Trump attacking the Netherlands means transatlanticism is really dead.
I think this has a lot to do with how the case against Putin was built and Trump used his influence to disrupt it.
I think this has a lot to do with how the case against Putin was built and Trump used his influence to disrupt it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
It's the ultimate expression of US corruption. There's not even a pretense of fighting for justice any more, just fighting justice.
Anyway I don't support ICC grabbing power it does not have over other countries who do not sign on.
If the ICC wanted to be consistent they should target Hamas leaders, Iranian leaders, ect
Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute and the court has not officially opened a case against Iranian leaders.
However, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, Commander-in-Chief of Hamas' military wing for war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from the October 7 attacks.
Neither are Israel or Russia, so the point is moot.
I am wondering if every war time leader should expect an ICC indictment.
NAZA
One can only hope. It may actually reduce the numbers of wars if our "leaders" knew they would have to justify their actions in court.
The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
What is the US going to do when China starts making their own moves?
Would NATO change the equation?
How well do you think a draft is going to go? forced on an armed populace that might not want to die in iran?
Could doesn't reopen hormuz.
Though the point remains, the US has made the choice to not escalate farther, but there is plenty of power left behind that could be used.
Hormuz isn't open. Any traffic going through is a small fraction compared to before the war. The US can't even operate close to the Iranian shore for fear of anti ship missiles.
> the US has made the choice to not escalate farther,
They can't escalate further or they would. They can't even hold their bases or protect the countries they are supposed to. What power, short of a nuke, are they holding back on?
> The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy claimed that Iran has targeted 19 vessels that have attempted to transit the strait since September 25, though Iranian media provided no evidence to substantiate these claims.
From https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat.... Now I realize that both Scott Bessent and the ISW are biased sources. However they still are painting a picture of the strait mostly reopened.
There are independent trackers which all show transit levels around 1-5% of what it was prewar. Even with some shadow fleet tankers going, it still isn't getting anywhere close to those levels.
Russia is currently learning that lesson again. After Afghanistan, in the Ukraine, for the US to have any chance of winning in Iran the US needs at least half a million people on the ground. With a trillion dollar bankroll?
The United States is reaching the end. When it comes to the amount of money needed, let alone the human cost, and to top it off, while we’re slogging around in the sand in Iran at every level, we will be getting weaker in relationship to China and the world.
The main concern for Europeans is accessible by truck over flat ground. They probably need more boats and submarines than they've got, but they don't need a B2 bomber or aircraft carriers.
That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.
The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).
The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.
However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.
The US has been getting their shit rocked by people in sandals for the better part of 70 years.
The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".
There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.
After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.
There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.
By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.
When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.
I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.
Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.