over others: nationalism and racism.
Imperialism, nationalism and racism are deeply interconnected: if all peoples had similar value or merit there should be no need to change borders because what's outside your borders is similar to what's inside your borders.
The way imperialists talk by highlighting how exceptional your nation and people are or can be, and contrasting against other nations and peoples. And how expanding and ruling others would further improve things.
Russia is only interested in a ceasefire as a pause before occupying most of Ukraine.
Not a single time Russia has even hinted to accepting presence of any sort of third party force in Ukraine for peacekeeping.
You ignore the fact that in Begin and Sadat, Carter had parties on both sides very willing to sign a permanent peace deal. With Sadat even sending multiple proposals to the US & Israel prior to the 1973 war [0]. While Sadat & Begin are no saints, the incumbent and entrenched wartime leader in Golda Meir had to be thrown to the cribs for peace to come to fruition, something that the Trump Admin now seems to demand of Zelensky.
What stops Putin coming back in 5 years - as he did in 2022 after the 2014 invaison?
This is a common take, but a pretty dishonest one (by the article author of course). It ignores the Egyptian conditions (accepting a withdrawal _in advance_, but negotiating peace afterward), the Israeli reply (offer to unilaterally withdraw from the Canal - set to December 1973 following Israeli elections), and the Egyptian need to fight to 'restore their honour' (as Sadat's wife stated).
Zelensky is no saint (the press ignores his flaws), but actually all parties to the conflict are rather close. The one remaining issue is guarantees to Ukraine (a very reasonable demand), and if Putin finally bends on that an accord will come very quickly.
Ukraine wouldn't even get much of that: this was Zelensky's point, the deal lacked any safety guarantees from the US.
You could also see that in a positive light : Europeans might get a better armies / defence in 10 years compared to if the USA continued its past behavior without Trump
* After decades of reckless spending and lax economic management the US is going broke in a number of ways. In particular dealing with the national debt before and after Covid are very different beasts
* Coupled with similar problems in other countries and gradual global demographic decline, the global future looks like a zero sum game
* In its relations with other states, America has tended to leave a lot of money on the table since the Cold War era, in order to curry political favor, which it can no longer afford to do
* Republicans speak and campaign more openly about this than Democrats even though they both agree on the fundamental ideas I just outlined
* This is why Republicans are currently ascendant with the electorate and Democrats are seeing some of their worst numbers ever in favorability polls
* It is eminently reasonable to not prefer zero sum geopolitical games because they tend to cause poverty and war, but we've boxed ourselves into this future through decades of poor decisions
I'm not sure America actually has left a lot of money on the table. I see America having benefitted a lot from the post cold war world order (as indeed have most of its allies), and my take is that the kind of extraction of value that Trump has been attempting is at very best only beneficial in the short term.
But again, I appreciate when people with different viewpoints can discuss them civilly, so I gave you an upvote.
They’re the constituency that supports Trump.
Numbers like GDP or total wealth will be highly misleading — and it’s unsurprising that the opinion of the petite bourgeoisie (who primarily make up HN) differ from those groups.
When the party advocating wealth redistribution also calls them “deplorables” and flagrantly provides worse services (eg, NC disaster vs CA disaster) that seems like a reasonable belief.
There's no dispute that America has become incredibly more rich and powerful over the past 40 years. The fact that that money is increasingly funneled to fewer and fewer people (as a percent of the population) is something that can be changed locally, without changing our foreign policy stance.
It's not a surprise that the "devastation" of the middle class coincides with the continued reduction of tax rates on the entities collecting all that money. The America that MAGA seems to think was great was one of higher taxes and more social programs.
The manner in which those people accrued wealth is deeply related to the issue, by subverting the working and middle classes domestically.
I understand that many of the petite bourgeoisie believe that destruction of those classes via internationalism is a means to usher in communist policy — but that’s opposed wholesale by the American working and middle classes.
You're still describing economic policies though, not diplomatic ones, and while they're not entirely disconnected, trying to fix international economic issues by burning down alliances is likely to result in a lot of negative second order effects while not even addressing the main economic concerns.
If we're ascribing bad faith motivations to particular viewpoints here though, I'll point out that conflating concerns about trade policies with the idea that America should entirely abandon any interest in the rest of the world is enormously helpful to countries that would like to pursue far more aggressive imperial ambitions currently being blocked by American power. Having rightfully angry people in America's rust belt become convinced that the only way to revitalize the industries that used to power their cities is to let Russia reform the Soviet Union has got to feel like the political victory of the century to Moscow.
So "leaving money on the table" is admittedly very vague, using it here I'm principally referring to two things:
1) For many decades we've had a trade posture and foreign policy regime which emphasized moving production offshore. This generated a lot of corporate profits and some consumer benefits but was absolutely decimating for working class incomes and job prospects. We "left money on the table" here in the sense that money which would have been generated in the US and paid wages in the US tended to end up mostly in the hands of wealthy people in poor countries (and to some degree in the hands of their middle classes).
2) The other way we left money on the table was by opening up our markets to countries which didn't reciprocate in kind -- we reduced our tariffs on them, and they didn't reduce their tariffs on us. This again encouraged the flow of production, jobs, capital etc. out of the US and again hit the most vulnerable economic classes hardest.
The net result of this is that we have a lot of money in the US in a record few number of hands -- when you add corporate consolidation & monopolization to the mix you have a pretty complete picture of why a lot of people in this country are struggling.
So did we benefit from these policies, yeah, we did in certain ways that accrued particularly toward the top of our economic pyramid, but it seems that the bottom of it has had just about enough of this and is getting loud about it at the ballot box.
Trump & Co are by no measure the sharpest tools in the shed. In Trumps own words they have been up against some really inept people, who have all lost credibility.
Therefore the counter-reaction, which is building, will come, and it won't look like what Trump & Co are used to dealing with in the past. I think that's what interesting about where the story goes next. Whose is going to lead? What are they going to stand for? How are they going to organize? Its an opportunity for the best in America to shine.
That is pretty much the definition of it.
And for example free trade is a flavour of it.
Free trade only reflect cooperation if done transparently, chosen by the people, and which does not bypass industry regulation that people voted on. If that is not possible then the trade agreement need to reflect the different national views on things like minimum wage, environmental issues, safety standard, animal well fare, justice system, trade marks, and so on.
(It also so happens that Thailand places very low tariffs on Chinese goods - and their government has been currying political favor with Beijing for a long time - they are happy to enjoy unrestricted access to US markets and seem quite confident that the status quo will endure so if we are trying to buy political influence with them, we seemingly have been so toothless that it isn't even working!)
The US has deals like this all over the planet where it gives other countries unrestricted access to its markets, in return for what is not clear. A lot of these deals contributed to the movement of US manufacturing to places like Thailand, which hit the US working class in the wallet very directly. Sure there are also good deals that we should preserve as-is but it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me that some of these be subjected to scrutiny and revision.
Many Americans feel cheated, whereby they give better terms to other parties and don’t even get respect in return. So they now support a movement to mirror that behavior.
This is an example of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: one side defected on a partnership for their benefit, trust collapsed, and now the originally cooperative partner is acting selfishly as well. Reciprocation is a fundamental part of relationships.
The US isn’t the entity that needs to hear “cooperating is better than a zero sum mindset”.
Edit to respond:
Most of those people are upset about that as well:
- foreign owned farmland and corporations;
- foreign owned condos, etc;
- inflated stock prices enriching Wall St relative to Main St;
…and so on. What you’re describing is the concerns of the petite bourgeoisie who have benefitted from inflated stock prices, housing prices, and land prices.
For Trump supporters, ending that distortion in the market while boosting domestic labor is a win-win.
I think they feel cheated because they are told to feel cheated.
> - foreign owned farmland and corporations;
That's hilarious. Many languages have a specific term for US private equity investors that rush in, buy up entire countries' corporations, then try to squeeze out every cent of profit.
Especially after the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain this became a massive issue. See also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuschreckendebatte
Every American - even the demographics that typically support Trump - has benefited from this.
Sure — the US bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie benefitted. But they’re not the ones supporting Trump or feeling cheated.
One of the groups most benefiting from the US dominance in the past decades were the farmers. Which is one of the larger lobby blocks and voting groups supporting trump.
And the logic doesn't compute either. Average people around the world got exploited by western, but primarily US, billionaires.
So the average people, the proletariat, should unite and revolt against those billionaires.
Instead the US proletariat voted to give billionaires even more power, in the hope that "their" billionaires would exploit foreigners more than themselves?
A forest, for example, has no economic value but lumber does.
Free trade may optimize how goods and services are dispersed but it can't escape the zero sum game that is foundational to economics.
> The only thing we can put economic value on are goods and services that use finite resources
A software patent does not consume physical resources (aside from the initial human labor) yet holds tremendous economic value. An app can be easily duplicated, making it a virtually infinite resource, while the patent remains attached to its novel functionalities.
Isn't that just a temporary reprieve of optimization in a broader zero sum game though?
All of those feel to me like ways to take advantage of inefficiencies in the system rather than escaping the game all together.
But it is not only about that. Trade is also for comparative advantage. If you ever played settlers boardgame with more than two players you'll soon realize that whoever trades the most wins. And it does not really matter who you trade with, it is just reaping the benefits of trade instead of being stuck with 10 wood that is of low value to you but of high value to someone else.
(Sorry if I lost the thread here. Most here were trying to argue that trade and globalization are a way to escape a zero-sum game).
Trade is an interesting one because it can be mutually beneficial, though it rarely includes everyone. Two countries can trade and both be better off, but other countries excluded may now be worse off. Trade also can't be mutually beneficial with regards to relative gain. Both sides can gain in trade or cooperation but one will always have gained more than the other. That doesn't make my point by the way, but an interesting related dimension to the whole topic.
The first tried to explain that it does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game.
The second paragraph tried to explain that, even if you do see it as a zero sum game, trade between two parties, or trade in general, can give you benefits over ones who are not part of the trade.
Obviously I am trying to describe this in simple terms without writing a book. But i do think the board game analogy holds even though it is very simple.
A forest (like, anything) has economic value, as soon as you get people to adopt/believe in it.
A forest may even have a greater economic value than the lumber it could produce, if it would, for instance, help/ensure the prosperity of something else that has economic value (leisure, wildlife, heat protection, soil water retention, etc.).
You have several options, account for it as lumber (but... well), or as a carbon sequestration well (so you could get carbon credits, IAS 38), or as an ecosystem providing services (several frameworks under work here), or as a contingent liability or asset (IAS 37, can be in the balance sheet if the probability of event/impact is high/certain).
Even if you forget to account for it, your insurance likely will remind you about it.
The carbon credits are given economic value, its just not a physical resource like lumber so its harder to distinguish that the credit holds the value rather than the forest.
I'd expect the lumber or carbon credits, for example, to be the actual asset accounted for rather than the forest itself.
The reality is China is now the top trading partner for most of the world. China is producing 50% of the world's steel. China has 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the United States, etc etc. Cooperation with China is positive sum for nearly the whole world, but China as the preeminent geopolitical power is incompatible with the unipolar moment where America led the world and decided the rules of the road, and could force dissenters to comply at gunpoint. China is far more relatively powerful than the USSR ever was, much less China+Russia+Iran+North Korea combined.
This is what we're seeing play out in microcosm in Ukraine, where Russia is to a large degree being backstopped by Chinese industrial and economic and diplomatic power. Hard choices are required, and there can be a lot of productive debate on the specifics of those choices. But much of "the west" seems stuck in the 1990s, where America can simply will the world it wants into existence by believing in it enough.
If America and the EU had started dumping 10% of GDP into the military 5 or 15 years ago things would likely look very different now, but we didn't and no one wants to do that now either because it would be incredibly painful for millions of people who in a democracy could vote out the leaders who enacted that policy. Hard choices are required, but we're getting mainly empty rhetoric and wishcasting, by those who wish things were otherwise. I also wish things were otherwise - but that and $5 will get me a cup of Starbucks coffee.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
Or at least, has a golden opportunity window to do so within the next 2/3 years, while Trump/Musk & co are dismantling the country capacity to function.
The U.S. is actually trying a play from the same playbook by abstaining from deploying troops.
When was the last time you saw China getting torn apart in the media for failing to prop up a failed state? They're doing "greenfield" diplomacy without historical baggage.
is this a typo? US already has the highest military budget in the world, the last thing it needs is to put more money into it.
Most of the reckless spending is by Republicans via unfunded tax which grows the deficit
Then when they’re in opposition they suddenly become deficit hawks
Republicans don’t mind the debt pile growing providing it’s the rich getting the money, they object when it’s ordinary people’s lives who are being made better
The idea that there have been decades of reckless spending and the US is going broke I think is not at all a nuanced take.
Anecdotes about the inflation of prices of eggs (which is 0.05% of US economy) don't change the overall facts that are material.
I will grant you that debt servicing needs immediate attention. Blowing up 100 years of foreign policy has nothing to do with that, however.
The number of NATO members spending 2% or more on defense went from 3 to 23 in the past 10 years. Their spending almost doubled in the past 10 years, while the US only grew 15% (actually shrunk in PPP terms). [1]
The US has been successfully pressuring NATO allies to pick up the bill, without having to call Ukraine a dictator and cede Ukraine to Russia without US security guarantees, and promote politics of appeasement that will lead to China taking Taiwan which is the only material place that produces the future's most important geopolitical asset: chips.
The US looking to reduce debt also isn't compatible with raising tariffs on everyone including allies, reducing taxes and warding off cheap immigrant labour, it's the opposite. Trump seems to have 25% good ideas, 75% bad ideas, and 90% poor execution that causes a lot of collateral damage. Penny wise pound foolish comes to mind a lot when I look at his policy choices.
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat... [1] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
Which is the reason that maybe Trump is not working for Putin? By scaring Europe into re-militarizing, that is bad for Russia.
Not just 2%, but what if this spurs Germany into "hey, lets ramp this Military up and take on Russia again". That isn't good for Russia.
And this Trump attack on Ukraine, will unite the Ukraine people.
The things Trump does backfires? Or is that the plan. He's getting a militarized Europe and a United Ukraine. If he wants the opposite, then this is really bad way of going about it.
EDIT: Just trying to find a silver lining. Maybe a wakeup call by a global all powerful tyrant will move the world toward some unity?
Any anti-Russian benefit that has is dwarfed by the pro-Russian benefit of having a wedge driven between the US and Europe, which is what is happening. Even a Europe that invests more heavily is defense is far less scary to Russia than the threat of US military power, especially in the short to medium term. The US has military capability that will be difficult for anyone to recreate, even advanced economies like those of Germany, simply because of scale and long experience.
The best outcome for the US/European alliance would be a more militarily capable Europe still strongly allied with the US. Maybe that was the 4D chess goal, but if so Trump appears to have way overshot it.
And much of this meeting with Zelensky had nothing to do with the budget (or at least the bits I've seen). It's just Trump being upset Zelensky isn't bending over backwards to praise Trump and being obsessed with shown to look "better" than other presidents (which is why he goes off on a tangent about Biden and Obama, disconnected from what Zelensky actually said).
That's life in Brazilian big cities.
Brazil has been very violent for a long time because the government enforces a zero-sum game against the population. The poor half of the population is overwhelmingly colored people and the richer white half would rather burn it all down than share it better. Brazil is one of the most unequal societies on the planet.
If we go that direction globally, security will erode everywhere.
Trust me, we don't want that. You don't want every metropolis to become like a big Brazilian city.
Go find some Brazilian media website and read the news. It's pretty grim. It's what society is like with persistent high inequality, a forced zero-sum game to preserve status quo and the resulting general insecurity.
Brazilian police do overwhelming policing against poor communities and the resulting brutalization only compounds the problem.
The solution? Round up obvious gang members, who conveniently like to mark it all over their body, throw them in prison, throw away the key. If they get violent in the process then don't even bother with the whole prison thing. Were the people just terrified about this horrible abuse of power? No, their Supreme Court made an exception to allow him to run for another term and he won with 80%+ of the vote, his party gaining a super majority, and El Salvador is rapidly going from one of the most dangerous places on Earth to a very safe one.
"First they came for the gang members... and then life was pretty great and everybody lived happily ever after." BTW similar sorts of crackdowns have also happened in numerous places including Thailand and the Philippines (in both cases over drugs), with similarly resoundingly positive results. Enforcement works.
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-homicides-gangs-bukel...
It's great if you're a tourist with limited Spanish ability and are tired of Costa Rica. Very shitty if you have any family members that get thrown in jail forever with out due process based on how the government felt they looked.
They are also often done in very visible places, including the face and hands. Here [1] for instance are various individuals with MS-13 (which was a group initially started by Salvadoran migrants in LA) tattoos. You're not going to make a mistake there, and the gang itself would have also also taken care of imposters.
The groups expressing concern about the gang members tend to be Western human rights organizations in different countries. The president of El Salvador has offered to allow the countries of these groups to take in as many of the prisoners as they would like, if they'd like to more personally look after and ensure their rights. His offers have not been accepted.
Interesting take. Another such "superior" culture (or rather, superior military-industrial economy built on sustaining/managing conflict) exports mass policing technology to Brazil. https://idanlandau-com.translate.goog/2016/02/04/technologie... (in Hebrew: https://idanlandau.com/2016/02/04/technologies-of-oppression...)
...which is OP's point, that it needn't be zero sum, at least not from regional/global superpowers.
Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in Brazil: 20. In Norway: 0.725, Netherlands: 0.691. United States: 5.763
Not even the US, which those of us in Europe often consider crime-ridden, is nearly as dangerous as Brazil.
Hmm, but the Netherlands, though. OK maybe scrub that theory.
I am living now in Portugal (has its own defects, won't hide it) after 10 years in Ecuador. Here, people park their cars in the street and expect them to be there next day. That would be crazy talk in Ecuador.
I lived in Buenos Aires for a year and it made me realize how good I had it. The contrast is so massive that it might as well be two different planets.
Just a day or so ago, Trump was asked about AUKUS, the closest military alliance that the US is a part of. He didn't know what it was.
For some months now, the Australian Liberal party has been going on and on about building nuclear power plants.
It's not about the electricity generation -- when pressed they'll admit that it might be as little as 4% of the supply -- but secretly it's about giving us the option of building nukes to defend ourselves in case our relationship with the US falls apart.
We can't be the only country thinking like this. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and many others have the industrial base and most have nuclear power plants already, nuclear engineers, etc...
I just checked: Singapore has started talking about building nuclear power plants also.
Sigh...
It keeps coal / gas power around for a nuclear future that is decades away at best (and never more likely). It’s a sop to the oil and mining companies. https://youtube.com/watch?v=JBqVVBUdW84
I thought I was just imagining things, but I looked it up and it turns out that the Liberal party has been flirting with arming Australia with nukes since the 1990s or maybe the late 80s.
The Tomahawk and basically every similar cruise missile can easily be outfitted with any warhead. SLBMs aren't the only delivery platform.
> these countries that are not allowed to have nukes
Who says they are not allowed?
The assurances have now been shown to be worthless.
One way to read Iran's ballistic missile attack on empty Israeli desert is as a demonstration that Israel's defence is unable to stop anything even approaching 100% of ballistic missiles. With nuclear weapons, the cost of even 1 leaker is unacceptable. You notice Netanyahu's public feud with Iran appears to be winding down.
Can you expand on what that means, in laymen terms?
In reality, by making certain trades or investments new situations and opportunities can be created, making everyone better off.
There is no comprehension that an agreement might actually benefit both sides
This is presumably why you hear such things as "Canada is screwing us for 200 billion dollars a year" because we buy things from them
Edit: you can see it in this thread, too. As though helping poor people could have no benefit to the rich
I've seen it with people complaining about paying taxes for public transit, even though they only drive a car. Bonus points if they complain about traffic in the same rant without ever putting 2-and-2 together
Which means if you make a deal with someone and they benefit from it - you lost. In other words - you should only do deals that hurt others.
It's a truly vile view of world, but what's more important is - it's false and counterproductive. There's no place for international cooperation in zero-sum universe. There's just exploitation through military or non-military means.
In a zero-sum game world USA does not join WW1 nor WW2. Instead it waits for Europe to collapse and invade to establish "American Europe". Anything else is suboptimal.
NATO makes no sense in zero-sum game world. NATO clearly benefits smaller countries which means it hurts USA. NATO should be therefore dissolved and let's shake them small countries for protection money.
The funny thing is - in such a world USA loses and China wins.
WW2 is not the best example. The USA got attacked (Pearl Harbor). The USA didn't enter WW2 until the USA got attacked.
That would have led to Soviet Europe. This is a very naive take, the involvement of the US on WWII was absolutely a rational calculation based on a zero-sum game (defeating the Nazi and establishing spheres of influence). The game becomes positive sum on the basis of long term economic development.
An extremely regressive tax system and overly complicated bureaucracy, designed to extract bribes, all but guarantee that only the well connected can invest and thrive, and makes sure that there is very little social mobility. Free education is available at all levels, but public basic schools are atrocious and public colleges have competitive admission, meaning that those with access to private education growing up get a subsidized degree from the government.
Building codes are rarely enforced so slum dwellers need not be paid more than enough to eat.
It is all very well thought out. Brazil is not underdeveloped. Brazil is a slave society with extra steps.
https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2023/07/20/anuario...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rat...
Comparing Brazil with Mexico with Madrid with Tokyo and coming to the conclusion that "is all the same" seems farfetched.
Policies that see "the poor" as the problem instead "poverty" create violent dystopian cities. Good policy works and make big cities great places to live. Reducing inequality, giving good safety nets to citizens, treating drug addiction as a disease, etc. make a difference. Not 100% of big cities are the same.
Not big cities across the world.
Off-topic: I really need to add more context to my replies without considering the parent comment, it's not the first time that caused confusion.
Fully agree. I've seen this to be the case
The lines on the map in the Ukraine war do not change in Ukraine's favor unless one or both of the following happen: 1) The United States gets directly involved, and/or 2) strategic weapons are used. The Europeans are not going to be willing to sacrifice their vast social programs for a massive defense build up. I think everyone realizes this, and I think the recent election results in multiple countries there make this point.
You are complaining, I think, about the style here. An argument in the Oval Office. Well, the United States is the main reason that Russia, after its disastrous and frankly juvenile attempt at an invasion, hasn't been able to gain additional territory after the war went into the defensive. Let me repeat that: The United States is the reason this war is still on-going. And as a result of this fact, The United States is the one that gets to dictate terms.
U.S. ignored that suggestion.
And when almost 9 years later Putin pitched the same idea again - he was left ignored, again.
EU and U.S. reap what they sawed.
So they would seek some gain then, right?
What could an oligarch possibly gain from starting a war with an allied neighboring country?
And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?
Surely it has (and had) as much oligarchy (if not more) as Russia has. (I hope you won't argue it doesn't? Since even something as ridiculous as the fact of having lobbying being absolutely legal - just can't coexist with the lack of oligarchs quite by nature/definition).
So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen.
"What could an oligarch possibly gain from starting a war with an allied neighboring country?"
Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then? They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that?
"And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?"
Because it has more to gain by not doing so.
Again - I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened.
The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO).
The military alliance that claims Russia to be their most probable enemy and thus a military alliance AGAINST Russia.
The military alliance first broke some spoken agreement with Russian of non-expansion of said military alliance. Then did that again and again to the point where NATO wanted to advance in its expansion so much far as to the neighboring country to Russia.
This is simply not acceptable for Russia, so it had to prevent that expansion, which it did. It could only be done by force, if the other side refused to drop possibilities of joining NATO. They didn't drop them - they got invaded for demilitarization. They resist - they die. The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all (however, in a war there are always casualties among civilians).
> They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that?
Because that's what Ukrainian officials policy was towards Russian natives living on their land and daring to speak their native Russian language.
> I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened.
How is that not clear? If Russia would be part of NATO - it would have 0 security concerns of NATO expanding up to its borders. If there would be no security concerns - it wouldn't start the special operation, there simply would be no reason to, as Ukraine would probably in that case be a part of NATO as well (as well as Belarus and probably Kazakhstan and some other ex-USSR *stans)! Just that simple.
Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground.
To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).
NATO is a defensive pact. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants their port, arable land, and because he wants to go down in history as "reuniting" the Russian empire. Also, Russia has wanted to exterminate the Ukrainian cultural identity, which they've tried to do since before the Soviet Union:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-i...
Putin's whining about NATO is pure bullshit propaganda. Just like his claims of Nazis in Ukraine. It's all fiction, where he writes Russia as the victim.
Russia can't and shouldn't have any say in what pact or alliance a sovereign country on their border wants to join. They have no right to. And well done preventing NATO expansion - where now thanks to their actions NATO did expand right to their border. Really 4-dimensional chess play guys.
>>The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all
Yes I'm sure all these bombs falling on Ukrainian hospitals are just targeting errors.
And Bucha was what? An accident?
If it were a simple individual somehow escalating to nation state level, I could understand them being initially forced to use deception, but not so for an entity that is already a nation state. Especially not so for a nuclear nation state!
Right before the outbreak of the full scale war (ignoring ~2014), Western intelligence services observed troops, tanks, military materiel amassing on the Russian / Ukranian border. In an attempt to dissuade Russia from invading the UK intelligence services decided to predict Russia's invasion publicly.
Russia repeatedly claimed "Nyet, nyet, no invasion, just some push-ups next to border!"
If a nuclear power were acting on existential security concerns, the last thing it would do is hide the connection to security concerns and pretend just doing sonme push-ups on border.
To me this invalidates this whole theory of yours and imcritic
If it were a simple individual somehow escalating to nation state level, I could understand them being initially forced to use deception, but not so for an entity that is already a nation state. Especially not so for a nuclear nation state!
Right before the outbreak of the full scale war (ignoring ~2014), Western intelligence services observed troops, tanks, military materiel amassing on the Russian / Ukranian border. In an attempt to dissuade Russia from invading the UK intelligence services decided to predict Russia's invasion publicly.
Russia repeatedly claimed "Nyet, nyet, no invasion, just some push-ups next to border!"
If a nuclear power were acting on existential security concerns, the last thing it would do is hide the connection to security concerns and pretend just doing some push-ups on border.
To me this invalidates this whole theory of yours and imcritic
They are. Commercially first. Through technology second (the dependance of the world upon US software and hardware technology is the perfect kill switch - and the scale and pace at which we are going to need to get out of it is immense now that it is intimately tied to our professional and personal lives... but we have no choice).
And they might go further if those firsts are not enough.
We in Europe would never have invested so massively to rely on USSR or post-2008 Russia software/hardware tech, for obvious reasons
But we did on USA tech, for obvious reasons too (common history and values, democracies, multiple war allies, cooperation, and... US used to be the beacon of progress and freedom), that have all been brutally thrown out.
So why would we now?
It does now for the very clear reasons:
1. NATO, while being openly hostile towards Russia (you may read the current NATO's doctrine where Russia is named as the #1 probable enemy of NATO), attempted to expand to Ukraine, which is just not acceptable (to Russia) at all.
2. Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) got oppressed in Ukraine, but that happened mostly as a result of the division of country into two parts where one was pro-Russian and the other was pro-West (EU, NATO).
I don't think the 2nd reason would even occur, since if Russia was in NATO - it would rather even seek Ukraine then joining it too. There would be no 'maidans' (coups) in Ukraine, there would be no division of the country and thus the oppression of Russian nationals (and Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals) just wouldn't have taken place then.
I think the conflicts concerning Russia then would rather shift towards Middle East (like Turkey having some beef with Russia over who supports whom in Iran, Palestine, Israel and so on) and maybe towards China/India.
That literally didn't happen. Ukraine and Georgia sought NATI membership, and in the 2008 NATO summit were (largely at Russia’s urging) rebuffed from being given Membership Action Plans; Russia immediately invaded Georgia, and Ukraine abandoned pursuit of NATO membership.
Then, in 2014, the Ukrainian people threw out the pro-Russian leadership that had come to power in the interim. Russia invaded large swathes of the country and, after that, Ukraine’s government again started seeking NATO membership.
There were no approaches by either side being made before the invasion. Pro-Russian propagandists like to pretend the 2022 escalation was the initial Russian invasion, ignoring most of the time the war has been being fought, so that they can blame the war starting on Ukraine’s response to the invasion by which Russia actually started the war.
There was ZERO chance of Ukraine joining NATO. Do you really think that Hungary, Germany, Slovakia..... would vote for Ukraine membership while there are still disputes in the Donbas and about Crimea?
@2) Sure, and Hitler also only saved the Sudetendeutschen.....
Putin himself said 2002 that he would have no problems with Ukraine joining NATO: “I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision [on Ukraine joining NATO] is to be made by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.”
Considering that Trump now, all but disbanded NATO there should be no more reason for further Russian attacks, no?
But really, just read and watch Russian media, listen to their politicians. The aggressive imperial aim is very open, transparent and also accepted by the people.
It really is tiring listening to the Russian apologetics coming from other posters in this thread.
"Russia felt threatened"
No. Nobody wants to invade Russia.
The deal since the end of the cold war has been this: Russia can do whatever the hell it likes inside its own borders. Its oligarchs with Putin at the front can rob and pillage the country to their hearts content. Putin can use his loyal FSB to suppress the opposition, rig elections, and dominate the domestic media and brainwash his population to believe whatever he want them to believe. The rest of the world will do no more about this than hand out tiny wrist slaps, while holding their noses and trading with Russia. They kept their seat in the UN security council. They were invited into G7. They were treated as an equal to larger, richer, liberal, democracies.
The only reason there is war in Ukraine is because this incredibly generous deal was not enough for Putin and his ilk, they wanted more. More influence, more power, more vassals. They want to restore the mythical glory of the Russian empire, or the Soviet empire, or both. They want all the territories that Russia has ever held dominion over. Getting control over Ukraine would have given that dream a big territory, population, and economical boost.
Are you Russian top military executive or a president of Russia?
No? Then don't speak what Russia did or did not feel.
> No. Nobody wants to invade Russia.
Then don't name Russia as the most probable enemy in your militaristic charts in your military alliance that keeps on expanding beyond reasonable limits.
And don't expand your military alliance that close to Russia's borders.
> The deal since the end of the cold war has been this: Russia can do whatever the hell it likes inside its own borders.
The other side of the deal was NATO not getting any expansions packs. But oh, shoot, it just slipped and happened to expand to... how many countries since Soviet Union got dissolved? ah?
Destroying Soviet Union was not enough for the West and so it wants a piece of Russia now? If you think so - then come and die in Ukraine, you are welcome there.
But since there can be multiple such countries at the same time and since no one has stopped developing arms/tech even further - I wouldn't call it a paradox when one nuclear country feels threatened by another group of both nuclear and non-nuclear countries coming closer and closer to its borders.
“I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision [on Ukraine joining NATO] is to be made by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.”
Why should nations be beholden to verbal agreements that were never ratified by their elected officials, between parties that didn't exist any more in the case of the Warshaw pact and whose legal successor nation official stated they had no problem with it.
Thats silly.
Should NATO have never had any talks with Russia about a possible NATO membership because of that verbal agreement with the leader of the Warshaw Pact Gorbachev?
It is not a secret at all that U.S. carried those out and then it became quite clear that U.S. installs marionette regimes here and there and one of the places was... Ukraine.
Right after all those Russo-American relations going up, up and up merely some years ago.
Russia didn't like being stabbed in the back at all.
U.S. was strong for a long time. It did whatever it liked.
Now Russia restored some of its strength to the point it can show others that sometimes you have to listen to when a bear warns you (quite calmly and nicely first).
That way the other party knows that this agreement has some backing and staying power.
Not some dude spouting some ideas to counterparts during very very turbulent times.
Many people (even Americans) claim U.S. is not a democracy. Every country has corruption to some degree. The only backing and staying power there is - is the force a country has and its willingness to use it to defend something.
There's a reason Sweden and Finland joined NATO recently.
Former 11A, btw.
You say that like it's a relevant qualification.
I would also like to mention that quoting past military service in a discussion on geopolitics is boot as fuck. So is referring to your trade by it's ID number and not just it's name.
So, y'know, okay boot.
And no, the infantry aren't stupid. Thinking that qualifying as an Infantry Officer means your qualified to run the entire war is stupid.
Do you understand that this does not happen without the following: massive American mobilization, 2/75 or the whole of the Ranger Battalions jumping, all US Armor units deploying to Eastern Europe, all of 4th, 5th, 6th, and honestly 7th fleet re-deploying to the Med for support operations. A massive amount of U.S. casualties.
Is this doable? No doubt. I am out of the Army, but a lot of my boys are still in, and they would love to do a peer fight instead of whatever it was we did in Afghanistan.
But I will be the adult here and point out that this is stupid.
All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. And the military intelligence as a force multiplier.
Thats exactly what we have been providing. And it was working. Russian inflation is a 20%+. They are running out of soviet era equipment. They are running out of easily conscriptable men. All of this is documented using open sources.
All that was needed was time. Time for Russia to implode.
But democracy is a fickle thing, and Putin was counting on this. America will have to live with this period of infamy for a long time. And the world will suffer the consequences.
Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke?
Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.
Either way - I’m pretty sure they want Ukraine and then there’s mutually assured destruction.
But even Russians indicate that their mid range ballistic missiles don't need nuclear wareheads to cause untold destruction - it was Putin who said that even without nukes their new missiles can level a city. He seems pretty confident in that, despite western intelligence indicating that the missiles are most likely a bluff as they are barely operational.
How would dropping a nuke on Ukraine start a nuclear war? Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them.
That's not what military experts are saying. If the nuclear fallout reached NATO countries NATO policy would require a "proportional" response, which again, military experts suggest would be a small scale nuclear strike on a Russian facility of proportional impact. The big question then is what would happen next - either both sides cool down and see where this is going, or Russia starts attacking targets within NATO at which point we're at full WW3 level. The "nobody is going to drop a nuke back" is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
> will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm
If Poland triggers Article 5, just because fallout came to its borders, other members are free to send them iodine tablets and lead tents, rather than starting WW3.
It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
>>It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
I didn't say it was - but Russia "dropping a nuke" brings us closer to the possibility of nuclear war, not futher away from it. And according to people who are actually working with/for NATO, military generals in eastern european countries, it is not completely unlikely that NATO would decide that a strike into Russia(nuclear or not) wouldn't be off the cards if Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine brought fallout into NATO countries - and if such a strike was conducted, we don't know how that ends.
While Poland can trigger Article 5, and current US admin will most likely tell them to shove it, maybe deploy some forces there. US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely.
Even if the next US president was very gung ho about it, the fact that Trump got elected again means the US isn't a stable partner. You don't want to enter a ten years war where every 4 years your ally might just decide to leave you hanging.
you really wanna weigh your odds of nuclear devastation on a guess?
>US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely.
other non-EU countries are already producing Nukes as preparation. I'm unsure about that.
No. But my point is you are oversimplifying it. Article 5 isn't a go to war button.
If Poland was to consider it an attack, that's not important. The question is would other members consider it an attack. To that the answer would more likely to be no.
I don't know of an adjacent country going to war because wind blew the fallout/chems its way.
> other non-EU countries are already producing Nukes as preparation. I'm unsure about that.
It could be US divestment leads to lower chance of WW3 in 5-20 years, but greater chance of WW3 in 20+ years.
You remind me of a semi-famous study that the American army did at one point. They wanted to estimate the risk of accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon, and concluded that the risk is zero because it never happened so far.
Given it didn't happen so far, I'd say they were right on the money.
While mishandling and accidents did happen, the number of failsafes guarantees you have to purposefully activate it. Most nuclear weapons nowadays just don't have a way to reach criticality outside of nano-second controlled timing array.
You could attack those facilities with conventional weapons too. What would be the point of using nukes to achieve the same purpose? All it would do is to make it more likely they'd escalate back.
Doing so, you break the statu quo on mutual dissuasion, and not one nuclear power wants that.
If one country drops a nuclear bomb (especially after a long escalation as we are in), other nuclear powers will _have to_ reinstate the previous dissuasion statu quo, as well as assert their status of equal nuclear powers.
And there's a single path to that: radically disarm the offender country, as soon as possible. There's indeed a risk of global nuclear war, but the most probable risk is the annihilation of the offender country + a few other casualities.
The scale of time in this matter is not in days, it's in a few hours at most: it's already been scripted in procedures for years, rehearsed, and it's already been shared among nuclear powers. If we're still able to discuss it, it's because of this doctrine of mutual dissuasion precisely.
They do that because the alternative is a shootout at everone and many people in the bar will die. No single person/country is going to take those odds in an era where there are thousands of nuclear warheads now.
Ukraine is already asking what they gave up their nukes for.
If I was Polish, I'd want a nuclear deterrent.
If I was Canadian or Danish or Panamanian, given what Trump has said, I'd also be seeing if nukes could be developed.
Why? Because that will be the only, short moment, where each other will have the single opportunity to:
1/ affirm they are able and disciplined to use it (credibility),
2/ disarm the offender (own security)
3/ reinstate the balance of mutual dissuasion (global security)
Playing it diplomatic would be a hint of either submission, fear, or incapacity to act against the offender - which none of the nuclear power would want to give.
And however strong, a country can defend against one strategic attack, not against a multisided one.
[1] doesn't matter what the target is: as soon as it's another country, you're toast.
The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed.
Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours.
Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
> if you don’t react definitely, that means that you may have the weapons but not the discipline to use it, so no credibility
You can react "definitely" with conventional weapons. I don't get it. If for some reason you really think they won't get the message that your threat is credible, you could even run a nuclear test somewhere. I see no reason why you have to perform a nuclear attack here.
> conventional destruction is not a deterrent in this case
Sure it is. Destroying/disabling your enemy's nuclear facilities would jeopardize their security, no matter how it's done -- which is absolutely a deterrent. If anything, doing so with conventional weapons should make your enemy worry more, not less.
> and you will only refrain from using your nukes if your are confident that the response will be more nukes towards you - in which case, your initial military objective is void, because the consequence of your action is that you don’t exist anymore
I don't understand this logic at all.
You reason like a person here, not as a state.
It’s not a matter of life and death for a few single individuals in a triangle. It is of millions of individuals at once, and whole countries.
You do not want to leave the option of a potential other nuclear attack, the scale of the damage is nothing comparable. You do not want the statu quo to be broken, to have been broken. The fact is was shows that the state in front of you (which triggered the initial nuke) effectively lost its sound mind. There is a single solution to that, however brutal it is. And that’s the perspective of this single solution that is at the core of the deterrence: if you shoot, you have the absolute guarantee that you’ll be dead in return. So you don’t shoot.
If there is no such guarantee of retaliation, you have no incentive not to use it.
OK, I think this is why we disagree -- because this isn't the scenario I was positing. I was thinking of a case where a "small" (tactical) nuke would get dropped during battle on military forces, to get them to stop fighting. Not a strategic nuke in a population center actually trying to kill millions of people. Those will provoke very different responses in my mind, and I don't think the strategic case is likely. The tactical case is what I'm not so sure Russia will shy away from.
I believe they will shy away.
It’s been made very clear to them by the OTAN (https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_192648.htm?selecte... ) that it was the red line before a « fundamentally change the nature of the conflict ». That’s the diplomatic way to say: you want to nuke? Just try it, something might happen to you, fast.
China also discouraged Russia to use it, even small ones.
The OTAN capacity may seem reduced without the USA, but escalation is very much more likely since Europeans realize/accept that Russia only speaks/understands « strong language ». They got the memo several times from the US that appeasement seems not to be a working response at this time.
"Fundamental change in the nature of the conflict" sounds to me more like "you will now be fighting NATO", not "NATO will immediately retaliate with its own nuclear weapons." And even if they did mean what you're saying, I don't see NATO or any member following through with this.
To be clear, I don't think anyone's use of nuclear weapons is likely. I'm just saying that if Russia ends up in a situation where its only avenue for "winning" ends up being the use of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually uses one.
I don’t think nuclear is likely either. Because of the deterrence.
But again, if Russia thinks its only way of winning is firing a nuke, I do believe they will not have the time to be disappointed about their miscalculation.
Because the retaliation is a no-brainer (and again, the scenarios have been discussed and examined for decades, and the procedures are all ready to run).
It will not be about only Russia/Ukraine or Russia/NATO afterwise but about the whole world doctrine on nuclear arsenals and their use.
If that's the fundamental issue, everyone needs nukes, every small country.
You don't want that. Living in a small Scandinavian country, I.do think we should at least discuss it now. We can't win any war, but we could ensure nobody else can.
It is clear that Europe would have more difficulty going it alone, since it does not dispose of the intelligence assets that the US has. Spy satellites, SIGINT planes, logistics, etc. Having to go it alone would clearly also impact the morale and thus the political will. But if Putin would decide to invade for example Poland, there is no doubt how he would fare.
But from an industrial and economics point of view there is no comparing. Contrary to what mr Trump has been saying, Europe has paid for more than half of the expenses so far. The overall defense budget of Europe was 217B$ in 2019 and has been steadily increasing to 258B$ in 2021 [1]. For 2024 it is at 326B$ [2]
Compare that with Russia that had a 184B$ budget this year [3]. And that is whilst being on a war footing.
Also. Let's not forget that the US, together with the EU (and Russia) offered security guarantees to Ukraine, in return for them giving their nukes to Russia (since that was making everyone anxious). Our support for them is not some sort of "gift" out of the goodness of our hearts. It is a solemn promise that we made, in return for our peace of mind. Surely the US is not the sort of country that does not honor it's commitments, but backs down when the going gets tough?
[1] : https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/eur...
[2] : https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-def...
[3] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
I understand what you’re saying but appeals about “solemn promise[s]” comes across as emotional blackmail and, for Americans at least, doesn’t have the same rhetorical weight anymore.
Russia has NO defensive capacity left on either other borders, neither internally.
Putin, as well as Trump play it like they have a strong hand because they know they don’t really have it and they are scared others would notice it.
Ukraine can certainly give up their now rump states of Donetsk/Lugansk plus Crimea if they were getting something like that in exchange. But until there is even a remote possibility for such security all they have is their terms of getting all their land back. If Ukraine now agreed to "peace" where they give up the land to stop the war then they would have to deal even further in order to gain enough security to prevent the next war from ever happening.
Then why has Ukraine not lowered the conscription age?
2. So what? 30-45 is where their population peaks; massive dip right in the 18-30 range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media...
2. The “so what” is that it’s pretty hard to argue that the war is an existential event if you are not drafting the portion of the population best able to make war (young men).
2. 25 is drafting young men; given where their shortages are there just isn't a benefit to reducing this to 18.
Usually you only go up the age-brackets when you are more and more desperate, for, you know, obvious reasons. Ukraine is doing it in reverse.
This is also why we've seen multiple headlines about Russia running out of stuff: they did run out of some things, then shifted to other stuff and ran out of that, then shifted to other stuff… — Ukraine has a shortage of both guns and young people right now.
What did the Russians claim?
"Nyet invasion, just some push-ups next to border!"
How stable will the world be when Russia wins, Putin is able to rebuild, and then they want somewhere else?
You tell me, which fight is more winnable? This one or the next one?
So far in 3 years of war the US has, for something like <10% of their military budget, destroyed a huge chunk of Russian military capabilities, without having to set a single US boot on the ground or losing a single US citizen. On purely selfish terms, that's an undeniably great investment.
But it's not only that. The US has an immense amount of soft power that it squanders if it completely mistreats, and even blackmails, its own allies — which it is doing right now — to appease hostile powers like Russia.
So with that being said:
It's ridiculous to jump to "we're gonna have to deploy x y and z batallions" when the US administration is not even doing the BARE MINIMUM, many tiers below that: they are publicly praising Putin and berating Zelensky. So it's pointless to talk as if this was about direct military intervention when in fact even soft diplomacy is going to the way of appeasement.
Then China will step in and WW3 will begin.
A no fly-zone alone would greatly diminish Russian capabilites, of which the West could easily do given the dire state of the Russian Air Force and their AAD. After that it's just a point it's a just mopping up any artillery duels and then letting the Ukranians advance in.
The US are not doing anything new. It's just that Trump's style is very "in your face" and that the public have been fed so much BS about "good", "moral", "democracy", etc in international relations that they actually believe it.
It's just as irrelevant as saying that state of individual cells is something you should ignore when establishing diagnostics of a herd.
There's a difference between low pondering and null influence within equations. And if the complexity of the phenomenon exceeds what we can forecast relevantly with equations, then pretending that we know which factor will have significant role all along the development of the situation and which are meaningless is not acting with much sagacity.
The US, like other countries, have sacrificed tens of thousands of people or more, even entire countries, in pursuit of interests amd broader objectives, for instance.
What is irrelevant is indeed moral.
In what way? Because it is providing assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against an aggressor?
But also because if JD Vance wasn't such insufferable prick without an ounce of tact there's a good chance the agreement yesterday would have been signed. That is not Ukrainian fault, it's 100% the fault of current American administration.
As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory and failing to give what you want the way you want is wrong and evil, does not endear people to aid you. And besides, any delays in aid had a much lesser effect than the EU countries buying russian gas at exorbitant prices. The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas.
Hard disagree. The way he treated Zelenskyy who was their guest is unacceptable and completely tactless. He acted as if he was scolding Zelenskyy. The entire comment from Trump "look he dressed up!" was juvenile, showing zero respect. But then he called him a dictator not long ago so I don't know what I expected.
>>The sanctions imposed were immediately sabotaged by buying russian gas.
Because it wasn't possible for EU to stop buying it on a dime, not without letting its citizens freeze and go without electricity. You can argue that well, they should have gone cold if they care about it so much - I'd argue that the EU countries have stopped buying Russian gas and resources as soon as they possibly could.
>As for aid, the arrogance in assuming the aid was mandatory
That's not what I said - I said if the aid was provided when it was requested the war would have ended already.
It's worse than that.
Zelenskyy famously stopped wearing civilian suits, and is always wearing military-style clothes in public appearances to symbolise how he's defending his nation in a time of war. It's a reminder to other leaders that it's not just another trade deal, that this is a real shooting war and people are dying.
Trump hates this, and thinks it's disrespectful that Zelenskyy doesn't wear a suit when he comes to the US on official visits.
Trump generally can't stomach a real fight, and Zelenskyy can... visibly.
Hence the reaction from Trump. Zelenskyy made him feel shame through his mere dress, his shirt, so he had to do something or say something to feel in control again, to feel powerful.
>Trump hates this, and thinks it's disrespectful that Zelenskyy doesn't wear a suit when he comes to the US on official visits.
That's why they invited dress uniforms...the ones with the jackets and ties.
“You have to follow the dress code, I don’t care about your sacred oath” — said by someone who doesn’t believe in oaths.
No, there's definitely no "dress code" in those circles.
A dress code is specifically something you impose to lower-ranking ones. That's why Trump did not like it, and why this journalist seemed upset: they couldn't bear that Zelenski was not submitting to their, very closed-minded WASP dress code for underlings.
When you're the head of state, or in power circles, there's something else, that's called a _dress standing_, which is different and opens a much wider area of possibilities.
And by that standard, boy, did Zelensky outfit outranked everyone else's in the office!
This is insane. He's been constantly begging and thanking the US for support for years. At no point has he even come close to "assuming the aid was mandatory".
To claim that Zelenski lacked tact while Vance did not is similarly nuts. Anyone who watched the video would understand that.
- J. D. Vance
- J. D. VanceI think you might be very surprised about that, countries on the eastern end of the EU look ready to make that trade without hesitation, as they were invaded by Russia in the past themselves and can understand the risks. Poland is already at 5% GDP spending on defence, and by all indications that number will only grow. That's war-like levels of spending.
I don't think so, there already are populist opposition parties in most of these countries that want 1. their country to be more pro-RU 2. to keep the welfare state for their populist supporters going
That's the rub, isn't it. The bluster about willingness to face Moscow in a war is all because of Article V and the assumption that the Americans will come and participate in a nuclear exchange.
Under such conditions, Adam giving the bully his lunch money, Bob his homework, and Charlie his lunch may be the Nash equilbrium—that is, until Dave (who knows kung fu) moves to the neighborhood.
This will play out over and over in liberal democracies so long as they abide a large wealth gap. It's anyone's guess whether we'll figure that out before there are no democratic states left.
Oil, lumber, plastics, steel, human labor, electricity, etc are all still finite resources.
It seems like we've been playing in a much larger zero sum game, and that allowed us to gain temporarily profit from that much larger game. We can't escape it though, only finite resources have economic value.
Oil - nuclear power - renewable energy Lumber - is renewable Plastics - use less (packaging) and more renewables - but yea this is limited and we need all oil for this. Also recycling. Steel - recycling Human labour - animal power - engines - for thought - computers then AI? Electricity - renewables - fission.
There is a lot of leeway if we don't waste the resources and ingenuity and discoveries have made it a non zero-sum game.
The key here for me is that treating economics like a zero sum game now makes it significantly more likely we end up at a place where it really is zero sum because zero sum thinking is nearly always short-sighted by definition, and getting to the next level requires more strategic thinking.
I've never quite wrapped my head around what that looks like. What resources could we possibly use that aren't finite?
Maybe we don't hit max utilization for a while, that happens after large innovation jumps, but there's always a cap in natural resources somewhere.
On that kind of timescale, it's far less likely we run out of energy before we can move to a new alternative (perhaps an alternative planet). You're right that no resource is infinite, so maybe the better way to phrase it is resources where we won't run out of them before we are unlikely to need them again.
In what you describe I can't help but see us stuck on a treadmill, endlessly chasing the next innovation to replace the current tech before we run out of resources. We won't be arguing about oil the next time around, bit maybe lithium?
I can't help but wonder what the point is. We could just use less and accept enough rather than constantly wanting the next big thing. I could have 10% of what I have today and still live a more comfortable life than almost all of human history.
People working together are more productive than each person trying to subsist alone. The same goes for countries. The world economy is incredibly complex, and no country can produce everything by itself.
There's only so many resources to go around, and at least with how we treat economics the only things of value are scarce.
Innovations and cooperation can give periods of optimization so it feel like the zero sum is no longer zero sum. At the end of the day it is though, and there's probably a decent case to be made that what we're seeing happen today is due in part to us having optimized as far as we can for this round.
Division of labor does not go away. If anything, specialization and division of labor increase as the world economy becomes more and more complex and developed.
The zero sum game doesn't stop, we just found a way to unlock new uses or new resources such that we temporarily just compete to claim those new resources.
Think of it with land. If all the land we know of is already "owned" we must compete. If we discover new land everyone can scramble to "own" that land so it is temporarily not really zero sum. Ultimately land is finite though, and we get back to a zero sum game after a brief interlude.
When property owners improve their land, neighbors also gain value - creating a positive-sum scenario even within your 'finite resource' example. This continuous cycle of improvement and value creation isn't just a 'temporary interlude' before returning to zero-sum; it's the persistent engine of economic growth in the west.
Since Adam Smith articulated these principles of mutually beneficial exchange in 'The Wealth of Nations,' we haven't seen a return to zero-sum economics. Instead, global wealth has grown exponentially, despite population growth and resource competition. The evidence contradicts the idea that we inevitably return to zero-sum competition after brief periods of growth.
I see you thinking, wait a minute, shouldn't we be looking at wealth per capita? Yes we should. That has gone up dramatically as well. Around 1776 when Adam Smith wrote his book, global GDP per Capita was $1012 (estimated, adjusted for PPP, 2011 dollars ), in 2022 Global GDP per capita was $15 212 (computed) [1]
[1] World in data only covers 1820 to 2022 here -mostly because earlier statistics weren't detailed enough- but it'll have to do. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
ps. Not really related to this answer, but the time-lapse map is just really fascinating https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
There is a finite pool of property and of buyers though. Its reasonable to assume they if one piece of property gains in value others lose value because they are now less desirable. I'm not arguing the math is absolutely 1:1 in price increase/decrease.
Its very easy to zoom in on one portion of a zero sum game and view it as non-zero. If costs are externalized outside the scale you're considering then it can in fact seem magical, but at the end of the day everything is connected.
If your neighbor's house goes up in price, yours is likely to go up too, all else being equal.
-
Economic interactions can create new (emergent) value, not just reshuffle existing value.
Adam Smith's recognition of this fact is what gave us the current western economies, where even poor people are relatively wealthy, compared to back in his day.
Adam Smith illustrated this 'emergent value' with his pin factory example: One person working alone might make 20 pins per day. But when ten people specialize and collaborate, they could produce 48,000 pins daily - not by using more resources, but through smarter organization. This 240x productivity gain created entirely new value without taking from anyone else.
* Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776 (original) , pin factory example happens to be Book 1 Chapter 1; a digitized version of a 1902 reprint can be found at : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...
> If your neighbor's house goes up in price, yours is likely to go up too, all else being equal.
Sure, if you're zoomed into a neighborhood scale. That wasn't my argument though, scale matters.
If your neighborhood sees an increase in value one across town could pretty easily see theirs go down. If your city goes up because it became more desirable for any number of reasons, other cities must be less desirable and seeing values go down.
We don't have unlimited demand for real estate. Buying real estate mostly in debt buffers the zero sum game somewhat, we have a finite pool of buyers but they aren't directly limited by a finite pool of money.
Edit because I forgot Adam Smith. He wrote of a fictional past and a fictional vision for the future. His examples are fine in theory but they weren't rooted in fact.
But... you have me curious now.
Does this mean you reject capitalism as a system?
And Karl Marx actually I think made similar observations, just came to his own slightly different conclusions. So I'm guessing you're not exactly going to be someone who identifies as socialist either.
Can you tell me if you come from some sort of interesting social/economic/political background? I'm fascinated!
I do actually support capitalism, though my opinion is that I only really support it in theory and that the few decades I've been alive have had too much market intervention to really be considered capitalism.
I generally would trust a free market to optimize well enough, much like I would trust "the mob" in a democracy to decide its own fate well enough.
I fall very must on the side of individual liberty. That means people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impede other's rights to do the same. It also means, though, trusting that the outcome of such a system is going to be roughly optimized and should nearly always be better than a centrally planned solution.
In the context of housing prices, neighborhoods or cities rising and falling, etc I see that as a good thing and as a sign that markets are reflecting general sentiment among consumers. We learn from why we think one market is now more favorable and respond by shifting other markets to better match that demand.
Where Adam Smith really loses me is in monetary policy. Arguments of a world before money looking like someone with bread and in need of chicken wandering around to find someone with chicken and needing bread is just ridiculous. Societies without money, or with a very loose concept of money, were likely to be much smaller groups of people (think the Dunbar number) that worked to take care of each other. You may have had someone that made bread for the community and you just went and got some when you needed it. Everything didn't revolve around IOU transactions among unfamiliar parties because you were familiar. Money is way Kore useful as a medium when you don't really know or don't really trust the other party.
That said, do you think it's more likely that every single interaction between humans would be an exact -1/+1 value exchange, or do you think it'd be a bit more messy like -0.45/+1.213 . If the latter, couldn't -1.1/-4.5 or +2.43/+3.14159 also be possible exchanges?
[1] both capitalism and socialism (despite their many differences) share the premise that economic organization can create more value than would exist without it. They differ primarily on how that value should be distributed and who should control the means of production, not on whether value creation itself is possible.
We can absolutely find ways to optimize resources we already have and find new uses for resources, but we can't make resources out of thin air.
Sun and wind also require massive energy storage solutions to replace the ease of storing energy in the form of oil. Again that energy storage requires finite materials to make, maintain, and replace as they degrade.
Don't be. I'm neither American nor European, and from my vantage point this is far less America's (US) fault than it is Western Europe's. US has been asking Europe to increase defense spending for years now, and at the beginning of the war it was below 2% (Germany was spending 1.25% in 2018). Trump said this very publicly in during his first term, and he was ignored and mostly ridiculed. Same thing with the Gazprom deal.
Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer.
True. However.
The US has wanted to play a major role in Europe for 80 years because it meant they controlled the narrative. This, co-incidentally was favourable to European countries because they could spend their money elsewhere.
Over the past few years the US has decided that it would prefer to play in the Pacific rather than Europe and so has been edging away.
It's true that Western Europe has been slow to respond, but it's also important to acknowledge that Trump just changed the pace of this redirection and so it's not entirely on one or the other side.
And yes, fighting indirectly with Russia is also helping the US two-fold. Or, was until Trump decided to wake up as a sleeper agent .
You fell for this propaganda. That equipment is "old" doesn't mean it isn't actively being used. The US military uses and maintains old equipment where it still makes sense, and where there is no viable replacement.
Or maybe your ivory tower understanding simply ignores the realities of the working class people who voted for Trump to do away with these policies.
I'm shocked by the level of pro-Russia content coming from you and other posters. I hope it's just brigading. I'm devastated if any meaningful amount of Americans feel this way. It's a fall from grace I didn't think I'd see in such real time.
People who do know history would tell you that you don't get peace by dismantling industrial and military capacity. To blame this on "because the US wanted it that way" is just naive. The US might have wanted it that way, but so what? It happened because it was easier to sell domestically compared to allocating hundreds of billions on say, 5th gen fighters.
Trump disagrees with you:
> So we raised [the defense spending of NATO members by] $130 billion almost immediately. We had a meeting with all of the [NATO] countries. I said, “You got to pay.” We got $130 billion more — more.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re...
During the conference Trump was asked when did he talk to Putin last time and said "a couple of days ago". No official communication was made about that. I am not referring to the initial call mentioned a few weeks ago.
A TASS reporter got into the Oval Office, and was kicked out when this was flagged by other members of the press. The normal accredited journalists can't easily get into the Oval Office, there is a much more rigorous process for that.
Somebody from the current US Administration, wanted this prearranged ambush, to be broadcast live to Russian audiences.
The big question I've been asking myself for a while now is, why isn't that plainly obvious to everyone in the US? Why isn't it plainly obvious to Trump himself and to his fans?
I think the reason is American Exceptionalism, and the cultural power it has in the US.
If you start from the premise that you play in a completely different league than everyone else, there isn't much to gain from building cooperative structures.
Interestingly, I remember even Peter Thiel saying in a podcast I listened to many years ago that he thought American Exceptionalism was the biggest cultural weakness in the US.
Extracting resources has always been the central tenant of industrial society, and there was always somewhere new to pillage. With literally nowhere on earth left to expand this global juggernaut, it's not clear that our zero sum utopia can continue.
I'm not defending Trump's actions by any means; spitting in the face of your friends is the last thing you want to do when times are lean. But at least this administration sees the writing on the wall: business as usual is dead and we're entering an era of zero sum contraction. Their response is insane but at least they acknowledge the problem (unlike traditional liberals and conservatives who think we can keep tweaking the current system forever)
That economic activity is growth. It was still happening. Just the middle class didn't participate like it used to like in the 50s. Because the marginal tax rate back then kept as much wealth from pooling at the top.
Economic inequality is the problem, not lack of growth.
The Russian army is IMHO not anywhere near collapse, it's suffering many casualties in a useless war (for Russia), but ultimately they have x4 people and industrial advantage (!). Trump is being very crass, but any US admin would seek to close this up since simply put Ukr is losing - yet Putin cannot take Kyiv either. What's left is everyone wasting a lot of blood for a some land in Donbass.
The pressure is applied too much on Ukraine though - Putin needs to made to climb down a bit, which is difficult given his advances but maybe doable (I think a threat of unilateral EU forces deployment could do it).
I don’t know what comes next. No one does. But Europe needs a deep-rethink of a lot more than just defense if it wants to have any say in what the next world order is going to look like. Otherwise, we’re looking at four decades of less peace and less prosperity.
What an incredible take.
I cannot possibly think of a US intervention that went well for the receiving end.
Germany, Japan and the post WW2 order in question are probably the best candidates.
And don't forget Ukraine gave up nukes for security assurances from USA, UK and rusia.
As we can see now, it was a mistake. Declaration means little
This might genuinely be the birth of a true unipolar world order.
No idea if that's good or bad...
They view US as weak now, and will not stop until it is collapses on itself.
China owns an increasing majority of global GDP and Trump seems to be either taking a path of peace, populism and or stupidity by pulling America out of its global alliances.
The US performs a two-fold security function in Europe: first, it protects Europe from extra-European threats. Second, it protects Europe from intra-European threats. If however the US exits Europe, both kinds of threats become a reality overnight. When you think of what Europe is going to do if faced with any of these situations, it becomes very clear that China has absolutely nothing to offer on either front.
That is laughably tiny in the grand scheme of things.
Whether intentionally or not, the USA is relinquishing its role as global hegemon, and at least the baltics and nordics are contemplating the ramifications.
What they are doing now is saying might makes right, marking and end of the reign of the liberal democracy.
I wonder if the “have your cake and eat it too” dissonant thinking you’re hitting on is actually maybe easier found in the USA, and sort of on the other side of the spectrum. Plenty of folks voted explicitly for Trump because of his inward-focused, isolationist agenda. What they don’t realize is the extent to which the prosperity that they’ve seen up this point was dependent upon the rules-based order that their chosen leader is actively dismantling.
haha. Oh really? Because historically its always been violence.
People have been critical of the US when their admin lied about weapons of mass destruction, did massive amounts of drone strikes on civilians and put people in a concentration camp. "World police" is just a polemic description of that, it's not the content of the criticism.
Now there's country that traded nuclear weapons for protection by the US that is being invaded by a fascist dictator. Meanwhile the US admin is gaslighting everyone and lying about these basic facts and tried to humiliate and personally attack their president in public.
Are you talking about the Budapest Memorandum? According to Wikipedia, it says
>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
So AIUI, that's a guarantee that the US will defend Ukraine if Ukraine gets attacked by Russia with nukes. It's not a guarantee that the US will defend Ukraine if Ukraine gets attacked by Russia with non-nukes. So I don't think the US has violated the agreement. Russia violated the agreement by attacking Ukraine (Russia was a signatory, and the treaty also says the parties won't attack each other with any type of weapon).
But had Ukraine not agreed, they very likely wouldn't have been invaded. Meanwhile Putin was threatening to use nuclear weapons if western countries would have directly intervened. This threat is looming over _all_ negotiations and actions.
So really Russia is getting away with invading Ukraine and expanding their territory and use their nuclear arsenal indirectly to achieve that.
In this context, “new Yalta” is more in reference to the carving up of “spheres of influence” by the big players, without the little players (the ones being carved up) having a seat at the table.
The right in ascendancy treats Yalta like a movement by the Roosevelt left to give Stalin concessions in a New World Order. That’s the phrase they want promoted. In particular, the UN and adjacent developments stem from a small number of great men. So, the right is happy about a new Yalta between Musk, Trump, and Putin.
Or is it Putin, Trump and Xi? That’s how I see it: Trump has hinted that the Panama Canal and Greenland are for sale. So the left way of looking at a New Yalta reflect multipolar colonial ambitions.
For a short period after the collapse of the USSR, the world used to have only one superpower (which was the US), but it's not the situation anymore.
> The world was working just fine
I guess you missed the rise of Chinese GDP from 3% to 20% of global GDP, their military buildup, and their advances on the neighbors and the sea.
Take a look at U.S. shipbuilding capacity, U.S. military equipment maintenance, and the defense industrial base that is maintaining the _appearance_ of the powerful status quo. This isn't unique to the U.S., the same is happening in Russia.
Turns out it costs a _lot_ of money to keep this charade up for everyone.
But boy, will the nations of the world remember this -- how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully. A really bad day for US foreign policy.
The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.
Even if the US did nothing, rolling into NATO lands would put them up against the UK, Germany, France. Poland et al as well as Ukraine.
The worry is more that a ceasefire is called. Russia rearms and succeeds in taking over Ukraine and then a combined Ukraine and Russia attacks Europe with President Vance supporting Putin.
But in a few months, when Trump’s base and the Republican Party have turned completely pro-Putin and anti-Europe…
All this so that US sides with a bankrupt cleptocracy and dictatorship. 1000iq move, I guess.
The whole point of them was to give the US influence while improving US security. Given Europe can't trust Trump will come to their aid, they won't give the US as much influence over Europe.
Here's a hint! It's your military. To put it bluntly, European nations and other US allies pretend the dollar has actual value and the US in turn guarantees security and backs the world order based on the rule of law.
Looks like the US is looking to pull out of its end of the deal. That's fair enough, being the world's policeman is sure a heavy burden to carry. I just don't see many people recognizing the implications for the US economy.
Biden did not do enough to kick Russia out, though. He should have given Ukraine everything they wanted, including a no-fly zone (and ideally Warthog support when Russia was stuck in the mud).
Yeah, but they're not going to do anything about it.
Especially if the US lifts their sanctions against Russia.
I wish humans would not involve other species in their sadistic ways of killing and maiming each other, though. Donkeys, horses, ... all benefited from war mechanization. Dogs not so much so far. Dutch happily train dogs that are then sold to allies to be used to attack, threaten, maim, shit and piss on, sodomize, and kill defenseless people. Bizarre.
https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/500002/mar...
Or perhaps you mean "glory" in the sense of some kind of national pride and confidence in culture and nationality? I am not sure arguments against any nation seeking a sense of themselves are particularly compelling…
Reminder that Finland is really close to St. Petersburg, the 2nd largest city in Russia with some pretty big cultural and military importance. Putin's done some fantastically stupid stuff in regard to the 2022 Ukraine war, namely resuming it, but he's probably not that dumb.
Such a brilliant negotiator!
Russia immediately responded by saying it would happily share those resources. Of course.
We tend to think of the world on a flat world Google map and Russia seems so far away, but when the pole melts Russia will be closer to north America and they will be wanting that area too.
No ice means it's easier to drill for natural resources. The US is preempting the melt and trying to get ahead in the race for the arctic. It's much more valuable than at first glance.
I laughed first too. I then felt that my laughter was due to not understanding it. "How bizarre, LOL". Then I felt like I was missing something big. Now I try to use these "bizarre jokes" as a sign to look deeper.
In a way (although this info isn't secret at all, just boring) we can use Trump's inability to have a filter to leak the advice that his advisors are giving him more than past statesmen would.
Some geologists think there might be tons of other deposits under the ice.
The US has been trying to add Greenland since 1867.
Only %44 believe that US will come to their help if Russia attacks UK.
Yougov: https://x.com/yougov/status/1893967204846063823?s=46
(which is significant because, "after all they went through the last few times", their "find out" policy is a little punchier than most)
and i don't think that anyone really wants that course of events...
I don't think the blame is on America here.
[0]: https://www.gallup-international.com/survey-results-and-news...
We don't care. Approximately 0% of the American public believes the UK would help us if we were invaded, because we have eyes and have seen how absolutely degraded the European militaries have become, outside of a few outliers like Poland and Turkey.
I worked in the Pentagon for 10 years, and went over to the UK about twice a year for work at RAF Mildenhall, which, of course, is primarily filled with USAF planes and airmen.
European nations stopped caring about defending themselves, and turned NATO into a charity of which they are the recipients.
More recently (2016-2021), I would travel to London on a regular basis to work with a team based out of an office in Shoreditch. The sentiment of the average Londoner to the US military was fairly negative, typically accompanied by a face that looked like they had just smelled a fart.
My son is 18. I don't want him being drafted into any war on behalf of a demoralized population that doesn't want to fight for their own country. It's morally reprehensible to expect us to subsidize a society that has imprisons citizens for social media posts and fines our tech companies every chance they can get.
Next time America asks for assistance, whether it's troops or firefighters I hope the attitude is reflected back and it comes with a costs+ invoice due up front.
I'd trust the French more than the Brits in an Indo-Pac conflict, because they have actual stakes due to French Polynesia and Mayotte.
And if we're honest, it doesn't make sense for the UK to fight a Pacific war anyhow. The UK has constantly stepped up to help Ukraine and remains a very strong buttress against Russia. It's best if the UK remains a lynchpin for European security.
[0] - https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ObsIn...
This is just silly nonsense.
In various polls the US and UK poll quite similarly, in that the percentage of people who believe their country should honour article 5 in case of an attack on a NATO ally, polls about 2x greater than the percentage of people who believe their country shouldn't.
So approximately 0% is nonsense.
But besides the fact that the beliefs of the US population isn't 0%, look at the reality: the UK went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight alongside the US on foreign soil, while most of the world didn't and opposed those wars. What makes you think the UK won't fight alongside the US if it was under attack on its own territory? It makes no sense.
The US being invaded essentially means there is a world war. The idea that the UK would try to stay neutral instead of follow its treaty requirements with its greatest historical ally ever, and bow to its new ruler, is just silly.
As for the UK military's prowess, it is obviously not what it used to be, in relative terms. But to compare it unfavourably to Poland and Turkey? Neither could beat the UK, except on their home soil. And in the context of an invasion of the US, I'd rather have the UK as an ally, it actually has long-distance projectionist military power which is exceedingly rare outside of the US, Turkey or Poland don't have it.
Nothing new, smart people knew that for a long, looong time. May I remind you it took Pearl Harbor to get the US into WW2.
It would be true if you were to mention about our special flavor of freedom exportation during the cold war. However, this time Ukraine is a democratic nation being invaded by our biggest political rival, Russia.
The UK paid the US all it's gold reserves. Next it stole of the UK people's gold to use that to buy weapons.
The US was not giving the UK when it exported, it was selling. Lend lease came in once the UK ran out of gold. So the US gave them credit: which the UK tool until 2006 to repay.
The US joined WW1 when it became clear that the UK would not be able to repay its debt to JP Morgan and its clients if Germany won. Of course, that was not the only reason, but it was a huge factor. (Source: Adam Tooze, The Deluge)
(London had, bizarrely, decided to bankroll the Russian and French war efforts in addition to its own, so its debts were vast.)
In a political sense, well, that's much more debatable. The problem there is that because the US itself did not feel threatened, US aid came with a price tag: the impoverishment of Britain and the demolition of the trade barriers around the British Commonwealth. US aid was on a cash-only basis until Britain had spent all its hard-currency reserves (both gold and negotiable securities). Then came the Lend-Lease agreement -- arguably the point where the US truly entered the war -- and its price tag was explicit, although unadvertised: the agreement itself contains a clause stipulating the removal of the Commonwealth's trade barriers.
Maybe a lot of them see the US and/or the Western countries as bullies anyway.
edit: not sure by which part of the world this is downvoted ;)
It's downvoted because of this:
> Well most of the nations of the world didn't do anything for Ukraine, or supported Russia one way or the other.
Most of the world supports Ukraine or at least is not pro Russia, as you can see in UN votes. In latest vote, USA voted like Russia, North Korea and Israel, China abstained.
And after all Ukraine is far away for a lot of the world (but Russia maybe not so much).
The EU has provided more aid to Ukraine than the US, Ukraine drone production is through the roof. Europe needs Ukraine and its army as a bulwark against Russia.
And fighting Ukraine has made Russia vulnerable in all other proxy wars and fronts, such as Syria recently.
I heard that volonteer numbers right now are pretty high so army became more selective - people expect that war will end soon and hope to get sign in bonus without spending much time on the battlefield, if any.
Other regions are comparable, 2-3 million rubles ($20000-$30000) are available in several more regions. Then there's a federal one-time payment of 500000 rubles ($5000) and a monthly salary of $2000.
What makes you say that? I thought it was generally agreed that Ukraine has been on the back foot for a while now. People used to be quite optimistic about Ukraine recovering the occupied territories.
If you like Game Theory, is more as if Ukraine is much more prone to Total War than Russia possible will. Russia is spending their own GDP maintaining the war, Ukraining is "spending" its infrastructure but has foreign money being poured in.
That's why USA withdraw by Trump is so important to Russian interests.
Then there’s the “Ukraine will win as long as we keep sending aid” truth that the pubic needs to believe in order to accomplish that goal of weakening Russia since the alternative is Ukraine still loses but Russia doesn’t suffer for it.
I suspect someone misguidedly told Trump the first one, and his takeaway was that if Ukraine loses anyway, why should the American taxpayer be funding needless deaths.
If that were true, why would Putin take such extreme care for the elites in Moscow and St Petersburg? What is he afraid of? We don't need to know exactly what, but we can conclude he probably has a good reason.
Russia is not stable. The economy is creaking. Unsound, favourable loans are being made to corrupt companies who pocket as much cash as they dare while they deliver as little they can, Soviet style. Something is gonna give eventually, probably to the sound of drones over Moscow becoming the new normal.
Russia was supposed to win easily right away. There is a huge size difference.
But if the little guy, even thought has been on back foot since the beginning, has lasted 10 rounds, and still hitting back. They are on the back foot. But now it starts looking like a win could happen. The underdog wins the crowd right? Now looks like US is the bully.
What you are posting is not factual.
In this particular case Russia doesn't seem to care care about lives and uses WW1 style of waves of meat, which of course drastically increases losses
It's sort of like how Western press has been claiming for over a year that 20,000 people have perished in Gaza, and the figure never goes up.
As strained, but not as bad as Ukraine's.
Russia's population is over 140 million. That's 100 million more than Ukraine's pre-war population. Russia's territory isn't meaningfully compromised, their cities aren't in ruin, their industry is mostly intact. They haven't sustained something like 15-25% population loss from people fleeing the way Ukraine has.
North Koreans aren't in Russia because Russia is out of guys. Putin just wants to avoid wider scale conscription/mobilization if he can help it and will take other options first
That's why earlier stages of this war involved ex-convict Wagnerite units, mercenaries from the third world, local militias raised from the "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk, and conscription when necessary from poorer ethnic minority regions far away from Moscow and St. Petersburg.
This is correct and shockingly obvious given the initial invasion used mercenaries. It's a straightforward exchange with an ally that benefits Russia the most and is great PR for NK, internally and locally.
Almost everything pouring out of his mouth today is replaying what is in Russian state media sadly.
The US is not "aligned against the West". The US is simply breaking from the ideology it's had since WW2 that it's in the US' best interest to get involved in every international conflict in the world.
You'd think that the left would be ecstatic about that considering how much it's criticized US involvement in other countries conflicts, but here we are - it's the left that is trashing the US for not wanting to get involved.
But certainly in the UK it was a party of "the left" that invaded Iraq with the US. It was a party of "the left" that invaded Afghanistan with the US. And it was a party of "the left" that is now bolstering the military after a decade of decline by a party of "the right".
"The left" were fighting fascism across Europe in the last century, from the International Brigade in Spain to the Soviets against Hitler.
The actual problem The West has now is that the guarantor of military power has gone. Trump and Vance were literally shouting propaganda from Russian state media to Zelensky (look up starting WW3, or VIP tours) and making false equivalency between being invaded and defending your country.
Trump has carried out the biggest rug-pull in history and aligned the USA with Russia. Against The West.
This makes no sense. The current ideology is only 70 years old. The "West" has existed for centuries before that.
Maybe you're young and you think there are no options but the current path, but I can assure you there is.
The truth is that the US (or Europe) is not willing to go head to head with Russia. They have neither the public support or the willingness to take the economic hit.
So if they aren't willing to defeat Russia, what is the only possible outcome? A negotiated peace.
So rather than grinding up another few hundred thousand human lives in the war and end up in the same place a few years from now, why not just finish it now?
The term The West applies to those countries born out of European heritage which _assumed_ semi-direct lineage from the Graeco-Roman empires of Antiquity (notably the Late Antique split in the early church across Eastern/Western lines). Like all political terms it's in constant flux, but yes, today it largely means the superset of NATO + Five Eyes countries.
Vance's Munich speech and the Whitehoust confrontation yesterday confirms that the USA has turned its back on the west - you only have to see the reaction of world leaders to see that - outside of Orban, the only people congratulating Trump were Putin and Lavrov. Who could singlehandedly stop the war - right now - by pulling their troops out of a sovereign, democratic state.
Not sure what my age has to do with anything but I was bought up during the Cold War if that helps.
Who said anything about appeasing? Fighting for the best peace deal you can is not "appeasing".
NATO is never going to escalate with Russia to the point Ukraine gets all it's territory back - and Putin knows that. NATO isn't stupid - Ukraine isn't worth expanding the war beyond Ukraine into Eastern Europe. They have neither the financial resources nor the support back home. They are willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives, but not their own grip on power.
So if we know how this all ends - Ukraine giving up territory in exchange for peace, then why not pursue that instead of throwing another million lives and hundred billion dollars into the chipper and getting the same deal in 3 years instead?
> Vance's Munich speech and the Whitehoust confrontation yesterday confirms that the USA has turned its back on the west
No, it means the US is turning it's back on the neoliberal geopolitical position that grinding down competing powers through proxy wars is always worth it in the end. George Kennan died long ago, and it's time to let his geopolitical strategy die too.
It's a position that only existed since WW2, and one that has gotten the US involved in dozens of wars since then, often at a greater cost than the benefit in the end (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq).
It's utterly naive, given all his history, to think Putin will just acquiesce.
Even if your geopolitical assumptions are correct, Trump and Vance's behaviour yesterday - humiliating a war leader in front of the worlds media, using the rhetoric and tropes of the invaders he is facing was unbelievably disgusting.
The publicized ideology, is not always the reality. The US has always been involved with every international conflict. The CIA was the formalization of the interest.
That's because a good chunk of untapped population would simply refuse.
Yes, and from the videos all over the Internet, a lot of what those weapons do is kill people. If just blowing up machines won the war, Ukraine would have declared victory in the first year.
There are lots of potential limiting factors, population's just one where Ukraine started at a big disadvantage and that can't really be made up for by foreign aid, unlike munitions or food or what have you (short of other countries outright sending troops). Weapons can be sent, but if they run short of people to use the weapons, to the point that they can't maneuver, can't credibly threaten counter-offensives, eventually can't cover the entire front... then things start to fall apart.
Like once they survived and repulsed the initial attempt at blitzkrieg, and things settled in to a stable-ish front, population is the particular figure that would tend to give you a knot in your stomach, looking at the on-paper situation from their perspective, and the prospect of a long war.
I'm not disputing that there are ways to win a war other than killing all the other dudes, I'm just pointing out that if Ukraine got backed into a corner, the smart money very early on was it'd happen either because "allies all pack their bags and go home" or "they run short of manpower".
Ukraine is _stalling_ the war right now. Russia is able to capture more moonscaped villages by forcing expendable (their words, not mine) manpower to assault Ukrainian positions.
Ukraine is slowly retreating, but at the rate that will require Russia _years_ to gain a meaningful amount of territory.
How much is Russia spending on the war compared to Ukraine?
- spending all of its foreign reserves and weakening its currency
- killing tens of thousands of working age men
- permanently removing hundreds of thousands of working age men from the workforce
- increasing the demands on social benefits for disabled veterans by hundreds of thousands of men
- suppressing the birth rate by staying in a protracted 'special military operation'
Ukraine is suffering 3-5 times fewer casualties than Russia, but it's also 3 times smaller than Russia.
…by focusing on controlling sectors in mainly the East?
Russia is not gaining any strategic advances from the push. It's not a fight to get some magical prize.
If you look at the reports from Ukraine high schools - its all girls class, no boys
I live in Ukraine, this is not true.
https://lenta.ru/news/2025/02/16/ukrainskie-klassy-ostalis-b...
translated: https://lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2025/02/16/ukrainskie-k...
There are almost no boys left in senior classes of Ukrainian schools. This was reported by the publication "Strana.ua" on the Telegram channel with reference to blogger Alena Yakhno.
As the blogger said, the 17-year-old son of her friend studies in Kiev , but all his classmates have left. "Only girls are left in the class. There will be no moral. It's just a fact," she wrote.
The publication recalled that upon reaching the age of 18, young people from Ukraine are no longer allowed to go abroad. In addition, the report notes, information about Ukrainian schoolchildren aged 16-17 leaving Ukraine en masse has appeared before.
Earlier, the Verkhovna Rada reported on hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who left the country before the start of the school year. According to MP Nina Yuzhina, about 300 thousand students, mostly high school students, left Ukraine in July and August. In addition, due to the departure of young people, 2,114 schools have been closed in Ukraine over the past four years.It's a bummer that just about every media outlet in Ukraine is either tightly linked to Russian propaganda, or on the other side its mostly super pro Ukrainian (formerly funded by USAID) outlets with ties to weird libertarian billionaires who want to turn Ukraine into free market paradise. Hardly any middle ground.
Sometimes, reported news are actually true, this is from Ukraine's Education Minister:
https://www-unian-net.translate.goog/society/osoblivo-hlopci...
Just think about it logically, if you are a mother of 16 y.o kid, and USA says you must conscript 18+ y.o to receive any further aid - would you just sit and wait for your child to get drafted on his next birthday?
You can count how many high school children there are in Ukraine. There is something like 4 millions now, so the loss of a couple hundred of students of both sexes does not make classes girls only.
People, families with kids, leave Ukraine, because living in a country during war is not nice, to say the least. The fear of mobilization is only one aspect of it.
https://rubryka.com/2024/06/25/v-ukrayini-kilkist-uchniv-u-s...
Do you want to share a bit of your story? 3 years ago would mean you left right at the start of the war. How do you feel about that now?
I don't mean to minimize your loss, but I cheer for you to succeed despite it.
Tomorrow there will be the two monthly threads for who's hiring & who wants to be hired on HN. Use those.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243022
Try both. Hope that helps.
I appreciate the clarification, because I had wondered why I hadn't seen it yet.
For China, a balkanized nuclear Russia may be a greater threat than supplying them manpower (due to surplus men and civil unrest) and materiel. I would not expect Russia to run into the WW1 germany problem.
This is a meatgrinder conflict. If China can reduce its dissident or potentially rebellious population while avoiding a collapse of Russia mirroring WW1 Germany, they may very well (and I would argue are likely) do so.
The only thing Chinese nationals fighting for Russia tells us is that China is not expressly limiting freedom of movement to do so...but there has also been at least 1 American who tried to join Russia to fight Ukraine (and was tortured to death by the Russians on suspicion of being a spy for his trouble).
With a country like China, everything is on the table
I wouldn't assume a small number of Chinese nationals volunteering to fight for Russia means China approves of their actions. Several Australians ended up fighting for ISIS in Syria and Iraq, that doesn't mean the Australian government approves of Australians fighting for ISIS, it just means it failed in those cases to stop them – it didn't realise they planned to do that before they left the country, or they didn't decide to do it until after they were already living overseas.
And one difference, is obviously Australia and ISIS are sworn enemies, so when Australians volunteered to fight for ISIS, the Australian government could openly condemn their action. Whereas, China and Russia are allies, so even if China disapproves of its citizens volunteering to fight for Russia, it can't condemn them publicly because it would harm the alliance.
Make no mistake: if China wanted to shut this down it could.
I think the word "supposedly" is important here – I don't think we have any hard data on how many Chinese volunteers there are serving with Russia.
And I'd question how big a military contribution these Chinese volunteers are making. Russia has hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in this war, even a thousand Chinese volunteers would be less than 1%.
> Make no mistake: if China wanted to shut this down it could.
Even if the Chinese government is willing to "turn a blind eye" to this going on at a low volume, that doesn't mean they'd let it grow to a significantly higher volume.
It also isn't clear whether this is a deliberate initiative from the very top, or something that has grown organically bottom-up and the people at the top have decided to let it be for now rather than crack down on it.
It helped that the ww1 western front wasn't inside Germany http://www.greatwar.co.uk/places/ww1-western-front.htm
Russia's refinery's are getting hit and all that crude oil is worthless with a refinery. In the case of the campaign again Nazi Germany's refineries funny enough it's the allies who didn't think it as critical as the Nazis did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II#O...
Many people seem to think that the US, and to a lesser extent the EU, should fund this war indefinitely. However, the US clearly does not benefit from a direct war with Russia, and while we may gain from a proxy war, choosing not to fund it does not equate to “siding with Russia.”
But "negotiating" a treaty with the other side and then claiming that that treaty is the final word on the war is atrocious. That's what's crazy. Not ending US involvement, but trying to say that Ukraine must stop fighting.
Now, I also think the US should keep supporting Ukraine, but that's a totally different topic.
Like, it's totally fine that the US wants to return to isolation, but don't expect to keep all the benefits of the post 45 world order if you do so.
If I were a US citizen I'd probably be more concerned about the upcoming oil tariffs from Canada, but whatevs.
There is absolutely no difference, when the US is negotiating that peace only with Russia, without Ukraine in the room.
With Trump administration officials not able to name a single compromise they’ve asked from Russia.
If the “negotiated peace” is “I asked the country that invaded you what they want, and you must do everything they asked for”, that’s not negotiation.
I will never understand how people can be so quick to abandon independence nations, and are so willing to bow to dictators. You would cheer Chamberlain submitting to Hitler as he launches an invasion as a momentous day for peace. You would be wrong then, and you are wrong now.
The reason for Ukrainian men to die, is to protect their families from being tortured by Russians when the Russians take another city.
The reason for Russian men to die, is to not be murdered by their own officer.
That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which the U.S. is refusing so far. Without those, anything negotiated is a gift to Russia, specifically the gift of time to regroup and re-arm for another attack later on.
Lasting peace is not created by concessions, it is created when instigators believe they have more to lose than to gain from further violence.
People in this thread are completely incapable of seeing any legitimacy in any Russian concerns about Ukraine.
Decades of NATO enlargement. What do you expect? Poke bear enough and it will bite you! But don’t be shocked…
Well, he got it and whatever happens in the war, Russia is cooked. It's never coming back from this.
It will either fracture from the war going badly, or it will become a vassal state of China, and ironically, perhaps the US, the way things are going with the White House these days.
Putins actions now actually exposed himself to the dragged-in-the-streets treatment, by his own people. But it's all worth it, because of Ruski Mir.
This seems obvious to me, but is apparently not obvious to many here.... America (no country really) can guarantee Ukrainian security without risking WWIII, and frankly there's no reason to. At the end of the day, from a non-Ukrainian standpoint, it doesn't really matter who administers the land that today is Ukraine.
You don't have to support Ukraine indefinitely; only until Russia stops. Your options are to support Ukraine until Russia stops, or to surrender until Russia stops.
The arguments I see for the US staying involved are the same hand wavy ones used in Vietnam - "better to fight them over in Asia then in America". It was a weak argument then, and it's a weak argument now.
The people that helped fan the flames of this war don't give one crap about Ukraine. What they care about is the neocon policy of "do anything to keep America's rival weak". So funding a war that Ukraine pays the price for works just fine.
The truth is that the war is going to end eventually and it's not going to be Russia capitulating. So rather than a hundred thousand more dead might as well find a solution.
Seems like a pretty rationale decision to me.
General public in Europe didn't see US as actively involved, or at least didn't see it until the new administration said it would end the conflict. This is when Trump administration started getting into "talks with Russia" and offering Ukraine "mineral deals". While US might have tried to do that even before, it was not discussed openly by presidents.
This war is going to flame out eventually. Lessons learned in this one will be used for the next one, which is going to hurt even more.
In 20, 15, or 7 years from now when terrorists are sending drones into medium-sized cities in Alabama to kill indiscriminately, it would have been better for the USA to have been on Ukraine's side.
EDIT: better grammar, maybe
... that goes for Russia's partners, too. Meaning it's even more important for us.
There's not going to be a coup against a President who is keeping us OUT of a foreign war.
Touch grass.
Trump, Vance, Musk ... have upended this all with their amateur hour antics. They are not serious people. They think they can rewrite the rules but they've bought us at least a decade of hurt and isolation on the international stage, and likely worse economic prospects for a while. Nobody will trust us, even if saner leadership comes round in a few years.
Spot on. This is what Zelenskyy implied when he said "now you have an ocean but one day you'll know how it feels". But the dumb kakistocrat commander-in-chief took it personally.
By the way remember the New Jersey drone sightings that spooked the East Coast for a week? That was likely the government secretly testing defense deployement against a hypothetical drone swarms attack.
Brexit was shooting yourself in the foot, today was a gruesome display of diplomatic suicide on live television.
Firstly of course, they need to be united, steadfast and decisive in their support for Ukraine until Russia collapses. They should be building new alliances, with India, South America, and any free countries in Africa and Asia. And maybe some unfree ones. Possibly even China, because let's face it, despite its many flaws, China is not the threat to Europe that Russia is. A wedge between China and Russia would weaken Russia and help the EU.
Then, after Russia collapses and the US has withdrawn from the world stage, it will be the EU that saved Ukraine, just like after WW2, the new super powers where the US and USSR that defeated Germany. And Ukraine has a lot to offer that the EU lacks.
The EU is incredibly powerful. Biggest common market in the world, half a billion people, 2nd largest military in the world if they put it all together. The EU just needs to learn to flex its muscles, to unite and assert itself, instead of hiding behind the US.
Europe was supposed to be the "late stage" of human civilization, from Daniel's Old Testament dream of the human-form statue. The head of gold was the pinnacle of civilization, Babylon. The silver chest and arms were Persia. The belly and thighs were the Greek Empire. The legs of iron were the Roman Empire, resurrected as the fractious European Common Market (now European Union) in the feet of "iron mixed with clay".
The USA was variously portrayed as the Great Wh*re of Babylon, or else had some heroic role of some kind in these End Times.
At some point, all nations would stop fighting each other and join together to turn on Israel. Israel would be doomed but for God's intervention. From Daniel's dream, a pebble would form from nothing, grow to be a mighty boulder, and smash the feet of iron and clay (Europe, and by proxy godless humanity) and the rest of human civilization in form of the statue would crumble. The mighty boulder being ... Jesus. Israel would be mostly destroyed but a rescued "remnant", faithful Christians would be raptured / taken to heaven, the World would End ... and eventually all humanity would be judged for eternal salvation or punishment.
Wacky, fringe stuff ... EXCEPT THAT THESE BELIEFS ARE SO RELEVANT TO OUR PRESENT POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE USA. Check out the book "The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy" by Matthew D Taylor [1]. In this book and various podcasts Taylor describes the origins, religious and political philosophy, and current political power of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). No NAR church / congregation will claim the moniker today, but it remains a perfect description of the structure, leadership, and influence of this movement. The Bebbington Quadrilaterial splits "evangelicals" in the USA (and internationally) into four groups based on measures along two axes ... the "denominational vs non-denominational", and "charistmatic vs non-charistmatic". I grew up in in the denominational charismatic square, where churches believe in and expect the miraculous, but also belong to a centralized denomination with standards and accountability. The NAR congregations fit in the non-denominational charistmatic square, have a very authoritarian leadership structure with "apostles and prophets" at the top of each organization, and with a forest of MLM trees of such organizations, with no accountability at all for the "apostles" (c.f. the Mike Bickle scandal, and so many others, where people got away with abuse for years). In any case, in 2015 Trump's "spiritual advisor" Paula White (in early 2025 now is head of the White House Faith Council) gathered many apostles in this NAR movement around Trump, to throw their weight behind his candidacy and make him an acceptable candidate for their brand of evangelicals, and to pull in low-information evangelicals of other stripes behind his candidacy. And hence ... a conversation today between Trump and Zelensky, and many other knock-on effects.
Note that the NAR proposes to take over the world through their Seven Mountains Mandate, to "Bring Heaven to Earth", and usher in the End of Time. Of course, Trump does not believe any of this, but the evangelical power base is extremely loyal to him.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-Planet-Earth/dp/031027771X
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Violent-Take-Force-Christian-Threaten...
It gets interesting when you realize that Russia is also a rival to China in Northeast Asia. A balkanized Russia, like the one the EU could have manifested had it took Russia warnings seriously and brought about decisive action after troops were invading Crimea. But no they lived in their "End of History" fantasy and that virtuous liberties will magically be spread if we just trade goods and ideas between spheres of influence.
Of course this reality will be bad for our allies in Asia (ie. Japan, SK, Taiwan). But maybe this time it'll wake up some in America from becoming isolationist again.
It sucks, but the EU has more urgent problems closer to home. All I can hope for is that Trump hates China enough that he'll continue to guarantee Taiwan's freedom. But I'm sure at some point he's going to ask them for some more material "thanks" too.
But yeah, the EU's relationship with China should not be the same as that with other allies. But I think there's room for some cooperation, and the EU might not object too loudly if China were to take outer Manchuria back, for example.
The Taiwanese are being told China is an aggressor but nowadays they see the opposite. Also if China invades it'll destroy every goodwill they had built to win over Taiwanese hearts and won't get control over TSMC supply chain market since the latter promised to torpefy their fabs before China gets its hand on them.
Trump is old, fat and infirm. Hopefully he will be gone soon and we return to some sort of sanity.
That's exactly the approach Europe took when dealing with Russia and we now see where it got us.
Though I suppose you could argue the same is true after China's expansion into the South China Sea. But even then, China isn't remotely as aggressive, expansionist or hostile as Russia is. And their government, although totalitarian and unfree, is at least competent. Although Xi's narcissism and vanity are definitely a bad sign.
You also seem to be yet another person predicting Russia's "collapse", which is a prediction I've been hearing since a few years after Putin took control.
Military industrial capacity is Europe's main problem right now. I believe they're ramping up production, but it's going to take years. They may end up having to buy the arms from the US in the meantime if they want to aid Ukraine. If it gets to that, the question is whether they give China some business.
Seriously, I'm wondering who is going to be a more dangerous geopolitical foe for Europe going forward, the US or China. The ascendant forces in the in the US are pro-Russia, and that's not likely to change in the near term. Unlike China, though, we haven't sold military hardware to Russia. Yet.
If the US turns, Europe may have to ally with China.
I'm not so sure that's a realistic option when there's US officials saying to allies they should buy less US equipment.[1] It doesn't inspire confidence.
> A British defence figure, who is not part of the government, was told privately by US officials that it should “recalibrate” its reliance on US equipment.
And then there's this.
> They said that a US administration could put restrictions on kit from the US and that if countries are “deemed not to be doing what you are told you will suddenly find out missiles won’t fire and planes won’t fly. You have got to be careful.”
When allies buy less US equipment, what happens to the US citizens employed in the defence industry?
I don't see "EU taking that crown" happening any time soon, sadly. With the ascent of (often Russia sponsored) far-right nationalist parties, this is even less likely.
There's a reason why hawks like Bolton and Cheney are against it. It harms US interests in the mid-to-long-term. To me it seems like the Trump adminstration is a) trying to distract from their domestic agenda and b) isolate the US internationally and create new external foes to justify domestic changes.
At the end of the day, Zelensky had the most obvious proposition in the world -- allow American companies access to Ukrainian minerals. He kept asking for a security guarantee as if he needed anything more.
If he expected Trump or Vance to publicly announce they would go to war with nuclear-armed Russia over these mineral deals, then he's not fit to be president of any country.
The security implication was obvious... if Russia threatened American mining operations, the United States would obviously respond.
But the demand that Trump say he would go to war with Russia.. what purpose would that possibly serve? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the implication.
So maybe he can now turn to China, but I'll tell you that China's propositions for Ukraine's rare earth minerals will likely have Ukraine losing a lot more sovereignty than the scenarios where America took them over instead of the one where Russia wins.
So much for stopping the war in 24hrs. Trump's plans were never going to work there, and both Russian and Ukraine were going to try and make it look like the failure was not their fault - guess Russian won that particular battle, maybe it was never even a contest.
No, Ukraine is not in a position to reclaim significant ground. The state of the war is such that any offensive action is ruinously expensive, and while Russia is willing to pay that price, the fact that they're shipping North Koreans in to pay that cost rather than generally mobilize speaks volumes about the state they're in. Interest rates are at 21%; food inflation at 30%; unemployment at 2%, which indicates a severe labour shortage. They're destroying their own economy to grab just a few more feet before it unravels at home.
Meanwhile, Rheinmetall is launching joint ventures and building factories in Ukraine because they have the most warfighting experience of anyone right now and are leading the world in drone combat. Ukraine is still not conscripting anyone under 25, which is a large pool of recruits they've held in reserve. And after today, Europe is making a conspicuous show up increasing spending and standing behind Ukraine.
They can't kick Russia out, but they can certainly hold on longer than Russia with the ongoing support of Europe, and the way Zelensky was treated today has been a huge morale boost for standing firm.
This is delusional. Russia would’ve bulldozed Ukraine without US support. What county is under US sanctions? What country is receiving US weapons? Which, to be sure, is the correct choice. And having public spars with Ukraine is not.
But the fact that someone just typed this out and posted it is just so delusional. The fact that people upvoted this is delusional.
On March 16, 2014, the President issued Executive Order 13661, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, and found that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.
…Therefore… I [Trump]… am continuing… Execute Order 13660.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-03462.pdf
https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/trump-prolongs-sancti...
I don’t know why this pisses me off so much. Ostensibly we agree broadly. It’s just, HN really used to have such good nuanced and factual discussions, even outside tech. Now it’s all just raw anger.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-spe...
Even Poland only started rearming after Kazynski's plane was shot down in Smolensk in 2010 (edit; not shot down), Romania only (started after Crimea and it's implications of a similar incident in neighboring Moldova in 2014, Turkiye began due interventions in Syria and Libya that lead to Turkish and Russian soldiers fighting against each other in 2012-15, and Netherlands after over a hundred of their citizens were shot down in an Air Malaysia Flight in 2015-16 (forgetting the exact date)
Trump is absolutely wrong in publicly abandoning our European allies, but this is something every administration since 2008 has been saying would eventually happen.
The failed UK-France intervention in Libya should have been the warning call (France and UK's air forces couldn't disable Libya's A2AD and ran out of precision muntions, forcing the Obama admin to intervene and spark the Benghazi crisis which helped bring Trump into the Oval Office in 2016). In fact, that incident probably further emboldened Russia as Libya's military apparatus was heavily Russian/Soviet in armament and strategy.
[0] - https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2015/0...
[1] - https://www.president.pl/president-komorowski/news/poland-so...
[2] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2020.1...
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/all-the-presidents-men-t...
This is, unfortunately, already the case. No country will ever fully trust such treaties again, and we are closer than ever to a new era of nuclear proliferation.
The railroad car was used in 1918 and in 1940. In both cases Germany was unoccupied, in WW1 because the war was fought on French and on Flandern fields, in 1940 because it was the beginning of the war.
You're possibly thinking of the German surrender, first in Reims, then a day later again in Berlin.
Charles de Gaulle is somewhere under a tombstone grinning ear to ear saying "I told you so."
Very strange times.
https://kyivindependent.com/france-could-send-nuclear-armed-...
You just noticed? Rules/treaties are useless unless you have the power to enforce them.
This is something every related country already knows, think of Pakistan and North Korea. Are you expecting China and India to drop their nukes because of some nice treaty?
> World needs to help out Ukraine...
... to achieve peace ASAP, because thousands of lives are being lost.
The war in Donbas was only a little bit more clear. Even though Russia's fingerprints were all over every action there, there was also no doubt that there was significant Ukrainian separatist activity, and even the most resolute of allies will hesitate to defend their allies from separatist activity.
With Biden, we saw the buildup, knew it was going to happen, and had been warning Ukraine that it was going to happen. We saw it for what it was on day one without any equivocation. We just did nothing about it.
Ukraine is in a bind, and it is sad when a buffer state is put through the meat grinder in a proxy war between two great powers. But here we are. The upside is that the Ukrainians who weren't killed in the conflict will be, along with Poland and Lithuania, the only "European" states with anything resembling a capable military. I doubt the EU members want Ukraine as a full member of NATO. Too risky. There are some proposals on the table for a more complicated peace without conceding full neutrality of Ukraine to Russia.
I don't think many people understand the nature of this conflict. They merely see "Russian aggression" but have little comprehension of great power competition and the events leading up to the hot part of this war. I feel for the Ukrainians but I wonder if any of the Ukraine boosters would shed a drop of their own blood for Ukraine. If the US demands that the Europeans take a larger role in the security of Europe, we will see if the European NATO members are up to the task. The US needs to pivot its resources to China in the coming decade. The war with Russia has been very costly and strengthened the bonds between Russia and China (and Iran and North Korea). The Europeans should take a great role in policing their own neighborhood, but I don't believe the EU, as currently constructed, is the governance vehicle capable of leading a unified Europe. The member states are, quite understandably, not happy to give up their sovereignty and culture. Participation in a common market has been a disaster for the working class of Western Europe (unless you think cheaper products is the only measure of a country's vitality). The EU experiment might be at an inflection point. They can remain in this bureaucratic quagmire, or reassert the spirit of Wesphalian sovereignty, or await the arrival of a new Charlemagne to unite a strong Europe under sovereign leadership capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. My money is on the decline of the EU into irrelevance and a return to the Westphalian spirit. There is no political will centered in Brussels capable of leading this ragtag assemblage of diverse states and peoples. The border problems persist. The result will be more populist revolts and ascendant "right wing" parties advocating "blood and soil" nationalism. If that's the future, then the western european states will only be supported militarily via bilateral treaties with the US or under the umbrella of a NATO dominated by the US. The latter is just the norm for the post-WWII "New World Order" so it will feel familiar. With luck, the collapse of the EU will allow EU member states to reassert control over their own borders and laws. If that happens, they should abandon this resentment of the US and be grateful they were saved from the managed decline of their central government in Brussels.
2. As it stands today, the US comes out on top. They paid a measly sum to throw Russia in the meat grinder and it will take decades until Russia is threat to the US again.
3. Our military hawks now get to focus on China. EU still has to worry about Russia
Question and I ask this honestly. What if Americans no longer care about global hegemony or the fate of Europe? As an American I am tired of the continual idea that we have to care about what happens in Europe and if anything bad happens there it is egg on our face. What about egg on Europe's face? They choose not to spend money on their defense and keep their end of the NATO agreement. I have no appetite to keep up our end of the NATO treaty in wartime if the other parties couldn't keep up their end in peacetime.
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
— Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150
If you want to argue for a renewed commitment to the Monroe Doctrine, I'm with you. Heck, I'm even there for Manifest Destiny (Canada as the 51st state, as Benjamin Franklin would have had it). But the downsides of a multipolar world are legitimate. Ideally we can maintain our global dominance without oppressing/degrading our own and allied populations.
But here’s the thing. Great powers compete globally, but the real question isn’t whether America competes. It’s how, where, and at what cost. If we’re keeping influence by stretching ourselves too thin, ignoring our own problems, and paying Europe’s defense bill forever, then we’re setting ourselves up for failure just like Britain did.
Ukraine matters to Europe, not really to us. Losing Ukraine isn’t a crisis for America, but losing focus on our own borders, economy, and the Pacific definitely is.
I get that multipolarity has risks, but so does trying to be everywhere all the time. If European security is that important, then Europe should handle it. If they won’t, that’s on them.
If we don’t start prioritizing where America actually needs to be strong, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve spent decades managing other people’s problems while letting our own pile up.
I only point out the foreign policy consensus inherited from the Cold War is still operational among Atlanticists and other Ukraine war hawks. Stripping away the hysteria, we can accept there will be a cost to Russian dominance of Ukraine, if allowed. I expect the foreign policy establishment in State, CIA, and DoD will continue to try to torpedo Trump. But the China hawks are ascendant at the moment. The recent debacle with Zelensky at the WH is maybe the nail in the coffin for overt "Ukraine uber Alles" war hawks. (They say Personnel is policy. Remember that key architects and actors of Atlanticist policy have personal ties to Ukraine. Nuland is second generation Ukrainian-American. The Vindmanns are Ukrainian nationals. Personally, I would not be surprised if Ukraine saboteurs were implicated in the Trump assassination attempt in Butler. They feel, perhaps correctly, that Trump is an existential threat. Doesn't necessarily mean their problems should be our problems.)
I tend to agree that Russia, China, and Iran are our global competitors, that India and Brazil are dark horses, and that transnational Islam (supported by our foreign adversaries) is another wild card. Abandoning the liberal pieties of Pax Americana and retrenching along nationalist sovereignty lines appears to be the way forward with regard to the very real domestic problems you mention. Unconstrained international labor migration is a failure for domestic populations and needs to be largely reversed. Border security and foreign influence need to be addressed. These are civilizational problems as old as civilization itself. The pendulum is swinging back. Some people get it.
I also appreciate the occasional encounter with sensible HN readers who eschew the vitriolic rhetoric and try to argue objectively. Looking at your other recent comments I see you are in a similar boat as I am on HN. Good luck!
What are you on about? EU countries + UK have over a million professional military personnel.
> Brussels is the equivalent to the Deep State in the US but with official status, instead of being a shadow government.
The EU parliament has members elected from each country in the EU, there's no deep state conspiracy there.
> The member states of the EU are soon going to realize they are "a peninsula at the tip of Eurasia" and their best interests lie in close ties to the US.
This is the complete opposite of what's actually going on, EU countries are realizing we need a stronger EU and we need to fend for ourselves and will be moving away from US ties.
The "deep state" is not a "conspiracy". It's a form of parallel government. Nothing unique about that in history. (The Roman Catholic Church should be familiar to all Europeans.) The comparison is to point out that there are two "sovereignties" in play (member states and EU) making laws. And when you have two, you have none.
It's quite remarkable the change in America over a couple decades. In the 90s, the left was solidly pro-free-speech and anti-war. Anti-war sometimes to a fault, even. Maybe aside from some censorship effort of rap and Mortal Kombat, you could count on the left to defend free speech at nearly any cost.
Now, it is the left that seems interested in doubling down on wars, without any plan for escape, and of "reigning in" speech deemed by some as harmful.
I'm not here to say correct or incorrect. Pick your own ice cream flavor. My point is that it's striking how much the parties have flipped 180 degrees (on some issues).
Where are the voices that simply want the war to end so people stop dying? It’s easy to say bully this and ally that from the comfort of your office while hundreds of thousands of people die in a strip of land most “supporters” couldn’t point out on a map. At this point there’s a collective ego tied to the outcome more than there is any care for the actual people involved.
[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-ne...
That doesn't mean I'll accept your proposal to rob a bank.
1. Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war.
2. Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible.
3. Don't know/Refused.
"Ukraine should surrender unconditionally" and "Ukraine should negotiate permanent security guarantees" and "Ukraine should fight its way into a better negotiating position" are all in the same bucket. This is maliciously bad poll design.
> Must we endlessly fund a war that is in stalemate and will continue to savagely end the lives of military and civilian alike? Otherwise, we are a bully?
Can you cite any legislative efforts anywhere in the USA by any elected Democrat that limits, coerces or in anyway "reigns in" speech of any sort?
Whose economy gets the money spent? If it's ours—and it is—then yes, it's obviously in our interest to continue to run up debt.
Actual real Ukrainians are fighting, and signing back up even after being injured.
Ukraine is on "death ground" and has nowhere to go except to fight to survive. Ukrainians know that. Russia knows that. I'm not sure that those that spout Russian propaganda know that, and for example I doubt you know any Ukrainians with questions like yours, but you sure do sound like the Russian propaganda lines that get trotted out to Americans.
Maybe I am subject to propaganda and you aren't, either way I'm on the side of peace. You are on the side of war and death. I'll take the propaganda.
And "we" here means the democratic world - solidarity is the only way to deter bullies - if Russia knew that EU/US would retaliate in case of an attack on Ukraine, they wouldn't invade.
But of course if you yourself is a bully, you will do everything in your power to cause feuds. And here we are, oh well.
This interview, on the other hand, has the US VP talking on top of a head of state while chastising him for not being grateful enough while pressuring him to take a deal that would effectively surrender Ukraine to US and Russian interests. Whatever the objective of this meeting was, "a fair result for Ukraine and its dead" did not seem to be it.
If Ukraine signed this deal they would lose so many more lives than with what Zelensky did. I can't imagine how cowardly and easily fooled you'd have to be to think that giving into Russia will make the genocide stop.
European defense spending has, for decades now, suggested that they don't particularly care about NATO. Well, the Western European members at least. Those who used to live in the Warsaw Pact take it more seriously - see Poland, for example.
They also should have been thinking about the implications of buying so much gas from the Russians for the last 15 years. The invasion of Georgia should have been a trigger to move off of Russian exports permanently. Instead it just brought further dependence and a major pipeline project.
I despise Trump as much as anyone but strategic security shouldn't rest on one country never being in a position to elect an isolationist demagogue.
I'd argue the opposite: Western European countries' low defense spending was exactly because they they believed NATO (in particular the US) would intervene if needed. They don't believe this anymore now, hence will increase defense spending, hence making NATO less relevant. They will now be able to rely on the EU alone.
They're increasing spending, but that takes years to translate to real results.
It's not particularly hard to pump out a few hundred thousand rifles, small arms ammo, and hand them to cannon fod... I mean... the fighting-age men of a country.
What is hard is developing a weapons industry that can act upon intelligence provided by spies planted in places like Russia, develop systems with indigenous technologies, and produce them at scale, all with the logistics to make them mean something on the battlefield. This was on full display during WWII, when some more advanced weapons came out of Germany too late and in too small of numbers to give the Nazis a chance to avoid the ass kicking they so richly deserved.
That takes decades to develop. Europeans, with the exception of the UK and maybe France, have let that fruit rot on the vine since 1991. Putin wouldn't have made this gamble if he didn't think this.
Russia is winning the cold war, 35 years after it "ended".
Great TV, though.
Europe can defend itself against Russia just fine. Maybe it will be a bit poorer, as it has to spend more money on defense, but it can do that. The bigger threat is that European countries start fighting each other again. That could happen in a few decades, if Eurosceptic parties become too popular.
On the other hand, Europe does not care about China. It has no interests in the Pacific. In the absence of mutually beneficial alliances with powers that oppose China, Europe would rather see China as a (somewhat unpleasant) trading partner than an adversary. If China is not a threat and the US is not an ally, it doesn't matter much which of them is the dominant power in the Pacific.
China keeps getting blockaded left and right when trying to establish shorter routes with the EU, and there's a reason for this. The EU and China both want to just live in peace and are natural trading partners — the main obstacle being distance, blockades, and unfriendly territories in between.
What does this mean? I honestly cannot imagine.
If you mean naval blockade, which country's navy is doing the blockading?
I mean think about it - it had to rely on US transportation just to participate in the Iraq War. How much of a threat can a country be if it can't even project force into that theatre?
I would go further than that and say you can't trust the US for anything, ever. The United States will not keep long term commitments for more than four years at a time. If you're lucky, or unlucky depending on which side you're on, that cycle will last 8 years.
Anyone can always do whatever they want. And the only way there aren't repercussions on some level are if you're some kind of god-like being sealed in the equivalent of closed terrarium.
Does the US have power? Sure. But the US could act disgracefully even if it didn't have power.
The framing I'd give this is that the US is trying to extort Ukraine without actually bringing anything to the table, and all it's going to accomplish is making the US itself less powerful, less reputable, the rest of the world more convinced that nuclear weapons need proliferate because otherwise invasions are on the table, and a litany of other things that will basically make the US weaker over time.
There is something left: the land, the people. But not the country, that is something new.
As if this lesson hasn't been conveyed for the past 30 years.
How anyone can sit here after the Iraq war and say any of this with a straight face is beyond me.
I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees? Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing here?
That is, if the US wasn't currently in the business of eroding trust in any and all agreements they may have entered.
A few years ago we kept making comparisons to Chamberlain appeasing to Hitler, inviting Hitler to keep expanding its territory at the expense of other sovereign nations in Europe, but at the same time made it very clear that Putin is no hitler and the comparison is too extreme.
Now it seems quite clear that the US under Trump is not willing to intervene in military fashion. For Russia, getting east-Ukraine in a year and waiting 3 years while ramping up its war economy to take the rest of Ukraine is a great outcome. For China, Taiwan is now a no-brainer as Trump declined to say whether he would intervene like Biden did. This is appeasement. Trump seems to want peace at any expense, he doesn't seem to recognize at all what the people of Ukraine have been willing to give their lives for, their country.
It's easy to have peace if you just surrender everything to a bully. Peace without justice is more like slavery. MLK said it right, there can't be peace without justice.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a godsend for US influence. Finland and Sweden joined NATO. The Russian military was exposed as a paper tiger. A huge portion of the Russian military's capability was destroyed without a single US military serviceman or asset being deployed. Russian energy exports to Europe (and the influence that gives them) have dropped to a mere fraction of what they were in 2020. Europe is now dependant on US LNG exports.
The second largest military in NATO is Turkey and Turkey is America's puppet. Turkey has been in direct military conflict with other NATO members (ie Greece) with the blessing of the US.
Ceding territory to Russia, which seems all but inevitable now, doesn't change the the security picture for Europe. Russia still can't occupy Ukraine. That was true before the invasion. It's still true now. They certainly can't roll into Poland let alone Germany and Western Europe.
The EU really has no interest in paying for their own security. Politically it's a nonstarter too with the right of far-right parties like National Front in France and AfD, AfD in Germany and Reform in the UK.
For example, since October 7, Erdogan made lots of statements about how he was upset with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. That was all for show. Something like 40% of Israel's energy comes from Azerbijan and transits through Turkey. Turkey could've cut that off. But they never would.
Likeise, Erdogan's family continued to trade with and make money from Israel.
Turkey buys a Russian anti-missile defense system [1] while selling Bayraktar drones to Ukraine and hosting US (technically NATO) nuclear weapons.
Turkey is consistently aligned with US foreign polciy with some minor exceptions that are really deviations tolerated because of Turkey's strategic importance and recognizing the need for Erdogan to maintain power.
[1]L https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/26/erdogan-turkey-coul...
Yes. Like sell a ton of drones to Ukraine, partner with Ukraine on producing drones, shooting down a Russian plane in Syria, conflict with Russian troops in Syria, etc...
They have been aligned with the US most of the time but they very clearly also have a mind of their own and that includes a lot of actions against Russia.
Expect insane nukes proliferation.
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.
We just need the political will to execute - instead of just rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.
If the US scaled back the 2%, and was less involved, I would think Europe would be in a better position than a brand new alliance.
Because Trump is clearly compromised by Putin.
Which also means we cannot fully rely on NATO secret keys / protocols.
A new Alliance has to be made from scratch.
The 2% GDP threshold has indeed been a persistent issue, but European nations have substantially increased defense spending since 2022. The proposed alliance would be fundamentally different from NATO in two key ways:
1. It would prioritize democratic values and rule of law accountability (ICC membership) over simply being anti-Russia
2. It would develop true strategic autonomy through indigenous defense production
NATO remains structurally dominated by US interests and equipment with their potential "kill switches." Recent events demonstrate why European security can't be outsourced to powers with potentially divergent interests.
The existing industrial and technological capabilities across Europe are more than sufficient to create a credible deterrent force when properly coordinated. This isn't about creating something from scratch, but realigning existing resources toward greater sovereignty.
Democracy and rule of law aren't just ideals - they're strategic assets worth defending with our own means.
Why the downvotes?
In 2025, Trump dumped Ukraine, sided with Putin and made a number of bully threats (including invasion) to its formal National Security partners. Security which - at least still today - is bound by literal treaty.
Should Europe just roll over and wag its tail?
What kind of partnership is this that one side wants to boss around its only-good-if-wimp partner?
We're in the verge of those countries being Trumped as well.
It is an Alliance of the Willing.
Seven countries now have far right parties in government, including Italy, France, and Germany. If they go the way of the U.S., any liberal alliance will be greatly diminished.
Meanwhile, Hungary systematically dismantles judicial independence, crushes media freedom, and rewrites electoral rules to entrench single-party rule - but sure, they're the real liberals here.
The proposed alliance isn't claiming perfect members - it's establishing clear, measurable standards through indices *like* WJP Rule of Law. If Japan doesn't meet the 0.67 threshold, they're out too. That's the whole point: consistent standards applied equally, not convenient exceptions.
But please, continue defending Orbán's "illiberal democracy" while nitpicking flaws in actual functioning democracies. That's definitely a coherent position.
Note these in particular:
"Eschew flamebait."
"Assume good faith."
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
The right way for you is only if they are bullied without complaint?
Perhaps you'd prefer an alliance where authoritarian tendencies are celebrated rather than scrutinized?
Or maybe you just find democracies protecting themselves too... inconvenient?
This has been par for the course for decades. They used to be on good terms with Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran after they couped Mossadegh. Heck, they even armed and trained Osama Bin Laden to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. It has always been a deadly gambit to ally yourself with the United States.
I'm not saying it's universally the case of course. For every Saddam there's a Pinochet, for every Gaddafi there's a Suharto. But the fact that the US can drop an ally just like that should not be a surprise to anyone.
The switch to verbally attacking Ukraine and the rest of Europe whilst fellating Putin is an altogether different one, and one much more damaging to US soft power than its past belligerence.
Personally I'm more inclined to believe that the ally-turned-foe's invasion serves as a convenient excuse for the US to attack, rather than the root cause. One thing that at least Gadaffi and Saddam have in common is nationalizing their oil industry. This to me seems like a much more believable reason for US aggression.
Help Ukraine: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/?share_id=xG...
Dont buy from Companies doing business with Russia: https://leave-russia.org/
2015: 5 countries
2021: 9 countries
2024: 23 countries
I don't think these levels would have improved so quickly without the US being a bully.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/world/europe/donald-trump...
For the US, NATO is an obligation, of which the EU nations (with their lavish social spending and anemic defense spending) benefited from.
In 2014, the EU did NOTHING to help when Crimea was invaded. You continued to buy gas, and even bult new pipelines like Nordstream to continue to hand Putin money. I'm all for the EU to take on it's own protection and investing in militaries. World War II ended 80 years ago. Move on and grow up and pay for your own defense.
Isn't most US NATO spending just hand-outs to the US defense industry?
But I agree that the EU should never have relied on the US for its own defense, I really hope that will change now.
Manufacturing a split with Zelensky gives them that excuse. Now they can turn off the tap of support to Ukraine, forcing them to capitulate, and blame Zelensky.
Meanwhile they can make a deal with Putin to split Ukraine between them. Putin gets East Ukraine, the USA gets the mineral wealth of West Ukraine. It’s win-win.
Historically most of the heavy industry, near the mineral deposits, has always been in eastern Ukraine. Agricultural stuff in western and central Ukraine. Putin would be perfectly happy w/ a Ukrainian only rump state centered around Lviv.
These conversations are a train wreck, I don't understand how people expect to stop war if you can't be bothered to even try to speak truthfully.
They're all Kremlin lines/tropes commonly found in state media.
And then TASS was allowed in to the Whitehouse and PA News aren't?
Thinking long and hard apparently is all the EU is capable of.
Trump's first term should have been more than enough to make the EU come to their senses. Now, we have tethered caps and the AI Act, but the EU still has no coherent vision or just even the slightest idea of how to move the continent forward instead of keeping it in the past.
I don't get it.
Make no mistake that the Republican party is bought out, through and through, by foreign powers.
I can't point to anything concrete about Russia funding Trump.
I speak both from public and personal history: when American leadership signed its various trade treaties with China back in the 90s and earlier, opening itself up to the swift transfer of manufacturing to its one-time enemy, was American leadership not signaling its strong desire to diminish American power for the sake of peace?
And on a personal level: my hippie parents had often railed against American imperialism and voted for candidates they thought could stop it. What did they (and other similarly-minded folks) think would happen once America withdrew from the world stage? Do people who think the same way today believe America will grow stronger by pulling back?
Having been around since the late 60s, I can only say this attitude has been in the making for a long time. I can't point to college sit-ins or Nixon going to China or Carter turning over the Panama Canal or the US-China Relations Act (2000) or anything specific stating 'this is the definitive moment', but this desire for a weaker, more isolationist America is neither surprising nor accidental for those of us who've been watching it grow. It's ultimately what my parents and their contemporaries wanted. It's... dream fulfillment.
I think the current administration's actions are backed by the desire to kick out all immigrants, build a fortress wall around the US, and I guess wait out the end times.
Us lefties often say the best way to lower immigration rates is make other countries a more desirable place to live. I'm not sure if this has ever been put into practice though.
Regarding China, the European and American financial relationship is the largest in the world. Chinese trade with Europe is tiny. Sounds like that is all about to change.
Personally, I hope to see China fill the void America will leave behind; the world will be better for it.
But I do believe that is why Americans are so frightened of a multipolar world (or really, any world where the US isn't the singular superpower).
The Chinese are not stupid enough to send their kids to die in war, and even if they were, they at least have an excess of young males.
> The Chinese are not stupid enough to send their kids to die in war
I see you already understand why China would be a better world leader than America!
All he had to do was was smile and wave, but Zelensky made it into a dick measuring contest which he was always going to lose.
He is a terrible leader and this is just more proof of it.
This is not at all consistent with U.S. foreign policy. It is one regime, that clearly has different thoughts about our alliances. It's an anomaly or, more accurately, an aberration. And it's similar to what's happening here domestically as well.
what kind of entitled mindset is that? he should be down on his knees BEGGING for money if he wants it.
Left his family, took on a uniform...And had to fight, at the same time, Putin and the President of the USA: https://youtu.be/4zwfukYhq-k?t=6
This is why Zelensky keep saying he doesn't want another paper.
I encourage everyone to do so:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxbGjvcdyY&pp=ygUbZnVsbCB6ZWx...
Watching Trump and Vance and others posture and try to score political points while you could just see the depth of exhaustion and horrors witnessed in Zelensky's face… I don't even know how to feel about it all.
Maybe that's what a bunch of citizens want? Pretty depressing, if so. I will say that I'm reevaluating my countries alliances and (lack of) security capability.
Every country in the world knows this already.
I mean all you need to do is look at South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, many South American countries, the list goes on and on.
America is like a fickle woman. When she pays attentions to you it feels wonderful, but when she changes her mind it's like you never existed in the first place.
Zelensky had to know that going in. The writing was on the wall.
Ukraine and its allies are a match for Russia and its. Perhaps more so, since Ukraine's allies have limited its use of force. With the US out, Ukraine may be able to exert much more force.
Which is to say Trump's judgment of who is weak is deeply compromised by his belief in single strongmen. This will not go well for him.
I am curious about this. Why you say it?
Europe has similar concerns, but if Ukraine loses American support, they may not be able to afford that. They might gamble on direct strikes on Moscow, or at least make it clear that they can.
Which might end life as we know it. Or it might force Russia to the bargaining table directly with Ukraine. Who knows? Let's find out!
I wish Zelensky made those points instead. "The US voted to open a NATO path for us, The US asked not to renew the base, and the US refused to negotiate with Russia when tanks were on our boarder. And now you want to walk away?"
Why would that change if he hasn't?
They have their land bridge to Crimea now, and if I had to speculate, they’d be happy with a neutered neighbor that can’t join NATO, essentially a populated DMZ. I can’t see what benefit in wanting to take Ukraine on again after the dragged out meat grinder it was this time around.
Expanded access to the Black Sea and natural gas/minerals were and still are very important to Russia. Aside from these, a total victory would allow Putin to cement himself as a conqueror in Russian history books.
This bright shining revelation of just how ugly and stupid Trumpism truly is (and America, by proxy) may realign world powers for decades, to our great loss.
The only things that seem to sway him is the sentiment of his voters and the economy.
Bully or not, I think the entire schoolyard theory that bullies fold when pushed back is bunk, cartoon logic. Did Russia give up and go home when Ukraine pushed back?
Hell, even Trump supporters know it. Half the reason I’ve heard for that vote is that they know, and are relying on, Trump lying about various things.
Why vote for someone you know to be a liar? Not sure, but I did learn that non-Trump supporters generally take him much more at his word than Trump supporters.
And then it became dishonesty when in the face of plenty of evidence to his being incorrect, he chooses to go on national TV and show a map modified with a marker, insisting he was right all along and no, it is the meteorologists who are wrong.
I would consider "folding" to be backing down and giving in to whatever Zelensky requests.
Throwing a tantrum, embarrassing oneself, or even harming your own interests is distinct from folding.
If you tell a mugger, "what are you going to do, shoot me" and they do, the mugger is stupid but didn't fold.
I think Zelenskyy didn't give them the sound-bites or vibe they were looking for, but they're claiming some kind of victory (WTF) on social media anyway. Meanwhile all they managed to do was look some combination of stupid, childish, and traitorous, while he came out looking incredibly restrained, and overall more-articulate than them despite the handicap of speaking in English rather than his native tongue.
I'm wondering what all the people in the US military and government who swore to protect the US from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" are thinking now.
Vance made a comment about the US' goal to be diplomatic.
Zelensky speaks up and says he wants to ask Vance something. He then goes on to talk about how Putin annexed Crimea and that between 2014 - 2022 Putin was murdering Ukrainian citizens and ignoring cease fires. He mentioned that nobody did anything to stop Putin, implying that Trump didn't do anything during his first term in office. Then Zelensky ends with something along the lines of "so what do you mean diplomacy" to Vance.
Even if Zelensky's statements were correct, that was not a wise course of action to attempt to call out the President and VP while you're in the Oval office. The meeting erupts from there.
Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it is a fact that Ukraine has been dependent on the US' aid. I don't know what Zelensky expected to gain from those statements.
This news press is his only chance to potentially flip the script with his public opinion advantage. We will see how that goes.
JD's statement about "diplomacy" which precedes Zelensky's comments about how Russia diplomacy plays out starts here: https://youtu.be/CIEZEvx1HfU?si=IdGw2g74643yEQrE&t=45
I suppose its arguable that it wasn't the most diplomatic thing to say in the moment. But I can't fault the guy for pointing out the undiplomatic behavior while his country is being squeezed by Russia and US (wrt mineral rights). How frustrating it must be to hear "have you tried diplomacy?" in the context of an invading force.
I can understand his frustration as well. But, he's a leader at war and lives of his men depend on his actions. The moment is much much bigger than him.
My understanding is that the mineral deal is back pay. And if the development is going to be done by American firms, then of course there’s a security alignment for the USA.
The dumb move of the day was on the part of Zelensky thinking he could somehow expand things at the last moment or on live TV.
To me the implication was that "diplomacy and deals didn't work" and they ended up with the current war, anyway. It's a common talking point.
He wanted/needed American aid, but there was no way he could just go in there and kiss the ring, while being slandered as the aggressor and letting Putin off the hook. There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.
Failing that, this is a pretty good outcome, in the scheme of things. He outed Trump as a committed Russian ally, not behind closed doors, but on international television so nobody (who matters in this context, I mean world leaders, not Trump voters) can ignore it. He may have just kicked over the final leg holding up the American-centered security apparatus, in such a shocking and spectacular fashion that others will be compelled to form a new one without us, which is something they absolutely need if they're going to keep fighting and the US is withdrawing support. They need other countries not to follow America's lead.
> did the us held elections while world war 2 was happening?
> Elections were held on November 7, 1944, during the final stages of World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was easily re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term, and the Democratic Party retained their majorities in both chambers of Congress.
Well, them and the Russians. "Ooopsy, we let Russian state media in, however did that accidentally happen?!?"
Vance’s answer “I mean the kind of diplomacy that would save your country” is a meaningless bullshit sentence.
The difference between this and the more confrontational corrections of Trump's bullshit in similar situations recently, by Macron and Trudeau, is stark. Trump and Vance were primed to pounce.
Vance took it in a really weird direction, first pushing "the kind of diplomacy that is going to save your country", then accusing Zelensky of not saying thank you (despite him having said thank you several times that very meeting?).
The reporters reiterated Zelensky's point, asking what Trump would do if Putin breaks the deal, and Trump just shoots down the possibility, saying he doesn't think it would happen and the possibility isn't worth considering. "What if a bomb drops on your head right now". His only justification being that Trump is president and Putin wouldn't do that to Trump.
Zelensky needs guarantees or the ceasefire isn't worth it to him, so it's fair for him to push back on the lack of guarantees even at the risk of annoying Vance. But they snapped back at him in a very unreasonable way.
But, he also highlighted a couple of times that that no one did anything to stop Putin which implies that the US didn't do anything. Which could be taken as criticism. Also, ending his statements with "So what do you mean diplomacy" is clearly a snarky response.
The fact is Zelensky has no leverage. He was given aid from the US, apparently as a grant. The US has no obligation to help Ukraine. My understanding is that the aid was given to Ukraine in the hopes that it would weaken Russia. That gamble doesn't appear to be working.
If he didn't like the terms of the deal, it should have been discussed in private, before coming to the US. Instead, he chose to push back in a public forum. So I don't feel the response he got was unwarranted.
An analogy that comes to mind is helping out a friend that just lost their job. You give them money and a place to stay and over time the friend starts to feel entitled to your generosity. Eventually, you get tired of it and give them a deadline to find their own place. Then during dinner with a group of friends, they complain to the table that you only gave them 3 months left to stay instead of 6...
I got carried away with the analogy and of course it doesn't capture the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, but I feel like it captures the core sentiment.
That's not really true. His leverage is that it's also in the interests of the US to maintain norms in which territorial conquest is not rewarded. "Crime doesn't pay". He also attempted to convince the US of this but was brushed off.
Looking at it as a one-off situation in which the US doesn't have any interest results in it not being a one-off situation, because if Ukraine loses then everyone starts itching to take land from their neighbours. And everyone else starts arming themselves with nukes, having seen what Ukraine got for giving them up. That's the path to World War 3. And the US might realize then, with regret, that it was easier to plug the dam when the crack was small.
Trump doesn't understand this. He made it clear that he doesn't see it as an iterated game, just a one-off. Or perhaps he's the one who wants to establish norms of taking over neighbours with force?
As for an analogy, a better example is that your friend's house is being broken into by a notorious gang of criminals threatening the neighborhood, and his children have been picked off one by one, and he's knocking at your door screaming "I'll hold them off if you can pass me some more ammo!", and you're haggling him down for his furniture.
When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US was happy to send the Taliban weapons. That wasn't for love or charity. It was American self-interest. So is this.
They expected Zelensky to be Charlie Brown kicking the football.
We have no fucking right to the "mineral rights" in Ukraine.
[1] https://thehill.com/video-clips/5168859-watch-live-donald-tr...
But overall, he did rather well, considering the shit-show it was.
I still can't believe Trump publicly tries to humiliate an ally like this, and at the same time calls Biden "the stupid President".
Stupid or not, perhaps he is, but not to stay in public like that. It shows Trump doesn't respect the function of the US President and shits on the vote of the citizens.
I don't think I'd consider that a mistake. Not that it matters to everyone but it's one more asshole thing to know Trump did, which was only publicized because Zelenskyy respectfully asked for his turn to speak. Other leaders are likely to have taken note of that: Trump isn't even pretending that you're equals.
To some common folk, it will make Zelenskyy look weak but also consider this exact thread in which people say his calm demeanor makes him look strong. I'd wager Zelenskyy is interested in impressing the latter folk and not interested in impressing the former.
They’re not equals and to pretend otherwise is delusional. One is the leader of the most powerful country on earth. The other is broke and soon to be defenseless.
Probably why people voted for him.
> shits on the vote of the citizens.
yes 4 years ago. But now… can’t really say we didn’t know what we were voting for. I didn’t vote for him, but most of my fellow Americans did, and we gotta live with that, and hope we learn.
Not true.
Harris - 75 million votes
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
- an American citizen who wasn't able to vote in multiple presidential elections due to nonsense like being unregistered without notification in a state with an early registration deadline
"First past the post" means "first to get above 50%". He didn't win enough of the vote to be elected.
First past the post is plurality wins.
Anyways, that's not how US presidential elections work. The aggregate of votes doesn't matter, only the electoral votes divvied up by state.
Stuff like this https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/
The first one is getting emotional in the first place. His team and Ukraine's intelligence services should have spent weeks interrogating and trying to provoke him in order to desensitize him to this kind of shit. Trump, Vance and Musk are primarily trolls and they should be dealt with as such.
He should not have interrupted Vance answering him either. That was fatal.
He needed to stay calm and slow. He did better than any of us could ever have done, but it wasn't quite enough for this situation. He could have looked a lot stronger and I think we need everything we can possibly get in the situation we're all in right now.
I want to highlight this comment too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43211604
But Trump jumped in angry at the implication that one day Putin will come for the US. That is when Trump stated his machine gun speech … millions will die, world war 3.
This was a shameful day for America. Period. Full stop.
Vance was absolutely trying to score domestic political points by undermining Zelenskyy, but Zelenskyy was unable to communicate or respond in the manner he wanted to, and definetly committed some obvious Russian L1 / English L2 mistakes (Zelenskyy's first language is Russian and this can be seen by his "costume" statement, because the direct translation for suit across the CIS is костюм/costume [0][1][2][3] because of French influence), and he inadvertently insinuated that Trump wasn't doing enough even though he was trying to join Vance in dunking on the previous admin.
This is why the Japan and India meetings with Trump had English translators despite Ishiba and Modi having a similar level of English fluency to Zelenskyy.
[0] - https://stager.ua/ru/category/kostyumi/
[1] - https://arber.ua/ru/catalog/kostiumi
Felt like watching your friend get scolded by his parents when they find a cigarette in his backpack
I personally think everyone looked rather unprofessional in this meeting..
IMO he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Maybe he could have been more professional and statesmanlike but I don’t think it would have earned him a thing. The US strategy seems locked in at this point and it’s a pro-Russia one. He could have really flexed the “deal with a heckler” muscles but the risk is far too great.
European leaders are queuing up to restate their support for Ukraine after this and I think that’s probably the best he could have gotten from it anyway.
The Trump-gang seems to underestimate everyone and everything. I still don't know whether they mean all this excessive behavior for real, or if this is an elusive ploy to divert from something else. Trumps seems to operate by selling big to gain small, but I can't really understand yet what his real long-term goal seems.
But at this point it seems other politicians around the world have got an understanding of him and his behavior and started playing along. I'm curious if Zelenskiy did the same, he certainly gained more from this than if he had been avoided it from the beginning.
https://www.dw.com/en/how-trumps-foreign-policy-is-impacting...
The one's humiliated on the global scale are the ones who are lying through their teeth with less than zero class.
Attributed to (the half-American) Winston Churchill: "The American people can be counted on to do the right thing — after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
We have ample precedent: Germany in 1945.
The people that suffered the most from the first Trump administration are the white republicans: they died because they did not want to be vaccinated against COVID nor wear masks. In 2024 white republicans voted for Trump even though they were personally hurt by Trump's COVID advice.
One of my friends is a Trump supporter who almost died of COVID (he got intubated!!). His wife also got COVID. Never you mind: both of them voted for Trump in 2024.
Now, if SS or Medicaid is gutted... that will be the turning point for this admin.
Zelensky came to the USA to sign an already agreed-to minerals deal that would have (eventually) paid back the billions of dollars they’ve received. There were no additional security guarantees. No further agreements. This was back pay. And it was agreed to before he left Ukraine.
He reneged, got called out for demanding further security guarantees, thought he could bluff them into agreeing to more, and summarily got his ass handed to him on live TV. Trump is not the one that tried to change the deal.
The real moment of the day was when Trump asked him point blank if he even wants a ceasefire. And he couldn’t say yes.
You can’t end a war diplomatically if there’s no will to stop fighting and accept peace. For lack of a better term, Ukraine is in a shit position. Billions more dollars will not change that, it will just cost more blood.
If people think the situation and accepting the current positions is bad now, just wait to see how bad it will be when the USA weapons spigot gets turned off.
I think the risk of nuclear war in the future just went up.
This is what Zelensky tried to explain to Vance before the discussion blew up.
Would you be mad if you gave up your guns and your neighbor promised to protect you and then he said, unless you give me your back yard, I'm not helping, I know we had an agreement, but oh well, good luck on your own?
Why would you want to enter another agreement with this neighbor when he's already opportunistically screwing you over on existing agreement?
Nobody is saying Zelensky and Ukraine should be happy with where they've ended up. War is terrible and the desire for revenge or retribution will never subside. Diplomacy is putting aside that raw emotion to get the best deal you can, working with the situation that you have.
For them to come to USA to sign an agreement, renege, demand more, and create a spectacle in front of the cameras, is incredibly non-diplomatic. You can see it on the face of the Ukrainian ambassador: https://www.newsweek.com/photo-ukrainian-ambassador-amid-tru...
That minerals deal was going to be the first step toward peace. But Zelensky royally fucked it up. And the only way to fix it is going to be for him to come groveling back or step down so someone else can do the groveling. And that's not a desire of mine, that's the reality of the situation. Their country is broke and will run out of ammo in six months without further assistance. As Trump said during the call, he has no cards to play.
No, it was the first step toward conceding everything to Russia, also conceding to an outrageously overzealous US (for reasons unclear to anyone outside the Trump bubble), with a guaranteed future war with zero protections.
If they wanted to give Russia everything they wanted, they could've done that years ago, and not given up minerals to the US.
This would be an impressively terrible deal.
The reason why he didn't answer is because the answer is meaningless. Putin won't respect a cease fire. And if you think he would, you are completely clueless about the history of that region and what has already transpired. The "guarantee" that Putin gave that he would not invade if Ukraine gave back their nukes. That promise was ignored in 2014 when he took Crimea.
As for the rest of your reply: I assume you are discussing this in good faith and you're not trolling. If the US withdraws support and Ukraine falls to Russia, what do you think will happen after that? Is the rest of Europe (east and west) safe from further incursions?
They are in the process of being gutted ... but Trump, Musk and the right wing media will spin it as being Biden's fault, and those same people will accept it as gospel truth.
Either way, it's going to be interesting to see them blame any problems on Biden.
I wonder if Trump got Elon in to do the axing just so he could blame him if his base turns on him. Remember the first cabinet meeting? He made a joke about firing Elon. To me, that was a reminder to everyone who is in charge. Also, Elon didn't even have a chair at the table. What a power play.
The shameful part was ten years ago.
Anybody else saw Vance and Trump humiliating themselves. Showing the intellectual and emotional capacity of a middle schooler to the world while a man whose people are suffering occupation and mass casualties and deals with death every day just looks stunned.
To anybody with critical thinking skills it feels like Trump & Vance are talking about a TV show or video game. Completely disconnected from reality. Horrifying and shocking level of narcissistic immaturity.
Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would break down and the deal would fall through.
Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all.
Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
If he was asked a question on American politics I would tend to agree but this is Americans here espousing their views on Ukrainian politics and then expecting to not hear the Ukrainian side to it.
His point that Russia has not abided by previous agreements is well-taken. Clearly any future cease fire will need better enforcement provisions. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the deal that should have been signed today was not a cease fire, it was a mineral rights agreement. If and when a cease fire is on the table that Zelensky feels will be unenforceable, then he can criticize its provisions.
I, for one, don’t want to keep dumping money on him throwing his citizens into the meat grinder.
All that being said though it doesn't change anything about how the meeting went down. I've been lucky enough where I've literally never worked at a place where that would've been acceptable behavior, I've seen people talked to for less. To do that then double down more later was pretty embarrassing. Zelensky pushing back on their view on diplomacy in Ukraine didn't seem like a particular insult to me to make the meltdown make sense.
as sorta an aside: I was especially confused about them getting mad at Zelensky for telling them how to feel but as a native English speaker saying "you're going to feel it" means more you're going to feel the effects not you're going to feel a specific emotion (like after a hard workout at the gym if someone told me "you're going to feel it tomorrow" it would then be really weird for me to interpret that as them telling me how to feel emotionally). Trump responding he was going to feel strong was surreal and confusing to me. Especially with Zelensky as a non-native speaker it was weird to see Trump be the one struggling more with language. I can sorta understand agreeing with Trump politically but I just don't see how that was an acceptable or even normal way to react.
Anyway, that's a long post. I've watched the whole video and watching it just makes me feel like I've been taking crazy pills so I've thought about it a lot today.
Edit: and I forgot the whole thanking thing. Zelensky famously has thanked the US for aid and it seems like something they should know (even I was aware of it and confused while watching the video). But then Vance just pivoted to being mad about something else. Like people are talking about this like it's a policy dispute but I feel like I just watched some someone's villain arc on "The Bachelor", they seemed like reality TV characters.
Sure. They can do what they want and so can we. We don’t owe them anything. And honestly, in a way we’re just enablers at this point. We’re enabling them to fight on and enabling them to pointless throw away more lives.
Neither does he, Ukraine just wants real security guarantees.
TRUMP: "But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long."
TRUMP: "All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television."
I just watched Trump greet Zelensky entering the Whitehouse with words like "and he even got all dressed up", foreshadowing Tulsi Gabbard's journalist boyfriend asking Z why he doesn't wear a suit.
It was definitely a planned media ambush intended to undermine support for Z and Ukraine.
Also, Vance's claim that Trump is the first one to actually engage in diplomacy is pretty wild, considering that Trump called Zelensky a dictator and essentially succumbs to all of Putin's demands, going so far as to side with Russia in the UN.
But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.
Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.
I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.
But frankly in today's world where we've got people making serious decisions in government who are avowed segregationists I think it is rather important to mention when people oppose the Civil Rights Act when considering their opinion on political news.
Hanania's opinions here are not one weird quirk. They are central to the modern GOP's project.
It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes.
Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either.
I'm not disappointed in Trump; he remains exactly who I thought he was even before running in 2015. I'm disappointed in how many of my fellow citizens applaud his buffoonery, ignorance, and malice. While Trump himself is not competent, he has surrounded himself with people who can actually do the damage.
To conservatives who are about to say I'm a snowflake liberal, I ask you this: if Biden had invited George Soros to run wild through the government and ignore the laws, demanded a $800B reduction in the military budget and reallocated it to distribute to those in poverty, commanded schools to hire only gay people, fire anyone who didn't declare loyalty to Biden, and had minions collecting all your data for whatever purposes, and threatened to wipe out Israel unless they gave over their country to the Palestinians, what would you have done?
I can't even construct a proper analogy because those goals above are just a parody of what the left wants, whereas Trump/Musk are actually doing that about actual right wing wishes.
if Biden had invited George Soros to run wild through the government and ignore the laws, demanded a $800B reduction in the military budget and reallocated it to distribute to those in poverty,
- This sounds awesome. He's got a plan, he executed. If we didn't piss off our allies, we could probably ride on our military spending lorals from decades past. It would probably completely irradicate poverty, if he got the whole 'left' side of silicon valley to start building super cheap sky scrapers for the homeless. it'd be a pretty cool golden age. But here lies the issue... He inacted radical change towards some end, and hired some of the smartest minds in the world to help him enact his policys.
commanded schools to hire only gay people, -..... Hmmmmm, Sounds like we'd have a complete population collapse in about a single generation. I'm a normal dude, i've had gay friends, trans friends, w/e. But do i disagree with them on that issue? Do i think this should be taught in school at all? no... so yeah, i'd be pretty pissed and i'd homeschool my kid forsure.
fire anyone who didn't declare loyalty to Biden, Well.... Yeah, i mean, that's how a cabinet works, right? The people voted for the president, so who are you to defy the people? get in line or get out.
and had minions collecting all your data for whatever purposes, - Well... They hopefully used the data to irradicate the military budget.
and threatened to wipe out Israel unless they gave over their country to the Palestinians, what would you have done?
at 61, i'm suprised in your inability to see the world as... real... with real violence. People seem to forget that a couple generations ago the entire world was imperialistic with a large percentage of the human population as slaves. We are those same people, our evolution didn't change in 250 years. Only with a complete monopoly on violence can you ensure peace between neighbors. This war has been going on for too long and will never end if a complete monopoly of violence is not secured. So honestly, if he came in and ended the war, i don't really care how he'd do it. Pick a side is a side as any. but like... hamas is literally a terrorist organization funded by iran so....
Having a plan and executing on it is not intrinsically good if the plan itself is corrupt. It is telling that Project 2025 was disavowed by Trump before the election due to its many unpopular goals, but obviously that was a ruse and than plan is being carried out. That doesn't fit your description of it is commendable to carry out that plan.
Many of these plans are just based on pretext. P2025 isn't going to reduce the debt -- the money saved by cutting social services will be rerouted to the military and bankroll tax cuts that are clearly advantageous to the rich. Recall in Trump's first term there was the case of megacorps using accounting tricks (like "the double irish") to avoid paying taxes that were otherwise legally due. Trump gave away an immediate trillion dollars via that amnesty and reduced rates going forward for trillions more. If the real goal was debt reduction, we'd be reverting those tax giveaways and restoring the capital gains tax to a higher level.
"Hmmmmm, Sounds like we'd have a complete population collapse". I agree, as would just about everyone, that such a policy would be bad. But that doesn't address my point: should Biden/Soros be allowed to ignore the laws to do it?
"i mean, that's how a cabinet works" Nobody is upset that Trump is replacing political appointees. The problem is that he is turning apolitical positions into political positions. Should the IRS be staffed with political appointees? The DOJ? The FBI? By claiming for years that he is the victim of a politicalization of the DOJ, it is the pretext for actually politicizing the DOJ.
"hopefully they used the data to irridicate the military budget." First, the military budget is set to increase. Second, why offer him the benefit of the doubt? It is OK he is violating laws just in case he is doing it for good? Half of Trump's former inner circle, lifelong Republicans, refused to endorse him, many expressly saying he is manifestly unfit. The data is that Trump is transactional and is motivated only by self interest.
What would I have done about Gaza? Yes, it is a Gordian knot of conflicting principles. But again, that isn't my point. Biden didn't ask for the cleansing of Israel, unlike Trump who has called for a cleansing of Palestine. Is this playing out like you expected when you voted for Trump? Your response seems to indicate you have bought into the cartoonish version that the right pushes of the conflict: looking only at the violence done to Israel without acknowledging the violence done by Israel. To disclose my position, of course, I don't want bombs falling on the heads of Israelis and Israel has the right to defend itself. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Is your problem that they should behave more honorably? We can help that by giving them billions of dollars annually and giving them some nukes. Sarcasm aside, it is like people complaining about Iraq using IEDs; of course I don't want to see US soldiers blown up, but to complain about them resorting to primitive tricks while we occupy and bomb the crap out of their country is rich.
Biden campaigned on ending those tax cuts. He did not end the tax cuts. These are not new, and these are from trumps first term.
>Second, why offer him the benefit of the doubt? It is OK he is violating laws just in case he is doing it for good?
Can you tell me what laws he violated? have you actually seen the doge website? They are using FPDS-NG which is all public information... They are all vetted and passed a background check.
Finally, on Palestine... Yes, they elected an internationally known criminal organization, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the department of state to run their country. They then murdered a bunch of people at a music festival to give israel all the ammunition it needs. Now it's crying foul because Sharīʿah turns out to be a very evil way to govern yourself. Again, not saying israel is blameless in the last 100 years of fucked up shit that they have done to eachother, but you keep poking a bigger bear, doesn't matter who was wrong, that's not how war works.
Trump is operating on the novel legal theory of the unitary executive -- that the executive branch really has all the power and the other two are subordinate and operate at the will of the President. I don't understand how people can listen to Trump assert this and the the next moment Trump is railing about how Obama broke the law by spying on Trump's campaign. If they really believe "if the president does it, then it is legal" then how could Obama have broken the law.
We aren't entirely sure what he is up to, but clearly allowing unfettered access to Musk's minions, none of whom have clearance, to hover up all data and install who knows what software on the computers of every department is not legal. Clearly, demanding George to "find 11,780 votes" is not legal. Illegally taking top secret documents, lying about having them, actively moving them when the Feds came to collect them, all illegal. Clearly, keeping cooking books and keeping two sets of books in his personal business are not legal. He has taken in tens of millions, possibly billions, despite the emoluments clause (the open extortion of media companies in the first case, the pump and dump trump crypto coin, the suspect investments from Qatar and others into Kusher's failing real estate deals).
we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die. to deploy boots-on-the-ground forces for what amounts to a minor territorial war in a country with limited strategic importance beyond being a buffer state. smells too strongly of vietnam and korea.
to those who disagree with this, alright that's a fair position to hold. what number of young Americans is it appropriate for us to sacrifice to hold the donetsk and luhansk oblasts? how many of our children should we send to die? which number is reasonable and which is too great? if you don't believe there's a limit, and we should risk any number of Americans and potential nuclear exchange, why?
the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out. then zelensky decided to, at the eleventh hour, push for a full security deal which isn't tenable from where we stand. this wasn't what had been discussed with Rubio; it was a bait-and-switch pressure tactic. zelensky was trying to either squeeze out that guarantee or humiliate the admin with failure coming from what otherwise would have been successful.
i think the constant lionization of zelensky has gone to his head. he feels confident in disrespecting nations who have invested significant resources in the war by refusing to so much as dress for the occasion, expecting the sort of standing ovation the prior administration and european leaders gave him. i can respect someone who's fighting for causes i generally support, as can most of my countrymen, but zelensky is no holy warrior and we have no moral duty to offer unlimited resources and manpower. we have aligned interests, but if not for that, there are more than enough domestic US issues that we otherwise would not (nor should we) send the sort of resources we have. similar thing with Israel: we have strongly overlapping interests but she needs to mind her place and toe the line if she wants our support.
This is a straw man: nobody asked you to.
> the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out
There was nothing fair in that mineral deal: the US would get resources and Ukraine was getting... nothing. No security guarantees, no military support, nothing. Trump said it himself: he wanted it to get back what the US spent helping Ukraine so far.
Getting something for nothing is fair to you?
> as dress for the occasion
The is the King of Saudi Arabia at the white house: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/president-obama-meets-wit...
This is the pope at the white house: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/09/25/photos-...
This is Elon Musk giving an interview in the oval office: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/tech/elon-musk-x-oval-off...
Did they all disrespect the US?
Ukraine is sending its youngs to die to keep Russia (the west common enemy) at bay and your concern is... Zelinsky wearing a tie?
US state dep't lawyers have generally understood "security assurance" to mean that we won't violate someone's territorial integrity, while "security guarantee" implies the use of military force to defend the security of a nation and her territorial integrity. unless and until we have a fully-autonomous military, this does, in fact, necessitate putting American servicemen at risk of death. this is why i think your analysis is a misread of the situation; i haven't seen media report this distinction well and it's hard to keep track of which treaty terms are vague sympathies with a general direction of action and which promise specific actions.
it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent and to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid they still want. since we are already well into the twelve figures w.r.t. aid to Ukraine it seems pretty reasonable. but i don't particularly think a minerals deal is worth sending young men to die halfway across the world in a border war over land the size of west virginia.
the saudi king was in his own cultural formalwear. the pope did the same. if zelensky wanted to dress down and call it "cultural formalwear", he should have tried an adidas tracksuit. what he did was simple disrespect. it's not the end of the world but i think he owes us more than this "great value steve jobs" routine. i dress better than that for a normal workplace.
"parroting russian talking points" isn't a good response or critique. i don't read RT or alt-right twitter. i agree we have some interest in keeping russia contained and it's generally a good move to put resources behind that. i do not think there's this odd moral obligation to do whatever it takes and back ukraine to the hilt. this is sort of a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know just made a good point" situation.
the whole "sending ukraine materiel is going to cause WWIII" thing is sort of bs russian propaganda. the idea that direct American military intervention isn't risking that is very much not.
again, how many Americans do you think it's appropriate for their own government to sign up to die for this cause? i think the number is zero. if you think it's higher, i'd very much like to understand why and how many you think is a reasonable number. i understand it'd be a ballpark figure, not a bright line, but i'd like at least an order of magnitude grasp of what people think is appropriate and why they think so.
you can make a "what about czechoslovakia/poland/nazis" argument about heavy intervention in what would otherwise be any proxy war. you say czechoslovakia, i say vietnam, i say korea, i say the middle east.
the American interest in this war isn't so much "we love the ukraine" as "this is an effective way to cripple russia for the next decade by proxy". by doing so, we avoid that situation in a much smarter way than chamberlain. and because russia wasn't in that great of a spot to start with, a protracted war of attrition is really bad for her.
are you suggesting we should begin a war against russia, historically a massively losing proposition, over a couple oblasts of the ukraine? again, how many americans should we send off to die? how much should we weaken our resources for a much more concerning conflict with china?
It does not. Europe has been willing to send troops on the ground. The guarantee from the US could be in the form of equipment, air interdiction, etc. Note the the US already had guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty when it gave up its nukes. So no new treaty should even be necessary if the US only stuck to its words.
> it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent
No repayment was expected when the aid was given, otherwise it would have been given as loans.
Do you ask for repayment 2 years after giving people gifts? I would hate to be at your Christmas gathering.
> to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid
That's not how treaties work. You put, IN WRITING, something you agree to do and the other sides does too.
If Ukraine commits to give something while the US "feels good" about maybe doing something (or not, who knows?), that's not fair.
> what he did was simple disrespect
Musk holds conferences in the oval office in T-shirt and MAGA cap while his child scolds the president. Nobody stepped in to ask where was his suit, and certainly not the president.
a security guarantee necessitates a response adequate to maintain territorial integrity. i.e. in the current scenario we'd be obligated to send troops to stop the war of attrition and reverse the russian advance (which has continued since last year, if slowly.) that is precisely what zelensky wants. unfortunately for him, i don't value the ukraine enough to condemn my friends to go bleed out in an eastern european border state.
no repayment was demanded when the aid was given, true. however, the US changes leadership, and therefore policy, on a semi-regular basis. the condition of future aid is that past and future aid should be repaid to some extent, in some manner, at some point. rather than demanding cash or structuring a loan, the US proposed to find something else that would benefit both sides. implying that hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer dollars, at a time when boomer welfare is already bleeding the country dry, is equivalent to a Christmas gift is ridiculous. i think it was De Gaulle who said countries don't have friends, they have interests; foreign aid is a strategic tool and that alone, because the U.S. federal government is not a charitable organization.
you say "that's not how treaties work"; I say undeveloped nations have a long, long history of taking and later failing to repay loans from America or proxy organizations such as the IMF. if you're suggesting we restructure this as a loan, that seems like a monumentally poor investment, not to mention draining cash from a nation trying to rebuild is a similarly poor idea.
where did i say i approved of Musk's actions? i believe trump complemented zelensky's outfit today. i don't really care about what trump thinks of zelensky, musk, or anyone else's choice of presentation. i am not donald trump. i am saying i think it is disrespectful, doubly so given that he came calling with his hand out, again.
But more likely, US troops won't be directly on the front lines even after a peace. It adds too much risk of either (super)power escalating in the event of casualties.
the way i see this, it's fine if ukraine loses a little territory. since putin is an evil dictator and all, he can't especially afford to look weak, and anything less would back him into a corner. however, doing so is a risky move so we should hold off on that for another year or two until russia is truly crippled. ensure an economic depression and depletion of materiel that takes a decade to dig out of. by doing so, we also give the ukraine stronger security in fact, rather than merely on paper.
might be worth bargaining with the crimea: renounce claims to it in exchange for russia returning territory from the current war. realistically russia has wanted that spot at various points for hundreds of years as warm-water ports are too important for her.
i get that the point is to ensure peace after a ceasefire, but, as zelinsky said, russia has broken ceasefires before. we should not sign something like that simply on the assumption that it will make war too costly for russia. we should do so if and only if we're willing to engage in a shooting war/great-power conflict with russia over a couple oblasts. i don't think we're really willing to do that.
[0] https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1895633109649134013
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.
if the conference had ended without argument but behind the scenes Trump/Vance were setting up negotiations that go against Ukraine's interest, that would not have been a "win" for Zelensky other than in terms of a contest of popularity - but only the popularity among westerners who have no real personal stake in the conflict. it's Ukrainians and Russians who are dying on the front lines.
There are no winners from an exchange like this. Trump and Vance come across as bullies. Zelenskyy comes across as needlessly argumentative. Trump and Zelenskyy both come across as quick to anger. Not a good look for any of them.
However, I think their calculation here speaks to the difficulty of the current situation.
Putting aside the morality, sovereign integrity, and such: the situation appears to be entering/in a stalemate. The Ukrainian forces have done well to proactively take and hold Russian territory, and have held the line pretty well. However, there does not seem to be a play here that will conclusively end Russian occupation presently. The best case seems to be waiting out the supply of Russian troops, but the Ukrainian army doesn't have an endless supply of volunteers in this regard (I've worked with a few who have).
So the question has to be asked: how does this end decisively if neither side can win outright? And how much support is required to maintain the status quo?
I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I think they could argue for greater security architecture (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat. But otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is where its at.
Its a sorry situation all around.
The current administration is redundantly clear that it won't allow Ukraine to join NATO to avoid antagonize Russia.
The idea of the entire country becoming a DMZ just smacks of Putin lining up the next play and a Russian-leaning leader put in Zelenskis place.
Israel is a conservative Jewish state which is more ideologically aligned with current administration than a Islamic state.
Trump wants it to look as though he is the one making the deal happen, but the reality is he's the only reason it has not happened already. IMHO.
Putin needs to be seen to win at home to play to his core base. Biden wouldn't let him, Trump will, but to Putin that means:
1. Control of annexed territory. 2. No Ukrainian nukes. 3. No NATO/EU membership for Ukraine. 4. Zelenski removed and puppet/anti-democratic leader installed.
What we're hearing post-meeting is Trump laying the groundwork for point 4 and taking a firm position on 1.
I don't think it's territory what Putin wants. Even without its current territories, if Ukraine turns out to be successful and recover in the next 10 years, what will this mean to the Russian population? A total and absolute surrender of Ukraine is the end goal. No EU, no NATO, just another vassal-president and things go on like they were before 2022, but this time with half-destroyed country.
This war should have never started, I actually agree with Trump on this. But for that to happen, NATO should have entered Ukraine the first week after Putin did. And to those in Europe that argue against it, I would only say - are we better off now?
Vance set the stage in that session, and Trump ran onto the stage and tried to make sure he was in the spotlight the whole time.
Yes that’s terrifying, no it won’t lead to world war three.
Any other solution leads to widespread war across the globe.
As I’m fairly confident the west won’t put troops on the ground to fight russia, you can test my hypothesis by watching china start making moves on Taiwan in the short term, and then further wars breaking out over the next few years. I’ll go with several African countries, the Middle East (Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq), turkey, and once the Ukraine situation has settled multiple Eastern European countries. Worst case you’ll see the baltics invaded by Russia, I think there’s a good chance of that. Finland an outside bet.
I may be wrong, but I did anticipate the coup in turkey, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the election of trump.
Enjoy your life whilst you can. Conscription is coming. There will be a lot of western troop deployments. These are the good old days.
A young friend I know is a political "golden child" on the fast track to le4dership but only 3 years ago was talking about manosphere people and shoving tiktoks down my throat. I can't possibly communicate to you strongly enough how broken and emotionally stunted this coming generation is due to social media.
Happy I'm in tasmania, aus, learning to be a self sufficient young person. I'm living through the mistakes of the weak willed generations that came before me.
We have 5-10 years of bad enough normalcy left. The world, and us, the people in it, and our "common values" are going to be unrecognisable in 20 years.
I can't understand how we got so weak and unintelligent. Social media played a big role, and the elimination of anything except self aggrandisement in the popular culture, and the stupid labelling of anything a little nerdier as autistic or adhd or yada yada shows a society detaching itself from and losing patience for structured intelligence. Russia is behind a lot of this, and they place both sides. They bolster and distort transgender and autism communities etc as cultural weapons as much as they do conservative and libertarian ones. Their aim is to destroy the idea of the "normal" rational base.
To say russia is dumb, or slow moving is infantile. This is a calculating machine of evil which never rests and preys on the weakness and innocence of the west. I'm sure their propaganda divisions have their own cities at this point.
Read putins people and listen to londongrad s1 to understand just how hollow "western democratic institutions" are. Listen to WEF sexual escorts talk about how there's two camps of people who attend, one that believes climate change is going to end everyone, and the other that believes it almost will, and how the attendees gloat "tax the rich" as a joke as a running joke at bars. Read about how the ex IPCC head says there's a chance for 5°c warming. The world and the system you know is gone.
I think we got here through the foolish release of unfettered capitalism after being spoilt by peace in the western for so long. Thatcher/Reagan decided there was no such thing as society, and then went about making it so.
This created the anger and resentment amongst people left behind by the actions of so many corporations. Essentially, neoliberalism.
The second major part of the problem has been social media (although arguably just another consequence of corporate greed), which has enabled the harnessing of that anger. It has also created complete polarisation, as exemplified by the AGI is here we are all going to die / AI is a complete con split (to give a HN example).
The solution, as always, is for the rich and the powerful (including, say, academics and civil servants) to change their ways. But once institutions are failed and governments and companies are corrupt, that is very hard (impossible?) to do.
Now EU, sans USA, needs UA, because EU is militarily weak.
If UA falls, EU will fall also; it cannot stop Vladimir, and this before considering the massiive impact of drones, which only RU and UA know how to operate effectively.
EU+UA is enough to keep UA up and this protects EU.
All in all, EU will keep UA up, however it is done, and in the end it will require EU military involvement. Maybe we get there sooner now, rather than later.
I think the capability to retake lost UA terrain belongs to USA and massive military buildup in UA.
EU military in UA keeps UA up just fine, but doesn't retake terrain - not enough military force for that.
Ends up with cease-fire, and UA not in NATO, as USA/HU/SK will prevent it, but probably security guarantees and troops on ground from rest of EU.
Everyone then settles down to the next cold war (and RU economy post-war spends a while in strong recession, taking immediate pressure off).
Problem is, Vladimir effectively subverts Western elections through social media.
How do you have free and fair elections with that going on?
One thing that is certain that such reckless behavior by the US executive will increase geopolitical instability. Nuclear proliferation is very much in the cards. And you can be certain the event was viewed with horror in Asian capitals where the notion of 'face' is a matter of cultural sensitivity. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan decides to go nuclear post-haste.
The other good/bad is that the population is very, very, very against any nuclear weapon armament and even holding an army, even Shinzo Abe could only do an "reintrepertation of article 9" because he was aware of this. Public opinion might change with Trump + Taiwan/Korea incident though.
I’m not sure what will happen, but I think the idea of a free and fair election for the next president is laughable at this point. Perhaps Americans haven’t realised this yet, I don’t know.
It's amazing levels of personal pettiness and ego. That's before you get to them inviting a Russian state news person to watch and then claiming they "snuck in" as if someone can just bumble into a meeting of world leaders.
And Vance was literally just dropping hints to back down in front of the media and to present himself as grateful, because he saw the important talks about to be derailed before they even began:
> Vance: Have you said thank you once?
> Zelenskyy: A lot of times.
> Vance: No, in this meeting, this entire meeting? Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.
(And the entire heated conversation in general)
IMO, the language barrier really screwed Zelensky over.
> [Zelensky not wearing a suit]
Trump's attitude is that how you dress to an event is a sign of respect for the people you meet. Many disagree with this attitude, but if that's how someone you're going to meet thinks, then you adjust to it. Like not showing up in gym clothes to a job interview.
The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ownership shares resulting from it) to a fund, rather than the government itself.
If Russia had then taken over Ukraine, they'd have to expropriate the fund to gain any benefits, but that'd also mean expropriating the minority ownership of the US.
> Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done.
Sure, but he is, and that's a huge issue for any negotiations going forward. Ukrainian martial law only delays parliamentary elections, not presidential ones.
If Zelensky doesn't either get a democratic mandate or recognized as an official negotiator by the Verkhovna Rada, any agreements made with him can later just be rejected by Ukraine.
>Sure, but he is
Oh, so we're not going to have a productive conversation, then.
>"PACE President Tiny Kox: It is up to the Government, Parliament and the people of Ukraine to decide when and how to conduct elections"
https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it...
Pretty much every country has martial law rules. So disagree or not, to call someone a dictator while defending against a war is outright malicious in my mind.
There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them.
The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances.
It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated.
.
So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?
Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace.
Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best.
I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this:
1. Cease and freeze the conflict
1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia
2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations.
3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible)
(4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.
5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war
6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries
7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties
8. Sign peace deal.
9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket
What do you mean rebuilding Russia?
> The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.
Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.
The problem with negotiations is that Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.
Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.
The only peace deal Russia would accept is if:
a) It just allows them to invade again as soon as possible.
b) It tells them not to invade again, but the consequences are meaningless so they'll invade again and nothing happens, and the same thing repeats again.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Russia is. To simplify this, you need to think of it as a bot playing Civilization that is programmed to maximize its territory gains, while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading, and influence on other countries to have them approve of those invasions.
Russia has taken quite a bit of damage, too (although it's tiny compared to Ukraine).
But most importantly: No matter who ends up responsible for the costs in each of the cases, both countries need a clear way to full recovery.
Otherwise you're just going to end up with an East-West Germany situation at best or an Mexico-US situation (cartels, crime, human trafficking, smuggling) at worst.
> Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.
Because the price the sanctions imposed were lower than the price not continuing would have.
If the price is simply staying at the table and keep talking, even minor sanctions would get the job done.
> Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.
I honestly dont understand why so many people hinge their entire position on this.
Russia has been warning about the situation we've got right now since at least 2002 and VERY explicitly since at least 2007.
Why do so many people keep ignoring everything Russia has talked about for decades (CFE treaty, NATO expansion, OSCE format failure, ongoing military escalation and lack of security guarantees) and just jump straight to:
Putin likes land and Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.
There isn't even the slightest sliver of evidence for this, infact quite the opposite:
- Putin could have easily kept Georgia in 2008
- The nations east of the Caspian Sea are infinitely easier to integrate into Russia, but no such efforts were undertaken
- Belarus could have been integrated into Russia much more easily, too
- There were plenty of very pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Putin could have utilized to tie Ukraine politically much more closely to Russia with the intent of taking over in the future
> Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.
Just the bloody opposite. The Russian mindset puts the security of the nation first. If you attempt to overpower them, they will keep escalating until either side becomes incapable of fighting.
Which is an incredibly dangerous course to take against a nation that is sitting on the Soviet nuclear stockpile.
And yes, the nukes work. All (except NK and Israel?) nuclear nations keep regular inspecting each other's nuclear arsenals for proper maintenance and functionality. And nukes are VERY simple weapons. The by far most complicated component being the conventional explosive chain involved and nobody questions Russia's capabilities on that part.
> while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading
Agreed, except for the "uncensored" part. It's heavily censored, just in a very ... unconventional way.
It's hard to imagine who came up with these talking points:
- Satanist necromancers raising the Nazis from their graves
- Supersoldiers being bred in secret laboratories
- Caveman drawings having been found depicting Ukraine and Russia as one country with Moscow as its capital
.
On the other hand, everything said since the 2022 invasion is hardly to be taken seriously, since all official diplomatic dialog broke down.
It is clear, Putin has something over Trump or Trump just has some twisted strategy here that I can't make sense of. There was never going to be a deal that would work out well for Ukraine.
Now Europe must do without support of US. Democracy in US has unfortunatly been compromised and failed.
No you self-important tool, he's wearing that because his nation is at war with Russia. Zelenskyy wears military clothes to every meeting, with every leader, not just you.
https://apnews.com/article/republicans-trump-zelenskyy-meeti...
See second image.
Sure, not what Trump likes.
But what Zelensky was wearing did have very little influence on the outcome of the meeting at best.
People dislike Zelensky having been called out on not wearing a suit, I merely explained why Trump puts importance on this.
We don't know if Trump called out Musk on not wearing a suit and what Musk's response might have been.
Overall the importance of wearing a suit is quite low, not at all proportionate to the outrage of Zelensky being called out for not wearing one.
> Trump has no stable “attitude” toward anything whatsoever except whatever he thinks accrues him more power and wealth, full stop.
How would Zelensky wearing a suit help Trump to further this agenda of his?
> He’s a well known germaphobe who will let a child wipe snot on his work desk
Yes, he is. But he tries to hide his actions resulting from that. Like getting behind something like a chair and wiping his hand on his suit.
We don't know if he cleaned the desk afterwards.
What, in your opinion, would have been the correct action he should have taken against the child?
Your point is that Trump cares about decorum. My point is that Trump cares about power, and he would seize on whatever little thing he could to try to gain more power over our wartime ally. The suit is obviously a red herring.
You think when bullies make fun of a kid’s shoes they actually care about fashion? Duh: no.
When someone calls out a bully for making fun of someone’s shoes, is it because they give a fuck about their fashion choices? Duh: no.
That’s all that’s going on here.
Also, can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We've had to ask you that more than once before.
This, coming from: the one who openly calls opponents insulting names and openly proposes annexing other countries like a drivelling, senile elder; and the other, who toured Europe like a witless yokel scolding EU leaders for not being democracies...
This is the US losing its credibility and the confidence of its allies at a time when the US depends on these alliances.
It doesn't take much to satisfy their need (basically just nice words about the US), but they'll absolutely burn bridges if they come to the conclusion that you're unwilling to show the US this courtesy.
Trump very obviously being part of this wing, is one of the reasons that gave his campaign for the first term such a huge boost. People were convinced that he wouldn't betray the US, like they were betrayed by nearly every politician before (but maybe Bill Clinton, although, in hindsight, he absolutely screwed over Europe by continuing the Russian shock therapy and not supporting Russia in updating the CFE treaty).
Vance is somewhat part of this wing, too, but to a much lesser degree than Trump. E.g. he acknowledged in his speech at the MUC SecConf, that the US made what he considers to be past mistakes, but Trump pretty much never acknowledges what he blames on Biden and Obama to have ever been official US policy (even if he doesn't outright deny it).
.
Hence when Zelensky suggested the US will "feel it", too, in a slightly threatening way (due to the language barrier, I guess), Trump literally blew a fuse. You could see his head changing color in real time. I'm surprised he had the patience left to toss out the media semi-politely.
IMO, Zelensky should have picked up on Vance's hints to present himself grateful and stop trying to get commitments from the US infront of the media. Next time he should negotiate in his native language and bring a very capable translator, because picking up on such nuances is anything but easy if you're quite inexperienced in a language.
.
Trump is not really vindictive, despite his talking points (see him refusing to retaliate on Iran for shooting down that $150M drone, him not going after H. Clinton at all once in office, selecting Vance as his Vice, meeting with Scarborough and Brzezinski, ...).
So Zelensky got a good chance to set things straight, but Trump has also made clear that how the US progresses from here is up to Ukraine making the next move.
Knowing Trump a bit, he will push ahead with talks with Russia and keep increasing pressure on Ukraine until Zelensky agrees to a ceasefire and joins the table by making talks with Russia legal again.
.
Also Zelensky should take that "minerals deal". Despite being sold as such, it doesn't give any minerals to the US, but establishes an Ukrainian semi-sovereign fund with the focus of rebuilding Ukraine, financed through the Ukrainian government's revenue from natural resources and financial injections by the US.
Over time it'll also turn into a fully sovereign fund for Ukraine (unless the US keeps pumping absurd amounts of money into it) and Ukraine can withdraw money from it if they need it elsewhere.
Issue is about not having any security guarantees. Problem with dictatorships is that they won't ever stop. The deal is beneficial for Russia. Russia will see it as a win which will encourage them to do the same thing every few years on repeat. Territory is one of the few limited resources in the World. Dictators desperately crave for it. Any economical damage they think is temporary and they see it as an investment. They certainly don't feel economy being bad. But they will feel powerful, but gaining territory. Only deal Zelensky should sign is one which will ensure that Russia doesn't invade Ukraine or any other countries again. Any other deal is a fake peace. Everyone around Russia and who has experience with Russia knows this. E.g. ex soviet countries.
I think the whole thing was a setup, and while Zelensky made mistakes, even with perfect behaviour, it was bound to go in this direction since the deal presented was not something Zelensky or a person with democratic values should accept, and Trump's goal was to humiliate him into submission from the get go.
Consider how much provocation Trump and Vance had done before that, calling Zelensky a dictator, the patience the man had is already amazing to last so long. But they would've kept provoking him until he says something which they can escalate on to humiliation.
That's kinda what the deal is about, tho:
1. Ukraine gets rebuild, the US and Ukraine own huge portions of Ukraine's new industry through the fund
2. The fund gets richer and richer with Ukraine slowly taking over management, the US retaining a minority portion
3. Russia attacks Ukraine, captures all of it
4. Nearly all remaining industry and rights to natural ressources are retained by the fund, managed by Ukraine's exile government
5. Russia wants to expropriate the fund to cut off the funding available to the exile government
6. Russia realizes they'd have to expropriate the US government, starts sweating
7. Russia wakes up and decides not to proceed with step 3. to 6., because the downsides of taking over a country (insurgency, tons of explosives everywhere, new huge portions of population on expensive welfare and healthcare, ...) aren't worth it without any of the upsides.
> Issue is about not having any security guarantees.
Because they're not even negotiated yet. The "minerals deal" is something the US and Ukraine can negotiate right now, so it's on the table.
For all the other stuff Russia and Ukraine need to come to the same table, which Ukraine is very reluctant to do.
Trump only tried to get Ukraine to agree to a bare minimum ceasefire, to stop the killing.
Everything else is up to negotiations afterwards.
Not sure what you mean by that? Russia would just nationalize the assets. What would US do about it, if they are not willing to do anything so far? The ownership in this fund would just be nice to have, not make it worth going for Russia then any more than now. And in any case Russia could just make an offer to share the minerals themselves, which they already did. It wouldn't make a difference to US.
> Russia wakes up and decides not to proceed with step 3. to 6., because the downsides of taking over a country (insurgency, tons of explosives everywhere, new huge portions of population on expensive welfare and healthcare, ...) aren't worth it without any of the upsides.
Historically Russia has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to harm their economy in return for gaining more territory.
This deal is worthless in terms of deterring Russia, if Russia is not deterred currently, this deal is not going to make a difference.
The most important thing to Ukraine is - how can we make sure that Russia doesn't invade us again. Everything else is worthless for Ukraine, for the West, and for Democracy.
Maybe it has already been agreed on, by the way.
I do not know what keeps governments from doing this, tbh.
But up until now Russia has done so exclusively in a retaliatory manner.
Or them paying their debts to the clearing houses, despite US citizens having been forbidden from accepting their money.
Same with the EU not outright taking over Russia's currency reserves, but taxing them at 100%.
There's something that prevents governments from screwing around on this, even if I do not quite understand what it is.
And the US gov is probably quite high up on the list of entities not to mess with.
> And in any case Russia could just make an offer to share the minerals themselves, which they already did.
Sure, but it's not about the minerals at all. The relation between minerals and this deal is about the same like the relation of a pineapple tree to pizza.
> Historically Russia has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to harm their economy in return for gaining more territory.
Or for no reason whatsoever. But it's not really fair to compare the Communists or the Tsarist Empire to modern Russia.
> The most important thing to Ukraine is - how can we make sure that Russia doesn't invade us again. Everything else is worthless for Ukraine, for the West, and for Democracy.
Ukraine needs to work on this with Russia.
Russia has made clear that they want security guarantees themselves, so a universal solution might be viable. The problem being, that Russia doesn't feel threatened by Ukraine, but those backing it.
Ukraine could just sell the lease for minerals in Russian-held territory. That could all be done in uninteresting ways without Zelenskyy.
I wonder whether this was deliberate on Zelenksy's part. The whole world witnessed Trump's insecurity and naivety in real time.
Which is ... Russian? Should have aligned himself with the Kremlin, like Lukashenko, if rhetoric/language mattered more for diplomacy and politics.
> toxic tactics that they can get away with because of the power position they hold
True. No matter the language such situations are bound to happen amidst power struggle.
Would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sadly true
- Only between inauguration and this meeting did Trump even have positive approval. I think it’s uncontentious that Zelenskyy will forever poll higher.
- Around Trump there’s a force field to encourage him that he’s right. The awkward moment Tuesday was when Trump admitted his own numbers on aid given to Ukraine are spongy and faith-based, compared to Macron’s which were turgid, useful, virile, actually bankable.
- Zelenskyy arrived to talk about his thing (being a fighter) and the world saw an ambush by an investment banker and a one-time TV show character. Proving Trump’s at a disadvantage when the other guy is a fighter.
This last one seems the most damaging. Republican politicians had to come out and proclaim Trump is still tough and the biggest problem is that Zelenskyy doesn’t performatively respect that.
Something that isn't seemingly being commented widely on either is that Vance started hitting Zelenskyy with bursts of multiple questions and as soon as he started answering the first there were immediate challenges and redirections.
English isn't Zelenskyy's first language. Imagine how tough this must have been.
At that point the questions weren't questions anymore - they were statements that were left unchallenged.
It's a (shitty) debate tactic called "gish galloping." It's not exclusively used by people on the right, but there are some very popular online personalities on the right who use it. Ben Shapiro is easily the most infamous for using it, but Jordan Peterson and Trump himself use it too.
I don't want to fall into the conspiracy trap, but I can't help thinking this was planned on advance. Especially considering how couch man acted. Trump was wandering around aimlessly until Vance took command.
"So we have won. That is decisive. The world will be never ever like before. Globalists have lost their final combat. The future is finally open. I am really happy."
https://x.com/AGDugin/status/1854136340184490282
Dugin wasn’t exaggerating when he said, “We have won.”
Today’s White House display is exactly what he meant. A decade ago, the GOP would’ve never echoed Russian talking points. Now, they’re openly aligning with them.
This isn’t just isolationism—it’s the dismantling of U.S. hegemony from within.
It seemed very conspiratorial on its surface. I'm now fairly convinced that the Russians have been refining their espionage for generations, the USA is likely full of agents in all places of society.
Somewhat frighteningly, they anticipated the need to subvert any notions of this occurring, and very explicitly set out on a campaign to destroy trust and truth in US society such that when people began claiming Russia was infiltrating the country, it would just sound like conspiratorial nonsense. You can find plenty of references to this type of initiative going back 50 years at least.
The idea, ultimately, is to get the USA to destroy itself, as you mentioned. The dismantling of democracy in particular is a major accomplishment. Once that trust is eroded, every American's most immediate enemy is another American. Who cares about Russians when you've got neighbours like these, right?
It's hard not to see what's happening as a major victory for Russia. Did they actually orchestrate it? How much? I have no idea. Maybe only slightly, maybe a lot. Regardless, they're celebrating today.
It is funny how they switched their narrative from “we are fighting US and NATO” to “US will do business with us and the war is with Ukraine”.
Also, it seems likely that Russia will get the dismantlement of NATO as part of the outcome of the war, and that would be a great outcome for them. Will Sweden and Finland remain in a mutual defense pact with France, Germany, and the UK after NATO ends? It's up in the air. But in any case invading Russia from Sweden is vastly less feasible than invading Russia from Ukraine.
People often attribute 5D chess strategies to Trump when base instincts are a far clearer explanation.
On Twitter, it's common to find populist-right commentators say things like:
1. Supporting Ukraine against Russia is risking WW3
2. Zelensky is always asking for more, more more and is SO disrespectful to the generous United States. And he doesn't even show up in a suit when meeting the president. How disgraceful. etc. etc.
These points were both touched upon by the Trump/Vance tag team and that's no coincidence.
My respect for Zelensky, the only decent politician in that room. Ukraine is lucky to have him in a time like this.
His supporters believe in many lies because they've been brainwashed. Things will continue to degrade until an counter agent is developed for this insanity.
I'm not sure what anybody could really expect other than this.
Trump failed to make the deal, they tried to get resources for a minimum of involvement, and the deal didn't go through because Zelensky is adamant in wanting to protect Ukrainian integrity.
From Trump's perspective this puts him in a good light. He is attempting to negotiate rationally and Zelensky is irrationally spending Ukrainian lives to hold on to an ideal.
Of course Europe and many Americans believe in that ideal and would support Ukraine, but that's not Trump's political platform. His motivation is to end the war, and the easiest way to end the war is to yield to Putin's demands. Making Zelensky look unreasonable is a critical part of that.
Aggressive war is proscribed in the UN Charter. Starting a war to expand borders or subjugate people is untenable. The right to conquest is obsolete.
Returning to that time is absolutely what the Trump regime is asserting on behalf of Americans. And Americans should be vary wary of returning to a time prior to the two world wars as if the lessons learned should now be dismissed or unlearned. We do this and we guarantee there will be one or more world wars again. More wars of conquest, again. More wars of aggression, again. A return to might makes right. Not law.
A republic is an empire of laws, not men. We follow Trumpism, and we return to an entirely familiar and more chaotic world than what we have had.
Not one fucking square meter of Ukraine should go to Russia. There already is a negotiation and a treaty that said the very goddamn thing that's happening would not happen. So why trust untrustworthy liars by giving them land, with a piece of paper that means less than nothing?
You know what is "holding onto an ideal"? Negotiation with Russia.
An insanely counterproductive ploy, but typical of Trump's 'gangsterism rules' philosophy of leadership.
It will strongly alienate the subsection of the other 78% of Americans who learn of it and care. I suspect that's nowhere near 100% of them, and I'd be shocked if it was over 30%
Wow! You think pretty highly of us!
It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo
Edit: mate it is on YLE? https://arenan.yle.fi/1-67287489
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
And never the parts about keeping slavery or exterminating indigenous people or conquering Canada, etc being legitimate causes.
Regardless of where a set of ideas come from, if you disagree with them, argue against them head on and not with redirections to other topics.
these were wealthy men who owned other human beings for personal economic benefit.
whatever high-seeming notions may have underpinned their political project, their goal was to build a new nation in which they could continue to accumulate dynastic wealth free from monarchial control, at the cost of the very freedoms they claimed to stand for.
the hypocrisy is inextricable from the legacy.
I can take good ideas and leave bad ideas, the generations following the founders eventually did that by ending slavery.
Edit: I'm a fool and read the parent completely incorrectly. Ignore this comment.
> If healthcare was a human right, then why didn't 18th century slave-owners put it in the Constitution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
Their “basic principles” included counting some humans as 3/5 of one.
John Adams himself signed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts into law, too.
Regardless of the hypothetical, isn't it clear that Trump IS meddling and not following Washington's injunction? (Also applies to Israel/Gaza.)
In family and community (and internet) dynamics, meddling in other people's quarrels often leads to blowback. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of making this comment on HN.) Is it really any different on the global stage?
My genuine question: What are the best criteria for deciding when getting involved is better than remaining on the sidelines? Do those criteria apply at both hyper-local and global scales, or this there a phase transition in applicability?
In fact the US under Trump doesn't intend on doing that. It's not content to let Ukraine fight it out with Europes support. It's actively trying to force Ukraine down a path of American & Russian choosing, and trying to take Ukraine's resources in the process.
Trump is trying to carve up Ukraine along with Russia. That's not isolationism.
This is not isolationism and walking away from Europe to leave it to its own devices, even if that's how some on the American right are trying to receive it. It's actually imperialism. And imperialism in coordination with another imperialist power.
Are you in favour of that?
Yeah, calling what Trump is doing wrt Ukraine “isolationism” is like calling the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact “isolationism”.
In any case, it's not possible to post-facto have some sort of isolation here. Any withdrawal of American power is just its replacement by some other. Which America in turn will be enraged by, and the next round of the cycle will be explicit imposition of American power in some fashion by military means.
Because that's the only thing that will keep $$ flowing.
Why do right wing American isolationists somehow imagine they're running some sort of charity for the world that somehow Europe and others are "ungrateful" for? American military intervention exists for nakedly avaricious reasons. It is for maintaining the supremacy of American capitalism, and enriching American businessmen and to some degree some of the American people.
They imagine this because American interventionists routinely tell them that this is so, and American interventionists say this because it's the only politically viable justification. If you convinced everyone who believes in the fundamental goodness of US military intervention that it's really about Lockheed's profit margins, isolationism would have a bipartisan supermajority.
That said, I think Washington's advice should be considered as defined by a pre-globalization economy, and travel times substantially greater by orders of magnitude when compared to ICBMs. Imperfect analogy, but in some ways Europe was further away from the US then than the Moon is today.
The thing about the founders is that there are so many with such varied views that you can usually find a quote in support of anything you want.
All of this realignment away from our allies is actually throwing away our greatest strength. I understand why people voted for Trump or a figure like him on the domestic front - people want to bring back manufacturing and lower-middle class jobs? Great, let's work with our allies to do it. To throw away the world order that we won instead of iterating on it is a travesty and a fucking joke.
This is choosing to be involved, for your own best interest, exactly as Washington described.
Also, in 1796, the USA was distant to Russia and China.
This is no longer the case; all possess through the nuclear weapon the power to strike upon each other devastating blows.
Given the existence of nuclear weapons, the goal is now is to avoid major war completely, between any nuclear power.
A major nuclear exchange will lead to devastating environmental consequences, no matter whom is involved.
Finally when Washington wrote that, no one imagined the possibility of any one power conquering the whole of Europe, or of China rising to great power. The USA cannot withstand Russia, Europe, and China, combined.
These are formally imperialist nations.
Watching this situation unfold is very disturbing. And especially disheartening is the behavior of Republican representatives. A mere month ago these same people were Ukraine's best friends and world's dictators' most hawkish enemies and suddenly they are all parroting a completely opposite narrative. I mean, I can understand electing a pathalogical liar. Happened in my country as well. But turns out others were lying too? Suddenly turns out there's no commitment to values, but only a commitment to one man? If this can happen so easily in a 250 years old democracy, is democracy even worth fighting for? Is the Ukrainians' sacrifice worth it?
What Republicans a month ago were UAs best friend? I feel like the simping for Russia has been a consistent stance of MAGA since 2016 -- certainly since the 2022 invasion.
Fuck, do I miss John McCain. This is definitely the darkest timeline.
The reality is, strategically, China is much much much wiser than the US is and the puzzle pieces are starting to come together in all the ways that are good for them.
And if you want proof of my statement that our society is in denial, watch this comment get downvoted into oblivion.
Namely their population growth is downright abysmal(one of the worst in the world). Without this the steam will be running out in 10-15 years.
There is no meaningful immigration to China so they can't solve it that way.
Their empire efforts have been quite a failure in many regards. Look at Pakistan.
Maybe the US just has to outlast them? It worked against the Soviets.
Yes, it’s absolutely possible they go too far and end in a revolution but I don’t see that happening in this century. The overall sentiment in the country (outside metro areas) is a tremendous amount of support for their government.
>They have focus, reliably execute, and recover relatively quickly from mistakes and are getting increasingly good at social engineering to enable those things. They are thinking 50 years into the future at all times.
Ok all of this is true but it does not address my main point: they have a fundamental problem that began decades ago and the window has now closed to prevent a massive disaster that could take the "steam out of the economic engine". How are they going to resolve this?
>Yes, it’s absolutely possible they go too far and end in a revolution but I don’t see that happening in this century. The overall sentiment in the country (outside metro areas) is a tremendous amount of support for their government.
I haven't kept up with the lie flat movement but I imagine part of the cause of this massive birth rate problem was in fact 996. Its a sort of silent revolution agains the leadership. Young Chinese crushed with the burden of buying impossibly expensive property, having to care for elders and start a family choose to opt out. Are they going to take the people opted out and put them into camps unless they pop out kids and start spending their life doing innovation? Im sure that will do wonders for fostering innovation.
Demographics are not the problem you think they are; industrial economies no longer rest on the shoulders of burly twentysomething coal miners shoveling sixteen tonnes of coal to get another day older and deeper in debt until blacklung disables them.
Um my entire point was about an issue that will definitely cause them to lose steam before the US. You provided no rebuttal to my point.
>Demographics are not the problem you think they are; industrial economies no longer rest on the shoulders of burly twentysomething coal miners shoveling sixteen tonnes of coal to get another day older and deeper in debt until blacklung disables them.
They rest on the backs of 20 somethings who are forced to take care of their elderly parents, while popping out 2-3 kids while maintaining impossible million dollar mortgages for a 1 bedroom condo while working 996 style hours. In that regard, I only see nothing but doom and gloom coming.
The rest of this decade is make or break for the next 20+ years. I honestly don't know if the US is really on the right path. Maybe letting Musk cut everything so the country can focus on the core essentials will save us? Maybe it will doom us? If we go down, I suspect he will go down with us (never getting to mars) so there is that at least. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore? Maybe there really is no leadership at the top so the window has closed and we are just sleepwalking into a depressing era of pain and suffering?
Maybe it will be defused, though? No way to know.
Either way it's not a reason to publicly humiliate Zelensky, to announce he's a dictator, to repeat Russian propaganda talking points, &c.
If your version of peace is to unconditionally accept all of the aggressor's demands, shit on the country being invaded and steal their resources don't be surprised if people don't clap
Moreover, why would Ukraine want to negotiate a temp ceasefire? If they can snag security guarantees they have better odds of a long term peace.
And you still haven't answered the question, which indicates that you don't see any Ukrainian path to victory - rather your intention is to throw all of Ukraine into the meat grinder in order to make yourself slightly safer from a completely hypothetical Russian invasion, which is profoundly unethical.
The Soviet Union and China had a war. When they both had a nuclear umbrella, the Soviet Union having twice as many nuclear weapons as they do now. What else... India and Pakistan? The Korean war? mjfl, here's some news... did you know there's _two_ Koreas? Russia is in other European states right now - Moldova, Georgia. Never mind the hybrid warfare, I feel at best the need to only vaguely point in that direction. Just as much as I'll vaguely point out that that nuclear umbrella just shrunk to a quarter of its previous size. And how can you say "Europe is covered by a nuclear umbrella" when the largest nation by area entirely in Europe is not covered by it.
Can you do us a favour and at least make a list of Wikipedia articles or historical events or entire nations we're supposed to pretend don't exist, including, paradoxically, Russia?
In fact, let's stand diametrically opposed to those who would.
I'll just type 'meat grinder' and 'battle' into Google. Here's the top result: "Battles of Rzhev". Let's go to the Wikipedia page for it and Ctrl-F 'glory'. "[...] Military Glory by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin [...]".
There you go. We should stand diametrically opposed to a certain "President of Russia Vladimir Putin". Gee, I wonder if that's the same guy as the current "President of Russia Vladimir Putin"... do you think?
If part of your population is under occupation, they won't be able to vote how they want, and the rest of your civilian population becomes a target for constant bombardment in order to vote "correctly".
Summary: While questions have been raised about Ukraine’s democratic process, the country is acting in accordance with its constitution. Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, and under Ukrainian law, elections cannot be held while martial law is in place. Despite the challenges of war, Zelenskyy maintains a 57% approval rating, and his mandate is not disputed by the Ukrainian people or their elected representatives.
https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ixbbr9/countries_t...
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/trump-administration-insis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
What concerns me even more today is that the narrative surrounding the Iraq war has shifted. Basic things like who started the war and for what purpose are lost in discussions. Even the liberal media sometimes seem to forget that it happened at all when talking about the military industrial complex. It's surreal, seeing all this 1984 BS playing out in the open.
You must love the Lex Friedman Podcast.
Maybe none of that concerns you, but many of us don't want the us to descend into autocracy.
The US becoming a Russo/Sino-inspired dictatorship?
Or that most of the people in this thread a) spend a little too much time consuming partisan political narratives-as-entertainment, b) lack a capacity for non-emotional thinking, and c) unquestionably consume the current zeitgeist of their tribe?
I'll place my bet on the latter. Let's revisit in 10 years and see who was right.
It's not that I think Trump's actions here are equivalent. They are pretty clearly worse in motivation and objective.
I just think that we're going to head into a dark time for the world, and that future history books (if 2025-2035 goes roughly like 1935-1945, which I'm starting to think would be a horrific but "better than can reasonably be expected" outcome) that what happened at the White House today will occupy a similar place - a sort of last pretense of diplomacy before the storm, where one of the participants (Hitler in the original, Trump here) was never honestly interested in peace, just what they could gain in the short term via extortion.
Not identical situations, but ones that rhyme.
Not sure if he was misguided but he was certainly relatable. There are two solid reasons right there, that might notice been enough, but it certainly wasn’t a clear right vs wrong.
The Allies still had a larger and better equipped army at that point, the strategic mistake was having the French completely outflanked through Belgium, in which an earlier offensive with preexisting troops would have made it much harder to happen.
My heart breaks for Ukraine. The outcome of the November 5, 2024, election will prove to be a tragic mistake.
The thing that is sad for me is I just feel like I don't have an iota of anything in common with people that could possibly support this kind of behavior. For so long I've been struggling to empathize with Trump supporters. I certainly understand the anger at the Democrats and Democratic leadership (I often share that anger myself). I understand the anger at the direction of the slow societal breakdown I've seen in many parts of the country (and which, ironically, I feel that Vance elucidated very well in Hillbilly Elegy). I understand many of the policy differences.
But it's what I see as the complete moral baselessness and behavior I can only describe as narcissistically bizarre that I just fundamentally can not understand. So often I hear myself saying "Imagine how any other politician would have reacted 20 years ago". And now it's like so many people are OK with stuff like this (never mind that insane Gaza video from just yesterday...)
I simply cannot understand it. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to understand it, beyond seeing the whole Trump movement through the lens of something like a cult. I just have never been so ashamed of my country in my life.
There is no candidate, no party that perfectly represents my views, or yours, nor could there ever be. Yet people are forced to choose between one of two bad options while being fed propaganda from both sides. Everyone is too distracted by the fighting between the sides to question the system itself.
Why is it that in a democracy, instead of voting for policies we believe in, which would seem to be the point, we instead vote for men, who then have power over us? And then they can do whatever they want?
Direct democracy. Maybe it’s flawed too, but it’s less flawed than this.
But take a look at the different groups who support Trump:
1. Consider Republicans in Congress. Even if they don't say it, I'd bet dollars to donuts that 75% of them are as disgusted by that Oval Office performance as I am. So you either have the ~25% (and I hope that estimate is high) Marjorie Taylor Greene types, who I already think are disgusting for a host of reasons, or you have the other 75% of them that are just complete and total cowards. They know this is wrong, they know Trump is a creature void of morals, but they're too afraid to go against him, and for what, their jobs? A lot of them are already rich. And there of course have been principled Republicans who have stood up and said that this is just wrong, and especially as it applies to Russia, this goes against everything the party supposedly believed for the past 75 years.
2. There of course is a sizable portion of Trump supporters who are racist, sexist, would be fine if all gay people just died, etc. Now, I definitely believe the Democrats overestimate the size of that portion, and painting all Trump supporters with that brush has been a fatal mistake, but let's not deny these people actually exist. For all the hand-wringing by Democrats about why they lost in 2024, a huge part has to have been that a large percentage of this country is just unwilling to vote for a woman for President (again, definitely not the only reason, but when the division is close to 50/50 all it takes is a couple percentage points).
3. So then you have a lot of people who don't support Trump strongly but think he will improve their lives in some way. And sure, call me one of those "arrogant liberals", but when I hear people talk about some concrete ways about how Trump will actually improve their lives, it's pretty laughably stupid to me. I mean, give me a single policy action by which Trump will help reduce inflation. Whenever I've tried to engage supporters on policy issues, the arguments I get back honestly just sound like rationalizations for "I hate the other side" - which again, I understand, I just don't get this desire to be suckered by a strongman. Trump is so nakedly transparent about his narcissism and how he doesn't give 2 shits about anyone but himself (again, did anyone actually see that Gaza video?)
So I agree with everything you've said about the failures of the 2 party system. I just can't use that as an excuse to understand supporting what I believe to be grossly morally reprehensible behavior on a daily basis.
There’s a structure to the political system. There’s a structure to the way that people argue, and what they will accept as arguments. There’s a structure to how we are manipulated by the media and how social media is manipulated. These structural issues are the real problem, but as humans we’d rather see everything as being attributable to the individuals involved. Also known as the fundamental attribution error.
Those issues are solvable in my view, in the long term. Getting there might be rough.
On their whole I think Democratic policies retain more sense at this point but a lot of bullshit snuck into Democratic thinking. The intentions of that thinking were good but the result was obvious division.
Why else would you have the cameras in there for that long, and act that way in front of said cameras. I'd hate to be Rubio or anyone else trying to actually do their job.
It stopped being a Red/Blue issue after the polls closed, this is a issue for the country as a whole.
He doesn't appear to deserve any sympathy.
They are doing it because they want to.
Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won’t represent anyone with a stake in the war. They don’t have people, territory, anything at stake, they don’t get refugees and generally aren’t directly affected in any way.
What are the chances that they just leave Ukraine, Europe and Russia alone from now on and leave them to sort it out on their own?
This is a divisive topic with a range of opinion. I don't see any evidence of shills so far but if you think you do, you should be emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it, not posting this sort of sinister speculation to the threads. It's the ultimate internet cliché, and has a degrading effect on discussion. Hence that guideline.
Ukraine has no leverage to bring to any peace negotiations. The only possible way to get peace is for Ukraine to roll over and get annexed by Russia.
You're arguing for the Bad Guys to win.
Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.
The USA aligning with Russia was a major wake up call here, and it is leading to solidarity the likes of which I've never seen.
For example:
https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1irgt3n/german_chan...
I keep seeing this sentiment, but I'm having trouble understanding it, especially since the terms of whatever possible agreement are not set.
To me, it seems the options are to compromise, which by definition is an alignment, or continue fighting indefinitely.
If compromise isn't an option, how do you see this ending? Or do you see some lesser compromise that could work?
What the USA is now proposing is not compromise by any definition of the word. The USA is now parroting Kremlin talking points, word for word. Recently when a US official was asked ~"what is Russia giving up?" He was unable to provide an answer.
See the map in my other comment here:
Do you see some lesser "compromise" that could work? Or, do you see any options on the table that don't match the previous borders?
How do you see this ending?
That map reflects who wants to continue the war and who doesn't, not anything about the specifics of a possible compromise. A proposal of the agreement does not exist at the moment, so we can only speculate what it might include.
No, it does not. It's a map of countries which actively deny that Russia is to blame for their invasion of Ukraine. Sitting out the vote was an option.
Ideally, I see this war ending by Russia facing internal economic collapse. There were many indications showing that this was a real possibility. That seems much less likely now that they have a partner in Washington.
> Despite all of this, Russia’s economy has not collapsed. But it does look very different, and is now entirely focused on a long war in Ukraine – which is actually driving economic growth.
> In fact, the IMF expects Russia to experience GDP growth of 2.6% this year. That’s significantly more than the UK (0.6%) and the EU (0.9%). Similarly, Russia’s budget deficit (the amount the government needs to borrow) is on track to remain below 1% of GDP, compared to 5.1% in the UK and 2.8% in the EU.
What signs do you see?
[1] https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completel...
> Rising inflation is causing concerns in Russia, too. In his annual televised question-and-answer session last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that inflation is a problem and that the Russian economy is “overheating.” He acknowledged that the price of goods has increased, but he attempted to counter this by saying that wages for Russian citizens have also increased. He then concluded that the Russian Central Bank was working to adjust its benchmark to address rising inflation.
> Putin’s points on inflation were telling. The Russian leader seldom discusses problems pertaining to Russian society. Thus, the fact that he felt the need to acknowledge inflation as a serious issue suggests that something greater is afoot. [0]
To further answer your original question, less ideally would be a settlement where the EU and Ukraine are both parties to the negotiation. I am not sure what role the US has at this table, tbh. Full withdrawal from support of Ukraine, and NATO withdrawal appears imminent in any case. A settlement like that might look like:
What Russia gets:
Their territory back in Kursk Oblast
The end of sanctions
A significant portion of Ukrainian territory
What Ukraine gets:
Some contested territory back
All, or nearly all EU held Russian funds for rebuilding the incredible amount of destruction from Russian assault
Permanent stationing of military in Ukraine from a new EU coalition of the willing. (NATO is over, that discussion is pointless)
[0] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/is-202...
Can this be tied back to the original comment? I think we agree that a compromise, some level of alignment with Russia, will be required.
What is the clear US alignment with Russia that you see, based on the US compromise? And, what is the compromise? Details of it aren’t publicly or privately known, since it hasn’t gone that far, and there haven’t been any talks of security promises yet. Is alignment entirely that vote?
As an American: I stand with Europe.
>Europe is sooooooo actually.
What??? What does that mean?
>Idk man you just have to know how actually Europe is.
Though I have not lived in Europe, I have traveled there frequently and hold EU citizenship and I cant fathom what you are saying except your prefrence for America, but not why you prefer it.
EU will have another 10 "emergency" meetings, after which they will publish a memo that we are in a state of emergency.
What I'm hoping for is more direct involvement from France + new German leadership.
Don't pretend America gets nothing out of its role as global hegemon.
Russia gets USSR back together? What does Trump get out of that?
And don’t start with any of that “Trump was turned by GRU”, “they have dirt on him”, “he’s bought by Russia”
He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money
He’s at the top of power - both houses, presidency, supreme court all will follow whatever he says without a second thought, commander of the strongest military the world has known, richest nation in the world - there’s hardly any more power to gain.
He doesn’t need to care about getting reelected, he won’t get removed from office. He’s 80 and whatever - there’s nothing to fear in his future as he’s at the end. He doesn’t care about the Republican party, so setting that up for the future doesn’t matter to him.
Any dirt they bring out can just be handwaved away as AI generated and no one in his base will believe it regardless.
So he can’t be a Russian asset, he’s beyond that and untouchable to the Russians.
So what is it? What is he after?
> He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money
is flawed thinking.
No billionaire ever needs more money. But they all spend their time trying to make more money anyway. Think about it - these are people who have a billion dollars, but instead of starting charities and giving it away or retiring to an island, they take their money and power and use them to get more money and more power. It's greed. So I reject the idea that Donald Trump doesn't want more money.
He can have direct access to any of the big billionaires’ finances, DOGE is restructuring money left and right. 2.4 billion go into the SpaceX for an FAA contract, who’s to say a billion of that doesn’t go to Trump related businesses.
We’ve seen it happen where foreign dignitaries stay at Trump hotels when visiting DC, etc
There’s just no point in having it under Trump’s name, but if he wishes - he could be the first trillionaire
These billionaires, they're sick. Literally mentally unwell. They're addicted to the feeling of getting more. The greed is like a disease, it's like a drug. It's addictive and corrupting.
It's not enough to be wealthy, when there's more money to be had. It's not enough to be president when there's a chance to be a King. If he has a chance to make himself a trillionaire, he will take it. And he won't care what it costs us.
Probably even worse than pulling weapons and intelligence would be if the US pulled the plug on sanctions.
Well, we might see a vestigial "peace treaty" set up between D and V, with both saying "we'd have peace now except for Z not wanting it, he's the problem".
USA is out of the game. Only question now is if it goes neutral (EU can still buy munitions/weapons) or actually becomes actively hostile, to whatever extent.
EU now needs to step up. This means 7% defence spending, to re-arm and to support UA.
HU/SK will block everything in EU, every step of the way, as both are Putin's.
EU is actually fundamentally unable to respond because it cannot really deal with HU/SK. NATO also. No mechanism to eject members. Enough voting mechanisms require unanimous vote.
EU States need to start organizing things between themselves, sans HU/SK/USA.
All the while "3,200% CPU Utilization" with 100 comments is #1. Which is niche at best.
If you want more information, I posted a longer answer at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835. If you read that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
And maybe I should read the FAQ properly before I comment on where a post 'should' be ranked.
Edit: and indeed, the same site generally. That's one thing I used to post a lot about but not so much in recent years.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Let me answer that bit first. Most good HN threads are "niche", meaning they are about things far less important than major events. This is on purpose, because if a story's importance were the criterion for HN's front page, then HN would be a current affairs site, and that is definitely not its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One could even say that HN is more for unimportant things, as long as they gratify intellectual curiosity, but the most accurate way to put it is that importance alone is not a criterion.
A certain amount of political overlap has always been part of the mix (that's why the site guidelines say "most" and "probably" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426), but we're careful not to let that part get too large, because we want to preserve HN for its intended purpose.
Here are some links that point to lots of past explanations about this:
some political overlap is ok, but only some - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
not a current affairs site - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
optimizing for curiosity - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
not burning to a crisp - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If you review the first part of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and then take a look at these links, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
> 1750 comments, why is it #25 on HN?
This is answered in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, but I'll expand on what it says there.
Number of comments doesn't make a thread rank higher on HN. Upvotes make it rank higher, and flags make it rank lower. At this moment the balance between upvotes and flags on this story (and other factors, like the time of submission) combine to rank it at #23 or so.
HN's front page is a product of 3 things: community moderation (e.g. upvotes, flags), software moderation (e.g. flamewar detector) and moderator action (e.g. turning off flags, downweighting, or selecting posts for the SCP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).
In this case, community moderation was removing the story from the front page altogether (because flags were dominating upvotes). I overrode that by turning off the flags. Why? Because whatever else one says about this story, it is an interesting new phenomenon (a phrase from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It may even be unprecedented.
However, I didn't turn off the flags to such a degree that the thread would be at #1 because it is not in HN's interest to have a divisive, indignant, and bellicose topic at the top of the front page. That would send the wrong message about what this site is for. Having this thread on the front page, but lower down, sends an accurate message about what this site is for. (As for what it is and isn't for—that is covered in the links I listed above.)
Another way of putting this is that while it's in HN's interest to have occasional threads on topics like this, it's important that the flames not burn so hot as to risk burning the site to a crisp. After the 'crisp' would come scorched earth, which is not interesting—it would do no good for HN to end up there. It's true that this tends to be the default fate of internet forums, but HN has right from the beginning (https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) been an experiment in trying to stave that fate off for as long as possible.
scorched earth is not interesting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
stave that off - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It's impressive when relatively small rules can so effectively set the vibe. I suppose you could claim you set rules that are well aligned with the eigenvectors of a nerd.
> I suppose you could claim you set rules that are well aligned with the eigenvectors of a nerd.
That's a nice way to put it! I hope that's true.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a less divisive thread than this one, having read _hundreds_ of comments in this thread. There is virtually no flame war going on here and opinions are fairly uniform on the matter at hand.
It’s more incendiary for this pretty civil discussion to be called divisive when there’s hardly any evidence that it is. The comments I most disagree with are all about appeasement, which is in my opinion misguided and coming from a place of saving lives (even if all the evidence is there in practice that it won't in the long run), rather than actively malicious.
I say 'in part' because by far more important is that the bulk of the community is on board with the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). We can only make a difference around the edges. But those edges get pretty bad, and without moderation, some of the worst comments can easily turn into tire fires that end up dominating the thread.
I wish this were inessential and superfluous because it would be so much less work! But that's where we're are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43214243
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213985
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213858
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213854
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213707
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213259
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213210
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213194
And we thank you for it… but it also does strengthen the argument that it should be higher up exactly because you’ll want to get the most value out of the evident hard work you, and the others, including the very people you’ve called out who frequently apologise, revise, and add some context to why they felt that way, have done here.
It is a better, denser, broader and more considered sort of discussion than you find on reddit or Lemmy, it is confined to a single thread on a big matter, and it features excellent moderation work (and people being responsive to being called out more than even your typical economics post) - it should stand proudly. Moving it down more expediently because it is more divisive on average, I’ll admit that, does us all a disservice in my opinion.
TBH, after seeing the number of upvotes and comments, I wondered why it wasn't ranked higher. Your explanation makes sense to me.
I think you struck the right balance here.
(I can't remember if I did that because it had kicked in, or if I was being proactive.)
For more info on moderation of this thread and why, see my long comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835.
https://news.ycombinator.com/active
Since I’ve discovered active, I actually look at it first to find stuff that got pushed off the front page while I was not looking at HN.
I appreciate the goal of the front page algo quite a bit, but sometimes it pushes interesting stuff off the front page very aggressively if I am not refreshing HN throughout the day.
OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.
Lots of drama and optics involved for sure, but it seems the outcome or the talks was predetermined
JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?
Most of the minerals are in russian-occupied territory, so if they want that they would also need to further arm Ukraine now.
"Oh you won't take our [completely ridiculous] deal? I guess we'll just have to side with Russia then!" Like that's not what they were going to do anyway.
And I bet the right-wing-conservative scum helping him from Israel already got their shares.
> Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
25th Amendment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
The VP can be removed by Congress (impeachment), the President cannot direct the VP to vacate the office.
The Vice-President and President need to meet the standards in the Constitution? Did Congress pass a law establishing how those standards are to be judged and enforced? No? Guess they don't matter then. If Congress wanted, it could pass a law and Trump could sign it. Unless that happens, the Constitution is just unenforceable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think Musk is unconstitutional for that role? Not natural born Anerican.
But if anything makes some among them say "to allow this would be to violate my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", then disregarding the constitution would be it.
I'm not saying the administration wouldn't try it. I am suggesting that it may lead to a demonstration of how NIJ RF3 doesn't stop 120×570mm NATO.
It’s a strange fantasy that guy you don’t like will just go away. How many presidents or VPs don’t last a full term? Anyone who thinks that has let their emotions divorce their logic from reality, and is thus a good person to wager against
If something happens to Trump after January 20th, 2027, Vance can serve out the remainder of this term, then run as the incumbent for two additional terms as a frontman for the Musk/Thiel axis, a role he has played well for some time.
If the country's rulers want to bother to keep the pretense of Constitutional government, that is.
It will not. Trump will simply use the deal as an excuse to betray Ukraine (more than he already has). I can practically hear it playing out now.
"I had to force Ukraine to completely surrender to Russia. It was the only way to make sure Russia honored the mineral rights granted to my billionaire friends."
fwiw, the President cannot fire the VP. The Vice Presidency is an independent political office.
Why won't he last long?
Why would he "not last long"? Who would remove him? Would they not also remove Trump if they could remove Vance?
It's not just possible, it was stated openly multiple times by Russian diplomats. The official position is: anything signed by Zelensky has potential to be invalidated later, because according to constitution of Ukraine he is not a legitimate president anymore. So this legal loophole should be removed before signing any agreements.
Wow!
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/trump-brags-about-h...
The best way to get him to do something you want, is to stroke his ego, make him look good publicly.
You can contact your senator and ask how they are contributing to the safety and prosperity of Americans, or just human beings in general.
At least you have a congressperson on the wrong side of this who is worth pressuring. I am very tired of making calls that just say "I know you say you're on the right side of this, but will you please try to do anything?"
Rising wages, lower taxes, or 35 hour work weeks, instead of stagnation and inflation. So they wouldn't turn to a populist outsider.
"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression" [questionable attribution]
As a retired union [IBEW] American, I am happy to see more countries gain footing within our global economy. Respectable competition among a distribution of the powerful keeps any one entity from a monopoly of exploiting the entire world/workers.
https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine (WW2, Taiwan, Ukraine, & Maritime vs Continental Powers)
https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah-paine-india
There's also Decoding Geopolitics Podcast (full content is paywalled) since he talks with actual experts. There's ofc US bias in experts, and usually actual experts can be kinda boring to listen to initially.
But experts in international politics seems to disagree on a lot of stuff, and when one big thing happens it seems like a new face always momentarily pop up (John Mearsheimer, Peter Zeihan etc, for Ukraine war). A good rule of thumb seems to be to not get too fixated by one voice.
Its refreshing to hear some experts being able to healthily disagree, such as Mearsheimer & Sach in this[1] for example. That should be the take away from Sarah Paine interview too, she's good at making clear what she can & can't say for sure. Contrast that with say Zeihan. [1] https://youtu.be/uvFtyDy_Bt0?feature=shared
Then there are the kinds of experts like Mearsheimer and Zeihan, who are little more than avid book readers. They are often wildly off track without understanding it, because they have no real experience to ground them.
The second kind is best avoided.
Professor Paine has never "actually worked as foreign ministers, presidents, chiefs of armed forces, heads of intelligence services, and in other similar positions", but she has studied the Russian language and Russian culture, and has made a career at the Naval War College in studying and writing on Russia's security policy and situation.
Should we avoid her, too?
Oh, and thank you both.
That's how politics was done before WW2.
But this is a wide topic, I suppose various biographies would help. Older books could help, e.g. “Prince” is old but a classic.
You could also lookup reading lists in best known universities under political science and international relations.
Reuters and Associated Press were barred from Oval Office during this meeting, but a Russian state news agency TASS reporter was allowed - into the Oval Office.
Wake up America before it's too late.
We'll have at least two years of this. One can hope 2026 will see a massive tide turn in congress and the Senate and maybe Trump will be impeached. But, it doesn't seem likely, and even if it happened, they can't impeach his entire administration so not sure how much can really change until 2028.
A democratic leader is a leader to all, not only to his voter base.
Where are your protests?
This was a much needed change; because it was insane having a dementia patient as a president. I dont mean that hyperbolically; the democratic party was ready to have him serve another 4 years when he couldnt hold his train of thought on the debate stage. The democratic party needs to explain why his mental condition was swept under the rug at the expense of the American people.
The time to wake up was 2016. It is already too late.
33% of Americans have their heads in the sand and are believing the establishment talking points and amplifying them.
33% know what is going on and are cheering it on.
33% don’t care either way.
Hard to say which group is doing more damage to the country tbh.
Do you believe that:
1. Russia has not engaged in misinformation-based influence campaigns targeting US citizens
2. Russia has engaged in such campaigns but to no tangible effect, and they therefore require no response
3. Russia's influence campaigns saw success, but not to the detriment of the US, and they therefore require no response
4. Russia's success harms US interests, but it would be hypocritical to actively respond given the US' past actions
5. Russia's success is tethered to cultural shifts, which are impermanent and therefore don't necessitate an active response
6. Russia's success can only be effectively countered by the gov't, so civilian attempts at helping are futile
7. None of the items above relate to the topic of discussion in this thread, i.e. this comment effectively strawman-ing
8. The above points are non-exhaustive
I'm quite sure an intelligent person with an open mind can be convinced that each of the above points is false, save the last one.
I also agree about in 5, Russia is convieniently riding a wave of populist conservatism which Putin (cynically, corruption-based, or otherwise) aligned with the Orthodox alignment in Russia. (Men/Women are different, global woke policy, SDG development goals etc) Many working class people are sick to death of effete urbane progressive politics (doesn't even really benefit any core economics) I would say this is a bigger propaganda play from Russia = Give sympathetic activists ammunition for cultural victories (that were fragile and brainless Western ideas anyway.)
The problem with this granular obsession of a deep Russia conspiracy inside the US is that you aren't even really aware about what the propaganda they are saying on their side and not really cogniscent that Western foreign policies engage in pretty ugly propaganda, unlawful killings as a matter business.
Russia propaganda is simply more advanced version of the type of propaganda we were doing anyway. It's just that you don't see your own side as capable of misinformation, influence peddling worldwide and they are guilty of it.
EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op — and you worry about what; a few scary Facebook ads? Is there a particular piece of misinfo on RT you are concerned about?
[Citation severely needed]
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-...
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
From a quick (and shallow) skim of the thread, I gather that you're representing a minority viewpoint—inevitably so, because this forum is majority Western and naturally reflects the Western point of view. When commenters find themselves in a minority/contrarian position on the internet, they often resort to name-calling and other barbs. It's understandable as a response to pressure, but it's not ok to do that here. We can't apply the rules differently depending on such factors.
At the same time, it's in HN's interest to have contrarian views represented, as long as people do it while respecting the site guidelines. So when I run across an example like this, I often try to make this argument in the hope of persuading the person in your position! It doesn't usually work, but one can hope.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It's also in your own interests to follow the rules, because when you break them, you discredit whatever truth you may be arguing for. That doesn't help you or anyone else, and majorities are always looking for an easy excuse to dismiss minorities. (I'm not talking about the current topic here; I believe all majorities do this.)
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
And then there's a large percentage for whom this whole thing just feels futile. It's not that they don't care, but they dislike Trump and feel like Democrats are unable/unwilling to rise to the occasion. (After all, 4 years later, Democrats just fired up the republican base and did nothing to protect Americans)
I thought like this but I've come to realize that a lot of Harris voters were suffering from illusions about the likely efficacy of the government she would form. Regardless of her own competence, the democratic party has serious issues, and not many Harris supporters were being honest (if they were aware) about this until well after they lost the election.
I think it's dangerous to think her voters know what's really going on. The issues are genuinely country-wide and not specific only to republicans.
More level-headed republicans are right about a lot of problems in the USA. They want government efficiency for good reasons. Is DOGE the right solution? Absolutely not, it's insane. But these people are happy to see certain initiatives because they're overdue, and they're not wrong about that. Free speech for example; that has become a bit more dodgy over the years. The western world is beginning to press on freedom of speech in subtle ways (especially in the UK), and a lot of republicans care (they should!) but virtually no democrats I know care.
I know the current administration (or X.com) is implementing the worst versions of these things, I don't support it at all, but my point is: there is good sense on both sides, yet also total nonsense on both sides.
That's my take from here in Canada, at least.
I think they're actively harmful. "Both sides are bad" is a thought-ending cliche.
I'm wondering if they were given a pass by another approved news agency or something along those lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
I find this sort of suggestion to be 100% reminiscent from Ship of Fools, or to be slightly more charitable and work-safe, the protestors in the lemonade episode of Boondocks. The captain is nuts, Jasmine is almost a slave, and you're going to protest?
People abroad don't realize, the average American person is completely powerless.
Yes, we may lament the troubles that the current administration is causing for our allies, (or, I guess, former allies) abroad, but there's next to nothing we can do about it.
Again, buyer's remorse is all we can muster right now and it doesn't do anyone any good. At this point, we have no choice but to search for what positives we can work with that come out of the current administration, and just live with the consequences of the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
One of the reason is that they never had to go through really tough times - as a country. We're living in times of prosperity and stability pretty much all of our lives. And we take it for granted. It's not !
But the thing is, that people do have power. Start calling your representatives, take it to the streets. All of you. If the 50% of voters that voted for Harris show up on the streets protesting, things will change. Take real action.
I think people severely underestimate the level of apathy out in society right now. Until things affect them, they likely aren't gonna be terribly interested.
But somehow, people feel better doom scrolling and feeling powerless. It's kind of a nice excuse to not to do anything.
That worked most of the time, in the recent past. But it looks like we're at a major turning point in US history.
We, as a people, don't care. We don't even care about the problems we have. It's not gonna be easy to make us care about the problem some other people have.
At the very least send letters, make phone calls. Let them know if they don't stand up to a dictator they've lost your vote.
Comment on all of the elected Democrats' posts "oh no repulicans just did this!" and let them know that whining isn't leading and they need to shut up and do something.
I'm encouraging every Democrat to register as a Republican, vote for the most centrist candidates in the next primary, and if they win, vote for any Republican that has an independent thought over a Democrat who knows nothing but how to sit around uselessly and complain.
And when the revolution comes, the first people who should get the most blame are those who chose not to use the power they had to do anything about it.
https://www.ft.com/content/8793e218-9dc4-43a8-8183-e2a092bbb...
I would not bet against Ukraine.
Ukraine is paying with their citizens lives for NATO to receive this education, while simultaneously weakening one of the western world's most dangerous geopolitical rivals. The fact that Americans can't see through the Fox News propaganda to understand this is unbelievable, embarrassing, and will set them back on the world stage for a generation or more.
Just a friendly reminder to not paint "Americans" with a broad brush. We may not have got our way this past election, but there are plenty of us who see through the fucking bullshit.
Whoa, you don't say.
Russia is certainly the aggressor, let’s make no mistake. But I honestly can’t make heads or tails of what is actually happening in Ukraine because of all the universal propaganda
Don’t forget that the whole “Iron Dome” thing Trump has been talking about, if viable, would necessarily prompt immediate attacks before it becomes operational.
Well, fortunately there's no way it could be viable, but that's relying on China and Russia to not fall for it.
A few months ago in my city, an ambulance shelled by Russians in kharkiv was shown. It was quite destroyed, and chock full of holes. It was quite moving
Either way, I've donated 50 bucks; seems like a great way to show support on a difficult day for Ukraine.
Donating to ukraine. Now, with ai
But I stand by the point. What is not clear? If A attacks B, and B would be happy to revert to back to state before the attack, then C saying it's not it's problem, it's neutral or that it only supports "peace" (letting A win by making B surrender) is not C being neutral. It's direct support of the attacker.
I think what's least clear about your framing is how and why e.g. someone wanting to remain neutral/peaceful can ONLY imply their opinion is "B should surrender so A can win" or similar type statements. Thoughts like "if you don't support B then you must hope A wins" or "If you want peace it means giving A what it wants" are not full arguments in themselves, they are just the claims repeated.
For example, there are certainly those who want Ukraine to just surrender some of its land for peace (the POTUS seeming to be one). That by itself does not explain they MUST be supporting Russia, it just opens the door for such a possibility. Some along these lines of wanting peace/surrender don't support Russia but don't think there'd be anything of Ukraine left at all if the war were to escalate further. Others of completely different opinion believe de-escalation over time towards peace talks will lead to better and better "A and B returning things to the way they were" type results given enough time - but only if the pressure/interest/escalation/pile-on is lowered instead of raised. Yet others have different takes on why/how to be neutral/peaceful and what they think it will end with. And, of course, some genuinely don't support Ukraine because they view the situation as a risk themselves - we just can't jump to that being the only possibility without more reasoning for the rest first.
Now I'm not here to try and argue you should agree with these arguments or that if you respond to just the above points you've now countered the full spectrum of opposing opinion by any stretch of the measure. The only reason I bring these examples up is to show how repeating the conclusion "being neutral is only supporting the attacker" isn't as much providing a point as conveying your current stance. To argue points around it is to try to give credence to why that is the only (or most) correct conclusion and approach and where the other opposing ideas all fell short.
When the depth of consideration of counter-arguments instead comes across as "the other side are just bullshit cowards" or "it's just clear" the best you can hope for is a lot of "ooh-rah" for people who already agreed and a coinciding complete write off from those who disagreed.
As an addendum: Folks (not necessarily you, people like to AI summarize comment history) sometimes take what I say to mean I personally don't support Ukraine or that I explicitly support Trump's actions around this or whatever else they come up with. I personally support Ukraine to fully return to its pre-war borders, disavow most of the government of Russia's actions, and am severely disappointed with Trump's treatment of Zelensky (bringing things back to the original thread). I just have relatively strong opinions about how tone of conversation can be overall damaging for a ideology regardless of the intent or literal stance.
I just feel for the guy, and for the country, too. What a friggin mess we've left them
edit: just realized it is the 2nd. hard month ahead I guess!
The Ukraine is simply too small of a country to actually win a war against Russia, all that these aid packages are doing is prolonging the war that Ukraine cannot win.
It's like saying "if only Germany had <insert Wunderwaffe> it would've won WWII". At some point they were going to run out of men anyway (they did). Sort of like how Ukraine will eventually run out of men if they continue.
But if you had read the rest of the transcript, you’d arrive at this beautiful part:
“The numbers we came up with, the $165 per person and the $11.25 per person, aren't really real because they are based on this idea that everything we sent to Ukraine and everything we sent to Israel came from tax revenue, and that's just not the case.
MCMANUS: The revenue that goes in is not necessarily connected to how the government is actually budgeting. What we're paying in taxes just does not have to match what we spend. So the whole exercise is sort of irrelevant.
GONZALEZ: It's irrelevant because of one big elephant in the room, which is deficit spending. We spend more than we bring in as a country.”
And from who is the US borrowing most of their money from? It currently owes China roughly 850 billion USD, and it has to pay interest on this.
And how does it pay this interest? Either it borrows more, growing the problem, or it is a portion of your taxes going straight to China <3.
The American people, largely. China owns roughly 3% of America's debt. The overwhelming majority of American debt is hold domestically (and thus eventually returns to US citizens) But if the 13 bucks weren't precise enough for you, the 4% interest America pays on 10 year bonds I suppose bring the monstrous bill up another 50 cents per decade, truly a game changer when it comes to defending the free world.
Yes, about ~23% of the USD debt is international. I mentioned China to focus on places where taxes go internationally.
- "Come Back Alive" fund https://savelife.in.ua/en/ which have full transparency, checks and balances
- "Sternenko Community" which until recently was just a set of bank accounts, which directly funds strike drone production https://x.com/sternenko/status/1894360283595800643
I donate monthly to the latter (alongside donations towards my ex-colleagues and acquaintances serving at the front lines and supply, but those are usually private), but I think western audience may be more comfortable with the former. Either way we appreciate your support in this tragedy of a war. Thank you.
Act accordingly.
If you are thinking about working in AI for x.ai or Tesla - do not. This will not look pretty on your resume.
To me it feels like a setup to look good in front of their audience without any proper desire to engage in true diplomacy.
How many business leaders, like you, let slide so much shit and instead focused on what was important for their business?
Even if Trump and Vance were disrespected, suck it up like the rest of us and do the thing that benefits the entire country. They met to make a deal to benefit the country; Trump failed to make the deal.
My prediction is ukraines got three options;
-Show europe that the US is an unreliable trading partner, and get them to commit atleast $500B, with SF troops coming to ukraine to train their troops. - Make a deal with trump. - lose their country.
The people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk would also reject any deal that doesn't involve Ukraine surrendering some of its land, either to Russia or to some sort of Republic of Texas limbo-state. So, even if Russia were taken over by a CIA asset, fighting there would continue unless extremely repressive measures were taken.
So that sort of deal is the only way to end the fighting with anything resembling humanity, even though Trump supports it. Stopped clocks, etc.
In an ideal world we could have a threat or two like this that would serve as outlets, but what I've actually seen is that having these discussions leads to them bleeding out into other threads that should have been unrelated. HN is going to need to more aggressively enforce its rules about political news if it's going to stay a haven for curiosity and not descend into just another place for angry politics.
Hopefully, however, these are not historic moments...
Desperate times...
Since the inauguration the HN crowd has not done a good job talking about politics. Where we used to be able to have some of the best discussions and comments on political issues I've seen on the internet, the last month or two has consisted primarily of hot takes and aggression, and I can get my dose of that anywhere else, I don't need it here.
What happens instead is, people start getting heated at each other and vitriol across the site increases. Folks who don't find that grace anymore exit the site and folks who are heated stay. This attracts other people who want to be heated. This creates a downward spiral across the community. This isn't HN specific, it's the same thing that happened to pretty much every other public internet community once they started featuring lots of discussion on polarizing politics.
The entire reason HN used to be high quality open internet forum is because politics wasn't a huge part of its contents. But the site has been under quality pressure for some time now and ever since the start of Trump 2024 it's started going downhill faster than it was before. That's fine of course, if folks just want to battle out politics and shout at each other or cry out in anger they can go ahead. But it won't be the "intelligent crowd here" doing it. Those folks will go elsewhere.
As an example, this thread is ridiculously large (2818 comments as of this writing.) There is no way for a reader to get much out of this without copious amounts of minimizing threads, scrolling randomly, or page-searching for terms. The only sense I can make of it is throwing the thread into Gemini and asking it to summarize it for me. The summary tells me nothing that my own thoughts and some social media comments I've read don't already tell me. So what has the "intelligent crowd here" really given us? I'm waiting for op-eds from the MSM and blog authors I follow to give me literally anything more rigorous than the slop in this thread.
Or you could, you know, jump from parent to parent and actually read the threads that interest you. I wholly disagree with your broad assessment. I have seen plenty of substantive, interesting comments in threads like this. Of course there will be duds, but that's equally true in threads about the latest front end web framework.
Intelligence and outrage are not mutually exclusive. Again, the world is not an apolitical place. If you do not represent and speak up for your own values, someone else will decide your fate for you. This forum, like all others is a chance to signal boost and stand for the values you care about.
The moderators have also done a good job of keeping the volume of these threads reasonable. Sure, on the new page they are rampant, for good reason, but only one or two max make it to the top thirty on a given day.
There is only one right perspective, and really no interesting questions to be asked. Please stop pretending otherwise.
If that's what it was, I don't think it worked. I think rather that Trump and Vance manufactured a conflict to use as pretense to do what they wanted to do in the first place, which was to cut off Ukraine from U.S. aid. Whether it flies with the American public generally is largely irrelevant to Trump at this point, as he's not constitutionally eligible to run for another term. (He might simply refuse to leave in 2028, but he doesn't need an election to do that.)
It's the same thing here — he literally said as much today[1].
As a worldview, that is incomprehensible to me (and I suspect most people), but it really does help understand the choices Donald Trump makes. The spectacle — the attention paid — is what matters to him. How it looks on TV is what matters. How it actually is, is secondary at best, but often irrelevant.
He does a lot of things that "don't make sense" until you think of it that way. That the executive of a country as powerful as the USA perceives the world this way, and makes instinctual decisions on this basis without any credible effort to reason through the possible consequences, is of course very alarming.
As a US citizen, I'll admit that the "gravitas" of the USA as the "leader of the free world" was always carefully stage-managed. Still, it's depressing to watch momentous and crucial international wartime negotiations degraded to this reality-TV/pro-wrestling level, and so swiftly, for the whole world to watch.
[1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5169464-trump-ze...
How everyone in the world wanted usa to stay out of other countries 20 years ago...
https://youtu.be/LasrD6SZkZk?si=qbP5t6WNVY7hq0p9
Seams alot of people want to bring that back.
The broader dissent started to come after the invasion of Iraq (based on the notion of Iraqi WMDs) and the lack of progress in Afghanistan or finding Bin Laden.
Foreign policy under different Presidents is often contradictory and as in any political context, the President usually has some base of support from their own party no matter how far off script they go, simply out of unity or fear of the alternative party benefiting from a lack of unity.
So while a coherent policy of “The US should intervene in all conflicts or no conflicts” would be intellectually consistent, the circumstances surrounding the conflict and the political environment lead to inconsistencies.
That statement was a direct signal to the party to turn on Zelensky and to make him an object of partisan divide, and Lindsay Graham understood that crystal clearly and called for Zelensky to resign shortly after the meeting, not long after praising him.
After sleeping on it, it’s obvious now that this was all to redirect the blame for Trump’s failure to meet his promise to broker peace swiftly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_...
https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1895606614302019688
(The full video is in the post)
But HN is still feeling the previous few days of HN outrages (which involve tech).
Are we going to have outrage fatigue, and let even more injustices slide? How do we manage that, and what is HN's place?
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/g-s1-50473/un-ukraine-resolut...
We don't have to suck up to the US any more
The obvious sweetheart deals for US companies to operate tax free, no longer any need. The Visa and Mastercard tax, no longer any need. Following the US to all of its foreign adventures, no longer any need.
That is all going to affect the average American, but probably not as quickly as the self-harm tariffs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxbGjvcdyY&pp=ygUbZnVsbCB6ZWx...
China and Russia and many others will be very pleased.
I expect a number of military "provocatives" from China in particular in the coming months.
If you're curious how most Americans feel now, you can read about Trump's approval ratings here; currently his poll results are net-favorable:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...
Bit I would like to point out that it took about 9 months for Biden's approval/disapproval rating to be around equal[1].
In contrast, it has taken Trump about 1 month to do the same[2].
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/joe-bide...
[2] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...
JD vance calling the guest out for being disrespectful in front of the media. Trump not letting the guest talk at all. did we watch the same video? Hilarious take.
I guess we all see what we want to see. We have biases after all.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whose fault it is, I just find it interesting that Zelensky is having no problem talking politics with other countries (excluding russia). See the recent emergency summit in europe as an example. Why is that? Are we as americans that difficult to work with? If so - why is that? Do we want to be left with 0 allies after all is said and done? As Zelensky alluded, nobody is #1 forever, and pretending you will be (and treating all your allies like shit) is probably not a smart long term strategy?
His country has been under attack by an authoritarian government for YEARS, and the problem is that he's not "respectful enough" for you? What happened to "facts don't care about your feelings"?
> get the fuck out of here
> You are pissing on anyone
Whoa—swipes like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please don't post any more of this. Your comment would have been just fine without it. (Well, that and the "little baby bitches".)
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, that would be good. I don't want to ban you and we've had to ask you this before.
The problem isn't profanity and the solution isn't sanitization. Rather, the problem is crossing into pejoratives and/or name-calling and/or being aggressive to other commenters. And the solution is to edit all that out.
When you make edits like these:
WTF are you talking about? -> What in the heck are you on about?
get the fuck out of here -> get that terrible characterization out of here
You are pissing on anyone -> You are denigrating anyone
... you've sanitized the profanity, but your comment is still pejorative and swipey in the way the site guidelines are asking you (not you personally, of course! I mean all of us) to avoid.
Also, I totally missed this in the original post—this is another one:
> you should be ashamed. You need to do better.
The way to follow the site guidelines is to edit out swipes and take out pejoratives (especially personal ones). There are lots of ways to do that, but in case it's helpful, here's one:
"I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that will end the destruction in your country" was what our VP said to kick off the spat.
"High-pressure bargaining tactics" is not accurate. Zelensky didn't kiss the ring and our representatives reacted angrily when he corrected them gently on the actual history of diplomacy in that region since 2014.
That is extortive, not appropriate American diplomacy.
A nice side effect of doing this kind of editing is that it makes your comments more persuasive, by both polishing and sharpening your argument.
Thanks for the example, I appreciate it!
In any case, thanks for hearing me out with such patience—if it were always this easy, I'd...have more free time!
Dissuading and choking off appeals to the people suggests to me that the President is highly insecure in his position. People in secure positions don't get offended or upset when people appeal to their bosses (i.e., us).
Can you kindly answer the question presented? When—before this testy tirade began—was Zelensky disrespectful, and how? When considering your answer, what makes Zelensky’s behavior different from anyone else’s who wished to plead their case to the American people, which has been done throughout history without incurring similar drama and blowback?
Such as? All I heard was him asking how an agreement or deal would help when the history of Ukraine-Russia deals has always ended up with Ukraine being invaded more
[1] https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election...
https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...
By that logic, no democracy in the world elects their leaders with a 50%+ majority, not even countries with mandatory voting laws like Australia or Belgium.
> But about half of America did vote for this
So it is fair to include the full population of America.
> By that logic, no democracy in the world elects their leaders with a 50%+ majority
Leaders are often elected by plurality, meaning less then 50% of the voters, but the winer still has the largest number of votes[1]. Trump did not win the majority according the sources I have[2]. 'Majority' is often used as a replacement for plurality in everyday speech, but sometimes you need to get into the nitty gritty details and need the more precise definitions.
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/e/majority-vs-plurality/
[2]
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election...
https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...
In this case it is a very large difference and it is important to keep it in mind, even if starting with 340 million is not the best place to start.
Google tells me the adult population of the USA is ~260 million, so 260 - 77.3 = 182.7 and 182.7/260 ~0.7. So ~70% of the adult population did not vote for Trump. It is part of Trump's job as president to represent and serve that 70%. It is also part of Trump's job to represent and serve the minority of adults who voted him into office too.
I have talked to many people over the years that did not know so few people voted or the difference between majority and plurality. These sort of details can and do lead to misunderstandings, that unfortunately, can and do waste considerable time.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06... https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-co...
But in common parlance, it is acceptable to say that half the country voted for one or another candidate. It happens all the time:
https://thehill.com/opinion/4935813-trump-appeal-conservatis...
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/how-the-other-half...
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/voting-elections-de...
The center for politics and global citizen articles do not seem to use half that way though.
For center for politics the title starts with "How the Other Half Votes" and they seem to keep to that usage and never use half of USA/America.
For Global Citizen the title starts with "Half the Planet Will Vote This Year" an they seem to stick to that and never use half of USA/America
Another way in which Trump is incorrect is that his election victory margin is average among presidential elections in terms of both electoral vote margin and popular vote margin.
If anything, I expected HN crowd to be one-sided, but not that one sided. All these laments in this topic are kinda crazy to read, honestly.
It's so sad that an evil magician has hypnotized so many Americans into voting for Trump. Thank you for reminding us how the majority would have voted if they hadn't been hypnotized.
A comedian is clearly the best job on your resume if you want to apply for the job of president.
Certainly the experience dealing with hecklers, and a sharp wit, come in handy.
Why? Because the dominant empire that enforces it gets the most spoils from that peace. It is why Britain had the biggest empire ever and it's why the US is the richest nation on earth today.
This point seems to be completely missed by Trump, Maga, the US talking heads, and even people in threads like this. If the US withdraws from being "the world's policeman" then it withdraws from its empire.
As a European watching this unfold from the outside, it's hard not to see the actions of the US government as the beginning of the end of US dominance. It will likely hasten the collapse of the US dollar (if you can't force everyone to buy oil in dollars, then the world will shift, likely to Euros), does the US think their currency will remain the ‘reserve currency of choice’ if they isolate themselves from the world? The era of firing up those greenback printing presses whenever you want will be gone.
Isolationism will just lead to Europe recreating (or re-purposing) the institutions that the US was critical in forming (The UN, The World Bank, etc.) and looking to be its own world peacekeeper. It will eventually move the dominance to whichever nation or nations fill the vacuum. The US will get poorer. It may not collapse, but you can't withdraw from being the dominant empire and there be no financial consequences. Just look at the collapse of the British empire.
The problem is that this won't happen overnight. And the process of the US withdrawing will certainly lead to wars, maybe even a third world war. The withdrawal of its soft power via USAID will likely lead to famines, health crises, migrations, and a lot more refugees.
You may think that we can just 'sit it out' and wait for Trump's term to complete. But, it's obvious that the Republican party is now the MAGA party. The former allies of the US need to realise that this is it. They need to fill the space as fast as possible and move forward without the US. The US is not an ally any more.
It really is the last thing we needed after a financial crisis, a pandemic, and with the existential crisis - climate change - being ever more kicked into the long grass.
I despair for where this is heading :(
Another historical point of interest is how China, the "center of the world", isolated themselves from the rest of the world and how that played out.
The first thing Trump says in the official stream is that they've had their negotiation spats before and are stronger for it.
11:15 am Fri 28 tweet by Senator (D), "will not support a fake peace agreement": https://x.com/chrismurphyct/status/1895508100595204115
Maybe the current administration can work more efficiently if Russia and the US have a single spokesman?
The connection with Europe would appear to benefit millions of Americans.
Very broadly I think the US has done a poor job explaining just how beneficial America's position in the world is to America itself. You see it reflected in the USAID stuff too. Soft power pays dividends in ways that aren't immediately apparent so when it's gone people just don't care all that much. It'll be interesting to see where this all lands 20 or so years from now and how the US public feels about it then.
It’s not perfectly efficient, and it can suffer from the problem you’re describing, but far less severely than the US system does.
Winner take all (one winner): FPTP, single member district ranked ballots
Proportional (multiple winners): Party lists, MMP, multi-member district ranked ballots (STV)
Diplomacy and soft power is a complex, nuanced concept that can't be explained easily.
This brings a wider perspective, which is why what Elon is doing is so scary because it takes out that wider perspective
But in all seriousness, my bewilderment isn't so much that Reagan's stance against Russia was discarded (parties change over time, as well as the relationship between nations), but that it happened with zero pushback and zero discourse. The party leader said, with no explanation, "Our #1 enemy is now our ally" and the party simply said "But of course, no one should doubt this!"
For quite a long time (decades) Soviet Union/Russia was vilified like no other…
Heck, even the general public knew that Russia was the only country that could wipe us off the map with their nukes…
Current leaders grew up and were in the prime of their life during those times…
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...
If you're interested in how a democracy should handle itself in such a situation, take a look at Justin Trudeau's recent speech pledging support for Ukraine.
Don't be a sucker. [^1]
He sent hundreds of thousands of his own people into a meat grinder to fight for the privilege of being ruled by his corrupt government (recognised as one of the most corrupt governments in Europe) instead of a different corrupt government, with his thugs literally going door-to-door dragging unwilling youths off to die. The average Ukrainian wasn't any better off under Ukrainian government than under Russian government, and they'd certainly be much better off alive than dead.
It was always ironic that Trump kept a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office but after today, it's almost obscene.
Past performance is, in fact, often quite a reliable guarantee of future results.
This Ukraine debacle wasn't the clean win he wanted.
It's a binary outcome from his perspective. If he obtains his his key objectives at some survivable cost, that's a win for him.
Horrible. I feel so badly for the Ukrainian people.
With two candidates and a variety of issues, you are very likely going to have to compromise on something. You can support Trump's immigration policy, DOGE efforts, and more; without thinking that the US should help Putin restore the Soviet Union.
Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either of the presidential candidates. I only voted on the down ballot races.
Sure, maybe not 51% of the country wanted this. But I would be shocked if it's less than 38%.
That number is FAR too large.
Abstention just buys you ownership of whatever happens, regardless of who wins.
You really looked at both candidates and decided both were equally bad?
Trump has no moral compass; and the only thing that matters is his ego.
Harris had domestic policy that I almost universally disagree with.
I did vote in the primary, but it didn't matter at that point because the only other option was Haley. I would have been enthusiastic about any other Republican primary candidate.
I can't speak to the level of public support for Ukraine, though it seems most Trump supporters don't really care about Ukraine and want the US to stop spending money on foreign wars. Despite anecdotes about Trump voters being upset by executive branch cuts, polling suggests ~95% of Trump voters are ok with or actively pleased with his gutting of the government.
The median US voter does want this.
> Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either of the presidential candidates.
Then you voted for Trump, in that case. If you can vote, and don't, then that's tacit approval of what voters choose.
There's one thing T cares about. T.
Zelenski said bad things about him to the dems. Noughty Zelenski, let's publicly humiliate him with the help of my dog V.
1. The entire affair provides cover for continued operations against Russia without great power escalation. Hopefully Putin doubles down and loses even more military assets. If you don't understand this point take a day or two to think it through.
2. Ukraine cannot win (its objectives) this war without Western troops at some point & that's been clear since the start. US objectives have been met, with Russia unable to mount a conventional threat to Europe; with its hardware now discredited against Western weapons - much to the dismay of the Sino-Russia-Iranian axis; and with European underspending on defense & overreliance on Russian energy now reversing.
3. Get used to the new USA. We are going to very publicly assert our power and by doing so hopefully deter war in Asia.
Anyone who doesn't understand 1-3 needs to meditate on this and grow a pair.
That’s not deterring war, it’s appeasement. Ask the great European powers (and eventually the US) how that worked against Hitler…
All that post WW2 good will and trust just went poof. You think Germany or France is going to support us after this?
And even then, he only barely won the election. It was the slimmest margin since the 1800s.
He doesn't have the mandate he thinks he does, but he's a megalomaniac led by his nose ring by the psycopathic megalomaniacs behind Project 2025, which ~90% (more?) of Americans said that they didn't like when they saw it.
This is how the American people has chosen to represent themselves. The American people created the system, and the Americans knew their own system. The system produced this guy.
Now, why does it matter which percentage did he get? He got enough, did not he? And obviously he does have the mandate, because he is able to do things his way.
To me, staying home and not voting in an election is a silent vote for whoever the winner ends up being. These people soft-voted for Trump.
Nobody has any right to claim surprise. If you couldn't see this coming, you are stupid, full stop.
Yeah…
Egg shortages.
Fatal measles outbreaks.
Airplane crashes.
Crypto scams.
Tariffs.
Betrayal of allies.
Pardons and special favors for insurrectionists, crooked mayors, and online pimps.
The American people voted for change!
• 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%)
With an estimated population of 341M, there were approximately 90M people who were eligible to vote (over 18, and not prevented from voting from a conviction) that did not vote.
The American people DO NOT support Trump. He only won due to voter suppression and a massive amount of ad money.
Of the voters who didn't vote for Trump or Harris, certainly some of them would have voted for Trump (or not voted at all) if their third-party candidate didn't exist. Put another way, if we had universal approval or ranked-choice voting, it's plausible that Trump would have ended up with a popular vote majority (but it could have gone either way, certainly).
> there were approximately 90M people who were eligible to vote that did not vote.*
Whenever an election is decided, I generally move all of those uncast votes over to the tally of whoever won. Staying home and not voting is the same thing as a soft-vote for whoever wins.
> voter suppression
I wish we could really quantify this. Not that it would change MAGA minds about anything, but it could be useful to know.
> a massive amount of ad money
Harris had a similarly massive amount of ad money, too, and it didn't help.
Honestly, I think the failures of the Democratic party machine as a whole are just as responsible for Harris's loss as GOP underhandedness is.
> Democratic party machine as a whole are just as responsible for Harris's loss as GOP underhandedness is.
This we agree on.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-spent-290-million-2...
It isn't just the money, but whom it benefits. Someone almost no discretionary income, 100 or 300 is a ton of money. Musk won't even notice the 290M.
Dems basically handed this election to Trump; Biden running when he had memory issues, then handing it to Harris whose numbers were questionable against Trump(with the braindead excuse that only she could get the funds), along with generally not responding to issues voters obviously care about(border), trying to ignore issues like excessive wokeness/DEI instead of admitting it is a problem.
Trump is going to lie and obviously only cares about himself, some % of rubes will vote for that, but you don't have to make it so damn easy for him.
This is a problem because if you stop caring about Ukraine falling, you will start to care when Poland, baltic countries, etc., get overrun next. Zelenskyy wasn't joking when he mentioned American shores.
Has he always been like that or is it something repulsive he's picking up from Trump?
He needs serious exposure to mature, cultured, well-mannered gentlemen and to get some pointers from honest, respectable US presidents and vice-presidents like he's getting none of now. Or he'll never reagin his former integrity, if he actually had enough to make a difference, it makes me wonder.
RIP Elon RIP Vance etc
This is what the global alt-right movement, which the AfD is a part of, wants.
They see democracy as a weak system and want to replace it by a kind of neo-feudalism.
It’s clear that Ukraine, that fights against the Russian version of that system, must be made to be an example than democracy can not win.
For that reason, this smells of a pre-planned ambush.
He got his start cosplaying as a former downtrodden redneck from the holler, when he’s from suburban Ohio.
>> “I do wonder, how do you make that decision?” Romney mused to me as Vance was degrading himself on the campaign trail that summer. “How can you go over a line so stark as that—and for what?” Romney wished he could grab Vance by the shoulders and scream: This is not worth it! “It’s not like you’re going to be famous and powerful because you became a United States senator. It’s like, really? You sell yourself so cheap?” The prospect of having Vance in the caucus made Romney uncomfortable. “How do you sit next to him at lunch?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-ro...
You can't hold free elections when you're not free.
US held elections in 1864
France held elections in 1871 during a large war where parts of the country were under Prussian occupation
Korea held elections in 1952
Vietnam held elections in 1956
Iraq held elections in 2005 with large parts of the country under foreign backed insurgent occupation
Georgia has held elections in 2008, 2012, and 2020.
Ukraine itself held elections in 2014 and 2019. Either the Donbas and Crimea are Ukrainian or they're not.
* millions of Ukrainians in the occupied territories * 1000km frontline that is extremely thin in places. should they pull troops off the line to vote, or run ballot boxes to the trenches? * their Constitution forbids it * the Russians will attack polling places, possibly killing hundreds
Britian didn't have an election for 10 years because of WWII, so it's not like it's unprecedented for a democracy to put elections on hold during an existential crisis.
It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year):
But I dont know why Vance even jumped in like that. It both undercut Trump and forced Zelensky to voice his disagreement.
But then they both attacked him for some perceived lack of gratitude which just spiraled out of control.
People need to understand that who they're dealing with a trolls, not idiots or geniuses. The two negotiating strategies are to 1. provoke 2. create uncertainty. This seems to be extremely efficient at getting them attention, emotionally exhausting opposition, keeping counterparts off-balance and has the benefit of being able to make them a lot of money, considering that they're in control of market instability.
Zelensky was brought here specifically to be publicly humiliated on live TV.
In 80 years, if we still have history books, this moment will be in them.
sit and do nothing in an ill fitting suit
Honorable?
This is especially evident when you compare interviews today with those he gave 30 years ago. He was bright then. He's nothing like that today. That's also why he now refuses to be interviewed by unfriendlies.
I am calling my representatives and DEMANDING action, and if you care about this nation, the security of Europe, or defending a democracy against invasion then I recommend doing the same.
It has reached the point where I cannot express my full thoughts on this matter without reckless language. But rest assured, if we (Americans) do not speak out and stop this NOW, it will get worse.
Vulnerable and weak?
Um, anyone who believes this is just not engaging in dispassionate analysis of the situation. We are a lot of not so good things. Weak is not one of them.
The why is an interesting question. I personally don't believe it's all ideology and idiocy. There has to be a level of compromise.
This looks like a major strategic blunder.
Taiwan is just above us and for sure can be easily sucked into a war.
I'm curious: Is there now widespread concern, or is this mainly a partisan issue among Filipino politicians? Are there any Filipino media reports discussing this issue that you'd recommend to me?
Filipino media is not that great here, it sucks but I can't remember an opinion piece recommending we nuke up until this article below.
https://usa.inquirer.net/167208/with-trumps-new-world-order-...
[0]: $500 billion in minerals, which is around seven times the value of all of the aid given to Ukraine so far: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/20/stop-criticisi...
1. The nuclear deterrence of mutually assured destruction that’s been in place for half a century is no longer “assured” if the U.S. isn’t seen to be reliable. I have to imagine the second priority after upholding Ukraine is a European arms race, so that at least the sum of European warheads and delivery capabilities matches Russian ones.
2. There’s a fringe pro unification group in Taiwan that advocates for reunification with China on friendly rather than hostile terms. It will be seen if that group raises in prominence after these spectacles.
> In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and security assurances from Russia, the United States, United Kingdom and France to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. Years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine.
I live in the upper part of India and I suspect I could have been taking forced Chinese lessons right now if a woman, decades ago, who was called a bitch by a US secretary of state, didn't decide to say 'fuck it!' and went ahead with her plans to have our own modest nukes.
Would this world have been better off if no one had nukes? Of course, yes. I do believe so.
Would we (the world; not just India) have been better off with just USA, Russia, France, UK, China having nukes? Fuck no!!!
And I have a foreboding feeling the list is not going to stop with Pakistan, NK, and that undeclared member of this club. Also, I just hope South Africa has no reasons in the future to regret.
And then: I mean - does anyone else not find the very fucking idea of NPT ridiculous? You can't have nukes, we have and we will keep having it? Why? Just because. Come, sign this now. Assurances? Yeah, maybe. What the actual fuck!
It's all pure raw quid pro quo from now on.
But people will remember that no and realise that they need to arm themselves because allies can’t be relied. Next you will have nuclear arms race everywhere, particularly Europe and Asia.
Is it what US wanted/don’t care? If not then it is the leverage
It would make some kind of sense and match the rhetoric of a lot of republicans - but on the other hand, it also sounds awfully risky especially if the plan is more or less known to anyone?
They'll play the part of ally, to a limited degree, when their stooges in Western Democracies don't have any demands of them. But no amount of trade will change their priorities as far as diminishing the dollar with something they at least partially control.
I can't imagine Putin allowing his country to be "used" like that (regardless of how desperate his situation gets), especially considering that China is literally next door and would absolutely destroy Russia in any kind of military conflict.
This is the siren's song of Western Geopolitics. Believing that it will work This Time (tm) is a surefire way to get wrecked.
Russia borders China, unlike the rest of The West. Why would Russia ever sign up to put themselves on the front lines of tensions between the West and China. But people delude themselves into believing that they will, because it would be very convenient.
It's best not to see these as the actions of governments acting in national interests, but as a section of an trans-national class acting in their own interest. With borders and statecraft being some of the pieces on the board they play with.
Lines between countries are for schmoes like you and I. Trump owns capital and etc assets around the whole world, just like Putin.
Russia is willing to play an ally, but only insofar as it brings them closer to what they really want: Europe. Anyone who doubts this is utterly clueless about Russia and not worth listening to.
Other than land what, exactly, makes them a useful ally for the future? A willingness to throw bodies into a meat grinder?
That's the real kicker for me about all of this - Russia is weak. Trump is bowing down to a loser.
Imagine your country being usurped because people in some another country voted for someone who may have ties with your enemy.
This Dutch NOS news version [1] is longer than the BBC version and it is enlightening.
Il'll try to search for a version that has the total recording (this version misses the opening remarks) from start to finish and still without any editing (this version has no editing cuts). If I find a longer one I'll comment below.
The comments of Trump and Vance where way out of line if you consider they where in response to Zelensky stating in the very beginning that you should understand that Putin allready invaded in 2014 and has never honored any agreements or ceasefires before (especially not between 2014 and 2022 in Ukraine but also with other countries).
Andreesen's little pseudo-manifesto a couple years back was fairly explicitly taking anti-liberal positions, and some that were outright anti-enlightenment.
Not surprising really. We now see an alliance between the tech sector of the US economy and the oil and gas sector. Remember Putin is effectively oil baron/executive, not just the leader of a country.
The political spectrum is divided chiefly by how one views what peace is. On one side, John Locke's and the American founding father's, peace is the presence of justice. On the other side Thomas Hobbes' and Russia's, peace is the absence of violence. When you feel wronged, do you submit, or do you fight? If you fight you fight for justice. If you submit, it's because the violence is too much or those with the capacity for it are too strong, you would rather live a slave than die on your feet.
Ukrainians are fighting for justice, for self determination, and for a better tomorrow. Ukrainians are better Americans than we are because they have chosen to risk their lives rather than submit.
Peace must be due to justice, not submission. "Peace" due to submission is a false peace. It is the very definition of oppression.
Trump's brain's actions are guided by a deep hatred of Ukraine. The Ukrainian cause is tightly bound to the memory of the Biden administration. The Ukrainian security services leaked the Paul Manafort diaries to Western press. The Ukrainian Phone Call was behind Trump's first impeachment.
I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees? Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing?
Russia has been a principal threat for the past 75 years.
Donating equipment is a cheap way to wear them down. Dirty cheap.
It's absolutely in US interest, as it would allow US to focus on other players.
Large part if not the majority of US money is used to replenish/renew/modernize the stocks of the outdated/expired stuff they send to Ukraine
They were neutral and yet Russia invaded.
About the only major thing Zelensky could have done differently was to get on a flight out when the 2022 invasion happened and let Putin take over. I don't know if you think that would have been better? There would have been less deaths certainly. But if you look at how the Russians behave in places like Bucha it's not very nice.
Vladimir invaded, and has never asked for or offered peace, not that he could be trusted if he did.
What else could UA do except fight.
The idea Z chose this route, that there were other routes, is incorrect.
I think Trump would welcome that, though.
The risk is why they'd be up in arms. Personally I think it would get spun as Europe acting against the US for no reason and Europe would become the scapegoat for any economic issues the US cause themselves.
The only real option is to wait for the US to do something undeniable while saying you don't want it, like tariffs, and then to retaliate as hard as possible when it happens. The difficulty with that approach is that it makes it easier for the aggressor to pick off one target at a time.
I'd be absolutely stunned if the Trump admin actually puts tariffs on the EU. I think it's a distraction so they can claim the EU capitulated in some way and Canada didn't, which somehow makes the tariffs on Canada justified.
The tariffs should help us understand if they're crazy or orchestrating something more strategic. If the goal is to weaken Canada economically so the US can pilfer Canada's resources, the US will "make up" with Europe and punish Canada as much as possible.
Canada, the EU, the UK, NZ, AUS, Mexico, etc. should have (loudly) created an agreement for unified retaliatory tariffs against the US over a month ago. Now we're open to being picked off one-by-one and it sucks.
My Dutch news website right now: "EU foreign policy chief: Free world needs new leader"
Instead of directly responding to direct questions, Vice President Vance starts shaming and bullying President Zelensky. This means the US has no answer and doesn't want to admit it. This is why Ukraine should walk away from the deal that gives them nothing.
If you’re an American, good luck. I’m sorry you’re gonna have to go through this.
At the end of the day, if you voted one way, it wasn’t your fault. You were probably deceived by foreign psyops. Happens to everyone.
If you voted the other way, don’t be angry. Turning it into class warfare does not provide any moral victory, and more so, is once again a distraction from the group of people who really are to blame for this. This is a the rallying point you were waiting for to become more politically active, in whatever way you can.
Also maybe consult with your constitution?
He went to the White House knowing that they will try to do exactly that and yet he did it with his head held high and did not sign the deal. Amazing guy.
This is also a historic day for the world. US dominance over the West is over.
As a European, I will vote against any politician that keeps talking about EU-US special partnership and doesn't put 'EU First'. The special partnership is over, we are still doing business together but it's clear as a day that it's only business from now on.
There’s no ‘EU first’, every European country has constantly tried to one up their rivals for the last several centuries.
In that sense, European countries were never as close as they are right now. I expect it to strengthen as time passes, especially now that the US should be seen as an hostile foreign nation to every European country.
Not to mention that after the shitshow that Brexit proved to be, even right-wing parties in Europe sort of abandoned their "leave EU" rhetoric.
I don't think a common language is as necessary as you are making it out to be. India uses English as lingua franca because it has dozens on languages, and it is a more or less cohesive country.
And the US would love for the EU to defend itself. It's a large part why the U.S helped rebuild after WWII, and why the US has been begging NATO members to contribute the 2% GDP they promised for years. A strong EU is spelled out in U.S foreign policy.
Then the US shouldn't have over decades worked to undermine EU defense industry.
I trust actions more than words. The US over the decades did all it could so that EU did not, in fact, stepped up its defence, mainly for its own damn interests. A Europe that depends on the US to shoulder part of its defense is a Europe a lot more susceptible to US interests.
I am actually glad this should be coming to an end. I always thought EU should get rid of US influence.
Isn't that exactly the logic behind Trumpism though? "Our partners suck, we need to put our own interests first" is how you get isolation and trade wars. And sometimes real wars.
I mean, maybe that's where things are going. But "as a European" you should at least recognize that's the policy you're arguing for.
Its time to change that perception.
Seeing the US part ways with "western allies" firsthand - a true paradigm shift, and one I'm not looking forward to.
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
It seems to me he wants the war over with as quickly as possible, and America’s involvement minimized, which means the weaker party in the conflict has to concede. And in his view the weaker party has no other chance anyway. He also wants to minimize anything that would stand in the way of lucrative deals with Russia.
He wants the war to end right away on Russia's terms. Guess who else wants that?
That one day they will sever ties with Europe, I expected. But not becoming an actively hostile state.
I am left wondering - how long it will take until Americans start openly supporting Russia and China?
When I was younger, anti-American people were a source of jokes for me. Being a Pole, why would anyone be against our ally? Well, now I see. And it's painful to say that, but I'm starting to see Americans as people in very negative light. Perhaps you were hated in the rest of the world for a reason.
Are these world class leaders that manage trillions and more importantly human lives?
Where is the f... nuclear weapons threat that would convert the war to a cold one?
Why doesn't EU cooperate/negotiate directly with both Ukraine and Russia to end the war? US can be ignored for now with such incompetent leadership.
Just a reminder: Uk and Ru are sister countries. Kiev was the first capital of the Russian empire. Its loosely like a civil war.
Is it only about chips and AI for economic reasons or is there more involved like, an army of robots or something to control everything?
This appears as very long term thinking, while in reality is a way to siphon money in the short term and sell whatever idea they currently have under this long term plan.
Not to say that it would be bad for US to own Greenland - of course it would be great. Mars too BTW...
Given it's natural ressources and geographical position it's extremely intresting. But of coures the second part is right - it's just not in the realm of possible, without going to an ugly fight with Europe.
If one views it trough the lens of: What a high school bully, who has no self control and can't delay gradification, would do... then nothing Trump does is surprising.
I have no idea, so this is pure speculation, but as charge cycles for batteries keep increasing I'm guessing they'll become more valuable, especially if they're made from finite resources. Consider a scenario where you never own the battery and have to lease it forever.
The opposite side would be choking off the supply of the rare minerals needed to make batteries with the intent of making it more difficult to switch to renewable energy. You'd need all of them though and I just don't see them improving their position in Canada.
Or it could be as simple as "gold is shiny" and Trump wants them because he's heard they're valuable.
There are two main reasons that REE production is dominated by China. One is that Chinese production is low-cost. Two is that the total market demand is small, so that (absent some long term price guarantee) adding another big REE production center outside of China will probably tank the market value and lose the investors money. See the history of the Mountain Pass mine in California:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine
This one mine produced most of the world's REE between 1965 and 1995. It closed in 2002 because it had a toxic spill that would be too expensive to remediate given the arrival of Chinese competition. In 2012 it reopened as a reaction to Chinese export restrictions on REE instated 2 years earlier. In 2015 global REE prices went back down and the Mountain Pass mine went bankrupt again. It resumed operating in 2018 after it was brought back out of bankruptcy. It relies on frosty US-China trade relations and government support to remain a going concern. There's not enough global demand for REE to keep Mountain Pass independently profitable whenever Chinese export restrictions get relaxed.
[1] In terms of total market value, I mean. Dysprosium has a high value per kilogram but the current annual demand for all rare earth elements combined is under $8 billion, compared to e.g. $20 billion for zinc alone.
The reason for the deal is: recover money for taxpayers, provide some security guarantee without an explicit commitment that will end up with US being deployed, and backstop significant private-sector investment into Ukraine to try to revive their economy (after the war destroyed and maimed a huge proportion of their working adult population).
There are (almost) no rare earth minerals though.
https://nitter.poast.org/SecRubio/status/1895554419305091087
- J. D. Vance - podcast interview 2022https://thespectator.com/topic/spectator-interview-president...
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.”
https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-d...
"The top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB." https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-fir...
And then of his return he ran a full page ad in three papers asking to reduce the US's overseas defence spending https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/15/trumps-na...
etc. and repeat similar stuff again and again. Palling around with Russia, helping out Russia.
Fairness exists as much as people are willing to pursue it.
if you're american and you're able to watch the video without feeling either ashamed or revolted, know that absolutely no one in the world respects the cloth you're cut from, except for the the worst dictators and their lackeys
I think we are up to Season 3, Ep 9.
The president will declare martial law, and will issue executive order to dissolve the senate.
It's an old propaganda trick that Vance probably learned from the Russians (who used it heavily for 70+ years). But it works only on an easily intimidatable audience that doesn't know any better. Nor care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqLtIrRqDg
https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-latest-news-2-28-2025
Is it just me, or does it seem like the conversation swerves suddenly to "you're disrespecting..." It just seemed like a complete change of subject.
It's moronic, I am truly flabbergasted. They are both adults acting worse than children running a country. But of course you have the uneducated folk who will lap this up.
"I know you are but what am I"
Timely. Netflix has series "Turning Point: the Bomb and the Cold War" that is a good watch while the world burns.
Though we learned the hard way what "dontate to ukraine" means
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-biggest-charity-helping-u...
But FOR GOODNESS' SAKE, these dealings and bickering are supposed to happen behind closed doors! You give the public just the bland courtesies and assurances! The US president and vice president have come across as impulsive 4-year-olds throwing toys out of a sandbox.
I used to think that the novel "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ([1]), which ridicules Donald Trump quite a bit, was overdoing it for humor. Now I'm not so sure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2020_Commission_Report_on_...
It's no coincidence he dropped a "World War 3" reference, a common talking point of a certain segment of the online populist right (to be clear, this isn't to say some fear about such a scenario is unjustified; only to point out that it is cynically used to steer the discussion about the Ukrainian in a certain direction).
Shame on everyone who continues to be an apologist for this administration. People can make mistakes – I've supported my fair share of dodgy people in the past – but anyone who doesn't see things clearly at this point isn't looking.
It genuinely feels like I'm looking at the precursor to a Nazi party.
You didn't know about it? Or you did, and you didn't buy from amazon for a single day? Democracy is saved!
- It was amicable for the first 30 minutes.
- It went downhill when Zelenskyy asked Vance slightly hostile questions saying that Putin would not honor the cease-fire.
- Then Vance responded in a more hostile manner saying Zelenskyy should be more thankful and that he shouldn't be litigating in front of the press. And everyone started fighting.
Honestly, the 3 of them acted badly. Both Zelenskyy and Vance started it. And after it was started, Trump just accepted the fight instead of trying to end it. It's sad this ended this way, especially because the press conference was going well for the first 30 minutes.
When was that, I haven't seen the whole thing except where it got heated, but at no point did I catch Zelenskyy saying anything that could possibly be interpreted like that.
But mostly I couldn't hear what Zelenskyy was saying because he couldn't get a word in edgewise.
Happy to be proven wrong.
Oh, but they do. We (the west) can't allow them to be overrun.
So if they refuse to accept a deal, what can we really do?
Starving Ukraine for supplies would be extremely dangerous.
(That said: I'm not sure Trump understands this)
This is what I'm thinking.
Now would be a great time for China to start an invasion. It would be a crime. China today, that government is not above committing international crimes.
I'm not doubting at all that China has imperialistic designs on Taiwan and the South China Sea. But why would China invade, when its leaders can clearly see that Russia, through strategic patience, bribery, and aggressive hybrid warfare, has finally won the Cold War without ever having to invade the US militarily?
Bribery is rampant among high-ranking military officers in Taiwan, for example. Many of them have been exposed to have sold classified information to the Chinese government for trifling amounts of money. China has also managed to poach a lot of former TSMC engineers to work at SMIC by offering generous salaries. Why take military action against Taiwan today (or in 2027, according to the CIA [1]) when China just has to be very patient?
[1] And do we really trust the CIA, given how many times it has lied throughout its entire existence to justify starting/escalating wars?
But everyone had too much faith in the Americans, and here we are.
China is also smart enough to have been watching the "decoupling" pushed by the Obama-era CIA starting in the late 2010s, and then the Russian invasion, so an actual Taiwanese land invasion won't happen until China is fully decoupled, and even then there is the much bigger international fallout. China won't throw away its position as world factory. Within China there are too many people in the party who don't see a land invasion as feasible.
All of the recent sabrerattling by the US and pushing Taiwan for a declaration of independence is what would trigger an invasion. To think that opportunistically exploiting a senile president's term to act on this conflict grossly misunderstands the entire Taiwan/China situation. And it says more about you and how Americans view global diplomacy.
Alas, time's cruel arrow!
In my view the only way to solve this is through a complete and utter rejection of all things USA. People of Europe and the world, you can help by immediately stop buying American products, halt any travel plans you might have had here, have your goverments embargo us. Do everything in your power to crush our economy.
We need something extreme to make these MAGA folk and the Republicans in power break out of this authoritarian fever dream they are in.
I'd rather see this country get sick and vomit what needs to be expelled rather than have it die a slow death from this cancerous group-think that has overtaken half our population.
America, don't be the next force the rest of the world needs to fight. Wake the fuck up.
Jebus, how do you screw up a photo op?
Buch of children in the US executive branch.
I suppose they think they look “strong” but it looks more insecure and incompetent to me.
> Shortly before the meeting ended, Trump offered, “This is going to be great television.”
https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-security-guarantees-tru...
The intended audience is eating this up. If you go to conservative spaces, NATO now is considered a rip off, the EU was apparently designed to hurt the US, Zelensky is a dictator, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
"In his blog Unqualified Reservations, which he wrote from 2007 to 2014, and in his later newsletter Gray Mirror, which he started in 2020, he argues that American democracy is a failed experiment[5] that should be replaced by an accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure of corporations.[6] In 2002, Yarvin began work on a personal software project that eventually became the Urbit networked computing platform. In 2013, he co-founded the company Tlon to oversee the Urbit project and helped lead it until 2019.[7]
Yarvin has been described as a "neo-reactionary", "neo-monarchist" and "neo-feudalist" who "sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy".[8][9][10][11] He has defended the institution of slavery, and has suggested that certain races may be more naturally inclined toward servitude than others.[12][13] He has claimed that whites have higher IQs than black people, but does not consider himself a white nationalist. He is a critic of US civil rights programs, and has called the civil rights movement a "black-rage industry".[14]
Yarvin has influenced some prominent Silicon Valley investors and Republican politicians, with venture capitalist Peter Thiel described as his "most important connection".[15] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work.[16] U.S. Vice President JD Vance "has cited Yarvin as an influence himself."[17][18][19] Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump's second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin's ideas.[20] In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was "an informal guest of honor" due to his "outsize influence over the Trumpian right."[21]"
Either Yarvin is so ignorant of history that he’s barely worth listening to, or he is actively malevolent, and intentionally deceptive, OR he has absolutely no qualms about bending his “philosophy” to the whims of whoever happens to control the executioner.
Take your pick.
But he is explicit in his desire for a ruler.
You are right though. There is nothing "conservative" about the current "conservative" party. It is 100% pure reactionary. The only principles are opposition to what "the opposition" wants.
If /r/conservative is not representative of conservative side of America, and the conservatives control the US Congress , I am puzzled that not one of the conservatives has pushed back on annexation of Canada or Greenland . Not One.
Political scientists have visualized legislative partisanship in Congress, and this feels like the 10th time I've posted this in the last decade :https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-...
Now, voters may not like this and feel trapped by the way the primary system works and so on, but the reality is taht they keep giving in to the partisans.
That’s it: extinction burst because winning because of attributes you inherited wasn’t working.
Also, real easy to say “shit sucks”. Really hard to actually make things that don’t suck.
That, plus a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism, is a ratchet to hell.
That's the impression and its really shameful and embarrassing.
I'm working on the thesis that everything politicians say about foreign policy in public is for the consumption of the home audience, which has served me pretty reliably up until now.
They should use all frozen Russia's money assets to back Ukraine's war effort (it still didn't happen fully). And increase weapons production and armies to adequate sizes ASAP (this should have happened "yesterday").
None of them care about anything except power and leveraging it. Politics ain't bean bag and all of that. It's revealing to anyone actually paying a modicum of attention that isn't blinded by partisan hate.
"The Nuclear Holocaust Will Be Televised"
There's even a trailer from the Reagan era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBtu0gr6JqM
But it seems the format is going to be in the style of reality TV shows from 10-20 years ago.
Too angry to type more.
Things only really get "angry" when JD Vance tries to provoke him only for him to calmy respond and be cut off immediately by Trump as soon as he hints at the US not being immune to physical risks from adversaries just because there's a body of water around it. Trump then goes completely off the rails saying things like "you don't get to dictate to us how we feel" or some nonsense like that.
It seems that the line he crossed was suggesting that the US is a part of geopolitics, not just an immortal observer with the option to intervene and participate as they see fit with no risk of consequences. This wasn't a disagreement over Russia, this was a disagreement over American isolationism and the mirage of American invulnerability that I thought had been disproven at least since 9/11.
I suspect that this exchange will become an infamous moment in history. Utterly shameful.
The only "less lives" approach would be if russia retreats in an agreement to keep the previous separatist regions they annexed while accepting some sort of buffer inside Ukraine from them on, which Zelensky would agree in the form of bases or nato membership. Which Russia will never go for.
Where is Congress? This needs to stop; impeach Trump already!
I like to think more about the individuals than anything else. If it really is possible to no longer have them die over things they realistically won’t get back, and it’s possible to freeze the progress of Russia with where it is today, isn’t making the war stop the top priority?
Finally, if making the war stop is a top priority, who is putting the pressure on Russia? Russia can pack up and go home at literally any time and stop the war. Putting the entirety of this situation from starting the war to blocking peace on Zelensky/Ukraine might as well be direct talkings points from Putin himself.
I don’t think this is the intention of the U.S. negotiating a peace deal, but a pause could give time to let Ukraine and europe to build up arms. I might be wrongly optimistic but I suspect a build of arms across europe would result in a more powerful force than Russia alone.
Mr Trump is not wrong IMO that Europe has depended too much on the USA for too long.
Europe is divided, both between and within nations, this might be the impetus needed to reverse that. Unite them in their diversity, and take their place in the world
If they had rolled over for the Russians, like Trump wanted Zelensky to do, they wouldn't had received the support they have.
No, the reality is that to receive help you need to be strong yourself.
Pushing back on Putin has never been one of trump goal, he'd rather have the entire Europe Russian than having to deal with that.
Instead he is much more focused on fighting China, which is fair.
However, Russia has been a long time China allies. They have mutual border, mutual goals (the first one being to end American domination on the world).
Wouldn't helping Putin, by making Ukraine armless and easy target, be then also helping china indirectly ?
I don't see how, all things considered, it even helps push trump agenda on fighting china.
Putin would like to restore the former Soviet union, he said that the collapse of the Soviet union was a catastrophe. The war in Ukraine is the beginning of Putin trying to rectify this. So if he wins the war in Ukraine, about half of Europe will likely be next. He will likely want to move fast, not waiting 4 years for Trump to be possibly voted out and possible US opposition after that.
Alternative interpretation:
Or.. you know, focusing on the interest of US, which does not automatically mean sending unlimited amount of money/gear/intelligence to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are no obligations to follow here. And Russia as an unfriendly country in future conflicts may complicate things further.
Yes. There is an argument to be made about what happens afterwards in baltics, but those countries are part of NATO, which is a different consideration.
The US did talk Ukraine into giving up its nukes in return for helping to protect it. Bit of an oopsie by Ukraine there.
But Trump went a bit further here - praising Putin, making Putin out to be the victim and seemingly mocking those who see Russia as the bad guy .
Also, the fact he parroted many of the Kremlin talking points speaks for itself.
Interests of the US? More like the intersts of Putin's Russia.
I will attempt a good faith response here. Have you considered the possibility that there is a non-zero amount of issues, where interests of US and Russia are aligned? Do you think you could name one such issue? I am asking mostly to see if you can take consider the question before you answer reflexively.
The only three possible outcomes at this point are total Russian victory, peace treaty, and WW3. It's not realistic to think Ukraine will ever bring Russia to its knees on its own.
The trouble with just signing a piece of paper is Putin tends to just ignore those.
My point is, it seems like everybody at some subconscious level sees this as Ukraine's problem alone, because even their most ardent supporters aren't treating Putin ss the grave international threat they call him rhetorically. Trump's being pragmatic by trying to end the war on terms that can at least preserve what's left of Ukraine as an independent nation.
Putin is an asshole, he doesn't care about sanctions and tbh I'm not confident the Russian people do either. Europe, despite their harsh rhetoric, is still addicted to Russian exports, and their hypocrisy is so bad that there are actually Russian pipelines in Ukrainian territory which the Ukrainians are afraid to sabotage because they don't want to piss off the people who are funding their war.
Maybe if Prigozhin didn't get cold feet during his coup attempt it could have ended the way you describe but I don't think that's the sort of thing that anybody can count on happening again.
Letting Russia take Ukraine puts all of Eastern Europe at risk and may get us closer to WW3 than simply continuing to support Ukraine from afar with the added benefit of burning down Russia's ability to wage war.
If this does ultimately lead to a large conflict it is NOT because Ukraine didn't roll over, it's because of Russia's actions over the last decade.
I personally would be much more satisfied with my tax dollars going to Ukraine if they had demonstrated that there is no nonviolent solution to this conflict; from the perspective of Americans this is just another case of two countries squabbling over adjoining territories and that's fairly common among countries that don't have a SoFA or defense pact with America (which, regardless of how passionate the Europeans are about Russia pushing into the frontier of western Europe, currently includes Ukraine).
It seems to me that Trump and Putin are effectively allies at this point so what exactly would trigger World War 3 in his mind.
But I also believe Ukraine is increasingly a distraction from more pressing concerns, both domestically and abroad. Frankly, there will probably come a day when the current world manufacturing superpower (China) decides to throw their weight around. And that day may be very soon.
As Americans I think there is a huge amount of hubris preventing us from seeing how vulnerable we really are. Outspending adversaries on military should be seen as weakness, not a strength, especially when we consider 1) the fact that American manufacturing is more expensive 2) a lot of spending is maintaining legacy systems 3) an adversary will likely not try to compete in conventional means 4) China graduated more STEM majors than all US majors combined which drives down costs 5) China has recently become the number 1 car exporter 6) US payments on debt now exceed defense spending for the first time in ~90 years despite not even being at war 7) almost all chips are currently made in Taiwan.
(If anyone doubts this, they should watch videos of Chinese drone shows, and imagine it being scaled up 100x.)
And just to double down on the hubris bit. Every single time I see some discussion of research that came out of China I see the same old tropes: they can’t innovate, it’s stolen IP, it’s low quality. Things that are either false or irrelevant. It didn’t matter that the Soviets stole blueprints to nuclear weapons.
To state the obvious, the Trump administration is more interested in profiting from a minerals deal than supplying any actual security guarantees. The Russian Federation has proved time and time again that they will breach any peace agreements (as occurred with the current invasion which breached agreements bartered after the annexation of Crimea) made with Ukraine for piecewise annexation of their neighbors, at any price to their own soldiers and people.
True lasting peace, is avoiding further steps to another world war. It takes hardly a high school education in history to recognize those preliminary warning signs in Russia's behavior. A common talking point that the Trump administration seems to use, is that they are doing precisely that- preventing a world war- by refusing to further arm and protect Ukraine with weapons and security guarantees- however this refusal does just the opposite, and this minerals deal really has nothing to do with Ukraine's security or interests. The devil is in the details, and the Trump admin refuses to detail how the minerals deal would protect Ukraine or how they would respond to further territorial incursions if the deal were to be signed.
Aside from all this, of course there's a lot of topical nonsense in how Trump and Vance conducted themselves, with shouting and lecturing at Zelensky, but these are all distractions, and they have almost no substance or details to back their broad claims about how or why this conflict started and what would end it. Scapegoating and bullshitting seems to be their game, but luckily Zelensky both asserted himself where possible and kept a relatively calm, but brutally honest, demeanor.
Because the security threats to America would come a bit later, likely in the form of Russia marching into a NATO country, Americans will believe what they want about the conflict. Trump makes this especially easy with his false and misleading oversimplifications. It is sad to think that a proportionally small sacrifice by the American taxpayer to help a country like Ukraine has been sized up as unworthy collateral for saving lives and fighting fascism.
It would explain why Britain has recently (15 Feb and after) been so public with plans to send troops to Ukraine.
It also explains why Trump is so eager to undermine Zelensky's democratic legitimacy, as it would invalidate Zelensky's deal with the UK and allow the US a chance at the mineral rights again.
Krainer also speculates that Trump's political theater over mineral rights is raking Zelensky over the coals as retribution for doing a deal without the US, and trying to get Zelensky to spill the beans on the secret terms of the deal already done with the UK.
This is the culmination of 10 years of hybrid warfare via disinformation and propaganda.
We're going to see our standard of living drop by 80% or more because of this. 8(
Not only does Ukraine deserve respect and support, but the US's elected crazies are damaging the country. Soft power is real, and smart, power
Why is Russia at war with Ukraine?
ChatGPT tells me it's because of "western alignment". Trump told reporters 1m people died. Seems a bit excessive to me for political ideas.. I'd have an easier time believing it's a resource conflict or some oil field being liberated or wtv.
Strategic: oil, minerals, Black Sea port access. Russia's great strategic weakness is that it doesn't have any warm water ports, which drastically limits its naval reach and ability to shape trade.
Yes, it's actually a bit more complex than that. Russia never stopped being an empire, it's codifed in their culture in many ways. Yes, there are personal inclinations of Putin. He said in his first ever interview when he got some minor post on SPB government that the Bolsheviks' greatest mistake was giving autonomy (however nominal) to the soviet republics. So those are the reasons too. What's not a reason in any way though is geopolitics. Feeling threatened by NATO, needing this or that resource, access to this or that body of water, fighting Western colonialism (!) - those are all bullshit reasons invented for propaganda.
But it's also part of a long pattern - over the last 500 years Russia has expanded at an average rate of 50 square miles per day by invading other people's countries and the like - it what they've always done. I'm not sure if that isn't a bit out of date these days - the whole imperial invasion thing. I mean I'm a Brit and we used to do it and had the world's largest empire but it's all a bit passe now. (50sq mile link https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2016-04-18/r...)
By the way re the history, Ukraine, governed from Kyiv is basically the same as Kievan Rus, also similar land governed from Kyiv and existed long before Moscow or Russia were invented. Muscovy, the bunch out of Moscow, were a warlike lot and stole the Rus bit of the name and much of the land. So when you here Putin going on about it not being a real country and just a bit of spare land belonging to Russia, it's not quite true.
Read the comments on this thread.
Then read this post by Dan, where he explains why the post isn't ranked higher: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835
TLDR: lots of flags on this thread, despite the overwhelming number of comments that tend in one direction.
Think about that.
I hope we still have a country 4 years from now. He is a saboteur as is Musk and both should be considered foreign agents IMO. Yet they are running the country. Makes me want to vomit.
More explanation elsewhere in this thread: https://inference-review.com/article/time-travelers
Guess what this does?https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_HC101324F0143_970...
Unfortunately, many of them have eaten enough propaganda that they agree. I have an uncle who genuinely believes that, even if he can't fully explain how it could make sense.
Lines on Maps - Oval Office Meltdown: The Trump-Zelensky Split, Europe's Response, and the Fate of the Ukraine War
Your country is spiraling into disgrace, yet you sit there, watching, complaining online, doing nothing. Where is your outrage? Where are the millions in the streets forcing change? By staying silent, you are complicit. Just like the Russians who let Putin tighten his grip for decades, you are letting a clown dismantle your democracy in real time.
History won’t just judge you—it will condemn you. Stand up, or accept your place among the cowards who let their nations rot.
What qualifies as not that? I've said my peace, my ability to deploy millions is limited.
The reality here is that a plurality of American voters chose Trump, and they still approve of the job he's doing (though that's dropping fast): https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...
I know this is exactly what Trump wants, but I don't know that I have the energy to continue to try and convince my fellow Americans that their demigod will destroy this country. They voted for this, they got it, now let's see how far they're willing to let this country fall before they change their tune.
Thats like truism. I don't see any country is learning before that.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US. The country is so geographically dispersed that it's hard to significantly interrupt commerce. Also, because of the large rural/urban political divide in the US, the places these protests take place would largely be attacking their own voter bases.
There is lots of political mobilization in the US. Marches, protests, and most importantly there is a lot of citizen funded legal challenges. But at the end of the day, democracy does not have a lot of natural protections if the people of the country democratically choose to end democracy.
Unless storming the Capitol to disrupt a democratic election.
See the police response to BLM vs the January 6th rioters.
What have they been doing? Why are our soldiers not defending Ukraine already? Why do you assume that we are any better?
The "whataboutism" game doesn't work here, because none of the pro-Ukraine Western countries is currently even remotely as chaotic, clownish, cruel, capricious, and conspicuously corrupt as the Trump administration and their broligarchs.
And other comments have already pointed out that Europeans are protesting.
I'm quite pleased with everything that's going on. The lesson from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets), Afghanistan (US), and Iraq is that there is never going to be a good time to leave but you need to leave as soon as possible before things get worse.
There's the counterargument that Hitler could have been stopped early during/after Czechoslovakia but you can't waltz into every conflict just because it might turn into WW2 later.
Now China looks reasonable, as the main superpower that isn't perpetrating or supporting an active all-out war... They might even get Taiwan and others on their side without firing a shot.
This will unite Europe, all Macron and Merz have to do is limit migration and stay reasonably centrist and they'll both limit Russian influence and be the new leaders of the free world, along with Poland, Italy, the Nordics, etc...
It's also a strange situation for Americans I'm sure. On one hand, I can understand why Americans voted for Trump. The left ignored the working classes, pushed way too hard on extreme left social issues and didn't have coherent domestic policies. On the other hand, I really doubt anyone, even most conservatives, want to be part of a Russia-NK Axis and be enemies of the entire free world. How is the CIA and others going along with this?
We live in interesting times...
Vance is like Ben Shapiro with a little bit more intelligence.
Zelensky had some translation issues, perhaps, and said something in a strange way. But Trump's outburst was like that of a run-of-the-mill dive bar moron, not a diplomat.
Zelensky's interview with Bret Baier was also subtly hostile. Z never said the words "apologize" or "sorry" but did express regret that the conversations happened as they did in public. He was repeatedly grateful of the support of the US and was showing quite a lot of understanding.
The arguments of the Fox panel, if you cut through the lines, is that it is Zelensky's fault for not knowing how to handle the intellectual child that is the US president.
All the liberal cold warriors that wanted to bleed russia made Russia stronger by doing this. Not that I care either way, but it's funny to watch these war hawks have it blow up in their face, not that they really care since they are eating charcuterie at DC lawn parties with their Raytheon bucks.
Withdrawing from it, therefore, by prior US foreign policy, would be against US interests.
We'll find out eventually.
vs
guys who are just afraid of the compromat that Putin has on them.
We are currently watching the downfall of the current world order and the US as a bastion of democracy. And I'm not exaggerating. Trump is aligning himself with Russian interests. He even had a Russian state media representative at that meeting. Rome had to fall, I'm sorry I'm living to see it.
Trump, you'll never read this, but I need to say it anyway...there aren't words to describe how despicable you are. Tyrant wannabee and greedy coward. You are selling the American soul to cozy up to a murder and rapist. Those who voted for you have no excuse. You were always clear about the kind of man you are.
Right now, it's basically the US vs Russia and China.
But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.
In order for this to happen though, the EU must build their own military.
The EU could and should be a superpower, but they're not. Instead they're living off the US military.
The US has been gently trying to get EU to boost its own spending. This goes as far back as Obama, and maybe even further back.
The difference is that Obama was somewhat passive aggressive with his approach. Whereas Trump is tearing off the band aid.
The public belligerence and positioning against the EU is an effort to kick them out of the parents' basement and get their act together.
Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.
This makes no sense when put up against reality. The US is alienating the EU, throwing Ukraine under the bus, alienating NATO (major military alliance) and Five Eyes (major intelligence alliance) just so they can bring Russia in to the fold with the US and EU? How, the US won't be partnered with the EU at this rate.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
That's what Trump is betting on, and I'm not sure he will lose (as much as I would like him to lose).
Thing about nationalist parties, the defining characteristic, is they're interested in their own nation first, not spreading nationalism as a global ideology.
If all of Europe elected nationalist parties, none of them are going to be aligned with the USA — nor, for that matter, each other — except by coincidence, and then on small and limited domains.
I'm sure if you keep fantasizing you'll be able to make up an excuse for that, too.
And his plan to achieve that is by pissing off EU? If anything Trump has done a great job to make EU look at China more favorably.
The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US than China.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
The EU actually spends quite a lot in defense, but does so very inadequately. Each country has their own army, so there's a lot of overlap in spending. I actually think that now that the US is essentially an enemy nation, EU will be forced to integrate more, as that's the only way it can pose a meaningful response. That can only be a good thing.
Also, I think you are underestimating how much the US is alienating EU in this, and how badly it is damaging relations. Trust is something you earn in droplets but lose in buckets.
A bit overdone in my opinion.
1. None of it should be a surprise. Policy-wise, Trump's position was very much well known at this point. 2. For Zelensky, this is actually the least bad political option at this point, which is presumably why is doing it this way 3. Note the amount of astroturfing surrounding anything related to Ukraine. It used to be that you couldn't comment on anything about Ukraine without being given 'you talk like Ukraine has no autonomy' speech. Yes. On HN too. 4. To all the hyperbolic, hyperventilating accounts out there, please stop. You are not helping your cause. If anything, you are making it worse.
Let’s look at the other side for a minute,
1/ Zelensky rejects the idea of stepping down after White House spat - Is Zelensky the right leader from here on ?
2/ Zelensky needs a bench to deal with different personalities, he showed up in his usual style hoping for compassion. Trump was clearly unkind but he should have chosen his words carefully , practiced what works for this president
3/ What is the end game for Ukraine? No one is winning this war in fact Russia has support of both China and India. They can’t expect US to go into direct conflict with Russia
The last thing the world needs now are "hot takes."
Save the hot takes for Reddit.
Obviously those idiots in the White House are provoking this juvenile confrontation as part of a move toward withdrawing US support from Ukraine.
But why? It's beyond clear that a resurgent Russia is against our interests, but here we have the President debasing himself and his country to suck up with Putin as if Putin was the leader of a superpower.
So it must be a pretty bad reason. I guess we'll eventually find out why, but it may not matter at that point.
How stupid and idiotic.
Zelensky was invited to get fox news soundbites of Trump and Vance beating up on him. That's it. a sad state of affairs and a scathing indictment about how uneducated the maga base is around world affairs.
Incidentally (and for example), the "preacher" quarreled with Niall Ferguson days ago: the latter noted different times, when former conservative administrations condemned invasions, and received a reply starting with «moralistic rubbish» (or very similar words).
America and Europe used to have shared values, now the average American conservative is so disgusted by the T in LGBT that they consider Russia more aligned with their values.
By attacking us.
Ideals alignment, or lack thereof - lack of values and presence of countervalues.
It seems Zelensky was unaware he's dealing with Trump, his demeanor, and his presidency. Historical this or that is not applicable when dealing with someone like him. Trump will be Trump, and nobody should expect otherwise. Always best to understand and know your counterpart.
I'm definitely no Trump supporter, but objectively, prior to the blow-up, Trump was being somewhat reasonable. Maybe the most Presidential I've seen him. He reaffirmed support for NATO, continuing sending weapons to Ukraine, and generally wanting to push efforts to stop fighting, etc. He respectfully let Zelensky speak numerous times, at length, on difficult subjects, even things he didn't agree with. He even respectfully looked at photos of prisoners offered by Zelensky. Compare that to his prior behavior with the UK Prime Minister just a day before where he cut him off numerous times forcefully.
Zelensky made numerous mistakes, emotionally reacting and replying to reporters questions when not directed towards him, adding on more grievance, and generally not being as a politician needs to be. He clearly showed why being emotionally responsive doesn't work in a debate, court, or other significant and crucial meetings.
The supposed Mineral agreement may just be a way for Trump to look like he got concessions or something in exchange to look strong to his supporters, especially compared to his favorite archrival Biden.
If Zelensky had goals/aims he wished to reach, he should've done his best to ensure the truth and his viewpoint comes through when is applicable to the question being asked, but not offered voluntarily or in conflict with his ally's statement. His demeanor from the beginning of the broadcast was already chilly and stern. He should've let any need for venting to come out AFTER the signing, at the 2nd joint press conference scheduled for later in the day.
If you watch Vance's initial statement, it was relatively supportive of Ukraine and leaned to neutral at the end. Nothing negative outright that needed to be added on to. Zelensky erred here by asking if he could ask Vance a question afterwards which led to the blow-up and escalation, and ultimately really bad decision of telling Trump he's going to feel this or that. This was a classic mistake. Question was over, should've moved on. Logically no possible statement could've helped his efforts or goals, so he only had the potential to hurt himself. Further being emotional, combative, and from Trump's perspective, relatively disrespectful did not help him. The entire over answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.
He left in the worst possible position. He didn't get to his signing, nor his second opportunity for public statements post-signing, where he would've had clear gains, while forcefully stating whatever truths he feel were being left out or gaslit.
It seems Zelensky felt he needed to vent and express his people's pain, frustration, and anguish, but as the saying goes, time and place for everything, and unfortunately wasn't correct for either.
I think the reverse. It's hard to predict what Trump will do next, but the straight forward reading is his plan was always to stop supporting Ukraine. The cherry on top would have been to bully the into giving the USA minerals rights without giving much in return - certainly not security guarantees.
Which means there is nothing Zelensky could get out of the USA from that meeting. But, he still has most of the rest of the world on his side, and he could use the meeting to get them to step up to the plate.
I think he did a very good job of exploiting the dynamics of the meeting to do just that. He ensured there was absolutely no doubt what the USA's position is going forward, so there are only two outcomes: Europe either let's Russia forcibly take over another country, or they wholeheartedly commit to Ukraine defence.
Making it undeniably obvious they are between a rock and a hard place is a great way to force action.
I wonder about that. Z was already in a pretty bad position on US-side, but this blowout only strengthens his position on EU side and in his own country. He also manages to get attention of anti-T people in US. Politically, it may have been the only 'good' move for him. If I was a leader of a country, I sure would not want to sign a 'deal' like this and be responsible for what it does to it ( which seems to suggest that Z is probably the least like other politicians, who would sell their own mother if the price was right ).
I obviously might be wrong, but I think there is a level of misunderstanding on what actually is happening.
Zelensky says that's not good because Putin breaks all the agreements. Trump says he breaks other peoples agreements that won't happen with me. Zelensky points out the December 2019 Ukraine and Russia agreed to implement a "full and comprehensive ceasefire" happened under Trump and Putin broke it.
It was at that point Vance and Trump went all shouty because they'd been called out. If Zelesky had gone for Trump's agreement probably Trump would take the minerals, Putin would ignore the agreement and invade further and take over Ukraine in a similar way to how the Taliban made an agreement with Trump to be nice then they took over Afghanistan.
Dunno if you've seen the 2 min freeonis cartoon on the Trump deal. Quite close to the truth perhaps https://x.com/freeonis_/status/1893646996948337031
Trump gave him clear wins in his previous statements prior to the outburst. He committed to continued weaponry but emphasized he'd prefer the fighting to stop. He committed to NATO. He committed to getting back as much of the land, or more than you'd think, all clear progress from his previous statements and position in prior weeks.
Remember, the Mineral deal was already agreed upon. Trump, in my view, was being gracious and gave him additional wins. Had Zelensky taken those wins, NOT added an a whole unnecessary unprovoked debate with Vance, he would've ended that first meeting with those wins, EVEN with all that he said prior to the blow-up, some of which was already ungracious from Trump's perspective.
After the signing at the 2nd press conference he could've went into his whole need of security guarantees to protect their now mutual interests. He could've asked Trump to help him build "a big beautiful wall" to protect from the vicious x, y, and z, and still iterated, strongly to the press and world his needs, perspective, etc.
That's how a politician should've operated. Got there, carried out agreement which gives Trump face to his followers, taken the additional wins, and after all set, broadcast his views strongly and respectfully to the world, setting up a clear pathway to additional security in the future.
Win, win, win.
Instead he got none of that, and may even lose the current funding and support they were getting as Trump is still Trump and will likely want to extract some pain for his perceived slights.
Objectively, from a political perspective, we can see the outcome wasn't great, especially compared to the version of events that was being setup prior to the unnecessary confrontation.
No one did a thing when Crimea was taken. In fact, there was simply no firm response after Russia shot down the airplane brazenly. In fact, leaders such as Merkel further increased dependence on Russia by importing gas and integrating them deeply into Germany and many other EU countries' economies! Staggering incompetence and frank delusion!
Humans (our leaders) have behavior that shows up when under stress or things do not go per their plan. Other countries are already noticing this about USA leaders and will not hesitate to exploit.
My prediction for the future, with a heavy heart.
- Feb/2026: China becomes #1 in technological progress. And America's relationship with former allies is irreversibly bad.
- 2027-29: Russia continues to pamper President Trump for another term. Their goal is to create anarchy in America. They succeed.
That explosive clip, which I'm sure is all 99% of people have watched, happens like 40 minutes into an otherwise really quite friendly presser.
https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-t...
Very disappointed with practically all of you.
Zelenskyy could have stood up and urinated on him and this still would have been inexcusable for any president of any party. They cannot control what others do but they can control their own behavior.
This is the most embarrassing incident in modern US history. Reuters was barred and TASS was present.
The inability to see how this policy benefits usa (by giving an end to a dead-end spend to a lost war, claim some losses, attempt to not go head to head with russia since china is the biggest fish to deal with right now) is trully laughable.
I know the downvotes are going to come raining, i don't care.
Trump loves speaking about cards, Xi is the guy holding all the cards, and keep you guessing.
The Chinese are strategic and patient. They just need to wait a few more years until they are able to blockade the entire island for long period of time. Then they can potentially take the island without firing a single shot. they don’t need to take on this kind of risk right now.
I don't share this view. China needs only a couple more (2-3) carriers and to arm enough H-6K's with anti-ship missiles to keep US capital ships at bay and they'll have all the tools they need to blockade and conquer Taiwan, perhaps without firing a shot. All of that will be in place in only a couple years; probably before Trump's term ends.
I still think Xi Jinping fears his people far more than Putin ever did. There's a huge powerful class of people who made tons of money off global trade in China, not just a few token Oligarchs from the 1990s like in Russia. They are the worlds factory, with a love of money and success. A global conflict is not something their people would easily stomach. While Russians seem to revel in their ability to withstand poverty and backwards systems I'm skeptical the same cultural malaise exists in China, even if they have strong national character (on paper).
There is absolutely no risk whatsoever.
Everyone noticed trump behavior with zelinsky, Chinese too. It might instead push up their agenda to conquer Taiwan quickly before trump mandate end, or at least fund him to put up with a third mandate.
Which is something he had been talking a lot.
I can imagine Trump accepting that kind of deal, and it’s probably still cheaper than war for China.
This is a very important point. While China's military is huge and technologically advanced, it is structured very differently from western powers. To reduce the risk of a military coup, the PRC split up control of air, ground, and naval units, making it difficult to conduct joint operations. China's military is also structured more like the Soviet system, where decisions are made at the highest levels of command and lower levels are given little discretion. Information going up and down the chain of command can be delayed, ignored, or corrupted. This is inefficient in peacetime and can be disastrous in combat.
In contrast, most western powers have military branches that combine air, ground, and water forces (the US Army is the second-largest air force in the world, behind the US Air Force), and they are organized in a manner that encourages joint operations. Western militaries also push decisions to the lowest level possible, allowing forces to quickly adapt to changing conditions in combat.
Lastly, China has limited air refueling capability. This reduces the range and effectiveness of their air units. To reach targets far away, aircraft must carry external fuel tanks, compromising stealth, speed, and maneuverability.
It is for these reasons that China is very hesitant to test their military against any modern force. They're trying to fix these issues, but the PRC can't adopt the west's organizational style without making themselves vulnerable to a military coup, which (so far) they absolutely refuse to do.
...On the other hand, if they want to take Taiwan with a low probability of the U.S. intervening, it's hard to imagine a better time than right now.
One of the lessons Xi might have taken from Russia's war on Ukraine is that Putin made a tactical blunder by not invading during Trump's first term. Without the Biden administration's active support of Ukraine, Putin would likely have been more successful.
It's hard to guess probabilities on these sorts of things, but the current situation makes me uncomfortable.
(For what it's worth, the likelihood of a major Cascadia fault earthquake happening during the Trump administration is something that we can estimate the probability of, and even though it's not particularly high, it also makes me uncomfortable as an Oregonian.)
Satellite imagery exposed China's has new landing barges at the Guangzhou Shipyard. These barges, equipped with 120-meter-long bridges and stabilizing pylons to land troops and vehicles on Taiwan's rugged coastlines by creating mobile ports[1]
You don't build these things if you don't need them. they have no other use except invasion.
1. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/built...
Yes, it might theoretically make Europe less free, and now you have the Twitter guy being a member of the US administration doing Nazi salutes and promoting far right parties.
Suddenly Hitler was a victim. Like the disregard for the thousands of young men lost on the D day and to the war, to reach this freedom you're preaching.
Yet that doesn't seem to leave any sour taste, go figure.
But I have to ask, why you want the freedom for people to be able to promote Nazism?
That's just the first page of search results. Are you sure that rehabilitation of Nazis isn't welcomed in Europe?
If you want people to be free to promote Nazism, xenophobia, ethnophobia, racism, etc, and you're good with that because History hasn't taught you anything, that's your problem, not ours.
Just because things exist doesn't mean you should have a platform to promote them, this is a very basic concept.
Doesn't look like you understand that allowing the promotion of Nazism will do exactly that, promote Nazism.
You don't have to promote, but it would help if you did not actively suppress, which ties back my original point about being able to actually track what is going on. That is the problem with some people. They really do think they can control what and how people think. No. Scratch that. They really think they can influence how they will think.
<< Not really my problem, as there are laws in place where I'm from.
There are laws here too, but lately some were rather hellbent on going around them by 'partnering'.
I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism, people will do that. Look at Twitter, look at Elon Musk, that's what's happening on that front.
Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
This absurdity is reaching people in the US, and you want to protect that - which makes me question your true intentions lmao
If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
You can and should question it. It is the whole point. I actively encourage that. This is how we grow some basic common sense and critical thinking skills. As for my intentions, at best I can say it is complicated, but it starts with: I get bored sometimes.
<< Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
If it only affects people with either low cognitive capacity and/or low education, surely it should not be a problem in a country, where nearly all real jobs require higher education. If it does affect them, maybe the factor you selected is not.. as useful as you think.
<< If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Here you go again. Promote is not the same as allow. I am not sure, what your hangup is, but I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith.
<< Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
You will be surprised to know, I would be perfectly ok with that. I might even cheer.
<< If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
edit: I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote. I don't think I want to post a novel here.
<< I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism,
Honestly, I think you are just lost.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-speech-online-germany-...
Also, I don't feel like there's anything to argue, look where allowing rampant misinformation and lies proliferation got your country. Your president is spitting Russian propaganda to Zalensky's face: "you started the war", "Russia will respect peace", "Europe only loaned money", etc. Your country is falling apart, not mine.
Also, let's not fall in false equivalences here.
You can't incite violence - and if you do that when there's a riot ongoing, the punishment has resulted in jail time. Anything nazi related is also a no-go
Ukraine is in an active war. They restrict pro-enemy propaganda.
Do you think your outcome would be any different if you publicly posted pro-jihadi anti-American content on social media after 9/11?
Or put in prison during wartime and given a "similar level of healthcare that many in the US prison system receive" torture?
- for offending religious feelings
> In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
That's not true.
WTF are you talking about? Unless you're referring to state secrets or CSAM, or threatening an official, there's no way you're going to jail over a Facebook posting. And it's not a "slightly different line." Those and political speech are miles apart.
> As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
I'm going to bet that you've never been to Europe and understand that each country has very different laws. Cherry picking some random issues from several different countries and making it seem like it a policy of the entire of the EU is silly.
Apple disabled encrypted iCloud instead of giving the UK government a backdoor, or continuing to fight them on the idea in general. People in the UK can absolutely continue to encrypt my backups.
Any free speech isn't necessarily hate speech but any hate speech surely isn't free speech.
There's a huge difference and that restraint is ingrained in these societies based on their past experiences.
If you slander somebody your freedom of speech and their dignity need to be balanced.
In Germany we have chosen to rank dignity higher.
What do you mean? What can you currently not say in Europe and the UK without getting put in jail for it?
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it illegal to send offensive communications.
I could go on...
I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.
Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179
That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.
If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.
In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules both of those acts: “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of harassment or abuse. Where it’s a problem is what makes something “grossly” offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of magistrates and judges overseeing each case.
a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be falseBut you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence
It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.
Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.
Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.
The US has stronger legal protection for speech and guns, but also more incarceration and police power. US incarceration rate is four times the UK rate.
Also in the UK, the speech restrictions are about stuff like glorifying terrorism, hate speech or harassment. You can criticize the government as much as you want.
In the US you're free to buy a gun, praise ISIS, and shout on the street that people should be murdered or that you love Hitler but not everyone likes that.
The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to you to search further if it pleases you.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press and freedom of expression. The government moving against press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always be wary when that happens.
You really believe that the current administration is acting out of “hopes to end the killing”?
What do you think Greenland is about? About spreading christianity?
The current administration is failing and the top % is profiting off it; eating itself up. It’s a pattern that’s well known.
Internationally, the US is rapidly losing allies all across the board. And internally, facing its facing increasingly extreme inequality in terms of wealth distribution.
The current administration doesn’t even have interesting cards that it can play.
The Canadian conservatives are not going to play ball with Trump either. Poilievre is going to win because the current government is terrible. If anything Trump's actions are strengthening the liberals because it forces them to actually do something which they always try to avoid. To some degree this mirrors the poor governance by the democrats in the US that lost them their elections but at least Poilievre is not a moron.
The whole let's tariff Canada is just plain stupidity. There is no logic. There is no way that Canada is going to yield to the US in any way.
The "it's all about oil" crowd is as stuck in the 1990s as the "we're still in the cold war crowd." This is probably much more about rare earth minerals.
Russia is no longer the big bad guy it used to be. Before the war, they had a crumbling economy the size of Italy's.
And you can see a premature declaration of victory along similar lines from the Russian state media, which was then taken down when Ukraine did not in fact fold in three days: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240. You can see the archive.org capture of the original article linked there if you wish to see the primary source.
Yes, their GDP is weak (nevertheless, Russia persists). No, it doesn't make any sense if you look at it through a normal Western lens, which is why there was widespread disbelief that Russia was to imminently invade Ukraine. But, as the saying goes, "Russia can't be understood by the mind alone"
It's ridiculous and false to say that in general Canada has a protectionist policy. There are some areas (like maybe milk and maple) where Canada is protecting its local producers but in general Canada is pro free trade. Most of the the trade skirmishes between the countries were around things like soft woods where IMO it was the Americans who were violating the trade agreements.
The insinuation that Canada is somehow taking advantage of the US in trade is just nonsense. The trade imbalance is a reflection of the slower growing Canadian economy (because obviously we are taking advantage of the Americans) and the energy/resources we sell to the US (too cheaply).
The US produces plenty of conventional crude, but imports cheap heavy crude from Canada because it's cheap and the refineries are set up for it. They could eventually transition refining, but ... why? In the end it would just hurt the consumer and provide no strategic advantage.
Like many things, oil and gas pipelines zigzag across the border. Continental integration has been the order of the day for 3/4 of a century at this point.
Yes Canada protects its agricultural sector just like the US does its. We protect dairy especially, but the US massively subsidizes cash crop agri in the US. And in any case, Canada imports more agri from the US than it exports, so, again, it seems very bizarre to try to present some kind of case that Canada is some sort of protectionist parasite.
Are these the talking points the GOP is putting out to try to cover Trump's verbal farts? Because they make no sense. Oh, and governors of GOP states that trade with Canada have also made this very clear, and are not happy with Trump around this issue during this term or the last term when he played these games.
* The agricultural products that are well-known, including milk, lumber, and the famous Canadian maple syrup cartel
* Similar protections on minerals and other natural resources (including oil), and bans of foreign ownership of natural resource extraction companies
* Canadian TV and radio stations must play a certain fraction of Canadian content
* Significant restrictions on movement of goods between provinces of Canada, and inter-provincial tariffs that add up to quite a lot
* Canada's limits on foreign ownership of companies in the telecommunications and digital equipment sector, as well as companies involved in defense
* A ban on foreign ownership of residential property
* Canada's data localization laws and digital goods tax
I am fine with Canada having a lot of trade protections, but it does.
And all of them have corresponding restrictions within the US. You think Lockheed Martin isn't protected? That any Canadian company would be allowed to dominate aerospace or defense or telecoms (not that they could)
And what is this nonsense about "ban on foreign ownership of residential property"? Sounds like a good idea, but it does not exist
Where are you from? Because if you're from Canada, you sound woefully uneducated about your own nation.
(Interprovincial trade limitations are mostly on alcohol and are a remnant from prohibition era laws. And yes, they suck. The other area where the provinces have barriers is around professional certifications.)
I am not a Canadian, but I hope that if you are, you learn more about your own nation's trade policy than a foreigner.
Once again, I am not convinced that these protections are bad for Canada, but they absolutely are a huge subsidy for local business, and a very common tool for Canadian government.
I can tell you that buying residential property in the US as a foreigner isn't a cakewalk either, my dude.
Ask yourself -- Why are you playing into this rhetoric about Canada? You seem like one of the people who 6 months ago would barely even acknowledge we exist, yet now you're an expert...
Most trade between the US and Canada is free. There is a free trade agreement.
Yes. Canada doesn't want to lose its artists so it supports local musicians. I mean everyone still listens to local TV and Radio stations here. We don't have the Internet in our logging camps.
There is no ban on foreign ownership of residential property. You must be confusing us with Australia. [EDIT: Sorry but as you noted I am at least partly wrong here. Since 2022 [actually 2023] there are limitations on foreigners buying residential housing in Canada. It has a lot of loopholes but it still exists. You can still own residential property if you acquired it before even if you are a foreigner. This isn't really a trade question anyways].
There's some inter-provincial friction. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Gives the US an advantage.
You pay sales tax on stuff you buy online. That's true in the US as well. I know Amazon really wanted to get around that but hey.
The US supports US companies with various subsidies. It also has lower tax rates. Not fair.
US-Canada trade is a relatively free, win-win. It's not a zero sum game. Now the US administration wants to turn this into a lose-lose zero sum game over some imaginary drug and immigration issues with the border.
Question after question praising Trump and then he repeating his same old script. They even seemed to forget Zelenskyy was there for a moment, and then a reporter asks him why is he not wearing a suit?. Such a ridiculous question, and if they care about it so much, why they don't ask Elon Musk that?
Being in Z shoes I would feel like a sane people trapped on an mental institution or a cult.
The world is changing pretty quickly, and stuff like this does have implications on war, business, technology that's I think is worth discussing here.
Sometimes I wonder what is actually left of hacker/startup culture?
We still have TCP. We still have Linux. We still have gcc, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and more. Now, that last mile connection is still looking dicey; if a lockdown is applied, it will be applied there.
How many CEOs of prominent tech companies right now even use technology? Like REALLY use it.
A top tier concern of our age is disinformation & propoganda. The lies are absurd & out of control. But denial of information is also a huge issue, and the ability of a couple few to suppress & deny here is remarkable.
I'm so glad there's this timeline based site, showing what's really happening & the many many things denied.
set for top stories for the last 24 hours
it's the best homepage for HN, shows all stories, flagged and flamed stories too
After WW2 the EU was formed with the goal of stopping the bloodshed. Germans and French became friends!
Europe outsourced their defense to the USA, and instead they started paying NATO and buying defense equipment from US companies.
Yet they stood by the USA in all their fair or unfair endeavors in the Middle East.
The first time that the EU called for actual help, the US seems aligned with Russia.
Things don’t look good.
France and Germany both openly opposed the US on the Iraq war [1], France even threatened to veto any UN resolutions for an invasion. Hence the whole "Freedom Fries" thing [2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/22/germany.france
Thanks, America.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93...
Whether the senior powers in America are compromised, complicit, or opportunist, it doesn't matter. America is being damaged. Russian interests are being prioritized over American interests.
Our military is too powerful for direct conflict, so alternative conflict against our political structure and economy is more logical. America is experiencing a decapitation strike, and our military is not defending us from these domestic enemies. https://archive.is/1xkxK (Decapitation Strike -- Timothy Snyder)
And Israeli interests
And that’s across pretty much all branches of governments and administrations, for quite some time now
American people’s needs be damned
It had a rather pronounced affect on America. Some other countries too, I think.
Our trade with APAC dwarfs total European trade, and America has ~150k armed personnel deployed in the Pacific versus ~65k in Europe.
Europe can and should be able to manage Russia and Africa for us - this is what they did well until the 2000s. Both Dem and Republican admins since the Bush admin have been pushing for Europe to regain it's strategic autonomy.
Trump is absolutely mismanaging this relationship, but a broken clock is right twice a day.
If Europe goes to war America is in a higher state of defcon even if we try to pretend we’re uninvolved. Global trade would crash which means a lot of middle class jobs vanishing.
But the perception (even before Trump) was that our European allies can and should be able to hold down the fort in Europe, because it's increasingly looking like we cannot fight a two-continent war, and we at least have strategic depth in Europe, and not at all in the Pacific.
Another way is to sacrifice one continent.
I, and many others, can't stomach the second. Particularly when we built their security order, they certainly weren't managing Russia for us until the 2000s.
I agree and prefer this method, but certain European states (looking at you Germany) will also have to drastically increase military spending as well.
The pot of military financial aid also needs to go to Asian allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Philippines along with aligned states like Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and India.
> Another way is to sacrifice one continent
Which I dislike but is something the Trump admin has appeared to have chosen.
Yes, there's stuff in the news right now about Germany military spending - secretary of defense said they anticipated yet another increase package of 6.7B euros, and only got 1.2B.
Military spending is up dramatically from even 2 years ago, much less when you'd hear this argument from more dedicated hands, let's say, 2019, 2021.
It's a particularly poor timing to make the argument, because even if we elide every increase until Sunday, we're still left with Germany reacting to this by adding $100B over the next 4 years.
If if it wasn't out of date, I think it's important to state plainly the idea is: Europe needs to spend more in defense because the US decided to pull all support, even from things as simple as continuing to sell Europe defensive supplies as it fights Russia, and also hand chunks of Europe to Russia.
It's somewhat gut-wrenching to hear an out of date argument, in so many separate ways, as justification for rugging them completely. It causes nausea when its coupled to a shrug about broken clocks.
And what stopped Germany from doing so in 2022, or 2019, or 2014?
And this is why there is resentment in the US - we've been telling Germany (and other European) states to do this for decades.
I'll reiterate this again - China is the primary threat against the US. Russia is bad as well, but China is the bigger bad.
American soldiers are directly in the line of fire in Taiwan, South Korea, and Okinawa. Yet South Korea and Japan have both worked on maintaining military capacity and spending after brushes in 2011 and 2016.
And it's been Germany that has constantly undermined French and British attempts at a Pan-European force because German leadership does not want expeditionary capabilities that France and the UK needs [0], and France is the only EU state left that has a true world class MIC.
> It's somewhat gut-wrenching to hear an out of date argument, in so many separate ways, as justification for rugging them completely
Because the "spend more" argument from the US has been coming for 15 years now. And it takes 3-4 years just to on-ramp manufacturing capacity.
Devoting funding alone is not enough to ramp up manufacturing overnight. We have been warning about this for decades, and now Germany (and even some of our other allies like France and UK) now have to contend with this on their own.
I worked as a Dem staffer in the early 2010s and even I am in agreement with Trump about this - because this is a policy that even Obama was driving.
We've been warning your leadership that something like this would happen for 15 years now. Yet your leadership did not listen. When even a Dem like me who worked in NatSec Policy is frustrated, you know much of Europe has burnt any goodwill that remains.
[0] - https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/12/the-joint-exp...
- "Our trade with APAC dwarfs total European trade"
I assume we have a shared understanding that more than just Europe was affected by WWII.
- "Europe can and should be able to manage Russia and Africa for us"
What does manage mean?
- "this is what they did well until the 2000s."
Was America involved in any of the management of Russia that went well prior to the 2000s?
- "Both Dem and Republican admins since the Bush admin have been pushing for Europe to regain it's strategic autonomy."
Europe certainly has strategic autonomy, no?
Overall, my impression is the argument completely elides NATO, the US role in it, and the US leadership role in it.
Absolutely, but they were 2 different wars with entirely different personas and leadership.
For example, China and Japan treat WW2 as having started in 1936-37 and don't really view or care about WW1 or the European theaters of WW2
And European dependencies in Asia were already autonomous at that point (eg. British India had it's own autonomous military and political leadership after the 1920s era reforms independent of London, Dutch Indonesia and it 1930s era reforms, and French Indochina as well as they largely retained the pre-colonization era leadership).
> What does manage mean
Problems on the European and African continent should be dealt with by our European allies. Ideally, the US provides some amount of support and armament, but strategy within Europe and France should fall onto individual European allies.
You saw this in Ukraine pre-2022 with the UK and Turkiye helping Ukraine rebuild it's armed forces, and in much of the Sahel with French armed forces tamping down on Islamism and Russian/Chinese backed factions.
> Europe certainly has strategic autonomy, no
The issue is, what is "Europe".
There needs to be a much stronger unification of posture and strategy amongst our European allies, but you would often see France and Germany clash because France wants to ensure a unified European force has expeditionary capabilities (because of French dependencies in the Pacific and Africa), but Germany constantly pushes back because they want to remain Central Europe first.
On top of that, individual European MICs directly compete with each other and extremely furiously. For example, Dassault, Eurofighter GmBH, and Saab trying to undercut each other in global fighter jet sales.
And finally, individual European states do not see eye to eye. For example, France+Italy tends to have a very strong co-sell relationship with Israel (a direct competitor to Turkiye) and targets the India (a competitor to Pakistan) and UAE (a competitor to Saudi) market.
But Germany+Spain tends to have a very strong co-sell relationship with Turkiye (a direct competitor to Israel), who tends to sell to Pakistan (a direct competitor to India) and Saudi Arabia (a direct competitor to UAE)
While we would all want the EU to be a truly unified union, in it's present form, individual nation states will continue to zealously guard their soverignity.
And even on the economic front - to continue using the India example due to the plan to finalize the EU-India FTA this year [0] - countries like Germany+Spain directly compete with France+Italy, especially in the Automotive and Pharma sectors (two of Europe's largest and most globally competitive sectors).
For example, German+Spanish+Czech automotive manufacturers like Volkswagen AG (includes Spain's Seat and Czechia's Skoda) largely invested in China during the 2000s but French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers like Renault-Nissan, Citroen/Fiat/Stellantis, and Piaggo (scooters yes but THE scooter in India) invested heavily in India. An EU-India FTA doesn't impact French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers but directly undermines and harms German+Spanish+Czech manufacturers.
And Indian biopharma companies (the only manufacturing industry that India is competitive at globally) are largely partnerships with French (Sanofi), British (GSK, AstraZeneca), Swiss (Novartis), Israeli (Teva), and Japanese (Takeda) players that directly compete with German firms like Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim that invested in China.
While at a macro-level a EU-India FTA is good for European autonomy from the US or China, it will undercut German+Spanish+Czech companies and benefit French+Italian+Romanian companies, and as such Germany has been lobbying against it (and India has retaliated by fining Volkswagen group $1.4B in back taxes and an additional $1.4B in interest [1] - an amount that will destroy VW Group's business in India [2] and maybe even globally depending on Chinese and NAM sales as it's an amount that's 17% of their net income).
And this is one of dozens of examples where individual European nation states do not have strategic alignment, and why when push comes to shove, they all ignore the EU and prioritize their own domestic needs.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-eu-agree-push-conc...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/india-...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/indias...
Apparently you have a vaster view.
Thank you.
Most of the blood, sweat, and tears of the UN and NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was European militaries like the Dutch, British, French, and Swedish.
The Clinton admin primarily provided air support and diplomatic cover, but most boots on the ground were European (and Canadian).
Lots of people forget that the UN was in Yugoslavia before the NATO intervention happened.
I would argue that we did our bid for European stability,
that everybody thought Ukraine would be quickly overrun.
We've taught them that it may or may not come at a high price, depending on which party happens to be in power at the moment.
Fast forward a few more years. Russia is encircling Kiev. Are we supposed to put American boots on the ground? Give them tactical nukes? Wouldn’t giving up then just “teach them” the same thing?
Oh wait...
you didn't read enough about wwii then. giving putin ukraine emboldens him further just like hitler
Security guarantees also prevent nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine is defeated, the lesson many countries will learn is to have a strong nuclear deterrent.
You just ask question after question after question after question, with an extremely disproportionate amount of effort required between you and the person you are asking, and hope that the other side eventually gives up.
Edit: jakelazaroff pinned it down for me, "sealioning"
We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion.
If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.
The full global consequences can be devastating.
What's the dollar value of that?
Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they don't (they might be! but they don't read so).
But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-topic. Sorry for the derailment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Now remember that this time everyone has nukes.
Likely as it is that research can indeed confirm this, given the depth & tone of your inquiry, perhaps the most immediate convincing experiment would be best: find someone you can employ to harass and threaten your property and your person, occasionally to devastating effect, alongside another person who can study your productivity and wealth before and after.
Perhaps with further similar efforts here you can even persuade some people to volunteer for half of that project free of charge.
Do you think we exist in a vacuum? The whole reason we have foreign policy is because there are major dire ramifications to conflicts across the world. Especially, as we've seen the past century, in Europe.
What’s next? “TSMC give us all trade secrets or we don’t defend Taiwan”?
You have all there benefited from these decades of being in that position.
Trump has already threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Taiwan if TSMC refuses to transfer technology to the US (thus effectively undermining Taiwan's own Silicon Shield defence strategy) and revitalise Intel: https://techsoda.substack.com/p/tsmc-faces-tough-choices-ami...
I hope Taiwanese leaders have the balls to say no -- it's not as if Trump has a stellar track record of honouring his word anyway. Besides, tariffs on Taiwanese chips will end up seriously hurting American companies like AMD and NVIDIA, so Trump might walk back the tariffs once Jensen Huang and Lisa Su pay sufficiently large bribes.
And next thing you know, people who directly work for that drug dealer are all in your states government, and your way of life is slowly starting to get worse, and the only option you have is either go along and be constantly afraid, or revolt and risk of losing your life.
If you dont think it can happen, i envy your ignorance.
I thought we had discredited that whole ideology—from Kissinger to Bush—but apparently we haven’t.
They are not the same: Clearly they are not the same.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30iht-edkissinger...
To me, it seems like the people supporting American involvement in Ukraine are throwing about the same vague platitudes about “dictators” and “interests” without anything concrete to back them up.
At least Iraq and its neighbors had oil—there was a credible narrative that what happened there would directly hit Americans in their pocket books. American interest in Europe seems even more attenuated. It seems to be nothing more than romantic sympathy.
For example, the US needs many raw materials and manufactured goods. Our economy is extremely strong because we get these easily and with little friction. Other countries trust our trade deals so they enter into them willingly. And so whenever the US needs a new import, we get it quickly and cheaply. As a concrete example, NVidia gets prime access to foundries and components. Sure, they spend money on it, but our "interests" ensure that the process is frictionless. Any other country would have a harder time.
We also have near universal military access. No other country even comes close. We nearly have permission in advance to go anywhere. If US shipping is interrupted, no one complains when our navy goes and uninterrupted it. In fact we are welcomed. If a US citizen is taking hostage, governments from the area want to help us.
Also, maybe you've noticed that no one is even close to attacking the US. We are so strong that it would be suicide, and that's partly because of our own strength, but also because of our many allies who would back us up.
Finally, we have moral interests. I believe everyone should live in a system based on laws, should elect their own leaders, and should have basic freedoms. The more we spread liberalism and democracy the better the world is.
Sure, you can nitpick about counterexamples. The Iraq war is a perfect example of messing this up. And not every country loves us.
But if you cannot see that the majority of countries are overwhelmingly friendly towards the US, and that we get enormous military and economic benefits, then you are blind.
You’re starting off on the wrong foot. That’s just Reagan-Bush universalism and everyone who bought into that stupid ideology has been wrong about everything my entire lifetime.
The way you say it, the Iraq War was simply poor execution of a basically sound ideology. To the contrary, the Iraq War was a predictable outcome of the notion that democracy promotion is in America’s material interest, or that it’s worth our while to police borders around the world. That’s a bad idea, rooted in a Christian/post-Christian version of the Ummah and the Iraq War should have discredited that ideology. If you continue to buy into those mistaken premises, a repeat of Iraq/Vietnam/Korea is inevitable.
This doesn't respond to my comment at all. You're just calling stuff stupid.
In 2014, McCain absolutely nailed his prediction on Ukraine 2022. Did you?
The conclusion to draw from that is not that all conflict and cruelty outside the New World is irrelevant to Americans and their interests. You’re a bit older than me, but neither of us have experienced a world with a truly aggressive near-peer power. We’ve lived our entire lives on the laurels of our grandfathers’ victories in Europe and Asia. The resulting international system organized around fixed borders, the rule of law, and low barriers has allowed to flourish the multitude of mutually beneficial trade relationships that support literally the entirety of the only way of life either of has ever known.
It’s an unstable equilibrium. To not defend order against might risks knocking the whole thing down - and then who knows? Maybe we carry on with China and the rest of APAC while Russia dominates Europe? Maybe we live a decade or a generation of poorer, meaner, more isolated lives confined to the New World? Maybe the expansionary impulse brings them, eventually, to our shores?
The US has among the lowest levels of trade dependency of any country in the world. In 1960, which is remembered as a Golden Age, trade was just 10% of GDP. We would be just fine, probably better, living in a world where regional powers kept their back yards clean and the occasional border skirmish broke out. Even if that meant somewhat reduced trade.
Empire also imposes a demographic cost on america. Every time we destroy a country in a war trying to maintain the “rules based order” we have to accept a massive influx of refugees. In the long run these people will not be able to maintain the american system the founding population created.
Those two wars imo changed USA and put the country in debt and misalignment internally. Bush was an absolute catastrophy.
You can't point the fingers at the leaders. Even though the country is not a democracy, but a business club with only two parties, being funded by companies.
USA is no longer, and hasn't been for decades, very far from Russia in its cribbled walk towards war and destruction.
I can't see how the country can uphold its stance with their allies and when China makes their move, it will leave US on its own.
As for Europe, it might be a slow starter, but rather that than having to fight for even then smallest equality rights and options.
Wow, how I really dislike american politics and leadership, and its not just its current government.
...
Most of the world didn’t like that system, along with most american liberals until five minutes ago. We even made movies mocking it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America:_World_Police.
Eisenhower thought that system should be temporary, and Jimmy Carter took pride that an american bomb was never dropped anywhere during his term.
Our foreign policy has been stuck in a doom loop of thinking that everything is like World War II for 70 years now. And whatever benefits we might have gained can’t possibly offset what we lost fighting pointless war after pointless war: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. We have spent trillions of dollars to make the world free for trade that has hollowed out the economy and enriched globalists.
That’s not even counting all the millions of people we have killed in the process of our liberal democracy jihad.
Trying to simply say their interest diverge sounds irresponsible.
"Having a democratic mandate" is either a valid counterargument or it is not. But it is simply not consistent to apply it only to Netanyahu and not to Trump.
The point is that I'm tired of the electorate washing their hands from their leaders' antic. Society get the leader they deserve.
The book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a great read which fairly and methodically outlines how this influence works and what effects it's had on American policy, spanning decades.
Most Americans do support Israel and are very opposed to Putin and Russia.
Check the polls.
Which is why it's suspicious that JD Vance and Trump seem so afraid to upset Putin.
The idea that Russsia could have compromising information on one or both of them is entirely plausible. It's a way politicians have been controlled for literally thousands of years. J. Edgar Hoover controlled every US president for fifty years with this one simple trick.
Americans aren’t wiling to invest in what it would take to win the war. So Trump has to break Zelensky’s spirit so there can be a settlement.
Europe cannot let Putin win. It’s obvious that Poland or the Baltics would be next, and the further they let Putin go the worse it gets.
So instead, the US will either be neutral or supporting Russia. Not a great outcome for anyone except Russia.
Ukraine was a member of the Soviet Union since 1917. Was it hurting America to not have Ukraine as an “ally” that whole time? Clearly not!
It does not matter how we ended up here, but we have an obligation to select for the least bad outcome.
It's not understandable to support Russia and say things like Ukraine started the war. That's just pure ignorant bullshit.
The US populace can stick its head in the sand & say the rest of the world doesn't need them, but what if a superpower starts snapping up that rest of the world?
Poland would wipe the floor with Russia.
USA does not have to do that, USA want to do that. They could stay away, they could support Ukraine. USA choice however was to support Russia.
To me, at least, it's pretty clear that the negotiations are not in line with the will of the American populace as territorial concessions, resource concessions, no security guarantees and no multi-lateral opposition force to Russian expansionism have seemed like priorities to the current administration.
But I'd question your assumption that Americans aren't willing to invest what it would take to win the war (depending on what a victory entails) and instead I'd suggest that this assumption needs a bit more research. I for one am very happy to see our tax dollars be used to support Ukraine, primarily because I think it's an investment in preventing a more expensive war in the future. It's unfortunate because we are basically just incurring a cost we didn't want to incur, but at the end of the day this is just the hand we're dealt with.
A more neutral and far more informative and useful poll is YouGov-Economist poll. Their methodology is based on app polling instead of phone polling. They subdivide their responses based on demographics, and they poll every week, often repeating the same questions to gauge trends for very detailed analysis.
Wish more pollsters were like YouGov.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/740568401/Cbsnews-20240609-S.... Question No 52.
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/49-times-us-has-used-veto...
Yes, the UN has attempted many more resolutions against Israel than against China for its treatment of millions of Uyghurs, North Korea for enslaving its entire population, Russia for murdering tens of thousands, Iran for its direct terrorism, and the list goes on. Which is not exactly the ethical high ground you seem to think it is.
Whataboutism.
When China starts bombing hospitals, let us know.
China sterilizing and and enslaving a million Uyghurs isn't bad enough to warrant your condemnation?
We have different values.
Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza
Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November
And even then, I don't think any US president ever treated any leader in such a disgraceful manner. Not only heads of state, even the Taliban got a ton more respect (probably too much) than this.
Of course we already knew that Trump liked dictators and tyrants, and disrespects any form of decency, but now that the masks are truly coming off, what's underneath them is a lot more ugly than I could possibly imagine.
There’s a huge difference between supporting an ally with common interests and being somehow controlled by them.
The idea that Israel - or AIPAC - is somehow in control of the US government is straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It's not antisemitic or even remotely conspiratorial to acknowledge that Israel and Israeli-Americans have been very successful in exerting influence on the federal government. I think it's bad-faith well-poisoning for you to bring up nonsense like the Protocols.
Always happy to have a real conversation about difficult issues.
And to be extremely clear, because it's very likely someone will reply to claim antisemitism - I have a problem with Netanyahu and what Israel does under his leadership. I do not have a problem with people who identify as Jewish, ethnically or religiously.
Not sure why you bring this up, but the facts are very clear. Previous US administration broke its own laws that prohibit them to supply weapons to parties engaged in gross violations of human rights and war crimes. Among many things, AIPAC even unsit a Jewish(!) congressman whose only crime was to mention that Palestinians deserve human rights and dignity.
1. We are not footing the bill, we are providing for part of the cost. "Europe gave $275 Billion. United states gave $125 Billion" 2. The U.S. has citizens in Ukraine, just as Ukraine has citizens year. 3. It is not about needs... Americans have needs to feel safe from oppression, and a stable economy, both of those are out of the question now, thanks in no small part to this type of information manipulation/Disinformation.
Rather than counter all your claims with facts, who needs facts, and your inflammatory language. I shall leave you to Minos.
In particular, both nations are energy exporters. And the political class in Russia is explicitly a petro-regime.
There's no need to go looking for conspiracy theories around Trump being "compromised."
He's behaving just like any wealthy person with ties to the energy sector would, should they seize state power. They are acting in the interests of the oil industry, both of them.
Capitalism doesn't really have borders. Borders are for chumps like you and I.
I also suspect that Russia has been causing the very problems that the far right reacts against, most notably immigration. Remember wirecard? Germany’s fintech darling, which was run by Jan Marsalek, who turned out to be a Russian spy? What was one of the things they were doing? Funding people smuggling into Europe. To strengthen the right that Russia owns.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-wirecard-marsalek-spy/32844...
They’ve been directly disrupting the west while controlling those who offer the “solution”.
Certainly seems Russia has no ideology they care about beyond "sabotage states", with some priority on western states, but certainly not just western states. They fund political parties in ex-Yugoslavia that are LITERALLY at each other's throats (with knives and guns, not with protests and shouting).
They're sowing chaos wherever they can, however they can. Priority seems to be on the UK, Brussels/EU and the US, but it's not like they're not doing it in places like Rwanda as well. Whether that means supporting extreme-left, extreme right, or just whoever is willing to turn guns on the police or some ethnic group they hate, Russia/Putin just doesn't care.
Hell, daesh/isis got funding from Russia, killed 145 Russians in Moscow ... and Russia funded them again, after blaming Ukraine for the attack. They just don't care.
Labour is doing no better.
What rule of law. What checks and balances?
Do take the time to check the facts sometime where those refugees ended up. How many did Germany accept? How many did Sweden take? How many did the US accept?
It does put the recent claims that Europe should pay up for its protection into perspective.
A Trump is not in any way beholden to Russia
B Trump has prospective business interests in Russia
C Trump follows Russian orders even at the cost of US interests
Which of these most easily explains the actual behavior we see?
For Trump this is about washing his hands of a war that he understands cannot be won and will become an albatross around his neck if he doesnt disengage.
A makes complete sense if you have a full picture of the military industrial situation, but in the west there is very little cognizance of just how badly Ukraine is losing not how limited western options are.
"Krasov" is an appealing explanation because it means not facing this bitter reality.
Moreover, Ukraine's rules of engagement have been severely limited. They've been unable to strike airfields inside Russia even though they have the capacity to do so.
It's unlikely to become another Afghanistan because A) it does not have Afghanistan's superlative geography for hit and run attacks on supply chains and B) coz this war burned through Ukraine's best troops such that now mostly all they have left are TCC-kidnapped soldiers who would rather submit to Russia than fight.
D Russia can blackmail Trump
E Russia pay Trump to act in favour of of Russia even at the cost of US interest.
I don't think that's possible at all.
It's been proven time and time again that Trump is untouchable. He joked about being able to shoot somebody and not lose voters, and it's too true. People that love Trump love him because of the people he hurts, not the people he helps. If he shot someone, his supporters would be like "haha he murdered someone! That makes you so angry, doesn't it? MAGA!"
So, no, I don't think Russia could blackmail Trump. Any dirt Russia has on Trump could be released and it wouldn't decrease Trump's support. For fuck's sake, we already know he was a regular visitor to Epstein's Kiddie-Diddle Island.
"The election campaign is over," Patrushev noted. "To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them."
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/jill-stein-campaign-russia...
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/23/jill-stein-paid-100000-to-a...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-...
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/why-jill-s...
You can see some indication of this in the Mueller report on Russia's election interference in the US, and the DOJ indictment against Prigozhin and his Internet Research Agency troll factory. They kept playing both sides: pushing Facebook groups that were strong pro racial justice & BLM while also pushing pro cop / back the blue Facebook groups. At some point, they scheduled protests for both sides of this particular issue at the same time and place, clearly hoping for altercations.
But I think it's safe to say that, at least in the US, their efforts seem to have mainly focused on the Republican side. However, here in Germany, both the populist far-right AfD and the populist far-left political Party BSW around former Linke politician Sarah Wagenknecht are very much aligned with Russian interests: https://www.dw.com/en/russias-best-friends-in-germany-afd-an...
"Put your guard down, there's no credible threat."
"Gender equality in the military? Expensive, complicated - do it!"
"Additional rules for soldiers? Expensive, complicated - do it!"
"Do we really need a military this large? Nah, downsize!"
"The US would never not follow their promises, real or implied."
"The UN is a powerful and effective safeguarding body; trust them."
"International law is a powerful and effective deterrent against invasions."
"Maybe the military should be focused on more civilian improvement activities."
"Can we start researching whether we could be a post-militarized society?"
And they tried that, and never really gave up on it, but the real big returns came when they started funding of the international white supremacy and far right movements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
I blame both USA and Ruzzia for the migrants problem.
Please don't try to put the blame on Russia, where it squarely belongs to the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
Syrian war was civil war financed by the NED, USAID and other US entities to topple Assad, like they did in other arab spring states.
It took several years of civil war and unsuccessful bombing of civilians by Barry Soetoro, unsuccessful funding of various jihadi groups by the Pentagon and CIA (separately), the same groups that led to the rise of ISIS. Only then by the request from then president Assad, did Russia help with strikes against ISIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
> an agreement was signed in February 1946 ensuring Soviet support for Syrian independence ahead of the evacuation of French troops in April 1946
> In 1971, under an agreement with President Hafez al-Assad, the Soviet Union opened its naval military base in Tartus
> On 8 October 1980, Syria and the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation
So, "how many years after it started" appears to be a negative number.
Very much so. Thanks
They absolutely are.
A large portion of immigrants into Europe originate from countries suffering from conflicts that Russia has a big hand in. The big one, of course, being Syria, but also many African nations where the Wagner group, now effectively re-branded as the Russian Africa Corps are providing military support and protection.
Another big aspect of Russia facilitating immigration into Europe, is the immigration route through Belarus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union...
"Gender politics" is used heavily within Russia to provide a contrast to "masculine traditional values" which in turn are used to convince 100,000s of men to (quite ironically) be turned into cannon fodder against Russia's real or perceived enemies. And even more ironically is used by security services and the military in the form of rape against (male) political dissidents and soldiers.
> Wirecard [...] Funding people smuggling into Europe
Can you elaborate?
After the 2000s, the US began increasingly limiting those with ethnic or potential familial ties from working beats related to those countries. A Chinese American wouldn't pass the security clearance muster for the China role, nor a Jewish American for an Israel role.
There were attempts to potentially remediate this during the Biden admin, but it fell to the wayside [0][1]
Some white dude who went to high school in White Plains and college at Tufts just isn't going to have the domain or cultural experience or knowledge needed to really understand China or Iran, and it legitimately has caused a lot of IR Policy to become divorced from reality.
[0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/state-department-di...
[1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/18/asian-americans-sta...
Most immigration to the US now comes from Asian and LatAm states, so a lot of us Americans prioritize those problems and needs above Europe.
Do French/German/Italian/<insert country here>?
They don't, and whatever global media Americans do consume tends to be Asian (overwhelmingly Japanese and Korean) or Latin American.
This isn't the 20th century anymore when a lot of 1st and 2nd gen immigrants had European ties. American in the 21st century is now Asia and Latin America facing.
In a just society, there'd be a price to pay for lying. Free speech has consequences. Be loudly and persistently wrong (even when corrected by actual experts with real facts) and you get penalized with turning down the volume. But it's the exact opposite in today's media atmosphere.
To be fair, that could also mean that they've been successful at keeping their covert operations... covert.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-rus...
Disagree. Trump is in this for himself. If he appears to represent Russian interests that's likely because he has made some kind of deal with Putin that benefits him personally. It has been reported that he has been talking to Putin before he was elected for the second term [1].
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-putin-ta...
Such a deal has no place in a peace deal where thousands of people have died. Stop the war first.
1. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-... 2.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-hacked-hillar...
[1] https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-d...
Old men often don't care about personal help, so look to his kin/family for benefits.
This is no ordinary old man though. Look at how many times he has mentioned third term as President.
During election when Trump said outrageous things, a lot of people had the same attitude as you, and downplayed Trump's comments: he's trolling... he is bluffing... it is just a distraction tactic... it is a negotiation tactic... and so on.
Then after he got elected and actually started doing the things he said he would the same people are like... "Trump is delivering exactly what he promised what he would deliver when he started this campaign. This is what the American people voted for!"
Today Trump and his sidekick verbally attacked a man on TV, who has spent the last 3 years watching his country viciously and maliciously attacked by Russia. He's watched his people die. His friends killed. His country leveled.
And then Trump spews "give up" and "screw you", and the best part is he gets agitated and upset when the Ukraine didn't bend a knee.
This isn't trolling. This is the President causing real world events to happen. This is the President derailing a 3+ year effort by the entire West to stop Russia's aggression. This is a President appeasing a dictator, an expansionist, but apparently when he says and does things he's... trolling?
Come now.
That's usually how one state usually acheives a compromise of another state’s government, by finding the right weak links and making deals with them (the chief of state and/or head of government, and especially the person holding an office which serves simultaneously as both, is pretty much the ideal case for this, though in practice it is often only people a few steps down.)
So, while that description is true, it supports and explains rather than contradicts the claim that Russia has compromised the US government.
I think he's hoping for some deal where he / the US / the minerals corporation control half of Ukraine and Putin controls the other half and Zelensky and Ukrainian democracy just get in the way of that.
“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”
-- Henry Kissinger
It's more accurate to say that foreign policy, which is bipartisan, is to loot the world. Domestic poicy is to divide up the spoils.
The US never took a moral stand for Ukraine. It was always through the lens of American imperial interests. This is no different.
Not the American government. Trump. They compromised the guy on top who established complete control over a party.
Depressingly simple.
A good example is the first Trump administration's opposition to Russian energy expansion in Europe because this would make Europe vulnerable to Russian influence. Trump opposed NordSream 2, for example. In 2018, Trump basically bullied Germany into building an LNG port [1].
Now Trump's energy policy as a whole was generally a disaster, which led up to the 2020 OPEC deal that basically caused Covid iflation but on the security of European energy, the Trump administration was correct and was proven so by the Ukraine invasion and the cutoff of Russian energy.
Trump idolizes strongmen and autocrats. It doesn't matter who. Putin. Kim Jong-Un, Victor Orban. Trump backs fascist political movements like AfD, Reform (UK) and National Front (France).
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/business/energy-environme...
Incorrect.
> The Nord Stream 2 pipeline went from zero to 90 percent completed during Trump’s presidency. The Trump administration rejected years of bipartisan congressional calls for imposition of sanctions to stop the project. Only when Congress, in frustration, passed mandatory sanctions they couldn't stop did the administration finally take concrete action. But by then it was too late.
> Trump’s first secretary of State Rex Tillerson was a 2013 recipient of an “Order of Friendship” from Putin in recognition of Tillerson’s contributions to cooperation with the Russian energy sector while he was CEO of Exxon-Mobil. Tillerson issued the fateful public guidance to energy companies that CAATSA sanctions would only apply to new Russian export pipelines — those contracted after August 2017. Contrary to the will of Congress, Nord Stream 2 was thus grandfathered in and outside the scope of sanctions.
> Under the Tillerson guidance, the five EU companies participating in Nord Stream 2 with Gazprom had no legal grounds to declare force majeure, and the project went forward at a rapid pace.
> But where it counted — actually imposing sanctions against the project at the key stage when it could be stopped — the administration did nothing. Indeed, Trump’s posture amounted to the worst of both words: alienating our German allies while failing to take action to stop the pipeline.
> As the Biden administration took office in 2021, Russian vessels were laying pipe for the final segments of Nord Stream 2. While U.S. sanctions in 2017 would have killed the project, by 2021 it was a fait accompli. The Biden administration denounced Nord Stream 2 as a “bad deal” and a danger to European energy security. But given the unlikelihood of stopping it at this stage and the need to rebuild relations with Germany shredded under Trump, the administration elected to waive sanctions.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4726844-trump...
He took a public stance against it while enabling it in private. Apparently that worked to fool enough people.
> Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that.
https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/kissinger-the-illegal...
I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on this. There’s a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big banks are securing massive land grants to help “rebuild”, and meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.
What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
Zelensky won't agree?
I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
Sorry I don't have any other word for it. It's disgusting behavior.
The United States has given Ukraine billions. That hasn't seemed to resolved the issue?
Why? Because it's the morally right thing to do. It's as simple as that.
The Ukrainian leadership has suspended all elections. Polling indicates that Zelensky would almost certainly lose an election if one were held.
If you really care about the principles of democracy wouldn't you be in support of giving the people of Ukraine the chance to vote for leaders that would seek to end the war?
Also speaking of democracy, Trump campaigned on ending the Ukraine war and he solidly won the election, including the house, senate, and popular vote. Using diplomatic means to bring an end to the killing and an end to sending our taxpayer dollars to fund foreign wars is absolutely what the American people voted for.
Zelensky has even offered to step down as a president in exchange for tangible security guarantees for his country, yet you people continue to parrot Russian propaganda. It's absolute insanity how brainwashed people are by this cheap Russian propaganda. Think before you write!
Arm Ukraine until Russia leaves.
Excluding proxy wars for simplicity's sake and only counting those where we had boots on the ground, from our engagements in Korea to Afghanistan, how has the world become a better place?
Besides (arguably) Korea, it seems our blood and treasure could've been better spent.
However the Ukrainians also want a country where they can live in peace. Not under Russian occupation, not in fear of Russia breaking the agreement, again. (After agreeing to Ukrainian souveranity while Ukraine gave up their Nukes, after agreeing to the Minsk Memorandum after occupying Crimea)
That's cool. Go convince the aggressor to stand down and never attack anyone again so there can be peace.
Then you should know a temporary pause in the fighting while Russian remains in Ukraine is not peace.
You should know that.
Everyone here needs to make an extra effort to assume good faith, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Otherwise we're just going to get in a downward spiral.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
With an insane 50% mineral rights demand by the USA in particular which should not be on the table in a deal between Ukraine and Russia?
I'm not sure how you can post what you've posted with a straight face.
The current situation is very similar to the trench warfare of WW1. Despite there being a clear initiator of WW1, BOTH sides absolutely had a huge reason to compromise. Over 8 million lives were lost, the reason to compromise was saving those 8 million lives.
And they are. They want the people back that Russia abducted, and the people who still live in the occupied territories. They can't bring back the dead obviously, but they can fight for the living. And for the future.
To understand Ukraine's will to fight, you need to understand that they have lived under Moscow's yoke for generations. Their grandparents lived through the Holodomor, their parents lived under Soviet oppression. The current generation has known 30 years of freedom. And now they're faced with the possibility of their children living under Moscow rule again.
This is why they fight so hard.
But when a victimized population like Ukraine decides it wants to keep fighting. Especially given:
> Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
Then you gotta ask yourself:
Given they would rather die than suffer the consequences of a compromise.
Then maybe they know something about the consequences of that compromise that you and I can’t? and if so, maybe we should continue trusting the victims to not compromise ?
As things stand now, 5 years from now USA could become overrun with russian mobs and oligarch running rampant, and EU faces the real possibility of another continental conflict. I don't think many people around the world are going to enjoy that scenario.
I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true of other similar center left parties in europe
Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian territorial claims).
We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.
Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.
There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories.
We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded another god damned country. He really thought it was going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done nothing, forever?
Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.
If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win.
If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.
Which would entail trusting the US and Russia.
Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and is now going after them. So why trust Trump?
And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe UA from the map?
“What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!”
If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news.
I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.
That's a fallacy.
It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine.
Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?
This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening.
This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here.
> This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2.
Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.
Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.
I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations.
>very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.
Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die.
It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... https://archive.ph/7qYtE
Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine.
>Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse.
There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed.
Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.
My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...
And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.
However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing.
The two are not at all comparable.
Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree:
"Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff.
Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all.
In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...
And I would appreciate backing evidence beyond Office memes.
You can't blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression (and call it "threatening") while at the same time literally admitting that Russia is strongly nationalist and would love to reclaim all of its former territories (which is why all of those countries desperately wanted to join NATO).
Fuck dude, Russia is the largest country on earth (see: expansionism) and has the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They have no right to feel "threatened" by their smaller neighbors banding together.
Seen in that light, a US strategy of overt and steady NATO encroachment combined with covert action to foment rebellion in multiple ex-Soviet states isn’t far fetched. And even if we didn’t secretly fund the latter, a paranoid Putin certainly wouldn’t doubt it and would react accordingly.
The reasons why Eastern Europe was very passionate about joining NATO are clear from their history. And getting accepted into the organization was a major and very widely documented struggle. The Polish government went as far as threatening to sink Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 by urging Polish-Americans to vote for Republicans unless Clinton agreed to admitting Poland into NATO.
Now, people like you are trying to depict this as some sort of grand anti-Russian masterplan laid out in Washington. Nobody, not even Russians from that era, support this fringe story.
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Here are the facts of NATO encroachment from the fall of the Berlin wall to the annexation of Crimea:
1. Feb 1990: The US, through West German chancellor Helmut Kohl, hints at freezing NATO’s borders in order to secure German reunification.
"Kohl thus found himself in a complicated position as he prepared to meet with Gorbachev on February 10, 1990. He had received two letters, one on either end of his flight from West Germany to the Soviet Union, the first from Bush and the second from Baker, and the two contained different wording on the same issue. Bush’s letter suggested that NATO’s border would begin moving eastward; Baker’s suggested that it would not.
According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany.”
Outcome: the former Warsaw-Pact East Germany joins NATO as part of unified Germany.
2. Partnership for Peace membership (NATO program for creating trust and cooperation between member states and other states mostly in Europe)
Ukraine Feb 8, 1994
Georgia Mar 23, 1994
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace#Member...
3. Official NATO expansion
Poland Mar 12, 1999
Estonia Mar 29, 2004
Latvia “
Lithuania "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...
Outcome: NATO is now on Russia's borders on multiple flanks.
4. Feb/Mar 2014: Putin takes Crimea right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is ousted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_...
---
European motivations for joining NATO are obvious and beyond debate: what formerly war-torn nation wouldn't want shelter under our nuclear umbrella?
But while whether or not gradual, but deliberate NATO encroachment was a Neocon stratagem may be debatable to you and me, I doubt Putin, a paranoid autocrat who considers the fall of the USSR one of history's great calamaties, looking at these facts, would have the least question whatsoever.
It's also funny how Putin now lies about how invading Ukraine is all about NATO, when in the first few years of the war, Russia denied any involvement and claimed that the tens of thousands of unmarked soldiers with Russian tanks, artillery and anti-air systems capable of shooting down high-altitude airliners were just disgruntled secessionist Ukrainians fighting against nazis in Kyiv with weapons from military surplus stores. According to Putin, it was a civil war in Ukraine, and Russia had nothing to do with it.
Please clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age.
One of the pre-Putin foreign ministers of Russia has maintained for decades that NATO offers free security on Russia's western border. Its rules, especially those related to civilian oversight of military affairs, ensure that NATO members remain stable and predictable. The mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderating force that reduces the likelihood of unexpected moves by a single country. What normal country wouldn't want to border a military alliance dominated by overly cautious pacifists?
The fact that the Cold War ended peacefully, and with the USSR‘s dissolution to boot, is one of history’s great miracles. With the world’s return to its default multi-polar state, we really shouldn’t press our luck.
Give Russia and China their spheres of influence while we protect our own. The tail risk of nuclear war just isn’t worth whatever gains Neocons promise. After all, how did their Iraqi and Afghan experiments in democracy turn out?
The UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Mongolia, and many others were vast empires at some point in history. They have all had to adopt a self-image that reflects their true political, cultural, and economic weight in the present world. Russian ambitions are too detached from reality, given that they account for only a percentage or two of global GDP and population, and are in a downward trend.
There are five major ones:
Korean War (1950-1953) Vietnam War (1955-1975) Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) Iraq War (2003-2011)
If you count proxy wars, it wouldn't be such a stretch to say we've been fighting almost continuously since we dropped the bomb.
Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.
I am extremely anti-war, but capitulating to Russia and rewarding them for invading a neighbor would guarantee more war and killing, not less.
Yes, yes, I am opposed to punching random people on the street. It is bad manners. That does not mean I have to stand by and watch someone else get attacked for no reason.
Ukraine is a western country invaded by an enemy of the west. You can still be anti violence but it’s a different situation.
We are funding a meat grinder that has no sign of victory for either side anywhere in sight. This has been going on for years now. Long enough where we need to consider a diplomatic compromise, we can’t just keep pumping money into another country waiting for enough men to die, it is fundamentally evil.
I know people feel that they are morally justified in funding the conflict forever because Russia is the aggressor. But at a certain point it becomes evil not to seek an end to the killing. Have you watched videos of the horrific things that are happening over there with drone warfare? How can you watch that and say “it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
Certainly applying the Einstein solution of a spread of nukes would end the war, very quickly.
And then his mind changed when confronted with WWII. “I am a pacifist in principle, but I am not an absolute pacifist.”
>“it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
There is no "technically". Russia is the invader. Russia can leave at any time and there will be peace very quickly.
Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated by an evil dictator is worse.
Perhaps the playbook is:
* Russia takes part of Northern Canada (oil and lots of it, Northern passage aka the new Panama Canal)
* Canada fights, but Russia remains
* US says "If you were the 51st state, we could protect you"
US gets Canada, Russia the Ukraine, neither side objects.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.
Technically his second given the invasion of Crimea.
The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war ideal a reality.
As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.
of course the reason to stop killing people is to stop killing people.
The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to him is not going to bring peace.
This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more and attack more.
In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by stopping Putin.
The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow, because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need and more.
I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless aggression.
Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion possible for anyone actually anti-war.
The West has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and money, yet the Ukranians have made near-zero progress. They are incapable of retaking their country without direct intervention from NATO, which is not an option.
Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby us into the next forever war after this one).
If you were wondering how american politicians managed to piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and its our job to make things right, and you're off to the races.
Works every time.
Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls?
Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't stop until stopped by force.
But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be peace.
I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family just for the sake of peace?
If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.
An Israel-Russia alliance makes even less sense than an US-Russia one, yet both are currently happening.
[1] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2022-07-26/ty-...
[2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-02-25/ty-article/.p...
[3] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2025-02-28/ty-artic...
It frightens me a bit that people think looks are more important than results.
But I guess it's the world we live in.
Ukraine's only hope is that the US stays out of it now, rather than joins Russia. Europe has a losing battle on our hands now.
And the media isn't really there to inform you, it's there to make sure you think what they want you to think for whatever reasons.
I would suggest at least taking a look at alternative explanations, otherwise this is just as bad as any other kind of blind faith.
What was Trump good at?
Listening to people who did, it sounds a lot like their lives got better the last time.
Are you saying they're lying? Or just stupid?
Can you think of another explanation for the disconnect?
Cleaning up the mess Trump left was painful. The unavoidable consequences of global disruption of the economy (ie reduced supplies of goods) was a bit of inflation, and while Biden achieved the best recovery of any developed nation with the lowest inflation and very high wage growth among the bottom 40% of income earners, enough voters were turned off by inflation and by rightwing efforts to make voting harder that Donald Trump was able to just barely pull out a victory.
Trump is eliminating guardrails left and right and unsurprisingly is crashing things much faster this time around.
Unfortunately, it will now be used as an excuse for the US to alley with Russia to receive compensation for it's prior defense investment.
Unfortunately this will not shake support of him in his base.
That will probably come when they lose Medicaid and food stamp benefits.
If they message that they are dropping support based on that personal insult, they will lose respect and credibility, and will get manipulated.
Weakening all federal agencies meant to bring stability in society. Trump spreading bluntly the propaganda from the Kremlin.
Putin couldn't have written a better scenario to get rid of his main opposition.
It's quite clear that Trump is just a puppet, but there's nothing new here. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers...
On the financial conflict of interest side, Trump and his base treat that as a non-problem.
Somebody shot at Trump and hit his ear, and that didn't change Trump's behavior.
What could Putin do to apply pressure to Trump personally?
Perhaps it's more a case of "what did Russia offer Trump?" and the answer probably starts at "work to get you into power to let you loot the coffers".
If all people here would study Trump, then nobody would have hired him for any job. He fails, and he does that spectacularly. His businesses have floundered time after time, and his ass has been saved many a times (with Russian money too, yeah, years back). Trump's image is completely fake, he is not a great deal maker. He is born rich, at best a con man. But he is valuable.
That begs the question:
*a) what powers do select the likes of Trump, Greene, Kennedy?*
*b) For what?*
Re a. There is a small but powerful contingent in the USA elites that do NOT believe in democracy. The movements behind MAGA are part driven by extreme white-nationalist christians, notable Dominions, part driven by old-Nazi elites from the Interbellum and part driven by extreme crypto-/tech-dystopia crazies, that have access to enormous amounts of wealth, intelligence about people (Big tech) and "social" media. America falling into the hands of radical but powerful elites with extreme beliefs and tools was just a matter of time. Articles shared here on Hacker News have been flagged over the years.
Re b. Trump, Kennedy, Greene etc are able to suck up tons of media attention. They will generate a crisis every hour without needing instructions. They are not too smart and powerful, so they will have a room in which they can operate, but they will not be able to control the tools like media themselves. But what they will do is making sure the people will get distracted by the drama of these people, whereas people should be concerned with what is happening with the democratic state. Te state is being replaced according to Plan 2025, from which you have not seen everything.
Do not focus too much on Trump and Elon. They are there pursuing their own interests, they are tolerated for now, but they will be pushed from the board once their work is finished.
America siding with Putin is just a tip of the ice berg of what is to come for America and the world.
And yet he comes back. The head of intelligence for the Ukrainian military, Kyrylo Budanov, was asked about Trump last year. He commented that Trump has failed and come back nine times. That was a good insight.
Budanov's comment about the current situation is here.[1] He says a cease-fire is possible in the near term, but not peace. That's realistic.
> anybody with a clear mind can see those people are mentally impaired.
One tiny newspaper, the Durango Herald, just came out and said that Trump should be removed via the 25th amendment procedure for a sick president. Bing/MSN captured the beginning of the story, but if you try to follow the link [2], the message is "There has been a critical error on this website." The story is not visible on their site, which is up. I sent them a note asking if they were pressured to pull the story.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraines-defence-intell...
[2] https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/its-time-for-the-25th...
Americans don’t want to be embroiled in endless wars.
What is your alternative? Keep sending billions to Ukraine? Send American soldiers to die? What is it you would like to happen? Are you going to die for Ukraine? Are you going to send your kids to die there?
Yes, absolutely. Ukraine falling to Russia represents a huge threat to the security of Europe. After Ukraine, Putin would likely take Belarus, possibly invade Poland or Finland. A weak Europe, one that is dominated by Russia, would be disastrous to the US, both abroad and at home. It is sad to me that so many Trump supporters are too short-sighted to see this.
What we've spent (and could spend going forward) in Ukraine is a teeny tiny price to pay to help ensure this doesn't come to pass.
America isn't about freedom anymore, it seems. It's about cozying up to dictators and appeasing them. I was disappointed in my fellow citizens after the 2016 election, but I could kinda understand what was going on. Now I'm just disgusted.
> Send American soldiers to die?
No, of course not, and this is such a bad-faith argument, as no one is seriously suggesting that.
The war will end. Russia will offer concessions that benefit the US. They are not going to steamroll Europe. Europe can step up and contribute to Europe’s defense.
"We should not push back against Russia's annexation of Crimea. It will allow the war to end. They are not going to invade Ukraine to take other territory."
American debt is lucrative and you morons are fucking up your cash cow because you don't understand banking and are willing to let a handful of crypto bros try to accelerate the international monetary system's downfall so that they can try to replace it by some bullshit rug pull coin that doesn't even have the technology to function as global currency.
And they're looking to double down by giving billionaries trillions more in tax cut while driving up the debt. Trump/Musk/GOP do not actually care about debt or spending, it's a distraction.
That debt goes straight into enriching the already rich.
We don't want our troops / people embroiled in them, so fighting for freedom by funding others is a good way to do that.
Waiting until it comes to your doorstep by nations who have made no qualms that they aren't friendly is a bad choice.
That’s the most polite way I could express that.
The more nuanced view is this:
America made a deal with Ukraine: Give up your nuclear weapons in exchange for our protection.
They made similar deals with Taiwan, South Korea, and others. Sometimes with signatures on paper, sometimes with threats of “don’t even think about it”.
Now they are “all thinking about it”. All of them: the countries with small populations, small armies, inconveniently located next to a larger bully like Russia or China.
Here in Australia, the right wing government is prepping us to build nuclear weapons. We’re acquiring nuclear-powered submarines that can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles and the only thing they’re proposing in the next election is building dozens of nuclear power plants… that they admit will only fulfill maybe 4% of our energy needs… but 100% of our weapons-grade plutonium breeding needs.
South Korea and Japan already have the nuclear plants.
What do you think they’re planning, now that they all see how worthless American promises are?
Especially since yesterday’s(!) events, when Trump was asked about AUKUS, the most important and closest military alliance the US is a part of and he had no idea what it was!
This is why even close allies are tooling up for imminent global nuclear conflict.
Because America elected a president that famously violates the terms of every contract he’s ever signed.
Twice. To make sure everyone got the message.
https://www.irsem.fr/media/etude-irsem-93-albessard-japan-en...
They need some help to say, if I sign peace now, what's gonna stop Putin from invading again in 2-3 years with a bigger army? Currently, nothing - so there's no point in surrendering.
For background, the US promised to defend Ukraine against any invasion when Ukraine was pushed to get rid of its nukes. Turns out it's not willing to even send American made military equipment.
It’s incredible, they’ll be studying it for decades.
You vote for Presidents and politicians who act on your behalf.
I want my people to keep their basic agreements and promises so that the rest of the world continues to trust our dollar as a reserve currency and our stock market as a safe place to invest.
I didn't agree to send anything to Ukraine; there is no agreement to keep. Maybe we should just raise taxes on you people who voted for it and send your money if you're so insistent. Go to the front lines, even, if you'd like. I don't support either of the two corrupt oligarchies in this fight and you have no right to bring the other half of the country in it, especially now that you were voted out.
You believe every agreement out country makes should reset every 4 years? That the recipe for zero legitimacy in the world and especially isn't going to keep our position in the world.
I have EVERY RIGHT to argue that the USA should honors it's obligations, I have morals and honor unlike people who don't believe obligations they don't like should be honored if they can justify weaseling out of them.
You better put a stop to that by showing strength. Unless you want ignore history, that is.
However, it is worth noting that from a geopolitical perspective you're the one who is ludicrous.
For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more
Much of the value sent to Ukraine was equipment that was already purchased and was warehoused. In a sense, that cost us nothing. Some of that equipment was already slated for replacement. The equipment that will need to be repurchased is primarily purchased from American companies.
So it burns me up when people talk about how we sent $XYZ billion dollars of aid to Ukraine without understanding that the real cost to America was far far far less.
What does that even mean ... ?
The former Soviet Bloc was under the yoke of the central committee in Moscow. The people involved had no say in the politics of the central committee, they were coerced. But once its power failed, the newly free countries mostly turned their backs on Russia in a hurry. Only Belarus stayed in the orbit.
Contemporary Ukraine (or Lithuania, or Georgia) is not hostile to the US in any meaningful sense.
giving away all of our resources
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
Reliable estimates put our total spend (over 3+ years) as $120-$180bn.
The annual US military budget, $820bn (13% of the total government budget) or more like $2.4 trillion during that timespan.
But even that purported $100-$200bn spend perhaps overstates the cost. Some was cash, some was equipment. The equipment sent their way was already bought and paid for. Much of it was later in its lifespan. And the US military obviously buys American whenever feasible, so money spent replacing that equipment stays in America. So the amount of money "spent" by America on this venture is highly debatable, with the real number being lower than those $100-$200bn totals.
We don't show strength by blah blah blah
pointless conflicts that don't involve us
I don't think Russia is trying to conquer Europe, but they are the single largest power and they have proven to be a highly destabilizing force.
30% of the US aid goes to ukraine for immediate local purposes, think humanitarian and and economic relief, the other 70% goes to us defense manufacturers, directly supporting american companies who then send their stock of weapons to ukraine. This 70% that goes directly to US companies is counted in the total aid provided
But the reality is that money poured into the MIC to replace equipment we sent to Ukraine is not money that leaves the US economy, and it is absolutely essential to understand that when discussing the "cost" of this war to America.
And the US has more than enough money to build high speed rail and continue or double its support for Ukraine. Available money isn't the problem.
The US has cleared out vast reserves of older armaments that they no longer have to pay to warehouse or retire safely. Besides most of that aid money going into American pockets, the inventory has been cycled for America's benefit.
If the US had chosen to be a steadfast ally and actually help Ukraine win, it could have reaped the same rewards it received after WW2 once Ukraine won: rebuild it as a bastion of capitalism and democracy and let the rising tide lift all boats, especially the leader's. Instead, you're walking away, destroying NATO and transatlantic co-operation in the process. And by doing so, you're making Europe independent of the US, when dependency on the US was the cornerstone of 80 years of peace in Europe as well as a strong world economy. Congratulations on kissing goodbye the very thing that's made America so wealthy and strong for the last 80 years.
You cannot appease a bully. They will take what you gave them and then return to bullying you.
Let's ask the question - if Russia was able to compromise the US president, what action would he take ?
I don't have answers very different from about what's going on right now.
Nothing.
Applying here, I would expect trump moves to lift sanctions and normalize trade with Russia. Europe, if it has a spine will sanction the US.
The better comparison would be, would I rather have me, my kids and everyone I love die in a ball of fire or disease/hunger as society crumbles around us or risk the end of democracy and inviting authoritarianism?. I personally would always risk dictatorship, you can fight against dictators but not against death.
1. Will guarantee it will do it again, guaranteeing more war. 2. Will motivate more countries to get nuclear weapons, raising the chances of a nuclear war.
Because of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, the whole world knows that US security guarantees don't mean anything. These security guarantees have prevented the spread of nuclear weapons. The US has treaties with dozens of countries promising a US nuclear response if the country is nuked. Therefore, those countries have not had to develop nuclear weapons.
They do now. Their trust has been completely shattered. I guarantee you that formerly non-nuclear countries like South Korea, Japan, and half of Europe are now full speed ahead on secret nuclear weapons programs. Trump has destroyed the US-led world order and we're now on a much scarier timeline. Nuclear war is more likely, not less.
The whole 51st state cannot be a Trump only thing, he is too stupid for that, more than likely its some plan that someone told him about it and he couldn't keep quiet about it. Take into account that the whole Ukraine owing the U.S half of its mineral wealth wasn't just a Trump thing, Biden was promoting it too but he was quiet about it.
From my pov China and Russia have been the rational actors, the U.S is acting irrationally as it sees their influence crumble. They are unwilling to compete with China and want to go back to the good ol days when 'organic' coups would just happen whenever a government decided not to take whatever deal they offered.
If anything, it is the U.S that is the nuclear bully.
By routinely threatening to use their nuclear weapons.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us...
https://www.icanw.org/new_russian_doctrine_increases_possibl...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
Politics is sometimes extremely simple, and the people seeking to complicate matters are the ones with ulterior motivates to do so.
> Are you aware of several nuclear pre-emptive strike plans that have been floating around lately in the U.S against Russia
Not true. Please provide a citation if I am wrong.
> Imagine if Canada suddenly went through an 'organic' uprising and decided it wanted to join the Chinese NATO equivalent, would anyone believe that possible without prior assurances?, how would the U.S respond?
Yes, good point. Trump's idiot empty threats aside, if Canada actually felt the need to get external security guarantees against a planned US invasion, they would have every right to do so. They don't, so they don't. Ukraine does, so they do.
> The whole 51st state cannot be a Trump only thing
It is. It was not spoken of before his victory, and won't be again after he is gone. Trump is a gift to anyone seeking to "both sides" Russia's aggression, but serious people see through that.
> Ukraine owing the U.S half of its mineral wealth wasn't just a Trump thing
Again, yes it was.
> If anything, it is the U.S that is the nuclear bully.
You have yet to offer any supporting evidence of this.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-cybersecurity-defense-age...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-colluded...
Trump is not far right and never has been. He's actually moderate on most issues. The current far right position is the Tucker Carlson "isolation at all costs" and "Putin maybe isn't a bad guy" garbage. Trump holds neither of those views.
I'm not (yet) asserting that either of those two conditions are or aren't true, I'm just curious what your thoughts would be IF they were.
I'd also cite John Donne and say "no man is an island". Our "country" exists as an arbitrary artifact of history. If you are capable of caring about people you don't know then it shouldn't matter if they're from another state or another country.
It’s not pro-Russian to want a conflict to end, it’s terrible to think that not wanting people to continue to die is considered bad if it happens to include people of a specific nation who have little control over their leadership currently.
Then he should put pressure on Russia to leave Ukraine. Anything short of that guarantees the killing will continue.
Obviously he has a history of doing these prideful things just to remind people he has chips to play.
But if he literally just didnt, there is upside for unprecedented economic development
They have nothing of value.
Zelensky has shown more bravery than Trump or Vance are even capable of and they decided to ambush and lecture him like that. Absolutely disgusting.
The fastest way to end a war is to lose it. A conditional surrender of Ukraine based on all Russian demands is not peace deal, to state the obvious. It is in fact a guarantee this war will continue, which is what Ukraine is seeking to avoid.
Americans get too wrapped up in the propaganda around Ukraine to even start to understand it. If your understanding of what's going on starts in 2022 and not, at least, back to 2014, then you're not really understanding what's going on.
The conflict in Ukraine has, since the 2010s, has been about fossil fuels and other mineral rights. Around that time oil and natural gas sources were found in all the regions currently being fought over.
Ukraine, sadly, will always just be a pawn for the other major players. What we're seeing here is not "Russian interests being prioritized over American interests". This war has never been about what's good for the American people nor the Ukrainian people, but the companies that stand to benefit from extraction rights (Democrats as well as Republicans get their directions from billionaires, despite the song and dance to convince you otherwise).
The prior administration had fairly strong support from and for European parties that wanted to partake of these resources. The change is really away from support for Europe in favor of two things: better relations with Russia, and more importantly, ending this thing. The "ending this thing" is not because of desires for peace, but because as long as there are bombs being dropped in this region nobody can extract anything from anywhere.
People upset about this situation are living in a world that doesn't exist anymore. We're in the end game of industrial civilization and the rules have changed. The future is no longer infinitely bright and very soon the global economy will start to contract. Additionally we'll be seeing climate catastrophe ramp up dramatically in coming years. As the Arctic melts, Canada and Russia will effectively share a border (making Trump's other "crazy" idea, less "crazy"). Europe, once our obvious ally, will have increasingly less to offer the US in the coming decades.
Europe, largely lacking in fossil resources, is going to increasingly find itself a minor player in global politics. The realpolitik of today is major oil producing nations realizing that conflict with each other will, at this phase of the game, do more harm then forming alliances.
What kind of conspiracy theory is this? It makes no sense, at least have believable ones if you’re going to promote them.
Just the fact that something is fantastical and hard to believe on the surface does not make it untrue.
> Burisma/Hunter emails
For example, you appear to be hinting towards the Russian disinfo that Biden was involved in a corrupt deal in Ukraine. That is false. The main source of this claim was arrested for lying about it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68313086
I'll try again with my question, if Trump was taking direct orders from Putin, what would he be doing differently?
The Trump administration believes cozying up to Russia will draw them away from China. The Trump administration also believes relieving sanctions will cause commodity prices to drop.
And they are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus for those privileges along with some minerals.
This is undeniably good for the American economy, but at a moral price.
We don't have a skilled worker shortage in EU right now, we have a skilled jobs shortage. All white collar skilled job ads are flooded with local applicants, we don't need more immigrants to water down wages and push up rents. My (f500 company) company just laid off 70 SW & HW engineers at one office while I've been part of the layoffs before.
The real shortages are in healthcare, and tough jobs people don't like to do for little money, like construction or elderly care, but there's enough Europeans willing to work cushy office jobs there's no need to import foreign competition other than to appease the corporate pushed propaganda.
If news reports are at all accurate, our military isn't as great as we think (our of resources to send to Ukraine, poor ability to resupply quickly) it is and the theater of war has changed to be more drone focused than ever before.
Why have there been next to no peace talks since the beginning of the war? How much more money will we spend on another quagmire of intervention? There are plenty of issues here at home that need more attention and money than this proxy war. Like our unsustainable debt.
There we go, democracy is fine until it goes against the "liberal" zeitgeist. It's not really liberalism just like "far right" now seems to be regularly slapped onto viewpoints which were considered normal or even centrist a decade or two ago. It dilutes any chance of actual conversation between right and left.
Though yes the US military, rather state department, does openly fund political manipulation abroad via USAID. It's not humanitarian aid, or rather, the humanitarian aid is a side effect at best, as even liberal publications recognize [2, 3]. However like the OP here, there's increasing trends toward using USAID programs to "protect" America from stupid Americans who begin to "wrong-think" about things. The UK has a similar problem where public funding is used to influence politics where it's easy to see the absurdity [1].
I'm sorry but a few bots on X don't compromise Americans and make them some sort of far right extremists any more than me reading Lord of the Rings or 1984 does. We do need to protect ourselves from actual sabotage, bribery, etc but not use it as an excuse for blanket manipulation.
Yeah, that should be an absolute no on even considering it. The US military and state department apparatus does not have a role in deciding what Americans should believe.
1: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/right-w... 2: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/usaid-trump-musk-... 3: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/foreign-aid-is-unpopular
You betray how much you hate democracy when you refer to efforts to strengthen the ability to conduct free and fair elections at home and aboard as "liberal activism".
For all the intelligence they seem to purport, being complicit in supporting the takedown of democracy and the once good name of the US... Catastrophe for business, the startup world, and innovation.
Don't s** where you sleep.
And all those crypto bros thinking this would be a good thing... They seemed to forget that blockchain participation is essentially a luxury item. A dead economy is awful for crypto.
Then they hoped America would beat itself.
But I bet they never expected America to turn into an ally.
They have already started dismantling the government. Next they’ll shake up the military. Every totalitarian regime shakes up the military.
"Next?"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pushes-out-top-us-gen...
https://apnews.com/article/trump-brown-joint-chiefs-of-staff...
The NSA built them released Apache Accumulo & Apache Nifi, to offer extremely fine grained control of massive massive data systems. Unknown if this is still the state of the art, but they're still contributing. The platform infrastructure to be Five Eyes feels like it must be absolutely vast, >50% of the job of Five Eyes. Its hard for me to imagine an alliance of nations taking this task seriously enough to build their own, to serve as the hub.
So does the UK.
Not enough to take back the old colonies and demand interest payments for the tea, but enough to make it a bad idea for anyone to try that.
> I don’t expect the military to start refusing orders just because the president became a corrupt tyrant through legal means.
I expect almost all militaty personel to obey almost all orders, even when they're expressly unlawful… but not all: Vietnam had both the My Lai massacre and the coining of "fragging" due to soldiers throwing fragmentation grenades into the tents of their own officers.
I see people leaving their government and media positions in protest but I’d like to remind them that they are much more effective if they remain where they are. The CIA has an excellent manual just for situations like these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
I don't think that ordinary diplomacy is going to work here. The US is in the middle of a totalitarian coup, and that should be called out by our friends and allies more forcefully.
Stop trying to ingratiate yourself with Trump. He doesn't deserve it and you won't get anything out of it but humiliation.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller"
They have no real concept of the mobilization of people power, street protest, disobedience because it's been stripped from the ideological palette of American liberalism.
Those on the left who do hold these concepts of opposition are deliberately marginalized by their two party system.
Just like with Russians and the war, the world cannot expect domestic dissent within these countries to save them. It's up to the people of Europe & Canada to form alliances and do the best we can.
What's odd is that, despite considering themselves "left", no one them seem to have gotten through enough Marx to understand the concept of "ideology" which is the basis for their distorted worldview.
I always felt this 4chan Harry Potter copypasta perfectly captured contemporary American liberal ideology: https://preview.redd.it/qiqe74sl19141.jpg?auto=webp&s=07645c...
Again, a perfect examples... somebodies writings on ideology.
Trump wants all of their mineral resources for a flimsy ceasefire. With no concessions from Russia.
It's a bad deal. Would you fold because people would die when your sovereignty is threatened?
There was no future where the Ukraine was not exploited by fossil fuel companies and only propaganda separates which is the "good" side to control these and which is the "bad".
I'm genuinely surprised by the mass naivete surrounding this war.
This is objectively not true. The US government absolutely participated in over throwing the existing pro-Russian government around 2014. The US does not fight wars for "moral principles" like sovereignty, they do it so they can maintain control over fossil fuel resources.
This war, like all wars, is a war of different wealthy individual and organization to control resources. All other views are propaganda generated to gather support for the loss of human life in the interest of oligarchs across the globe.
> Now that the US changed into a wannabe imperialistic nation,
I'm not sure I know anyone who has paid attention to global politics since WWII who would not describe the US as an "imperialistic nation". If you earnestly believe this is some new turn in US history you have a lot of catching up to do on our involvement in overthrowing governments around the globe to maintain US friendly leadership in counteries that control key strategic resources.
This is explicitly Russian propaganda. There is no evidence of this. Euromaidan happened because Ukrainians wanted to get closer to Europe, which is why they voted for people who said they would get closer to Europe, and then aggressively erupted into protest when that leader went to Russia and came back with a 180 degree different plan.
It's the same as Iraq, except using that US "soft power" everyone started fetishizing as of last month.
Doesn't sound like a deal (good or bad) at all. It's a paper prop for Trump to wave around and exchange for a gold star from Putin.
This war started in the early 2010s as fossil fuel reserves were discovered all over Ukraine and Russian and US policy makers both rushed to gain control over them.
I'm surprised that people don't remember, but the US did support far right Ukrainian groups that did have Nazi sympathies in 2014. I remember because I had Ukrainian friends that where terrified at the types of people the US government was enabling.
There are no "good guys" in this conflict. It's two (well more than that) powerful groups of people with an interest in controlling fossil fuel resource in the regional. All other narrative around this are pure propaganda designed to get you to support the murder of Ukrainians in the interests of oligarchs around the world.
We are beginnign to experience the contraction of the global economy, and as material conditions worsen, expect everything else to follow suit. Democracy doesn't bring prosperity, it a consequence of prosperity.
The comparisons of Trump to Hitler as also mind-numbingly facile. Other than a penchant for authoritarianism, they share little in common. But what they do share in common is they are both emergent phenomena of their contemporary environments.
I know Trump has not been an example of tact but this is something else.
I'd love to have some idea of what they could actually have that he'd be ashamed of, but he's so shameless it's hard for me to imagine. Which makes me more inclined to think that he just hasn't met a dictator that he's not jealous of more so than anything.
Though I don't think he would be embarrassed by that. He'd just call it fake news and move on.
“Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” -Eric Trump, 2014
"In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" -Don Jr, 2008
Because they are pure evil people, just like putin, and nobody is stopping them. It's that simple.
Just imagine some photos and videos of Trump having sex with minors or even murdering someone emerge. Do you actually believe it will be damaging to him? “It’s fake, it’s AI, it’s our enemies trying to attack us”.
According to the CIA, which has never, ever fabricated anything in the entire history of its existence to justify starting or escalating wars.
You might want to read this Defense News article (https://archive.vn/UNXdC), titled "How DC became obsessed with a potential 2027 Chinese invasion of Taiwan".
***
"... according to an American official who later spoke to the press, Chinese leader Xi Jinping grew exasperated — not at the risk of war, but at the timeline.
“Xi basically said: ‘Look, I hear all these reports in the United States [of] how we’re planning for military action in 2027 or 2035,’” the official said. “‘There are no such plans,’” Xi said in the official’s telling. “‘No one has talked to me about this.’”
That first year, 2027, is a fixation in Washington. It has impacted the debate over China policy — a shift from the long term to the short term. It’s also helped steer billions of dollars toward U.S. forces in the Pacific. And in the last several years, it’s been a question mark hanging over the Biden administration’s approach to the region.
According to U.S. intelligence, Xi has told the Chinese military it needs to be ready to invade Taiwan by that year. ...
This became the standard line across the administration — affirmed by Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns.
“President Xi has instructed the PLA [People’s Liberation Army], the Chinese military leadership to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan. But that doesn’t mean that he’s decided to invade in 2027 or any other year as well,” Burns said during a TV interview in February 2023."
***
> This comes directly from Xi's speeches at the People's National Congress
You might be referring to his 2022 speech, where a part of his speech was given the title "XII. Achieving the Centenary Goal of the People’s Liberation Army and Further Modernizing National Defense and the Military". (https://archive.vn/tSO65)
If you read its contents, you'd realise that he was talking about modernisation goals for the PLA, and not about invading Taiwan at all. All the information publicly available about Xi's supposed plans to invade Taiwan in/by 2027 comes from the US. While I do not doubt China's imperialistic ambitions, 1) there are many ways for the Chinese to achieve reunification with Taiwan without a military invasion; 2) the CIA has very little credibility.
But I also don't see your point. "Don't believe the CIA, but do believe the Pentagon (according to this article), and also do believe China's propaganda minister". Clearly it's a thing the US Intelligence community disagrees on. But if Xi is saying China needs to be capable of having a massive sealift operation by 2027, arguing over whether it will actually happen or not is not actually relevant.
As a word of caution. Hitler denied plans for an invasion of France, as did the US for Iraq, or Putin for Ukraine - to give a variety of examples. If a dictator says ahead of time that they have a goal, we should not be surprised if they actually go for it.
Very likely. I interpreted your comment(s) to say that "The CCP said that they wanted to invade Taiwan by 2027", but my interpretation is seemingly wrong, and I ended up trying to address what I thought you said.
> we should not be surprised if they actually go for it.
Whether Xi invades Taiwan or not, I wouldn't be surprised either way. I'm not doubting at all that China has expansionist designs on Taiwan and the South China Sea. But there are many paths to reunification with Taiwan without starting a direct war. Why would China invade, when its leaders can clearly see that Russia, through strategic patience, bribery, and aggressive hybrid warfare, has finally won the Cold War without ever having to invade the US militarily?
Bribery is rampant among high-ranking military officers in Taiwan, for example. Many of them have been exposed to have sold classified information to the Chinese government for trifling amounts of money. China has also managed to poach a lot of former TSMC engineers to work at SMIC by offering generous salaries. Why take military action against Taiwan today (or in 2027) when China just has to be very, very patient, especially with Trump dragging the US into the realm of irrelevance?
All paths lead to Rome. China's war on Taiwan might be much more insidious and subtle than we expect.
1. Do you see a path to victory? If so, how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken? Conditioned on your answer - do you really care about Ukrainians?
2. Do you really believe that the West stands for the 'rules based international order' while it unconditionally supports the ethnostate of Israel holocausting it's indigenous population inside of a concentration camp?
3. Do you really consider Ukraine to be a democracy given that Zelensky has suspended elections and has repressed his political opposition?
On how many Ukranians have will have to die before Crimea is retaken?
How much of this is about Crimea? Russia already annexed it, and the world accepted that.
On anti-peace "pro-Ukranian" people
That is an inflammatory strawman that pretty much sums up that your commentary should be ignored. Zelenskyy's point is that Russia / Putin has not honoured past attempts at diplomacy, which rings true for me.
Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine. How anyone could forget that when only about 35 years ago they controlled regimes that consist of 40% of Germany in addition to all of Eastern Europe is beyond me. We're not talking about Crimea here, we're talking about Kharkiv, Tallinn, Helsinki. We're talking about the time they marched, with tanks, into Budapest and Prague. We're talking about the time Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. There is but one proven answer that stops people from dying in the long run over the past hundred years. I care about the Polish and Czech people who had their territory split up and who decided to fight and now have their nations back. Same with Ukraine. Whether that means Crimea or not is up to them, but it seems obvious which side one would rather support for lasting, permanent, peace. The one that united the old enemies of Germany, France, and the UK who had fought amongst each other but are now on the same side. The same side that Poland, and Spain are on, despite these five nations having fought again and again over a thousand years. Russia is the odd one out, despite some support for the minor players like Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. I don't see Poland forming a military alliance with France against Germany or vice versa. It's all, in a nutshell, against Russia, but it's also without any designs for an invasion of Russia.
Now that's peace. For the first time in history (except maybe for a few years after 1815) the nations of Europe haven't torn themselves into pieces for decades now, with one single perpetrator, Russia, being the exception. And Russia already has more than enough land, being the biggest country on the planet, and resources beyond imagination. You blame Russia is what you ought to do, you support a peaceful, prosperous Russia that stays within its borders.
As for point 3:
Article 83
> In the event that the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its authority is extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine , elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency.
Article 157
> The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.
No, it's not a democracy. _Because_ of the invasion by a hostile foreign power.
Just wondering, during WW2 would you have been critical of the "pro-UK people here", listing it above anything Nazi Germany, Vichy France or Soviet Union did, because the UK didn't have an election between 1935 and 1945?
Putin / Russia has a history of changing their minds in short order and trampling all over prior diplomacy.
The "peace" you're after is temporary, and it won't be Ukraine that breaks it.
Implictly making solving the Russia/Ukraine situation (which, again, is basically as simple as Russians just going home) require peace in the Middle East first seems like you just want to delay it for the next just about 5000 years?
- We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and children. THAT IS THE GOAL.
CONTEXT:
- Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing lethal aid which previous presidents did not do. He wanted to deter Putin while not also escalating.
- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION.
- Biden admin sent Kamala over to Europe in '21 saying it was time to add Ukraine to NATO. Good job guys.
- Biden then said his response to a potential Putin invasion would "depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion" (I'm generalizing).
- Biden then flopped Afghanistan. US weak.
- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down.
Europe and Ukraine are relying on the US to bankroll/supply a war with one of the world's greatest nuclear threat. THIS ISN'T A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. The lines have been more or less drawn. If we continue this war, we either:
(a) at a minimum, drive Russia into closer alliance with China while killing many more Russians and Ukrainians
(b) provoke a hot war amongst many nations, leading to the death of millions
OR
We get a peace deal done with the general boundaries that have been consistent for nearly two years: Russia provinces going to Russia, a DMZ established, and Ukraine sadly smaller.
This isn't simply "we must support the Good Guys and defeat the Bad Guys". Right now Trump wants PEACE and feels as if Zelensky demands to call the shots. He can't call the shots. He is not the US.
Addendum:
Re mineral rights and the accusation "Trump just wants the $$$", you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?
If that was the goal, why is Trump asking for Ukraine's natural resources? Maybe his goals are different than yours.
---
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, which is why Ukraine was seeking protection.
From Ukraine's point of view, if they make peace now, and give up territory... Russia will do the same thing again in a couple of years. Many more people will die.
Russia doesn't care about killing off its population, they have lots of poor and non-ethnic-Russian citizens, and they think nothing of having them die to get some more land.
If the US is not willing to militarily defend it, it doesn't mean anything. Russia can just take the land, and cut a deal with the US to let them extract there for some time.
A security guarantee or NATO membership would be an effective deterrent to further conflict, but Trump doesn't want it.
But, if after several years a generation of my peers have been killed and I don't see a logic end to this war any time soon, well then I might start to re-evaluate.
But you know what's really dirty?
The pro-war people in the US are doing the opposite of what you say: gladly cheering on the slaughter of Ukrainians so long as it defeats the "boogeyman". Which side is more pro-Ukrainian? The side that results in more dead Ukrainians or less?
Indeed, this reads like a convincing argument to me.
> you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?
Honestly, the best pro-Trump explanation I've read. Well done! I'm sure that wasn't easy ;)
The second is only as trustworthy as Trump (i.e. not at all). What would prevent Trump from striking a deal with the russians after he "legally owns it anyway".
Third: Much is said about the Budapest Memorandum and what it isn't. But I think it very clearly says that US (and others) should not use Ukraines weakness as leverage to exploit it. Which is exactly what US is trying to do now, thereby becoming the second country to clearly violate it.
"- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down."
There was no such thing. The "peace deal" in question was a Russian capitulation offer, which was never signed.
"- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION."
There was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO simply due to the existing territorial disputes with Russia. Russian ultimatum to US in December 2021 was clear — get NATO to pre-1997 — Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic etc should all leave NATO. That would mean dissolution of NATO effectively.
"a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?"
It can work the same with Russia occupying the same territory. There is nothing there about "Ukraine" per se.
- Be aggressive against China allies to weaken them before attacking China (Biden)
- Try to be friendlier to China allies so they become US allies or at least neutral (Trump)
We are seeing oscillations between those two strategies, because both US factions are playing his cards according to what both see at the end of the tunnel: A new World War with US and China as the main actors, the most probable outcome of imperialism and capitalism crisis. The Trade war is his first act.
To quote Dean Acheson from Thirteen Days, “Hopefully cooler heads will prevail before we reach the next step.”
The US has the nuclear trident, the Ohio ICBMs nuclear submarines, the Gerald Ford Class Carriers, the thousands of Minutemen delivering warheads in 20 minutes or less, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Air Force in the World...
All of that, not to mention the soft power precisely in order to avoid having to pull this sort of BS in the oval office
The US strenght is the system , not the dude in the expensive house on Penn Avenue with the nice plane. He very rarely adds something but can absolutely throw lots of the systemic effort down the sink
Donald Trump is not a strong man. He is a weak baby with no self-control and very little knowledge about anything useful.
He also sucks at golf.
Just the facts:
1. Zelensky did indeed say thank you, at the beginning of the conference.
2. Zelensky made faces at various points of the initial questions. Mostly in frustration with reporters but also in frustration with Trump
3. Zelensky shook his head when Trump started making some remark he disagreed with. A reporter even followed up on him shaking his head. This was the preamble to the bigger argument.
4. Finally, Zelensky asked Vance a provocative question "what kind of diplomacy are you talking about?" which started the shouting match.
Zelensky and this administration simply do not want the same thing. This kind of altercation was probably inevitable in some fashion, but it should've been done in private. Zelensky now gives no chance for the administration to even save face if they do decide to help more.
They've been "negotiating" with Ukraine's invader behind Ukraine's back. Concocting mineral right "deals" that they believe Ukraine _must_ accept; without their involvement and without security guarantees. Voting "against" them in the UN. Making false statements about who invaded who. Etc.
And he's gonna not, rather politely, push back and ask questions instead of getting steamrolled? They started this off with Brian Glenn grilling him over his lack of suite and accusing him of disrespect while they snickered and sneered. Let's not forgot that those "jokes", and this entire presser, are in the context of an ongoing war with nearly 1,000,000 dead and wounded now.
If anything I think Zelensky smoked them out for all of the US public and Europe to see. Why would he avoid that?!
Zelensky and his team wanted this minerals deal to happen because they saw it as a step towards getting Americans on their frontier, which would act as a shield against Russia.
He even wanted to come back to the White House after the fiasco. Trump says no.
The problem isn't going away, and pretty much all of Europe(all western liberal democracies really) have come out in support since that meeting. They may get what they need yet.
But Europe would never step up if Trump didn't play hardball.
The issue is- who from Europe will step up?
All the European governments are overwhelmingly bureaucratic and boring. No leader amongst them.
My speculation is this - Trump in his head thought he could steam roll “peace in 24h” kind of thing with no pushback like he can do domestically.
He went (behind Ukraine’s back) to talk with ruzzians - they gave a hint that it’s either total Ukraine’s capitulation or they are not interested.
Trump then tried to extort Zelenski into signing capitulation wrapped into “minerals deal”.
I strongly believe Zelenski was hoping to find common ground in the white house, but trump did not give in and understandably, neither Zelenski wanted to stick to original plan as he said it multiple times in a week before.
Then Trump felt fire under his feet - mister “art if the deal” couldn’t strong arm Ukraine into capitulation. How he will look against MAGA? He needs to show he’s “the man”. Bully the man standing up to the modern Mordor, like a bunch of 13 year olds after school.
.. but “it’s great TV”.
EDIT: btw trump could’ve used same leverage against ruzzia. I’d argue ruzzia is not in better spot than Ukraine. Blockade ruzzian shadow fleets, set fire to their war chest, whatever. But trump instead chose to align himself with despotic dictators instead of alies. Trump is really scared of Putin (see Helsinki meeting of 2018), but has personal vendetta against Zelenski for not bending the knee for Biden investigation.
This is simply not true. Zelensky and his cabinet rewrote the initial minerals deal (which was not favorable to them) and wanted it. Zelensky even wanted to come back to the White House to sign it.
Zelenskyy's question is perfectly reasonable and not at all aggressive because of the context provided by the history that Zelenskyy has previously explained ad nauseum.
Trump and Vance react aggressively / defensively to it because they don't have an answer that fits their narrative, so the only option they have up their sleeve is aggressive accusation to distract from their lack of a decent answer.
They're in denial of reality.
Now it's even less likely he'll get that.
Vance said Trump was trying to be diplomatic, which is, in fact, true. Whether true or not, or whether he agrees with diplomacy or not, Zelensky should've moved on. He didn't. he started an argument with his hosts in their own house. Bad move.
It should be noted that WSJ is conservative and owned by News Corp. They have often sided with Trump. They have no reason not to paint his actions in a light most favorable to him.
Finally, it is the responsibility of our heads of state and government to keep as cool a head as possible, even when are challenged. This is a basic requirement of a good manager, let alone the leader of the free world.
Zelenskyy: “Can I ask you?”
Vance: “Sure. Yeah.”
Zelenskyy: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the --"
Trump: “2015?”
Zelenskyy: “2014.”
Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”
Vance: “That’s exactly right.”
Zelenskyy: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
----
Then the argument starts. Vance's said nothing aggressive against Zelensky, he was talking to a reporter. He, like I said, said Trump is trying to be diplomatic, which, like I said, is true.
For the 40 minutes before this exchange both sides were obviously in disagreement about certain things, but it was quite respectful, tho Zelensky was obviously frustrated at times.
Also, there's a moment during the argument when Zelensky literally calls Vance suka under his breath watch the clip in this article. [1]
The mainstream media hates Trump and Vance and want to blame them for a cloudy day. But if you just watch the full video you can see it's much more complicated than that.
[1] https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-news/2025/03/01/67c326...
If you look at my other comments, you’ll see that I recognize that there is room for good-faith disagreement on the merits of whether we should continue to provide money and weapons to Ukraine, and what stance we should take towards Russia. What I don’t think is negotiable is that we should be courteous toward our guests, even those that challenge us. Politicians should be judged on both their substantive positions and their character. People who support Trump appear all too keen to ignore the latter because they agree with the former. (In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted.)
Regarding “suka,” I believe there are multiple interpretations of the intent there. A charitable interpretation is that he was expressing frustration and not hurling a personal insult. Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
Doesn't matter, my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed. It was yet more misinformation from the media.
> In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted
Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky. Zelensky needs stuff from Trump. They can react however they want because they're not asking for protection from a nuclear power.
> Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
Not a lynchpin, it's yet another example of how Zelensky totally dropped the ball because of his desperation.
The simple fact is that it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing.
WSJ did not claim that he “started the argument.” They claimed he initiated the “nosedive.” These are not the same thing. From what I can tell, most people agree with that. At any rate, I don’t think I’m going to persuade you.
> Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky.
What has that got to do with whether they overreacted? Do you, in your personal life, berate people from whom you don’t need anything who ask you for a favor? Would you teach your children to do it? Do you manage people this way? A good leader lowers the temperature in the room; he doesn’t escalate it.
> it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing
That’s not America. Or at least it’s not how we have been for the past 200+ years. We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support. And I don’t see why we should start now.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and the potential for nuclear holocaust and you're worried that "We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support"
About a guy that's 6 years into a 5 year term.
Also politicians do the fake thing all the time, in America or otherwise. Zelensky included. It's not humiliation, it's part of the job description.
I could go on and on (ie he's not just asking for a "favor", but billions of dollars, weapons, and human lives), but I'm not sure this will get any more productive. You asked me for a citation as to why your WSJ article sucks, I gave you 2.
Respectfully, I don’t think you understand that treating people with courtesy is important, even if you perceive them as starting an argument, and even if they irritate you. It’s not just an appeal to emotion; it pays dividends in the end. If you don’t agree with that basic tenet, I don’t know what to tell you.
He has lots of history proving he is no innocent man.
He comes from theatre background, so he loves doing theatrics.
He is cause of this public infighting.
Look at full interview please.
- He is president of one of most corrupt countries, don’t think him as a saint.
- Look at reactions of his own ambassador, you will understand why she is disgusted.
- Trump is a straightforward man. Zelensky very well knew terms of deal before he flew to Washington.
But he came because this drama is what he wanted, for his selfish and sponsored agenda.
This will not end well for him.
Ukrainians need a different leadership.
Felon. Crypto grifter (selling corruption out in the open?). Known adulterer. TV personality - so he “makes good TV” when in front of cameras.
Whole world thought Ukraine will fall in 3 days (just like Putin). Zelenski asked for “bullets and not evacuation”. He stood his ground, united the nation, with kremlin’s assassins trying to constantly get him and he still visits soldiers on the front line regularly. Trump and JD are scared for their lives to even visit Kyiv.
He's trying to pressure Trump and America in general into giving Ukraine NATO membership or security guarantees against Russia.
Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.
Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.
That's not true. The agreement that both sides drafted was agreed upon and Zelensky planned on signing it.
> Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.
No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression.
> Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.
To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO. And the only time it's been used so far was for 911 when all NATO countries came to the US's aid after it was attacked.
As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU. The number Trump keep pushing, $350BN is lies. Ukraine has seen about $70 Billion. Which Zelensky has thanked the US for on may occasions, notably in front of congress. The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who commited war crimes and abducted children, and continue to bomb civilian areas say after day. Instead of shaking down a country and people at their weakest hour for money that was given to it by the previous president?
However there was reporting prior to his arrival that he didnt intend to sign it, and considered it something that lower level officials could do. This was after the impression was given that he was coming to the US to sign it, as you admitted was his intention.
> No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression
NATO membership for Ukraine is an attempt to call Russia's bluff that they wouldn't continue fighting, or escelate to nuclear weapons if Ukraine were admitted. That is a direct die roll on starting WW3 and Ukraine is not worth it.
> To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO.
I think you understood that I meant for Ukraine. If not, well, it wasn't difficult to see that's what I meant.
Yes, the US should, and I and most Americans do support, upholding Article 5 obligations.
> As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU.
I hope you're joking.
> The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who...
The west collectively went hard on Russia. We gave Ukraine more of a fighting chance than anyone could possibly hope for. But Russia is winning. We will not escalate to risking WW3. Ukrainians are amazingly tough people and what happened to them is a tragedy, but its in their best interest to stop fighting and dying.
There's zero risk of WW3 due to MAD doctrine, so nobody is dropping nukes. Russia couldn't take on one country, let alone dozens of them in a conventional war, so that's also not happening.
> As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU.
Definitely "less", though "much" is relative https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
I haven't seen a single thoughtful critique of Zelenskyy or his behavior on HN; it seems very one-sided and strange.
(also interesting that the BBC mispelled his last name, even though they're obviously big fans..)
And, if Zelenskyy is to be believed, it was a "grant", or a gift, which makes Zelenskyy's disrespectful attitude and hubris in the White House even more outrageous.
Do actual presidents show up in sweatshirts and insult their benefactors?
And my god if you think he showed up and insulted Trump, think how anyone would feel if you showed up for a photo op and got tag team bullied by the US president and vp.
How is what happened today surprising to you? Only if you live in American or Russian disinformation bubbles.
I will say in favour of Trump is he is trying to make a deal to stop the fighting and did threaten economic sanctions on Russia.
The mere unreliability of the government in keeping a narrative and position from one week to the next much less from one administration to the other is enough to alienate the allies. Count in annexation talks, tariff war as a negotiation gun.
If having US help requires kissing the president ass instead of being an ally and sharing of the American ideals, the US as it pretended to be, does not exist anymore.
Besides Donald Trump is demanding 500 billion dollars in minerals from Ukraine for further support which is far more than their contribution so far of 120 billion dollars.
Source: - https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af...
You can use the "hide" link to hide specific stories if you like.
EDIT: Looks like dang turned off flags.
It would be wonderful if we lived in time where we could put on blinders to what is happening around us. The times are getting a little too "interesting" though.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This is about politics. It is already being covered on TV news. Is it evidence of an interesting new phenomenon? It's unusual to see that sort of behaviour, sure, but in the Trump era? How surprised are we exactly?
All the comments are the very predictable trench digging. I'd rather see it flagged into oblivion.
Sheesh, think about the other point of view for more than 10 seconds please instead of just reacting.
Zelensky is facing opposition, every day ever since 2022, Trump faced his best friend Schumer and a whole bunch of people he laughs with when the cameras are off (or even when they are on considering how he laughed amicably with Obama at Carter's funeral.)
Romney would have never done this, the end of religion and the rise of social media could very well be the thing that ends us for good.
Seems like POTUS feels used / manipulated, but how & why?
Zelensky seems to disagree with some apparent proposed plan, but what is the plan & why does he disagree?
Russia realized it can keep taking territory if it does so slowly because everyone is afraid of a bigger war and sanctions don't bother the Russian elite that much, so in 2022 they start phase 2 and absorb the additional sanctions.
Trump has a new capitulation deal for Ukraine in hand, possibly pre-approved with Russia, but Zelensky either backed out of accepting the terms or was otherwise surprised about the details and didn't play ball with Trump; possibly because it included him losing a lot of face.
What Trump was offering was to take a chunk of their resources for another temporary peace offer. Which as noted above, will almost certainly be violated in the near term by Russia again. So Ukraine is not only back where they started, but also lost a chunk of their resources. Why would Zelensky agree to that?
US and Russia thought Ukraine was running out of steam, I suppose.
Zelensky refusing this offer is an interesting move. It could, of course, just be for show until next week when he does sign a modified deal.
Yep, but Zelensky/Ukraine needs guarantees that the US will enforce the deal. It's also bs that Trump and crew are putting the lack of peace on Ukraine - literally Russian propaganda talking points.
It sounds like this is the sort of reaction that Trump voters might like - both the form and substance. So Trump obliges. The foreign consequences might be of secondary importance to him.
Another possibility is that, we have seen over the past decade or so, illiberal autocrats seem to support and like each other - Orban, Putin, Le Pen in France, now also AfD and Musk. They seem to like the idea of strong leaders such as themselves, carving up the world. This might motivate Trump to side with Putin.
As to the plan: there doesn't really seem to be one, as far as I can tell. Trump implied there's some mineral extraction deal he wanted from Ukraine but unclear how it works. It doesn't promise the one thing Ukraine needs, which is security. Depending on your viewpoint, you might say Trump is extorting mineral rights from Ukraine, or that they want to put some structure on how the mineral wealth will be used to rebuild Ukraine - that's what is discussed at face value. But either way, for any mineral extraction, you need peace, so it's unclear why you would even discuss this while the war is going on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1hrs6oz/clos...
Once you understand the history behind NATO's expansionism, the unfortunate role Ukraine serves as a buffer zone, and the failures of US foreign policy under Obama, you will see how the crisis in Ukraine started. Then, once you factor in Zelenskyy's "non-negotiables", you will see how this exchange, while unprofessional, is not surprising in the slightest.
His analysis makes sense if you think people only live in the US and in Russia, and that Ukraine were an object.
But when you realize that Ukrainians are people, and they are choosing democracy and integration with the West -- it's not something the US is instigating -- Mearsheimer's analysis falls apart.
Because ultimately, Mearsheimer doesn't believe Ukrainians should have any choice over their own country. That only Great Powers like Russia and the US get to make choices.
Ukraine hasn't lost the war, what are you talking about?
Maybe in a couple more years we'll get to the point where that is clear, or even less. Or maybe Russia's economy will collapse (as it is currently teetering) first, and runs out of tanks and the ability to pay soldiers.
Just because US support seems largely gone, doesn't mean European support is. Europeans have been providing more financial support than the US has. And even if the US won't be paying to send US weapons to Ukraine, doesn't mean Europe won't be able to pay the US for those same weapons to send to Ukraine.
The arguments Mearsheimer is making are not whether Ukrainians should or should not have autonomy. It’s whether they do. And the sad reality is that they don’t, due to their unfortunate situation.
That's not true.
I don't know of any Western governments that have been "pushing" for NATO integration for Ukraine. Certainly not the US. And certainly not "the West" as a whole.
There have been internal debates in the West over whether Ukraine should be admitted to NATO if Ukraine wants to. And way back in 2008, Bush Jr. commented that he supported Ukraine on a path to NATO membership. But that's not "pushing" -- that's allowing in response to a desire from Ukraine.
> The west has immense influence on Ukrainians
I don't know what this even means. Do you think Ukrainians don't think for themselves, or something? That seems awfully paternalistic.
Reality: Countries wants to join NATO, the defensive alliance, because Russia repeatedly invades countries.
NATO has expanded because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and neither Finland nor Sweden would've joined if Russia didn't attack Ukraine.
Besides the point, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with entropyneur's claim that NATO expanding is a "russian propaganda".
Putin is the one who started it, and he can stop it any time.
Anyone else can only get the peace of surrendering to a violent dictator willing to conquor.
Let's say that Putin is not the only person in Russian leadership who supports war with Ukraine. What then? I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse.
I know. I know. That would never happen in a million years. But humor me. What then? Do we have a plan for "we took out Putin and it didn't change anything"?
Or is this whole thing just a fly by the seat of the pants kind of thing?
Feel free, this is no parade for me. And if anyone is taking me seriously*, they need serious alternatives to my beliefs.
* which would be their first mistake, as I'm a software engineer not a geopolitical military analyst
> I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse
What would "worse" look like?
Putin is already at war, has a massive propaganda network and fake elections, yet still feels unable to have another round of mobilisation due to the internal political fallout.
Putin is already threatening nuclear weapons, has already updated doctrine — "The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia." - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo
The only way to be worse, is to actually use them.
Then you're starting to see my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
Putin is already a threat, without actually using the weapons.
Cold war was rather less theoretical in Europe than in the USA. The USA got to argue about missile gaps and sending conscripts to prevent domino effects; we got to watch troops and tanks doing maneuvers by shared land borders they themselves had fortified.
A forum like HN will be familiar with the misdeeds of the CIA/NSA/Five Eyes; much of Europe with the KGB/Stasi/ etc. from allied/puppet states.
Friends in the UK got married, the father of the bride talked about fleeing torture in (communist) Poland. The current prime minister of Poland was part of the movement that overthrew communist rule, leading to his own arrest: https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/donald-tusk
Russia gets the blame for pulling everyone's strings in the cold war.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: tried to appease Russians, still got invaded, governments overthrown, puppets installed as replacements, a large part of the local population was deported to Siberian labor camps in multiple mass actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Priboi This was followed by a 50-year military occupation that saw severe violations of human rights, suppression of national identity, and developmental retardation that left these countries severely behind of their free counterparts.
Poland: Russians colluded with Hitler and invaded from both the west and the east in September 1939. Germans started burning Jews in ovens, Russians set up an industrial operation to murder Polish politicans, lawyers, officers and other national leaders by tens of thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Hundreds of thousands were murdered in total and 1.5 million deported to Siberia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_c... In Poland too, Russians installed a dictatorship at the end of WWII that severely held the country back until the 1990s.
The rest of the journey southward on the European map remains homework for you to complete.
After that, we can philosophize why no one likes Russians, if that still remains unclear.
But even regardless of wars - there was always some degree of russophobia without any good reasons. Maybe it's just a fear of a big neighboring country, I don't know.
As for Katyn - you are right, it was indeed a crime by USSR's Stalin and it's a shame USSR hasn't admitted to that crime until as late as 1990.
Thank you for that reply.
Also, the poster above gave you actual examples that you're handwaving as "regardless of wars" and then go on to say "russophobia without any good reasons"?
Please don't try to wash this over as "USSR" or blame it on Stalin. It's called Russia now and Putin is in charge, but the fundamentals haven't changed, they're still russifying captured territory by displacing local people and they still have no regard for basic human rights.
Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives. Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they?
Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't?
It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer.
Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
It's about living in a democracy.
Is it worth dying to ensure your children live in a democracy where they have control over their future?
Or is it better to allow a dictatorship like Russia to engulf your country, and your children grow up under authoritarianism?
It's not boundaries as much as an invading political system you despise.
So I'm talking about those specific territories -- all of Ukraine.
You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
> You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
I honestly do not know. If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes.
> If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes. That is the military intervention that Ukraine is continuing to take against Russia currently.
Does it all make sense now? Why Ukraine shouldn't just let itself be invaded, in order to avoid deaths?
People are willing to fight for freedom, even if they might die in the process.
By your logic, you're saying everyone should just surrender to violent bullies. Most people don't think that kind of subjugation is a life worth living -- not if they can help it.
Because when you wrote:
> One of them will have to stop, if neither does, there will be more bloodshed, that is a given, right? If Putin does not stop, shouldn't Zelensky do?
You can say in WWII, if Hitler does not stop, then shouldn't Churchill/FDR/etc. stop to avoid more bloodshed?
It's the same thing. It's an expansionist European land grab by a dictator. Just take how you understand WWII and apply it to this conflict.
So stopping Hitler through whatever means necessary results in less deaths, right? That was my initial point: less deaths.
You think that would have been preferred then? You would prefer that today we would live under a fascist Third Reich, instead of democracies, so that we could have saved the lives of those who fought in WWII?
I mean, you're free to prefer that. But everyone who fought did it because they thought it was worth it to die, to save democracy so they and their children and their children's children wouldn't have to live under fascist rulers from another nation.
Maybe you don't think Ukranians should fight. But Ukranians clearly believe it's worth it. And people in the country honor those who die for it. And I do too.
Because short term survival means surrender, followed by the medium term getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country.
Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits? Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt to do it?
Having already done it three times:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-ukrainians...
What is currently limiting him from going further is, specifically, the armed forces of Ukraine.
I am referring to NATO, UN, ICC, Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, as they are Russia's key trade partners).
So there are those deterrents: legal charges, sanctions, political pressure, military retaliation, geopolitical fallout, and internal resistance within Russia itself.
Even Russian oligarchs and elites might resist, fearing total international isolation.
There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
NATO only applies if they go specifically for a NATO country — which is why Ukraine wants into NATO in the first place, and why the invasion of Ukraine got Finland to join in a hurry. Also this is only a risk while NATO continues to still exist, which is threatened both because Trump has explicitly said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
And: https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-offshore-drilling-gul...
And: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/former-australian-pm...
But also Russia is starting to prepare for direct NATO confrontation anyway: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-west-push...
> UN
Russia is on the permanent security council, they have a veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
> ICC
Already has arrest warrants for them, can't escalate further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
> Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, they are Russia's key trade partners).
None of this stopped them so far, why would it start?
Especially on trade: Russia is a petrostate, their main export is fuel, the invasion of Ukraine by itself sped up the European transition away from fossil fuels in general and their fossil fuels in particular, and everyone Russia does business with — including "allies", though that's too strong a word for their relationship with India — has every reason to take advantage of the price ceiling to get discounts even when they don't explicitly take part in the actual ceiling itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_crude_oil_price_c...
> There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
Why are you ignoring the evidence that this has already happened three times?
Why do you insist on treating this as a hypothetical?
From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union. Additionally, people say (probably rightly so) that Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
Assuming this is true, it's because these are soviet leftovers who had a low education, were indoctrinated from a young age, and lived during the dream phase where you were told what to do, where to live, etc. Then came the bill when everything collapsed because this didn't work. I can make everybody happy tomorrow by emptying the state coffers and institutionalizing national NEETDOM, can't promise our happiness will last long but we can try! And regardless of what they think, it was shit.
Edit: about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke right?
No, genuine question, he is Eastern European. Let us go further, they claim Hungary is pro-Russian, how come?
Rather a minority of people above a certain age. Like, these days you can go to the shop and buy a banana. Other things, too. I still remember the queues, at the end of which... there was nothing.
In fact, you're so wrong that we're no longer in the realm of having opinions. You're objectively wrong. Look up comparisons of the economic growth of nations to the west of the Berlin Wall and to its east. Germany's alone would suffice, but have at it.
And then you think bringing up outliers means anything... If chess is so difficult why is Magnus Carlsen so good at it? Therefore, chess is an easy game, gotcha. yawn
But if you consider the majority of the elderly in villages as outliers, then have at it.
It does not change the fact that many of them said that life was better in Soviet Union.
How am I objectively wrong? All I claimed was that some people preferred their life in Soviet Union. I think you read too much into it.
Sometimes, it's simply not possible to have both.
Do you truly expect Ukraine to just roll over?
Can you genuinely not imagine being under the thumb of a dictator who sends you off to die?
Elsewhere in this thread you're responding to me as if you don't even seem to accept that this can occur despite the fact that it already has.
You accused others with having a voice of moral superiority, but your "I did not pick a side" is just that.
There are only two possible outcomes to this war. Either Ukraine still exists as a sovereign nation, or it doesn't. The first will require continued fighting. There is no possibility for Ukraine to remain sovereign without violently kicking Russia out of its land.
Neutrality only supports aggressors.
What you described is black and white thinking, however, and there is much more to it than just "either Russia wins or does not win", pretty sure there can be a compromise, you know, a middle path, that is good enough for both parties and consequently there will be less deaths.
If people want to die for justice, so be it. Up to them, but:
Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Do you?
Because Russia is the invader. It lied about the troop movements being a prelude to invasion. It lied about the reasons for invading. It has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes. It has made nuclear threats to dissuade others from helping Ukraine defend itself. It has threatened Finland for daring to join NATO.
> pretty sure there can be a compromise
Why do you think this?
Russia can stop their unlawful invasion of a sovereign country any time they want. That they have not done so ought to be a QED that they don't want to stop.
> Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Would you talk about the invasion of your own country in the same vein?
I don't know where you live. USA? Imagine Russia had in 2014 annexed Alaska the way they've annexed Crimea, and in 2022 started trying the same on the states of Washington and Montana, and briefly had control of the I-90 as far as Chicago before being repelled.
If that happened, would you say "pretty sure there can be a compromise"?
The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries".
The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
Nothing about Russian state behaviour looks like they're willing to behave. Not the military action, not the broad-daylight assassinations (not only in Ukraine, but also in Germany and the UK and Turkey), certainly not the war crimes.
Right now, the Russian government is acting, and talking, as if Ukraine isn't even a real country.
In summary, the question of whether boundaries or human lives matter more is a complex one. The dilemma is whether compromising sovereignty for the sake of peace or minimizing deaths is truly just, or if it's more just to stand firm for a nation's right to self-determination - even at the cost of more suffering. The comparison to Iraq, Lebanon, and suicide bombers underscores how subjective "justice" can be. What one side believes to be justice doesn't always align with what is objectively right according to international law or human rights principles (more about it later).
The core issue here is how we define justice in conflict situations: is it about preserving borders and sovereignty, or about protecting human lives? It's a deeper, more nuanced question that forces us to reflect on the values we prioritize in these difficult circumstances.
To have done "the same", he would have needed to force Russian citizens living in occupied Kursk to pick up guns and throw their lives away fighting other Russians. Which he didn't.
Russia did force people from occupied territories to fight in Ukraine.
This is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not the US. Nobody should want western powers to enter this war because of the potential consequences. But if western powers make security guarantees, isn't that what you risk?
What are Zelensky’s aims, they’re pretty damn obvious, do everything in his power to remove a foreign aggressor from Ukrainian land. Why would expect people who have been invaded to not defend their country and their land?
Look: I do not believe the world will be a more peaceful and prosperous place if America continues the path of providing billions of dollars in weapons and military aid to the Ukraine war effort. My question to others is: Do you believe I'm wrong in this assessment, and that the world will be more peaceful and more prosperous if we continue funding this war? Or, is it that: Do you believe that Peace and Prosperity are not Generally Good things we should strive to achieve?
Is the aim to negotiate for peace, and in that negotiation ensure Russia gets nothing? If so, do you believe that to be a realistic thing Ukraine can ask for right now? Even if the United States is brokering the negotiation, and wants this for Ukraine, what can the United States bring to the table to help make it happen? Is your suggestion that the United States go so-far as to guarantee Ukraine's security through direct military intervention?
That's where my brain is at on this; its a horrible situation, but if the goal we're optimizing toward is Peace and Prosperity, and I believe those goals to be laudable, and if we admit that the United States is not All Powerful (as proven by our billions in military aid up to this point not as of yet Increasing Peace and Prosperity in the region): What options does the United States have left to help Ukraine? Do you want to lace up your boots and go to war for them? Or, is it just, do you want to send them another hundred billion in military aid, so the war can continue in a stalemate for another three years?
If you take the view that “Peace and Prosperity” can only be achieved by surrender, the. Putin will simply do what he’s always done. Invade neighbouring countries then sue of “peace”, and will keep doing that until he’s claimed the entire of Europe. And all of Europe will live under whatever “Peace and Prosperity” Putin deems we’re allowed.
And yes, funding this war will ultimately result in a longer, better peace, and greater prosperity, by making it clear to Putin that he can’t just take what he wants. Otherwise we might as capitulate now and give Putin his every demand, regardless of how absurd it is, because apparently “Peace and Prosperity” means handing everything over to the most violent individual in the room.
Zelenskies aim is for his country not to be conquered. There are no open demands from Russia to satisfy.
There's a logical flaw in what you are saying. Forcing Ukraine to accept a truce right now, without any security guarantees will result in a LOT MORE deaths. Russia will re-arm, using their oil and gas money, and in a year finish the job. Right now, Ukraine can hang on, but if Russia gets its shit together during a truce it's game over.
What could happen is that they negotiates a truce with security guarantees from the US or at the very least a no-fly zone. But Trump doesn't want that, Trump doesn't want to do anything, he want mineral rights to offset the cost of the last president gave Ukraine (Not $350 bn, that number is lies, its ~$70bn), asking for $400bn rare earths and other metals. I can only assume he will only give new weapons under the same terms. A shameful shakedown. And even if Ukraine agrees to this, Trump has said he won't enforce a no-fly zone or give a security guarantee.
The best thing Trump and the US can do from now on is just to not get involved in teh war. I can see Trump supporting Putin out of spite.
This isn’t the first time Putin has invaded another country, had the west capitulate for “peace”, then two years later Putin invades somewhere else.
Hell, Putin originally invade Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Every one made “pease” with Putin, and few years later he invades the rest of Ukraine. If Trump sell out Ukraine now, it might end the “official” war, but there will be endless civil/insurgency warfare in Ukraine for decades. The Ukraine’s have zero interest in allowing a foreign country simply take their land without a fight.
Any other "peace treaty" will only lead to Russia rebuilding and attacking again, leading to yet another war, having learned the important lesson that aggression works.
We want it to stop NOW, but that's wishful thinking just as world peace is. The sooner you internalize that, the better.
And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".
Nuclear war couldn't be won.
Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the prosecution of a nuclear conflict.
I wouldn't count on NYC being the only place hit. In fact, I wouldn't count on any of our port cities and even any mainland military infrastructure surviving the initial strike. Additionally, energy infrastructure would be severely crippled. None of that even counts the disruption to electronics and communication wrought by the EMP blasts. And no, none of it's coming back. I can assure any Russian readers that the same would happen to you in a nuclear exchange with us. The initial strikes would be unfortunate for europe, as I think they would likely fare the worst.
But as bad off as we'd all be, the worst would be yet to come. The secondary strikes are where the knockout blows would be dealt.
Nuclear war, (any war really), is raw and nasty. Don't expect "limited" strikes. By your own admission, we would send a massive retaliatory strike to Russia. It defies logic for them to send a limited strike our way. That's not how nuclear war works.
No other way from stoping Putin.
/s
Right now Europe needs time to build. The calculus has radically changed. They need to build out in a fashion that is massive, but also both quick and quiet. This situation is too serious for rash action. Especially where victory is not guaranteed.
Europe is already in this war and it is costing us money and European lives if we want or not.
It is though to come to such meetings when the other party (the Trump administration) genuinely does neither care nor likes you.
That being said, I'm gonna point out Zelenski himself.
1) You can't be sitting in the oval office and tell the president of one of the most belligerent and bloodiest countries in the world "you cannot understand how it is to defend yourself, you're surrounded by oceans on both sides". If there is one thing that you should never, ever do, is question America's willingness to pick a fight. That was what triggered hugely Trump (go check the video). That was a terrible mistake, directed to the bulliest president of the bulliest country in the planet, a gigantic blunder on its part.
2) I feel for Zelenski, but after what happened today, his political career is over, that's what pundits and political analysts all over eastern Europe are saying (they are much more critical of Zelenski's naivety than Trump's behavior). Former prime minister of Poland Leszek Miller has been very critical and said Zelenski came very unprepared and leaves in a worse position.
He quits the White House in a critical situation and if Ukraine wants to get some kind of leverage it will have to necessarily consider a change of leadership. Zelenski's stance has been terrific in the first years of war, but now he's alone and unable to get most of what he can for Ukraine.
But the choose to fight and it’s not on their home ground. Totally different situation. You can’t just leave if you begin to lose like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
They never faced the win or lose everything situation since their independence.
Trump: You don't know that.
Zelenskyy: God bless, you will not have a war...
So, it is what it is, and you need to be careful of what you say when dealing with people like Trump, especially in front of the cameras.
That wasn't what triggered Trump in that moment.
What triggered Trump in that moment was being told a prediction about the future with an imperative sentence.
Trump viewed that as a personal command and his narcissistic personality cannot handle that.
This was a photo op opportunity. His job there was to make Trump look good, so he could secure additional support and funds. He was there to stroke Trump's ego for the media, likely join Trump on the lets-play-the-tough-guy pushing Europe to open the wallet, and maybe, just maybe, lightly mention that ceasefire is a good first step, but it alone is not enough.
Instead the tried to pick a fight with the bulliest of bullies, in their home turf, in front of a hundred journalists recording every second. You don't try to be a smartypants and teach history to the guy who got elected in rewriting history (see them debating the who-did-what in 2015-2016).
I think this was a colossal mistake in the 3D chess of this invasion.
Now he gave all the reasons for Trump to wash their hands of any responsibility, and let Europe fix the mess.
The only thing that may still keep Trump engaged is Trump's own ego. He was seeing this as an opportunity to go in the history books as the biggest peace dealmaker, and potentially a Nobel Peace prize winner. Now.. not so much.
Normally we'd just ban an account that has been posting like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=jumpman_miya, but your account is 7 years old and I don't want to ban it without at least giving you a chance!
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Somehow all of the whiny commenters on here forget that DJT's first administration provided considerable CIA/Tier1 training and resources to the Ukrainian military. Then Russia invaded while Biden was president. They didn't invade on Trump's watch. They invaded while Biden was running(?) our country. Now, yet again, Trump has to go clean up the mess -- just like he did after Obama gave Putin the flexibility to invade Ukraine after his win in the 2012 election.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [...], unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
What is the interesting new phenomenon this is supposed to be evidence of? (The question is not intended to be a statement.)
That's all.
I just watched the video and it was normal until Vance started shouting a bunch of stuff at Zelensky.
Obviously Trump & JD did not handle that well and embarrassed anyone that believes in the value of international diplomacy.
For some more backstory on Zelensky's disposition you can listen to Lex Friedman's take. He went to Ukraine to interview him with the only goal of making peace more likely and couldn't get Zelensky to move an inch in that direction during their discussion. He believes that Zelensky is an amazing leader in many respects, but poorly equipped (mentally) to make peace. [2]
[1] https://youtu.be/uqOOOR7Kr-s?si=5lbj-fGWTZzYMVwB [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2EL8hkwGE
> WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;
If nations beleive this is a just war then they should send troops to the ground. Otherwise it seems like Ukraine citizens are sent to their graves while west is again virtue signalling.
> If in March 2025, people still don’t understand that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war started by NATO, you are either biased or utterly stupid. All the documents are freely available.
I had a discussion with someone yesterday. I said Russia started the war, but his argument is completely the opposite. People actually believe this and it's getting harder to convince them otherwise.
Low comment count posts usually have better discussions on the topic, where every third post is not a wish to die from radiation poisoning.
People I know haven't changed much so I guess there might be some selection bias?
You say Trump is distancing but the reality is, Ukraine people are dying and he's the only one to offer and off ramp and not endless bloodshed. It's as of nobody in this thread values human life, only important thing is orange man and Putin bad. What Putin did sucks and but it has been happening throughout all human history. The solution is not endless bloodshed. Any offramp and chance at peace should be welcomed by anyone one values life.
Trump was elected on negotiating a peace, and that's going to piss off Zelensky. Zelensky became entitled to a blank check with no strings attached. Now the terms have changed.
There are some people who expect dialog to proceed like an HR meeting, and those that find relief in direct and sometimes heated language.
To me the meeting felt like a tremendous relief. A resolution will develop, finally.
Trump, the master negotiator /s
A shameful, tactless and pre-planned display. it's easy to blame trump and vance but the true losers here are the American people. American soft power is critical to America's economic power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufa...
Or generally, since you say this did not deviate from your expectations, what are the past events that influenced your baseline expectation for conduct on the geopolitical stage?
There have been a ton of them, at least according to historical accounts. But none in front of reporters like this.
Trump doesn’t seem to care if people are unhappy or uncomfortable, it’s like he has his list of things he said he’d do and he’s sticking to it.
It is true that he doesn’t care if people are unhappy or uncomfortable, it’s true he doesn’t care about optics, it is true that he has a set of things he wants to get done, and it’s true the first two points influence his approach to achieving the latter. However the question - the only question that matters - still remains: is this approach the most effective course of action to choose? Maybe it’s not reasonable to assert with complete confidence that it isn’t, but it is certainly unreasonable to assert that it is.
Hacker News has fallen victim to the reality tv star’s antics
e.g.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43198759
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121467
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110333
I would argue all days
> Is there an option C for both
absolutely :)
Trump is not given special treatment here. What he does gets reported just as any other President: Biden, Bush, Clinton, etc. In the 80s Reagan's leaked "we will begin bombing in five minutes" soundcheck joke attracted quite a bit of criticism "because the president should be more careful with his words".
Most commenters have highly inadequate view of the Ukrainian situation. I wonder why. Even in highly censored and manipulated universe of western information space, there are enough facts to form more adequate views. What makes people ignore the facts and stick to the wrong views?
I suspect it's because of a feeling instilled, that sticking to these opinions makes them good people. If you #StandWithUkraine you become a kind of a moral hero.
Paradoxically, this confirms the need for brainwashing in mass politics. If normal, sufficiently intelligent and developed audience can not form adequate views of political questions, somebody needs to guide their views.
Unless some new technology or social organization emerges, that allows public to form a balanced and adequate opinion, some guides will need to brainwash the public.
But when the guides are themselves inadequate, troubles happen.
I think everyone knows Ukraine is at a disadvantage in this war in terms of manpower, ammo, money, resources, allies, etc.
But what Zelensky said in the meeting is true. Ceasefires and agreements don't mean much to Putin. He has broken them in the past. He's not someone who can be defeated in diplomacy.
It's a tough issue without an easy resolution. I don't think people here think otherwise?
Zelensky messed up here. He and his country are a position of need. Ukraine needs the US, not the other way around. In that position, you don't walk into the Oval Office arms crossed, eyes rolling, head shaking with your demands. You come in with the understanding the US has given you over $300 billion in aid, the US is offering a minerals rights deal that benefits your country economically and binds the US and Ukraine closer economically, politically and most likely militarily (the US protects its interests abroad). Given that, you come in with a thankful attitude seeing that this deal is the beginning, not the end of the solution to your problems. It's a very good beginning. You'll have disagreements with the President for sure. You air those out behind close doors, not in the house of your guests/benefactors for all the world to see. This is basic diplomacy.
This deal is very good for Ukraine. It's in Zelensky's court to salvage the damage he's caused. The Ukrainian people depend on it.
Russia does not hold up bargains, so there is no positive utility in giving them things.
> treaties [...] are worth nothing without the will and power to enforce them
Well, precisely. Russia has demonstrated time and again that they don't honor agreements. Any agreement where you give Russia something today in exchange for something tomorrow just doesn't work.
As for the rest of it... As said, Ukraine wasn't really on track for NATO membership. But even if it was, this is all hyperbolic speech from Russia. For one, they themselves have no issue having lots of weaponry right on the border, in Kaliningrad and Belarus. For two, they made so much noise about Ukraine, well, basically not being ruled out of NATO, but when Finland, with a much longer border and more money actually joined NATO, they whimpered some half hearted threats and were done with it. Didn't seem to care much one way or the other.
> [The parties shall] refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
If memory serves right, Ukraine didn't invade Russia, and Russia is not under a UN mandate.
They didn't. So entirely irrelevant.
> the fault of the USA was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this tragedy
The US basically accepted that demand, and Russia still attacked Ukraine. They wanted the land no matter what.
If Ukraine joined NATO - that would be disregarding Russian demands.
Russia just didn't want Ukraine to join because they wanted to annex the eastern part of it. Having it in NATO would mean that they couldn't do that.
Of course they're opposed to Ukraine joining even after that annexation - they'll take more land if they can get it. They don't care about human lives, will regroup, recover, and attack again.
And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022 threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a military base.
If Ukraine became a member before 2014, we wouldn't have had this horrible war, but Russia was controlling Ukraine's political class, and making threats to NATO countries against them joining. Especially against Germany who was reliant on Russian gas imports.
I can see that you're determined to believe that Russia is just defending itself here by attacking preemptively, and you will probably support any action by them, including a full annexation, and attribute it to their reasonable intentions.
No need to pretend that you have respect for me... But in reality what's happening is that you're dismissing information that doesn't fit in your worldview, by disparaging the person who presents them to you.
How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
I am not determined to believe anything, I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. I can give you countless examples over several decades where Russia protest NATO expansion and threatened consequences. Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? And before you say On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, make sure you actually read it.
> I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern.
The current NATO neighbors didn't present any threat to territorial integrity of Russia. The only reason Russia doesn't like them joining is that it doesn't have an option to militarily expand there anymore, something that is important to Russian leadership and people.
> How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier?
If Ukraine joined, Russia wouldn't touch it like it didn't touch any of the NATO countries. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a Russian minority, but Russia can't support separatist movements, and intervene militarily there as easily as in Ukraine or Georgia.
> I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth.
In geopolitics, there's no single "truth," only perspectives backed by evidence. Every Russian is taught in school that eastern Ukraine is "rightfully" theirs, and they get a compelling story to back up this belief. Ukraine being in NATO would make it impossible for Russia to act on this claim for decades, and the claim would have weakened with time.
> Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
Russia intervened in Georgia to support separatists, not to stop NATO accession.
> Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations?
https://irp.fas.org/news/2005/04/putin042505.html
"Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_units_which_in...
"You don’t understand, George, Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/accepting-nato-aspira...
They want the greater part "back".
---
The benefit of the doubt that you give to Russia is fantastic!
He pulls similar well-known tricks throughout the video. Shows a map that divides Ukraine into two parts by their dominant language and calls Ukraine "a badly divided country", but fails to mention that Ukraine is bilingual and the difference is only something like "92% speak Ukrainian / 88% speak Russian" and "91% speak Russian / 87% speak Ukrainian" in areas that have drastically different colors. Just compare the map shown at 6:22 with the magenta/teal bars representing Ukrainian/Russian languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/Fi... This manipulation technique is known as false binning: grouping values into distinct color categories that overemphasize minor variations.
The man is an incredible fraud, and the linked video is one of the most damaging pieces of propaganda produced this century.
There is no such thing as "NATO expansion". At the end of the WWII, the USSR rolled over the entire Eastern Europe while fighting Germany. After the war ended, they refused to leave, and instead set up Moscow-controlled dictatorships that lasted until the USSR collapsed. I was born in one of such. Couldn't travel nor read foreign books. Didn't have freedom of speech and other most basic rights. An inappropriate joke could get you jailed. I personally knew someone who was sentenced to a Siberian labor camp in the 1980s for advocating human rights. Economy stagnated severely and shops were empty all the time. People had money, but there was nothing to buy in stores. Even top scientists and engineers had to grow their own food on small plots to feed their families. Bananas and jeans were considered rare luxury items.
The shithole finally collapsed in 1991 and Russia was forced to end their military occupation: pack up their dictatorship, dismantle the oppressive secret services and remove their armies. We were finally able to live as free Europeans again after 50 years. Visit other countries, read and write whatever we wanted.
And to ensure that we would never see the return of Russia, we tried to get as deeply integrated with the rest of Europe as possible. That means membership in the Council of Europe, European Union, and NATO.
Eastern Europe's entry into NATO and other organization was motivated purely by the extremely traumatic post-WWII experience of living under the Russian boot. It was our strong initiative desire to join the organization, against cold reception of existing members who had no interest in extending their defence pact. Ironically, they accepted us only because they believed our fears to be unfounded, meaning that they would never actually have to help us fight Russian invasions onto our soil, but saw value in the stabilizing effect that being in NATO would have.
NATO is not a threat to Russia, because NATO mandates civilian oversight over military affairs, and the mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderator that forces every member to consult with others before any military actions. This makes NATO countries extremely stable and predictable. We can see this clearly with aiding Ukraine, where every step is discussed for months and telegraphed long in advance. The over-reliance on stronger members of the organization, namely the US, has led to most European members to being unable to defend even their own country. Who in their right mind calls such countries a threat?
Russians unaffiliated with the dictator Putin understand this perfectly. The man who was Russia's foreign minister for most of the 1990s decribes NATO as "providing free-of-charge security along Russia's western borders". They have no problem with NATO and they are remarkably supportive of it.
The only ones raging over NATO are Putin and his cronies who have destroyed all opposition and consolidated all power in Russia and have now set their sights on external expansion through conquest. NATO stands in their way. They can't invade small countries one by one, but must face the entire bloc at once. They are unable to handle such a confrontation, hence their impotent rage.
And for long-term strategic planning it does not only matter what the situation is right now. Relationships change, the Cold War was not the same situation as the relatively good relations after the Cold War - were even the idea of Russia joining NATO floated around - and then the relationship heavily deteriorated again. So even if your characterization of NATO was correct today - and I would disagree, I think of NATO more as the USA plus some minions given the vast power differential - that is no guarantee for future behavior.
The narrative about NATO being a threat to Russia is also ridiculous in how detached it is from reality. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia, then why aren't Russians building air raid shelters as a mandatory part of every building, preparing their bridges for demolition, and carrying out other preparatory work like the Finns are doing? Why are the Finns digging anti-tank ditches and mapping border areas for minefields, while Russia's side is completely open and doesn't even have a chainlink fence? Where is the fear of NATO in real observable facts?
The problem Russia has with NATO is not an imagined threat, but the fact that NATO stands in the way of Russia conquering Eastern Europe again.
If Finland were not allied with anyone, Russia would face only Finnish regular forces with limited foreign aid when invading the country. The maximum opposing force would be relatively small and predictable. With NATO, Russia faces potentially everything, up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles tucked between cornfields in Ohio. For Russia, demanding that European countries be kicked out of NATO means significantly lowering the cost of invading them, but does nothing to shelter them from the most powerful NATO countries, like the US, which constitute the overwhelming majority of NATO's military force. This too reveals where the true concern lies.
I have repeatedly stated that both sides have good reasons for what they want, either joining NATO or not wanting NATO at the border. That is why there is even a conflict, because two parties want opposing things.
Your claim is essentially NATO is the good guy, so Russia being worried is irrational and nobody needs to care. That sounds more like focusing on one site to me. The USA is worried about Chinese military bases in Solomon Islands half way around the globe, so why can Russia not be worried about the USA in Ukraine?
Putin's dictatorship is indeed extremely irritated by Eastern Europe being in NATO for rational reasons, but those are different reasons than you are trying to present.
Besides that I can think of several reasons why Russia only has fields. Firstly, Ukraine is not yet in NATO, so any defensive measures would be premature. And they invaded Ukraine to maintain that state which seems a way stronger reaction then constructing defensive lines. Also building defensive lines implies worries about a ground invasion and it is not obvious to me that this would be Russia's primary concern.
They might, for example, be mainly worried about the nuclear balance. If the USA could place ABM defense systems closer to Russia, they might be able to more efficiently intercept Russian ICBMs in the boost phase when the missiles are still relatively slow and vulnerable. That would diminish the Russian retaliatory strike threat in case of a US nuclear attack. Also having weapons closer to the target reduces the reaction time the enemy has. For that kind of risk ground defense lines it not the reaction one would expect.
It might also be for simple reasons like a lack of resources. Or Russia might refrain from doing what it does not want NATO to do.
People often point to Napoleon or Hitler and claim that Russia fears an invasion over the flatlands of Eastern Europe. Yet, if we investigate this, we find that Russia's European neighbors are building defensive lines on their side, while Russia is not. This suggests that Russia is not afraid of a ground invasion, but its neighbors are.
Likewise, if you look at a globe, Ukraine is nowhere near the launch sites or flight paths of Russian nuclear missiles headed for the US. The Earth is not flat. Nuclear missiles would be launched from sites near in central and northern Russia, flying north over the pole toward the US - not west over Ukraine. Ukraine is geographically irrelevant to these flight paths because it is too far south.
So again, how does NATO threaten Russia?
There is one far easier explanation: NATO is not a threat to Russian security but a threat to Russian ambitions. NATO stands in the way of Russia invading other countries. If every country in Europe were isolated and didn't cooperate with others, a Russian invasion would face only their regular forces. For example, Estonia has just a few tens of thousands of soldiers, less than 100 artillery guns, a few HIMARSes, and some anti-ship missiles. No tanks, no air force, no navy. That's it - something Russia could clearly defeat. But with NATO, Russia could potentially face everything up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles when invading Estonia. Managable risk grows into unlimited risk.
This is self-evident from the invasion of Ukraine as well. Without foreign military aid, Ukraine could have been defeated long ago, but with the aid, Russia is stuck fighting for just the first fifth of Ukraine. Foreign military aid made the difference between victory and defeat for Russia in Ukraine, so naturally, they seek to isolate countries they intend to invade from military partnerships.
How can you even elect one person in a video as a proxy for your entire view on a subject, and say „watch, he will address all concerns”.
And there are essentially two points of view, either Russia has expansionist ambitions or Russia has legitimate security concerns not taken serious by the West. It is trivial to find someone that argues either position. And nuance does not matter here because we disagree on the absolute fundamentals, so it does not even matter whether I agree with every last word as long as I agree with the main points.
And am I neither Russian nor American nor do I feel close ties to any side, so I will happily change my position if someone provides the necessary evidence. But so far nobody has done so.
You're not referring to any primary sources here.
> In that respect I am easily better informed than 99 % of people
Bold claim, but even if true, doesn't mean that you can accurately assess the situation.
> there are essentially two points of view, either Russia has expansionist ambitions or Russia has legitimate security concerns not taken serious by the West.
The first is evidence based - Russia is expanding. The second has the convenient property that it backwards rationalizes Russia's violent actions, while not looking at the evidence. It requires mental gymnastics, and is therefore more popular with Russians who have an interest in believing it.
> nuance does not matter here because we disagree on the absolute fundamentals
Like what? Do you deny that Russia invaded Ukraine?
> am I neither Russian nor American nor do I feel close ties to any side
This is presenting the conflict as just two empires fighting over who gets the influence over the European countries, and completely ignores these countries' own agency.
The reason Ukraine wants to join NATO is because they're threatened by a neighbor who actively invades their territory, kills civilians, disrupts their economy ands terrorizes them. Not because they like Biden or want to be American.
You're not referring to any primary sources here. [...] The first is evidence based - Russia is expanding. The second has the convenient property that it backwards rationalizes Russia's violent actions [...]
Give me a pre-invasion source that says that Russia has expansionist ambitions, bonus points if that claim is substantiated by evidence. I give you Putin's speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference [1] and the draft Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [2].
And just to be clear, I think that declaring that Russia has expansionist ambitions is backwards rationalization, nobody claimed that before the invasion. Russia warning about the consequences of further NATO expansion, especially Ukraine, on the other hand has been stated countless times and for decades now.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
[2] https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en
Imperialism is an element of Russian culture that runs for centuries. You can only question it if you don’t know Russia’s history, or are just arguing in bad faith.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism
The criteria you have for interpretation of these sources are asymmetrical for Russia and for Ukraine, and I suspect you might be simply trolling me, so I need to disengage.
You’re willing to frame a devastating invasion as protecting themselves from the US! And ignoring Ukraine’s desire to protect themselves by joining a defense alliance!
You can also ask any Russian what they think about Ukrainian statehood, but you’ll be determined to search for obvious declarations of expansion intent in their censored media in English.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/features/analysis-putins-imperial-...
It requires a willful ignorance for the country’s structure, history, culture and the ambitions of their leaders.
Since you can just move the goalposts and provide a more and more narrow criteria for proof, there’s no way you can be convinced.
"Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation."
There is nothing in the quoted sentence or the rest of the speech that implies expansionist tendencies, quite to the contrary I would say.
Meanwhile, the horrible lessons of the past continue dictating their imperatives to us today. Russia, with its ties to former Soviet republics, states that are independent today, ties of common destiny, ties through the Russian language and a great culture, cannot stand apart from the universal aspiration for freedom. Today, when independent states have formed and are developing in post-Soviet space, we want to aspire together to meet human values, to embrace broad opportunities for personal and collective success and to achieve standards of civilization gained through suffering. These are the standards that can give us a single economic, humanitarian and legal space.
And the Russia Matters article quite nicely illustrates the deteriorating relationships between Russia and the West. Initially, I think, Putin really [wanted to] believe that everyone will cooperate and follow international law, but over time he became disillusioned. There is this theme of the shared Russian history that Putin repeatedly talks about, but this is always balanced by statements about the rights to sovereignty. He mostly talks about cooperation between states with a common history but he never says that anything has to be incorporated into Russia. Which is a really stupid idea to begin with, just imagine the amount of resources it would take to force a country like Ukraine into Russia when the population is categorically opposed to this.
Besides that, this is not really what I was asking for, I was thinking of political or military analysts or even just the media stating that Putin wants to conquer its neighbors. We can of course now look over all the things Putin said and cherry pick those that could be interpreted this way. But where are the statements like »For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.«?
So for moving the goalpost, I just want something concrete, not vague statements where I have to read something into it. Either, like in the case of Trump, from Putin itself, or in case he never said something like this, I am also happy with some analyst saying before the invasion, we have looked at what Putin says and does and we think he wants to conquer some of his neighbors in the future. Because that is exactly the story the media tells since the invasion, now he wants to take over Ukraine and then he will go for the Baltic states. Quotes expressing that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation can mean all and nothing - you read into that your point of view, I see it as a harmless statement.
[1] I say potentially because even in the case that Russia will attack again, it is not obvious that ending the war for now is bad for Ukraine. Maybe they could grow their military potential quicker than Russia and be in a relatively better position in the future.
[1] The timeline in late 2013 and 2014 is somewhat confusing with respect to my point of view, the turn towards NATO seems to come after the annexation and the events in eastern Ukraine. But there might have been an element of anticipation or non-public information.
You probably want to argue that Ukraine is a sovereign state and they can join whichever alliance they want. But this is where I disagree. A NATO membership is not just a signature on a document, it has physical consequences. Not that I think NATO is planning to invade Russia, but as a country you have to think in longer terms and be careful. Yesterday the democracy leading the world - at least in the own view - today pondering to take over some friendly countries and kicking an entire population out of the remains of their land to turn it into a holiday resort. With such uncertainty in mind, Ukraine becoming a NATO member is a security threat to Russia.
So countries do not live in a vacuum, they can not do whatever they please even though they are sovereign countries. An the USA has exactly the same view, they did not think that Cuba can have Soviet nuclear weapons, even though that was a reaction to an attempt coup d'état by the USA. Or only weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine, the USA made clear that Solomon Islands can not decide to host a Chinese military base. And yes, there are obviously different issues, I am not saying that every demand by a neighbor is reasonable and worth considering.
And what I see is Europe doesn’t seem to care much if Ukraine falls. The United States, has been supporting Ukraine far more up to this point, and they are not the ones facing the prospect of having Russia in their backyard breathing down their back. So if Europe doesn’t give a fuck, maybe it really means the fall of Ukraine ultimately doesn’t mean much to anyone except the Ukrainian people. The world will move on. This helps keep me calm and prevents me from stressing over most world affairs.
And another thing I wonder is what exactly is so bad about Russia anyways? Their leader sucks, but so does ours, and don’t people of both nations just want a good life at the end of the day? How different are they really from us? When I see TikTok interviews of everyday Russians in the streets, they are just like us, similar beliefs about their own country and what is wrong with the world. I understand less and less the source of our conflict.
Also, relying on "TikTok interviews" ridiculously naive. You could just as well watch Russia Today and get the same amount of propaganda shoved down your throat.
Zelensky wanted security guarantees to further help to defend his country from murder and death.
Why is that so strange to you?
The truth is, Europeans know that if Ukraine falls nothing will happen to Europeans. There is no existential threat. There has been no national mobilization of industry to support Ukraine's war efforts.
The entire western world over the last 3 years has left Ukraine with a 10-1 artillery disadvantage. It's just not a serious concern for people.
But people voted for one and not the other.
Where Israel took that combat, and what emerged subsequently of Israel's flagrant ignoring of direct threat warnings and assessments from both its own intelligence services and those of foreign countries (notably Egypt) markedly damped down that initial support.
Self-defence is a legitimate grounds for combat and invasion under currently prevailing international norms and law. Disproportionate attacks, most especially on civilians and civil infrastructure not so much. I'll grant that the situation in Gaza is complicated by numerous factors, but not nearly so much in any plausible interpretation as Israel has made its case.
This isn't a case for either war as Israel transacted it or unilateral peace on Israel's part, but there's marked daylight between those positions.
Europe has given more than the US to Ukraine. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
US number would've been smaller if Biden did not push a large package before leaving. I think EU should do more.
What is so bad about Russia to the US? Well, you can ask every American administration of the past 30 years, they all seemed to agree before. For some Russian doctrine introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
The little I seen from news I take are part of a bubble but show the US being ridiculed by tv hosts and the such. The US is/was the face of NATO for Russia for a long time, that narrative can shift very fast tho.